Gamers of Reddit, what is one thing devs do not seem to understand?

1. Having a massive open world doesn't mean shit if it's devoid of content. Also it seems to me that A.I. in AAA games haven't improved in years.
   — nekrodeviant


2. Survival games don't *have* to start out with you chopping wood for six hours.
   — PM_ME_YOUR_BBWS


3. there doesnt always need to be a timer. If we want to fuck around, let us.
   — darkjanggo






4. As already mentioned slow npcs but also games starting too slow. There's nothing more annoying when you start to play a game you've already played before but have to go through an hour of tutorial like missions to introduce the controls
   — diff-pick


5. Couch co-op is still a thing.
   — TheTreelo


6. A game **needs** to feel responsive. Step 1. Point 1. If your game isn't good to control your game is not good. Even games that aren't meant to be "fun" still need to control well.
   — Jezzmoz






7. They don't understand that letting people create mods, objects, skins etc is the best way to get a community playing your game loyally for a long time. Let people out of a rigid sandbox and let them play your game their own way - it takes bravery and a lack of being a control freak.
   — Happy_Feces


8. If a massively vocal part of the community abhors what you’re turning the game into, maybe take their gripes into consideration and rework? Looking at you, Hi-rez.
   — nitasu987


9. Devs need to realise that npcs walk way too slow, it gets boring when they slowly walk to destinations and you are forced to follow them
   — AHMU88






10. That graphics do not trump story
    — ncm54321


11. * Enemies having Uninteractive Invulnerability phases. I just hate it with a burning passion when there is an enemy that covers his only weak spot for two minutes while becoming completely invulnerable, forcing you to sit on your ass until the cunt feels like exposing his weakpoint for 3 seconds so you can chip away 1/10th of his HP. Invulnerability can be fun and add another layer of challenge but this is not the way to do it, do not take the control away from the players. Did the giant evil AI robot activate his shields? Don't force the player to wait until his shields eventually go on cooldown, give players the option to get rid of or shorten the invulnerability period by for example throwing an EMP grenade, shooting the weak spot on his belly button. Just don't take the control of the situation from us. * Tutorials that constantly interrupt your gameplay to dump information on you are frustrating, people don't like having to stare at a popup for a solid minute to be told that WASD are the default movement keys or read a 800 word essay on how combat is essential in "Legendary Champions of Cthulu's Menace" within the first 5 minutes of gameplay.
    — Clearskky


12. It doesn’t have to be online or multiplayer. Some of my best memories are from playing single player games alone
    — manymensky






13. I think people are starting to care less about how photorealistic games look, because if there's no substance behind the flash, who gives a shit how good it looks? To elaborate, think about the systems in older video games, even from as little as 10 years ago. TES III: Morrowind is one example I'll use. It had a skill for everything basically. Every type of weapon (axe, spear, hammer, long blade, short blade) athletics for running, acrobatics for jumping. You could wear a different type of armor for each piece, L and R pauldrons, bracers or gauntlets, a cuirass, greaves, boots, and helm completed the ensemble, but you could also wear clothing underneath, and you could wear a robe or skirt over the top, not to mention other enchanted items like rings and necklaces. This was dumbed down to some degree in IV, but in Skyrim it's not an option at all. You can wear different helms, gauntlets, and boots, but that's it. Combat is One Handed or Two Handed, and there are far fewer skills. It's basically a race to the highest tier of each type of weapon/armor. There is virtually no incentive to specialise your character or strategize, and it becomes a race to break the game mechanics so it isn't as hard. It's a real disappointment as far as depth goes. III felt very much like you were playing a character, a specific one, making your own way through the world. In contrast, Skyrim feels very railroad-ey to me. I can't say I didn't love it and play it a ton, but I am still disappointed that it was so shallow in comparison with their older games.
    — TheDirtyMailman