That one game you wanted to sit through, but you just couldn't...

[quote name='Corvin']Aren't you just illustrating my point by citing another 3D game? Look at any Mario game, or the aforementioned Rayman and Splosion Man. The challenge is perfecting the levels and yes, if you die, you go back to the beginning of the area. That's what Mirror's Edge tried to recreate in 3D. Mirror's Edge is a platformer at the core.

It had flaws, but poor game design isn't one of them. The biggest flaw was including guns(or at least allowing Faith to use them). The point of the game is to run, be quick and execute flawless freerunning, and gun play goes against that. Once you can start chaining together a great run you feel like you are actually free running.

My ultimate question is, if Mirror's Edge was a 2D game would people still be complaining about dying? Some, of course, but I think a lot of those complaints would disappear.[/QUOTE]

2D or 3D is irrelevant to the game design decision to not save the users progress more often. This can be done in such a way as to not frustrate the hell out of the end user. I have Mirror's Edge on the iPad, which is basically a side scrolling version of the game. It's just as frustrating there when you miss a jump and die, but not near as much as the console counterpart. The perspective is irrelevant. The mechanic is what counts. Having to redo 2-5 minutes of complex jumps and/or gun battles in the game kills it.

Mirror's Edge had more wrong with it than questionable save points. Those free running segments you describe are few and far between, especially during the parts that I did play. I got a good minute to three minutes of free running before I absolutely had no idea where to go next. Hitting B to point the camera towards the objective often resulted in looking straight at a wall, etc. That's just bad design through and through.
 
[quote name='AugustAPC']FPSs are pretty much dead to me. Nothing to invigorate the gameplay since Duke Nukem 64.[/QUOTE]
Now, I can understand not liking FPS' anymore. Or... not liking x anymore. People grow out of things.

But saying "1997 is when FPS' stopped evolving"? What the fuck?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Now, I can understand not liking FPS' anymore. Or... not liking x anymore. People grow out of things.

But saying "1997 is when FPS' stopped evolving"? What the fuck?[/QUOTE]

Do you require a chart, sir? I see a clear linear ascent from Battlezone to Wolfenstein to Duke Nukem 64, and then we just sort of fall off a very steep cliff, waving to Gordo and Master Chief as we plummet toward the modern FPS.

He just about pinned the apex perfectly. Well done, August.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Now, I can understand not liking FPS' anymore. Or... not liking x anymore. People grow out of things.

But saying "1997 is when FPS' stopped evolving"? What the fuck?[/QUOTE]

I agree,if people want to talk about something not evolving,just look at JRPGS.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Indeed. Playing a Nosferatu focusing on guns on your first go around would be a fucking nightmare.[/QUOTE]

lol, yeah the hell with that. I was Tremere on the first play through and went Malkavian the second go, when I really knew what I was doing. I gotta have dialog options and ranged magic--of course there's something to be said about running around with a samurai sword and maxed armor while casting Bedlam on the cops. :D
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Now, I can understand not liking FPS' anymore. Or... not liking x anymore. People grow out of things.

But saying "1997 is when FPS' stopped evolving"? What the fuck?[/QUOTE]

Notice I sited gameplay specifically.

All in a matter of opinion I guess. I just find FPSs too boring these days. I guess cause I'm mostly a multiplayer kinda guy, but I'm talking strictly gameplay at the moment. Nothing in CoD makes me feel any different than when I was pointing and shooting my enemies in Duke. Honestly, in CoD it's even more monotonous because the guns are boring as shit. The perks, nukes and whatnot are really just drizzles as far as new gameplay features, to keep me interested and wanting to learn.

As for me, I've been spoiled by playing high end early WoW, JRGs with lots of customization, RTS and competitive fighters.

I need food for thought and FPSs just don't provide the competition. It comes down to coordination in high end MP, and the competitive line is further blurred by the mouse/keyboard, controller/modded-controller debate. There's just not enough depth.

I fully intend to return to playing FPS one day. If you check my collection, I own a lot of current gen FPS (Bioshock 1&2, L4D 1&2, FEAR 1&2&3, Halo, Duke Nukem Forever... and more), but I need to wait until I'm back in the mood for story based or mindless fun. As for now, I've just burnt myself out on FPS multiplayer, and there's nothin' new to bring me back.
 
