Two of my own, one famous for it and one not so much:
Far Cry, fuck those trigens.
Escape From Butcher Bay, fuck those albino mutants.
I don't want my fun fps to turn into some survival-horror game where things get really dark and shit jumps out. Especially if said jumpy-things take multiple shotgun blasts to go down yet can kill you in a swipe or two.
Bethesda would.Originally Posted by Nalano
Back on topic: Sanitarium. The final areas of that game. Just. What the fuck could they have been thinking. Spoiler obviously. After going through some very well done nightmare-scapes, the first of which is one of my favorite adventure game moments (the town inhabited by mutated children), all of which fit with the concept of traveling through the mind of an amnesic insane asylum patient. Then, they decide to dump you into a children's comic book, and give you the form of a cyclops monster. It completely veered from the established atmosphere of the game, not to mention the level itself was hideously ugly (not in a good way). And then, as if that weren't bad enough, the final level is some fucking Aztec temple shit; where you have to assume the form of an Aztec God and I just don't even know what the fuck.
I'm confused, you were playing a Bethesda RPG for the story? Talk about daft...
Anyway, for my own answers two games spring to mind. VtmB, whose final third (and particularly whose final bossfights) was so bad I've never been able to motivate myself to give it another try, despite greatly enjoying the first two-thirds, and Crysis, which started out as a fun open world shooter and turned into a linear, scripted crapfest when the aliens showed up (and more directly, when you got out of the ship).
Buying games you aren't going to play is a waste of money (no matter how cheap they are). Forcing yourself to play games you wish you hadn't bought is a waste of time. Both are best avoided.
Ugh, I hate "The Void" -- which is my name for that last bit of a game that is TOTALLY DIFFERENT (whether by being more singleminded, more grimdark, less flexible, and notably taking place in some Other Location)...I used to call it Xen-syndrome, but since Arcanum is the game that made me really realize that The Void is the main reason I don't beat RPG's (since they ALLLLLLLllllllll seem to have one).
That, and I really dislike endings where the main character decides "I just killed 10,000 relatively innocent guards, but the main bad guy? Well...suddenly I've had enough of killing, for no explainable reason. Too bad for those 10,000 guards I didn't discover this earlier."
I still enjoyed AC2 plenty though =)
I was playing a Fallout game for the -- oh, wait, Jockie's got it.
At least Obsidian came and saved the day.
That's my issue with GTA4. Niko Bellic wants to escape his killer past and settle down, yet murders more New Yorkers in three weeks than Al Qaeda ever did.
The whole AssCreed series is very contradictory and I find it very frustrating, just as you.
The games tempt you with immense freedom, whole recreated cities where you can parkour as you like.
But then you find out the seeming freedom is meaningless. Apart from running on the roofs as you like you cannot actually deviate from what the developers have laid out - not in the story, not in mission progression, not in how you tackle the missions.
And on top of that the story is very bland. I don't remember anything, literally anything, maybe apart from the execution of your family. That was a strong and promising moment that would later never return.
Meaningless freedom. I like those words, but I don't like the concept.
Having a world doesn't mean anything if there's nothing to do in it. Sandbox devs, take note.
Ah, yeah, that'd do it. The two are, indeed, mutually exclusive. I adore Fallout 3, but I'm firmly certain the game would only have been improved by the removal of the Fallout license and elements, they don't really belong there.
Buying games you aren't going to play is a waste of money (no matter how cheap they are). Forcing yourself to play games you wish you hadn't bought is a waste of time. Both are best avoided.
because he becomes Pope sort of makes sense, except we're talking about a game where I'm messing with time like a Christmas toy by jumping all over it.
I would have even accepted my killing him..only to find he's not the real Rodrigo Borgia! Dun dun dun.
I feel this way about any strategy game (Total War series, GalCiv, etc.) where you go from struggling to fight and stay alive (exciting, interesting) to suddenly mopping up the rest of the civilizations(tedious, boring). To date, I can't think of a single game where you have to fight for survival all the way to the point of victory.
I'm a compulsive restarter in Total War games, but do not Shogun 2 and Rome avoid these problems by having endgame events that turn the remainder of the map against you as a way to bolster their ability to fight back, or are these not significant enough obstacles?
Nothing even several stacks of troops can do against full-vet matchlock monks.
As for whole genres, MMOs feel this way to me as you run out of progression paths after levelcap. WoW was great until everything was an instanced raid or an instanced BG. AoC was great until everything was an instanced raid or an instanced BG. WAR was great until everything was an instanced raid or an instanced BG. Rift was great until everything was an instanced raid or an instanced BG. Not necessarily because leveling was all that fun, mind you - AoC had some real tedious slogs at that, and the mid-40s doldrums in WoW weren't that hot either - but just that when people are leveling, they're out in the world and thus world events materialize. When they're all holed up in instances or waiting in town for instances, the world dies. Every time.
It just seems like a weird way to resolve the end game issue. And by that time, it usually just increases the level of tedium required to take out the rest of the map.. at least in my opinion.
AoC's x-pac actually did more for me than those of other mmo's for that reason, in that it offered a significant sideways progression tree and a lot of content that is soloable or open for small groups, rather than just endless raiding tiers.
The levelling progression seems smoother now than at launch too, with new areas to plug content gaps as well as free levels you can dish out to characters based on subscription length.
Open world. I want an open world. I don't care about small group vs large group. I care about instanced vs non-instanced. AoC had FFA PvP, which was fun, until nobody would show up because they could port straight from their guild cities to where-ever they needed to go. WAR had RvR, but the gear came from BGs. Rift has raid rifts, which are fun because they're out in the world so it gives PvPvE, but they don't give loot equal to the instanced raids so they're quickly abandoned.
And it's funny, because I started playing New Vegas wanting a Bethesda game and got an Obsidian RPG instead (too many people, too much plot, where'd my lonely urban wasteland survival game go?). It's certainly much truer to the franchise, though, and enjoyable on its own merits.
Buying games you aren't going to play is a waste of money (no matter how cheap they are). Forcing yourself to play games you wish you hadn't bought is a waste of time. Both are best avoided.
Technically, neither of them were lonely urban wasteland survival games because you were never in any danger of dying to the elements. Sleep? Unnecessary. Food? Plentiful. Water? Plentiful. Ammunition? Plentiful.
Didn't so much feel like a desert as it did a beach resort where people occasionally took potshots at you.
Colonization.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
