This is just a collection of small gaming related opinions, which do not really need a separate page to elaborate on. Enjoy.
These should not exist, at least not in a form of a dot on a compass, that is always on the screen. People have a tendency to just follow the marker and pay little attention to anything else. All that beautiful landscape you made for the game, full of little details? Why did you bother? I did not notice any of that, because I had my eyes on the compass the whole time. Make navigating the world part of the gameplay by giving the player a map and instructions where to go. Give them a guide NPC, if you have to. You can still highlight the quest item when I get close, just do not let me stare at a compass the whole game. Because if you do, you might as well make a linear game at that point.
If you want to make a first person shooter feel right (or heck, any action game in general, but this problem seems to be more common in shooters) the player needs to see that their attacks have impact on the target. Seeing the enemy not react to being shot at all, just their health bar getting smaller, is not fun and if there was no health bar, you would not even know whether you are hurting the enemy at all.
Commonly seen in RPGs, things like persuasion etc. These suck, because it is all or nothing. You can have 50% chance of the guy either totally believing you or seeing right through you. With enough luck, there is no difference between having weak persuasion skill or a great one. Unlike critical chance in combat, which just means more damage on average, persuasion tends to have a big impact on the progression through the game, locking or unlocking options. Would be better, if there was more outcomes than just success or fail and randomness would just add a little +/- variation to your skill. Like with low skill they will not believe you, with high skill they buy all of it, but with medium skill they buy just some of it, like letting you in but assigning a guard to follow you or rising suspicion slightly, making the next checks harder.
There are people who think that consoles are the place where gaming was great at originally and PC only started to get good games years later, but that is not true. If you look at the list of games available for various platforms around the year 1990, you will notice that at the time of NES getting its most famous titles, platforms like Amiga also had a lot of interesting games of their own.
For some reason, games on these old computers had very sharp pixel art graphics. I really like the look of it.
I hate that. When it is some old game, where the characters are just a bunch of stats and nothing else, it is not a problem. But once you start giving each character their own personality, you now have to think about what character to use when to see the interesting reactions. Also, the other characters often just sit at the camp, doing nothing. How about you design the game, so that I can take all the characters with me, as you would do in the real life?
From what I have seen, speedrunners tend to not like sitting through an unskippable cutscenes when playing the game. But somehow they are fine with doing the same exact things in the game, hundreds of times in order to shave off a few seconds from their run. Would they be fine with cutscenes, if they required pressing a button the whole time to get through it?