[quote name='AugustAPC']Notice I sited gameplay specifically.

All in a matter of opinion I guess. I just find FPSs too boring these days. I guess cause I'm mostly a multiplayer kinda guy, but I'm talking strictly gameplay at the moment. Nothing in CoD makes me feel any different than when I was pointing and shooting my enemies in Duke. Honestly, in CoD it's even more monotonous because the guns are boring as shit. The perks, nukes and whatnot are really just drizzles as far as new gameplay features, to keep me interested and wanting to learn.

As for me, I've been spoiled by playing high end early WoW, JRGs with lots of customization, RTS and competitive fighters.

I need food for thought and FPSs just don't provide the competition. It comes down to coordination in high end MP, and the competitive line is further blurred by the mouse/keyboard, controller/modded-controller debate. There's just not enough depth.

I fully intend to return to playing FPS one day. If you check my collection, I own a lot of current gen FPS (Bioshock 1&2, L4D 1&2, FEAR 1&2&3, Halo, Duke Nukem Forever... and more), but I need to wait until I'm back in the mood for story based or mindless fun. As for now, I've just burnt myself out on FPS multiplayer, and there's nothin' new to bring me back.[/QUOTE]
All of that is fine. A little... confusingly written, but from what I can gather, totally fine.

None of it is pertinent to your earlier post, which was the bit that I found odd.
 
PC FPS has kind of disappeared, and I'm not sure how the new Counter-Strike or Tribes will fair on the market, or if they will be true to their roots enough to resemble that kind of multiplayer FPS. People need hit-confirm, no recoil, and instant gratification these days. Games like CoD are great in that regard, but I've also left the MP aspect of FPS a long time ago because of recent trends.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']All of that is fine. A little... confusingly written, but from what I can gather, totally fine.

None of it is pertinent to your earlier post, which was the bit that I found odd.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I edited that post a lot, so it's probably sloppy as fuck. But as to not being pertinent to my previous post... how do you figure?

You accused me of saying that FPSs weren't evolving, which is subjective and just completely wrong. FPSs have evolved in many ways, but gameplay isn't one of them, and thus I find them boring as hell these days. This is why I find I cannot sit through them, which is entirely relative to the topic of this thread.
 
To be fair, what can really be done to evolve the gameplay in FPS games?

It's always going to be based on aiming a reticule and shooting. They've added things over the years like jumping, various powers (jet packs, or things like the plasmids in Bioshock etc.), level design has came along way since the early FPS, but not much change over the last couple of generations.

That's just FPS gameplay, not much more they can do with it. Just like there's only so much you can do with most genres. Like 2D platformers. They'll always been running and jumping over obstacles, pits and enemies with various powerups mixed in.
 
Oh good sir, there's a WHOLE lot that can be done to FPS gaming, literally infinite possibilities that could be done to make gameplay more interesting. Coming from someone who mods games, I can tell you that the surface has barely been scratched as far as the possibilities go.

Most shooters these days follow the same formula. Some shooters have started to break away, like TF2 and Borderlands, but again, they have barely even scratched the possibilities. There could be so much customization, so many new fundamentals with new engines. Lets get away from the K-D ratio shit, die, respawn, die respawn. How about a 1 on 1 match, where you have a character that has tons of resources, instead of just prone, crouch, jump, run, melee and shoot. What if your characters were extremely powerful, taking several shots take down? A shot in the leg could slow a character down, if they could get away to mend it, then it would heal. You could blow off an arm and prevent dual wielding, or bandaging, perhaps you'd bleed out if you didn't get a tourniquet around it.

It's impossible for me to get across an idea for an entire game in a paragraph, so I'm not going to try. But seriously, there are a billion things that can be done to FPSs. The worst possible thing a game developer can say themselves is "there's nothing more to do with our genre". fuck that. There's never going to be a point where any genre can't evolve further.
 
Oh, I agree there's more that could be done with online play. But that's more limitation of the community to some extent. Team Deathmatch and Free for All get played a ton, the other modes much less so and many people are just playing to boast their K/D in other modes rather than going for objectives.

So there are tweaks there.

But stuff like Borderlands is really blending FPS with other genres (RPG in that case) rather than evolving the FPS genre itself IMO.

Though I agree that's a great type of game. I love stuff like Fallout 3, Mass Effect etc. that blends shooter combat with RPG leveling and story etc.
 
