Why do Scrappy Mechanics happen?
So why do these mechanics get into games at all? Why not just cut them?
One reason is Executive Meddling. They saw that a mechanic was popular, and forced the developers to shoehorn it in regardless of whether the gameplay would actually benefit from it. Or they saw a monetization technique that would make more money and decided to force it in.
Sometimes the idea behind the mechanic was perfectly fine, and the problem is just poor execution. Maybe the creators underestimated how much the clumsy controls would put people off that otherwise cool power-up, or maybe they did realize it and were unable to cut it because that would require redesigning several levels. Or maybe they just went, "sure, it's not great, but we already spent time on it. Leave it in. It's more content".
Sometimes the problem is that the mechanic is not a good fit for the demographic the game is trying to appeal to. For instance, a punishing amount of Checkpoint Starvation may fit well into a game aimed at Challenge Gamers, as this niche doesn't mind playing a game over and over until they finally beat it, but the same mechanic in an average game would probably become a Scrappy Mechanic.
Sometimes it's tradition — the mechanic did serve a purpose at some time, and was kept around even after it stopped being useful for that. Or maybe it never really had a purpose and was still kept just because it has always been around. This may be done because the developers were worried that a revamped formula would work worse than their old one, or just out of fear of a They Changed It, Now It Sucks! reaction. Or maybe they just kept the mechanic around and didn't really think about why.
Finally, sometimes the mechanic does have some benefits that make the developers keep it around. An annoying limitation might be necessary to keep something powerful from being a Game-Breaker, for instance. This can overlap with the above if players disagree on whether the supposed benefit is even a benefit. For instance, Mario Kart's infamous Blue Shell gives less experienced players more of a chance to beat their experienced opponent, but whether this is a good thing depends on what side of the Casual-Competitive Conflict you're on.
Some games intentionally feature annoying mechanics to make a point. This is likely to create a Broken Base over whether the mechanic made the point in a good way, and over whether the point was worth making in the first place. Fans may think the mechanic illustrated the point in a brilliant way, while detractors dislike the idea of sacrificing fun gameplay on the altar of the message.
Common Scrappy Mechanics
Some mechanics seem to attract more ire than others. In general, Scrappy Mechanics tend to be things perceived as unfair, things that needlessly limit the player's options, things that just make the game more tedious, poorly-executed things or things that are seen as unfun for other reasons.
An already-annoying mechanic may seem even worse if the in-universe justification is flimsy or non-existent. For instance, this is why many players have a problem with swords breaking after a little use even though they're fine with things like potions and ammo being consumable. This also applies to time limits: they can be a great way to add tension and immersion if you're performing a time-sensitive mission, but if their use amounts to "after staying in a level for five minutes, your character just drops dead for no reason, which serves no purpose other than not letting you truly take your time to explore those lovely levels", it's probably a Scrappy Mechanic.
An Unexpected Gameplay Change is prone to Scrappy Mechanic status. Players may be negative towards it from the start because it's not what they came to the game for, and it may be out of place. It may also be poorly executed because the developers are used to making other types of games, or because they weren't able to put enough time and resources into it because they were focusing on the main gameplay.
Fake Longevity is often disliked, especially if it makes the game more tedious without making it more challenging. Similarly, Fake Difficulty is often disliked for making the game more unfair unstead of legitimately challenging.
Unskippable cutscenes, a form of Fake Longevity, are despised by many players, whether those who just Play the Game, Skip the Story or are forced to watch it repeatedly for one reason or another. Seeing a long, cinematic, and intense cutscene can bring out the emotions (awe, aww, fear, sorrow, etc.) the first time. If one has to watch that cutscene every single time they fight a particularly difficult boss that they keep losing to, that cutscene will quickly take the player out of the immersion and make them want to just get on with the game already. Non-story cutscenes (such as watching levels being unlocked or equipment being upgraded) can also evoke similar feeling, sometimes even more so. Seeing a 15-second cutscene of a smith upgrading your equipment is acceptable, having to watch it over 20 times gets old fast.
Excessive luck is often a Scrappy Mechanic due to its unfairness, especially if it undermines skill-based aspects of the game. How much randomness you are willing to accept depends on your Casual-Competitive Conflict stance and how it is implemented, but very few people like mechanics that amount to "the game may randomly decide to screw you over and there's nothing you can do about it".
Luck is also part of the reason some board game fans dislike dice as a whole. (The other part is that most games with dice don't provide a safe place to roll them, and that packing them into a small dome to avoid this problem creates new problems.) Others are okay with dice, but dislike the Roll-and-Move mechanic for being too luck-based and for limiting the player's control too much.
