What kind of game mechanic would be really evil and annoy almost everyone? How about this for evil? If you take too long to get back to your game the next time you start your game it's all completed. Only you don't get any achievements or trophies. Or on the other hand you take too long to return to a game and it wipes your progress
How about one that deletes your hard drive or storage space if it's a console, if you fail too many times.
Well, years ago, there was a game that ended up deleting the drive if you uninstalled it, but it was based on a buggy installation rather than the actual game itself. Not sure if that's what you're referring to.
I think that's the one but I remember hearing wild stories about a game that did that on purpose, maybe a Japanese game kind of in the vein of Nier Automata which has a billion endings. Oh BTW the ones I mentioned in my OP they don't exist, but I was trying to think up really evil game mechanics that would shit people off.
Yep, that's what I was trying to come up with too. Frankly, this is a rather tough one. It's hard to come up with something without it seeming derivative. Hmmm, ok what about this one. A game that can read anything on your hard drive and use that as art and documents in-game. That'd be rather creepy.
Not quite "art and documents", but there are multiple games that will look at other save files or installed titles and react to them in-universe, like Metal Gear Solid.
I was always annoyed by adventure games where if you didn't do something early in the game that wasn't necessarily intuitive then the game became unwinnable, but you didn't know it was unwinnable until much later on. As an off-the-cuff example, if you didn't find the well-hidden key before entering the portal five minutes into the game, then three hours later you had no way of exiting the room you'd just gotten locked into.
Always annoyed when i start from ground zero skill and equipment wise with a character who has this long history of accomplishments and is already a hero and i start with a basic weapon and armor. How about we start with a character at this peak, all skills unlocked, premium equipment but no tutorial whatsoever and the enemies are also endgame level.
Oh yes, Sierra games were so infamous for this, which is particularly frustrating when the item in question is not obvious or requires pixel hunting. . LucasArts adventure games on the other hand were designed to not have dead-ends and wouldn't let the player advance to the next part without completing objectives. Some games have done this as part of a tutorial/introduction, but then have the character get knocked out, having to relearn everything. It gives you a taste of being all-powerful, but then something happens.
When I was heavily into Skyrim, a lot of players (by their own decision) used a playstyle called "Dead is dead". If their character was killed (aside from game glitches), that character was permanently deleted. Having a game do that automatically would be very irritating.
I liked how the Ori sequel did. it. All the skills you got in the first one were plot based, and once it was resolved you had no need for them anymore. In the sequel your skills had a different basis. Some were similar but some were entirely new.
Some games like XCom have an "Ironman" mode where your save is erased whenever you load it, so game over means real game over. But none that force you to play that way, although you could argue all roguelikes do. An evil game would be a game whose AI learns your habits specifically and gets really good at beating you every time you lose.
I remember hearing about a game where the AI was designed to learn from its mistakes and adapt, but I can't remember what it was.
I know of one "Silent Hill Shattered Memories" where the game was designed to adapt its environment based on the player's psychological profile, based on choices they made and places they looked. And of course, it adapted the ending as well, though that mechanic was around was back in Silent Hill 2.