Borderlands isn't an RPG, lol. It's so shallow that it hurts. Not that it's a bad game, it's just very, very tame. And we need to stop looking at customization as "rpg" elements. It's a strong mechanic for video games that many genres blatantly lack. I think that customization is a good start toward evolving the genre. I think that yes, Borderlands, is a "blend" because of the specific way it approaches customization and questing. Pretty much siphoned directly from MMORPGs, but there are plenty of ways to approach customization that should not be seen as a "blend".

Anyway, regarding the game modes in FPSs, I'm not just talking about tweaks. I'm talking about a new game, with a new engine. This 1 v 1 match wouldn't be a new "mode" it would be the meat of the game. You're not just in it to slaughter as many people as you can at once. You're in a match, alone, with someone after you, and you have everything at your disposal. You can roll, interact with cover, throw objects to create distractions, set traps... you name it. You can lose an arm and still live, get shot and the leg and limp around. The point is you kill your enemy, and it's not easy.

These different "modes" in fps's are neat, I guess. But they're so painfully similar to each other that I can see why hardly any of them get played.

Don't think in the realm of CoD or Battlefield. Think a blank slate, with anything you want. The game I suggested could also have a single player campaign, fuck it could even have an arcade ladder similar to a fighter.

I don't disrespect CoD or Battlefield or Halo (fuck I own lots of Halo), but I just want something new. They all have the same tired fundamentals. Slaughter everything in sight. Be it standing in a certain part of a map and killing everyone that walks bye, 1 hit melee kills, sniping or frags.

I firmly believe that shooters are the top genre because they are the easiest and most simplistic. Their fans won't accept big changes, we've seen that with the sales of games like Mirror's Edge (amazing game) and Bulletstorm. I'm sure that this is a major reason we don't see the genre expanded upon, but I still hold that this genre has had the least of its potential tapped into and that there are infinite possibilities to revive the genre for a player like me.

Come to think of it, Mirror's Edge is a perfect example. fucking amazing game, and possibly one of the most under-appreciated I've ever seen. I loved the hell out of it, and my god, if it had a multiplayer, I would be playing it 24/7.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='AugustAPC']Yea, I edited that post a lot, so it's probably sloppy as fuck. But as to not being pertinent to my previous post... how do you figure?

You accused me of saying that FPSs weren't evolving, which is subjective and just completely wrong. FPSs have evolved in many ways, but gameplay isn't one of them, and thus I find them boring as hell these days. This is why I find I cannot sit through them, which is entirely relative to the topic of this thread.[/QUOTE]
You did not say "these days". You said "Duke Nukem 64". That's 1997. That precludes Tribes, Deus Ex, and Half-Life. Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress, Thief (though I'm not sure if that one even had a multiplayer mode). Halo, Serious Sam, Call of Duty. There's a fuckload of evolution and branching and dead-ends and sidesteps and backtracking and what-not since 1997.

These days? Yeah, most people are tripping over themselves to make cover-based tactical shooters. You get the odd "throwback" like Painkiller or a Deus Ex-y type thing, but that's about it.

If your initial thesis was, "FPS' are stagnant these days", then I wouldn't have commented at all. But you picked 1997, which seemed like a bizarre and arbitrary date, so I had to comment.

And hell, I'd love to play the game you're talking about. Deus Ex had a chance to go there, but its multiplayer was tacked-on and mediocre. And I-

You can lose an arm and still love...
Click to expand...
Wait, what?
 
Left 4 Dead was fun for a while, but it grew stale with the same dull FPS action I've been getting since 1997. I haven't played Deus-Ex, but please inform me if there's something new innovation in that game that another shooter hasn't done. Or is it just another new scenario with the same tired action?

You say there's evolution... and I already said, yes, there is, but not in gameplay. Please, tell me what these great innovations are that I've been missing out on.

Put a bunch of zombies and 3 AI partners in Doom II and you've got Left 4 Dead.

