I mean, these seem pretty obvious, or even visible from the game itself in a way that publishing it as a patent results in no additional publication since it was apparent in the game already. For instance the loading screen bit simply seems to talk about how they show where you're going on the map during fast travel.
If the claims are non-novel or obvious, then the examiners, who are familiar with the state of the art in the field, will reject them. Maybe the applicant will amend the claims to claim something narrower, or maybe not.
If the examiner and patent office screw up and allow a claim that shouldn’t have been allowed, then the claim can be challenged later and revoked. Yes, that costs money and is inefficient sometimes.
Your original comment that monocasa responded to read only:
> If the claims are non-novel or obvious, then the examiners, who are familiar with the state of the art in the field, will reject them.
Which displays a stunning level of naivety and lack of familiarity with our patent system. Patents are regularly granted for extremely trivial (edit: and obvious) mechanisms.
That's because triviality isn't an issue in patents, non-obviousness and inventiveness is what's key, so it doesn't matter that the thing accomplished is trivial.
That's something that is certainly frequently asserted here but I've never seen any proof besides someone linking to one or two patents they don't like.
Seems like mainly a net loss.