What are definite deal breakers for you in a game?

[JackofTears]

I can't agree with #6. While I like to have character customization in an rpg, if they provide me with a pre-defined character, I can still enjoy myself so long as the character is well written and interesting. I really enjoyed the entire Witcher series and in that you are limited to playing Geralt. Assassin's Creed Odyssey is a fantastic game but the only character customization you get is choosing your gender. I would have hated to miss these games because I didn't like that one design choice.

[Midnight_Mogwai]

The only absolute killers for me are bad controls and bad performance. If a game can manage to at the very least not suck at those, I will probably give it a chance. I dislike many aspects of certain games, both those two are the experience killers.

[Majestic Boer Goat]

Free-to-play (World of Tanks Console taught me the hard way not to spend money on these games.)
Online requirement for single-player mode.
The EA logo on the case.
Prioritizing advancing an agenda/ideology over making the game fun.
Rewriting history in a historically accurate series for the purpose of advancing an agenda.
Sports games.
Streaming-only.
Censorship.

[Murray]

Games with Denuvo DRM is high on my list right now. It slows down the overall game performance and supposedly remains on the harddrive after the game is removed. I've heard rumors that it shortens the lifespan of a harddrive for using a high amount of resources.

[Smackems]

I've mentioned this in another topic before, but lack of blocking in melee focused games completely turns me off to them instantly.

[Moorma]

What are the things that can make you skip a game?

Here is my list of no-nos

1. No campaign / career mode
2. No story
3. Can't be played solo
4. Bullet sponge enemies
5. Pay to win
6. No character creation / customization for role playing games
7. Subscription fee
8. Economy based on lootboxes
9. All cosmetics are paid
10. Adding hardcore RPG elements in a shooter type game (like gear level, or heavily level dependent damage output for firearms)

My single biggest deal breaker is a forced Internet connection. This includes both video games AND consoles. I can see a future where computers are manufactured with very little hard drive space in order to force people to have their computers connected to the Internet for government monitoring. Such data loads can be handled with things like Google Fiber etc. Imagine not being able to save documents and creative works on your home computer or being unable to even run the software necessary to produce the documents and creative works unless connected to the Internet.

Video games and consoles requiring an Internet connection is nothing more than conditioning for such a future. Why nurture it?

[Chompy Said]

Rewriting history, microtransactions (regardless of type), online only, subscription fee, etc.

[Chris_Ceee]

Censorship

[Global Gravity]

Game is too easy and thus not rewarding, micro-transactions are linked to progression, shitty world building, glitches galore.

[Jokerthefoolio]

Lot's of downtime i.e too many cutscenes or a monetization scheme that's overtly greedy or too many bugs

[Genepool]

My first post here! Hopefully the first of many.

Micro-transactions definitely rank up there. As an aging PC gamer, I really miss having a physical copy of my games. I'm grateful to places like Good Old Games that allow you to download complete copies of a game DRM free. I don't need or want every game published to have multiplayer. This is a very lazy trend. "Why write a story? Let the the players entertain themselves!"

While I don't want to pick on any specific publishers, (yes I do, but I won't) I'd like to see games built for quality rather than speed. I know this is asking a lot these days with corporations having to answer to stock owners who don't give a rat's ass about games, but the industry is really losing customers faith. Companies I once loved are just shells of their former selves. Grown beyond their ability to relate to the customers who made them successful.

Phone apps. Mediocre games created to sate the appetites of casual gamers on the go. They have the unfortunate side effect of draining resources from full-size PC and Console game development. (Diablo Immortal, anyone?! No thanks.)

Politics. Don't we have enough politics on YouTube to satisfy people's cravings for controversy? Do we have to have it games, too? I say NO!. No, we don't. And if I hear that a game is overly political, I'll treat it like Solo. So says genepool.

[Teratus]

Gameplay is in the trailer, turn based combat style from the original has been replaced entirely with something similar to FF15 or Kingdom hearts.

[Cosmocalypse]

The ONLY dealbreaker for me is a topic we don't discus here. It rhymes with "broke..."

[twidget]

1. EA
2. Early Access on Steam. I will follow the ones that interest me and wait for reviews of the finished products.
3. MMO games
4. Sports games
5. Hentai games
6. Visual novels
7. Walking sims
8. Simulation games in general

[Unentokku]

1. Bad(inefficient) UI
2. Purely an action game, while they can be enjoyable I see no point in playing games where the main thing is to test your reflexes and hand-eye coordination.
3. Too many unskippable or slow things, as in something simple like moving around or executing actions taking way longer than I think it should. If a computer couldn't go through most of the game within an hour it probably wastes too much time on waiting for the next time you get to actually decide what to do.
4. No way to rebind controls

Well 3 and 4 I can tolerate by using Autohotkey and Cheat Engine's speedhack option but really I shouldn't have to. Also is there a program that just does the speedhack of Cheat Engine since it's the only thing I use it for?