Let me simplify things for you. Can your character do anything that you can't do in CoD or other shooters? Strip away the scenario, the story am I essentially presented with the same tools that all these others give to me? I'm not talking about slightly differing guns, I'm talking about what I can do. What special motions can I do? Are there new cool ways to kill enemies? For me to set up advantages and strategies you can't do in other FPSs?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']You did not say "these days". You said "Duke Nukem 64". That's 1997. That precludes Tribes, Deus Ex, and Half-Life. Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress, Thief (though I'm not sure if that one even had a multiplayer mode). Halo, Serious Sam, Call of Duty. There's a fuckload of evolution and branching and dead-ends and sidesteps and backtracking and what-not since 1997.

These days? Yeah, most people are tripping over themselves to make cover-based tactical shooters. You get the odd "throwback" like Painkiller or a Deus Ex-y type thing, but that's about it.

If your initial thesis was, "FPS' are stagnant these days", then I wouldn't have commented at all. But you picked 1997, which seemed like a bizarre and arbitrary date, so I had to comment.

And hell, I'd love to play the game you're talking about. Deus Ex had a chance to go there, but its multiplayer was tacked-on and mediocre. And I-


Wait, what?[/QUOTE]

I'll also throw in Chronicles of Riddick:Escape from Butcher Bay,The Darkness,No One Lives Forever series,Shogo:Mobile Armor Division,AVP:2 to that list.
 
Like I said, the multiplayer on Deus Ex was nothing special. Which is a shame, because the single-player game was legendary. The first time an enemy exploded himself with his own rocket launcher because I was standing too close to him with my point defence, I knew something awesome was going on.

Just... I dunno. I don't know how to converse with someone who sees no meaningful gameplay difference between Tribes or Natural Selection and Quake or Duke Nukem 3D. I don't know if we are using the same vocabulary. There is a significant chance that we are in fact speaking two entirely different languages that by sheer coincidence use identical words with entirely different meanings; perhaps this thread is actually for collectors of what I term Russian nesting dolls but everyone else refers to as "videogames".

But, hey. I'm in the beta for the new Tribes. Time for me to try that shit out.
[quote name='themaster20000']I'll also throw in Chronicles of Riddick:Escape from Butcher Bay,The Darkness,No One Lives Forever series,Shogo:Mobile Armor Division,AVP:2 to that list.[/QUOTE]
I keep meaning to try out the Riddick games, but I'm very conflicted. I loved the shit out of Pitch Black, but I take a special pill daily to forget that the second film was ever made.
 
There have been refinements, no evolutions. Like I said, I need to see new fundamental mechanics that aren't just aesthetics.

Agree to disagree, because like you said, it's likely we aren't understanding each other.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Like I said, the multiplayer on Deus Ex was nothing special. Which is a shame, because the single-player game was legendary. The first time an enemy exploded himself with his own rocket launcher because I was standing too close to him with my point defence, I knew something awesome was going on.

Just... I dunno. I don't know how to converse with someone who sees no meaningful gameplay difference between Tribes or Natural Selection and Quake or Duke Nukem 3D. I don't know if we are using the same vocabulary. There is a significant chance that we are in fact speaking two entirely different languages that by sheer coincidence use identical words with entirely different meanings; perhaps this thread is actually for collectors of what I term Russian nesting dolls but everyone else refers to as "videogames".

But, hey. I'm in the beta for the new Tribes. Time for me to try that shit out.

I keep meaning to try out the Riddick games, but I'm very conflicted. I loved the shit out of Pitch Black, but I take a special pill daily to forget that the second film was ever made.[/QUOTE]

Oh definitely play the first Riddick game,which is a prequel to Pitch Black.The game is a mixed bag since it has too much shooting instead of a balanced mix of stealth.Still worth a play since Vin Diesel gives an excellent performance.

Totally forgot to list Natural Selection,looking forward to that sequel.
 
[quote name='AugustAPC']There have been refinements, no evolutions. Like I said, I need to see new fundamental mechanics that aren't just aesthetics. [/QUOTE]
refinement is the essence of evolution, though. and only through refinement can you really explore true gameplay options.

there are even things around the game that were developed that drastically changed the entire genre but not explicitly developed for the game itself. VoIP/voice chat absolutely changed the essence of teamwork and allowed a lot more abilities and planning in FPS.
 
[quote name='kainzero']refinement is the essence of evolution, though. and only through refinement can you really explore true gameplay options.

there are even things around the game that were developed that drastically changed the entire genre but not explicitly developed for the game itself. VoIP/voice chat absolutely changed the essence of teamwork and allowed a lot more abilities and planning in FPS.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't possibly disagree more. Refinements build upon what is already there. An innovation or evolution would bring something completely new to the table. Again, speaking specifically about gameplay. Not story, not presentation.