Combo-based scoring in Rhythm Games often gets flack for two reasons: One is that it arbitrarily values some notes more than others based on how far you are in the combo, which may lead to situations like "Alice and Bob have the exact same judgment counts, but Alice wins because her miss was earlier in the song". The other is that these systems are prone to overemphasizing combos at the expense of accuracy, so you may have a player with lousy accuracy and a full combo beat someone with excellent accuracy who happened to slip up and miss once.
Excessive limitations are often seen as annoying. If you give the player cool stuff, they'll be disappointed if they rarely or never get to use it because of all its limitations. This is also why characters who rely on locking down their opponent often fall under High-Tier Scrappy — it's frustrating to be in a match while barely able to do anything.
Underwater levels are notorious for frequently being bad. Common issues include imprecise, fiddly swimming controls, sluggish underwater movement, and annoying Oxygen Meters that constantly force you to get more air.
Rewards for playing every day are meant to incentivize gamers to play the game often, but they can also invoke the fear of missing out (known in popular slang as "FOMO"). Daily streak rewards, which expand on this concept can also prove problematic, since if the streak is dropped, the number of days the player needs to play to get the reward they want is signficiantly increased. Sometimes the daily streak bonus is somewhat reasonable and tops out at a week, but in some cases, it can get absurd, like playing every day for a whole year; did you break streak at 364 days out of 365? Have fun going another year to get the "play daily for a year straight" achievement!
Many, many monetization/microtransaction schemes are reviled for being perceived as greedy. Exactly where to draw the line varies between players, but some factors increase the chance of a negative reaction:
- The game is not free-to-play.
- The prices of microtransactions are presented in a confusing or deceptive way.
- Bribing Your Way to Victory, especially if the game seems to be intentionally unfair or tedious for people who don't want to pay.
- The content locked behind microtransactions is something most players think should be in a base game, and not presented as bonus material.
- The content is considered overpriced.
- The game frequently pesters the player about buying microtransactions.
- The game is in a series that used to abstain from this kind of monetization.
- The paid-for content is inside of a lootbox, meaning there's a large chance of not getting what you wanted to pay for - or, in certain games, getting something you already have, making your money wasted.
- Values Dissonance — Players in more affluent countries, especially Western countries, are more used to the idea of paying $40-60 for a complete-package game, and feel like breaking up a game into piecemeal transactions diminishes its value or fear that this could potentially turn the game into a Franchise Zombie, i.e. the game continues to get content updates well past what should've been the end of the game, all so that the publisher can keep making money. In countries where money relative to the cost of video games is a bit harder to come by (most notably Southeast Asian and South American countries), games that offer a cheap or free base package allow players to try the game at a much cheaper cost before deciding if they want to invest further time and money.
Many older non-handheld systems have region-locking, that is you cannot play games that are not in the same region as the console you have. The idea is to ensure that people aren't cheating their regional publishers out of revenue by buying games coded for other countries, but lots of games are locked to or excluded from particular regions, meaning the player will have to do some modding to their existing system to play foreign-region games at the risk of damaging their device and voiding its warranty, or buy an extra of the same device that matches the region of the game they want to play. In terms of console gaming, this has largely gone away with The Ninth Generation of Console Video Games with the Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4 all being region-free, and you can just buy physical copies of foreign-region games and pop them into your console, however extra steps are required for digital games and DLC (which may involve inputting fake local addresses and buying gift cards from third-party services since credit cards may not work on foreign console storefronts). Many PC games that require online connectivity still refuse players from outside the correct region, most infamously Korean games, as they require a resident registration number
as proof that you are not only in South Korea but live there as well, which proves problematic for non-Koreans who dislike their local version (due to significantly-delayed updates or a poor-quality version); this does make sense in terms of making sure that players on a particular regional server cluster are all able to communicate with each other as opposed to the hell of language barriers especially in games with cooperation elements, but then there's games where there isn't a co-op element and are just single-player with online elements (such as Rhythm Games, like the now-defunct O2Jam PC and older versions of EZ2ONnote ), especially if there is no non-Korean version available.
Controls that cannot be remapped are often a sore point for players, particularly for games with a large number of buttons and/or complex mechanics, as well as those who are using controllers with non-standard layouts (for example, an arcade stick, or a retro-style gamepad for a modern console). This used to be the norm, but with more games allowing remapping of controls and awareness of accesibility concerns in gaming, it becomes a sore point when one encounters a modern game that offers limited or no remapping. There are some workarounds for this: some game systems allow remapping buttons at the system level, and Steam has a controller API called Steam Input that allows remapping buttons with a large range of customization options.
Sometimes, the developers will attempt to justify these mechanics, such as claiming a Freemium Timer is there to prevent players from having overly long sessions, or that the option of Bribing Your Way to Victory is for the benefit of players who have very limited free time. This often creates a Broken Base between players who believe them and people who believe they're lying because "we wanted to make more money" sounds considerably less noble, but it can add insult to injury if the majority of players hate the mechanic and are in the latter group.