As for voice integration, that had the same effect for all team-based games. RTS, MMO, Sports... there's no competition between a coordinated team with communication and one that's just patchwork. Doesn't matter what game it is.
 
[quote name='AugustAPC']I couldn't possibly disagree more. Refinements build upon what is already there. An innovation or evolution would bring something completely new to the table. Again, speaking specifically about gameplay. Not story, not presentation.[/QUOTE]

From Duke Nukem?

Too easy. Geez play bioshock.
- Electric shock a pool of water containing a gang of splicers
- In a dark room light up a spider splicer with incinerate and machine gun that bitch to her doom
- Taking down a big daddy by tripping him with electric wire down a flight of stairs and then electro shotty the shit out of him

fuck you can even wrench jockey your way through the game, it's just that awesome.

Try going back to 2d sprites after that.
 
left 4 dead - i LOVE killing zombies but i only played the first chapter and gave up. boring

GTA4 - the controls just came off as clunky and inaccurate. got 5 gamerscore and cant bring myseflt to go back

Brink - i SOOOO wanted to like this game but the presentation is too frantic and hectic

call of duty anything - too much hype for the multiplayer and the story suffers (tho i LOVE finest hour)

lost planet - looked good in reviews but the anime style killed it for me

Halo - just another game too focused on multiplayer and phoning in the storyline
 
[quote name='camoor']Killer 7

I love weird games. But that one What...The...fuck[/QUOTE]
I can't help but feel partly responsible for this post.
 
[quote name='camoor']From Duke Nukem?

Too easy. Geez play bioshock.
- Electric shock a pool of water containing a gang of splicers
- In a dark room light up a spider splicer with incinerate and machine gun that bitch to her doom
- Taking down a big daddy by tripping him with electric wire down a flight of stairs and then electro shotty the shit out of him

fuck you can even wrench jockey your way through the game, it's just that awesome.

Try going back to 2d sprites after that.[/QUOTE]

As a sprite artist, I'll always prefer 2D, lol.

Anyway, none of that is innovation. Luring bosses into traps has been done in FPS far before Bioshock. I'm gonna try and do a marathon of those games when Infinite comes out, though.

I still look to Mirror's Edge for innovating the genre. It gives you a completely new engine to play with from a FPS perspective. It's played fundamentally differently from all those other FPSs out there. But no one cares for it because it's different :\. FPS community holds itself back.

Here's hoping for the sequel to see light.

I'm tired of discussing FPSs now. I've got to add Disgaea 2 to my list of games I want to finish but can't. The characters annoy me to death.
 
Final Fantasy X. I really enjoyed the game, but I couldn't beat the final boss. I'm not one for grinding, but I tried and I kept getting killed. I eventually gave up and watched the ending on Youtube. :cry:
 
Final Fantasy 12 and Resonance of Fate I was so amped for both of them got the collectors edition of 12 the day it came out played it for one hour and then just could get into it i hate that main character more then any of them. and resonance of fate i was so happy when it droped to 20 dollars on amazon tried to get into the story cause i loved the intro animation just can't pick it up again so damn difficult and boring.
 
Darksiders.

I probably played through two-thirds of this game. Got to the spider lady boss and just had it. Far too many frustrating moments caused by poor lack of direction and not very well-thought out puzzles. Coupled with excess moments of "havent I seen this before in a different game?"
 
Infamous 1-2. Now I loved Prototype despite its flaws, but everyone kept telling me Infamous was better. Cole just felt like a whipping boy throughout both games and after a while I just wiki'ed the plot. Glad I didn't finish.

Dragon Age. Lost interest. Loved the characters though.

Dead Rising 2: Off the Record. I already beat Dead Rising 2. Didn't feel the need to do it again with a different character.

Killzone 2-3: Generic FPS syndrome

Resistance 3: No. Just... No.

Skyrim: Dunno why, but I like Oblivion a lot more.

Gears of War 3: Once I got past the Cole centered part, I just lost interest entirely.
 
[quote name='KillerRamen']Final Fantasy X. I really enjoyed the game, but I couldn't beat the final boss. I'm not one for grinding, but I tried and I kept getting killed. I eventually gave up and watched the ending on Youtube. :cry:[/QUOTE]
Really? For me, it's one of the very worst FF final battles I've seen, because it's so easy
once you figure out the gimmick (involved casting reflect directly on Yu Yevon, IIRC).

The Aeon battles beforehand were generally tougher, though, especially the Magus Sisters; I had a very tough time beating those three.
 
[quote name='AugustAPC']Borderlands isn't an RPG, lol. It's so shallow that it hurts. Not that it's a bad game, it's just very, very tame. And we need to stop looking at customization as "rpg" elements. It's a strong mechanic for video games that many genres blatantly lack. I think that customization is a good start toward evolving the genre. I think that yes, Borderlands, is a "blend" because of the specific way it approaches customization and questing. Pretty much siphoned directly from MMORPGs, but there are plenty of ways to approach customization that should not be seen as a "blend".

Anyway, regarding the game modes in FPSs, I'm not just talking about tweaks. I'm talking about a new game, with a new engine. This 1 v 1 match wouldn't be a new "mode" it would be the meat of the game. You're not just in it to slaughter as many people as you can at once. You're in a match, alone, with someone after you, and you have everything at your disposal. You can roll, interact with cover, throw objects to create distractions, set traps... you name it. You can lose an arm and still live, get shot and the leg and limp around. The point is you kill your enemy, and it's not easy.

These different "modes" in fps's are neat, I guess. But they're so painfully similar to each other that I can see why hardly any of them get played.

Don't think in the realm of CoD or Battlefield. Think a blank slate, with anything you want. The game I suggested could also have a single player campaign, fuck it could even have an arcade ladder similar to a fighter.

I don't disrespect CoD or Battlefield or Halo (fuck I own lots of Halo), but I just want something new. They all have the same tired fundamentals. Slaughter everything in sight. Be it standing in a certain part of a map and killing everyone that walks bye, 1 hit melee kills, sniping or frags.

I firmly believe that shooters are the top genre because they are the easiest and most simplistic. Their fans won't accept big changes, we've seen that with the sales of games like Mirror's Edge (amazing game) and Bulletstorm. I'm sure that this is a major reason we don't see the genre expanded upon, but I still hold that this genre has had the least of its potential tapped into and that there are infinite possibilities to revive the genre for a player like me.

Come to think of it, Mirror's Edge is a perfect example. fucking amazing game, and possibly one of the most under-appreciated I've ever seen. I loved the hell out of it, and my god, if it had a multiplayer, I would be playing it 24/7.[/QUOTE]

Borderlands isn't an RPG but Mirror's Edge is a FPS?
 
[quote name='AugustAPC']I couldn't possibly disagree more. Refinements build upon what is already there. An innovation or evolution would bring something completely new to the table. Again, speaking specifically about gameplay. Not story, not presentation.[/QUOTE]
when bacteria evolves to become more resistant to an antibiotic, it is building on something that is already there. it doesn't bring a completely new bacteria to the table.

and if you talk about gameplay, the concept of emergent gameplay makes it very difficult to talk about who's responsible for the refinement and evolution.
 
There were a couple of games in the last couple of years that I was very excited for, but after playing for awhile was extremely let down and just couldn't bring myself to put them back in my PS3.

Demon's Souls - I was so incredibly excited for this game. I'd almost imported it from Japan on a couple of occaisions before I found out it was coming stateside. When it did, I immediately went out and preordered it. I picked up my collector's edition first print goodies, got it home and started playing it. I know what you're thinking; he's about to whine about the difficulty. But that wasn't it, it wasn't just "oh this is too hard." After playing and dying and repeating for about 8 hours or so, I eventually got someplace where I couldn't get back to recover my strength. I sat there dumbfounded and realized that after playing the game for a number of hours, I was actually further behind than I would have been had I not bothered to play the game at all. Ever since then it's just sat on a shelf making me think "Man, I wish I'd never opened it in the first place. It'd be worth more to me to have it sealed in my collection."

Record of Agarest War - I imported the disc version from the UK, and only payed around $20 for it so it wasn't as bad initially as DS. The concept sounded interesting enough; an SRPG where you play through 5(?) generations covering the span of a massive conflict. Then I started playing, and then I figured out how the battle system worked (a horrible, horrible system where the best strategy is to have one fast person in range to where he can attack a bunch of people, then you have everyone else wail on people way out of turn b/c they're "linked" with the fast character), then I slogged through the horrible, horrible story elements. Finally I get to the "good ending" and get rewarded with an additional set of a bunch more battles before I can actually see any sort of actual ending to the game. By this point I just said "Oh. My. God. Who THE HELL cares???!!!!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GTA IV......seemed to hav an ok story but the gameplay just frustrated me

Also black ops....i was interested in playing the campaign but i tried some mp first and what i saw shocked me....traded it in to gamestop the very same day
 
FF VII - I just can't get over the out-dated graphics. I'll play it whenever SE decide to do a remake.
Too Human - I really want to like it, but I couldn't get use to the controls.
Disgaea - I don't have the patient to grind anymore.
 
[quote name='Over easy']Too Human - I really want to like it, but I couldn't get use to the controls.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of another one for me: Metal Gear Solid. I really disliked the controls in that game; ended up quitting not long after getting through the first area.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']Really? For me, it's one of the very worst FF final battles I've seen, because it's so easy
once you figure out the gimmick (involved casting reflect directly on Yu Yevon, IIRC).

The Aeon battles beforehand were generally tougher, though, especially the Magus Sisters; I had a very tough time beating those three.
[/QUOTE]

I think I may not have been a high enough level to have that spell. I dunno, it was a long time ago. I was devastated. :cry:
 
[quote name='kainzero']when bacteria evolves to become more resistant to an antibiotic, it is building on something that is already there. it doesn't bring a completely new bacteria to the table.[/QUOTE]

Oh god. We're comparing bacteria to video games.

I'm sorry, I can't possibly take that statement seriously in a discussion about video games. Seriously done discussing this though. I've already said that FPSs have evolved, if you care to read, hit me up, but otherwise I'd rather get this thread back on track.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='blueshinra']This reminds me of another one for me: Metal Gear Solid. I really disliked the controls in that game; ended up quitting not long after getting through the first area.[/QUOTE]

I got through the first one, but couldn't force myself to finish the 2nd and never played 3 or 4 (and won't).

Like you, hated the controls and I also just don't like stealth game play. I want to blast everything in sight, not have to sneak around.
 
Valkyrie Chronicles - got to like mission 14, after putting in 30+ hours, and just didn't have the will to push on anymore. Game is hard as hell.

Fallout NV - loved F3, but this game's quests were boring as hell, and the brown landscape just made me feel like I was wondering through constant shit. It didn't help that the radio station kept repeating the same 3 songs.
 
RDR...great game, graphics, and RPG elements but I suppose my taste for westerns just wasn't there after a flood of other great games started coming in. Someday...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I got through the first one, but couldn't force myself to finish the 2nd and never played 3 or 4 (and won't).

Like you, hated the controls and I also just don't like stealth game play. I want to blast everything in sight, not have to sneak around.[/QUOTE]

I don't like stealth game play either. I never played any of the MGS series that way. I always went in guns blazing. If you didnt restart back at full health after dying when you entered a new area, I would have never made it through any of these games.

Valkyrie Chronicles - gave up on about the 7th mission. Too boring and couldn't love the characters.
 
[quote name='007']Oblivion. I tried to start it up at least 5 times, and stopped within a hour or two each time. It just never 'clicked' with me.

Having said that, I've put 30+ hours into Skyrim with zero desire to stop.

I've never quite put my finger on what changed for me.[/QUOTE]
I'm the exact same way. I tried oblivion a couple times. I had the goty back a couple of years ago and then even bought a new copy of the anniversary edition and couldn't get into it. So when skyrim was coming out I heard amazing things about it. I waited until GameStop had a used copy so if I didn't like it so I could take it back but I love it lol.

Another game that I couldn't get into was FFVIII, loved FFVII and FFIX but 8 was terrible.
 
I'm so glad that my topic has sparked such great conversation! Oh, and Oblivion is a very, very, very close second to FFVIII for me. I loooooooooooooooooved Fallout 3. Played the hell out of it. Did just about anything you could do in that game and still wanted to find more stuff to do. So, I figured I'd get the Oblivion GOTY. Um...wow. I grinded my way through the arena part and just gave up after that. Wandering around that setting and interacting with those characters just wasted the same as the Capital Wasteland...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top