halo, zelda, mario brothers, fable, resident evil. all were ruined int he second hame, but damn they messed them up.
i agree...i waited for a long time after i saw those first trailers thinking "OMFG i cant wait" then i got it...played that brand spankin new multiplayer that was supposed to be super awesome was like wtf, quit loaded up the campaign..played for a bit, took it out, let my friend borrow it and havnt asked for it back yet and cried myself to sleep over the nightmares that game has created rather then the sweet relaxing dreams of the first one...=(run_forrest_run said:Bioshock 2 spat on the magic of the outstanding original.
Yeah, Fallout 3 wasn't as awesome as I hoped it would be. The best post-apocalyptic game I've played is Stalker. If you haven't played it yet, you should.GreatVladmir said:Fallout 3, it not only killed the whole Fallout feel, but raped it to death. The game is basically Oblivion for fucks sake, Oblivion with guns! Fallout was about the whole survival aspect of a nuclear appocalypse, it was about being an outsider in a hostile, dangerous world that doesnot like you onebit and it had sublime story telling and pacing, while Fallout 3 was just pathetic, I hated the Pipboy menu, it was too slow, too cumbersome and stupid, the leveling was so simple it was insulting, the game world offered no reason to try & survive, when you get a good pistol, 200 rounds of ammo and about 15 stimpaks before you leave the vault, I mean, COME ON! It's suppose to be about survival, not walking into every challenge gun-ho about it. The NPC's were far to friendly, I'm suprised that Sheriff doesn't give you a big hug when you enter Megaton and some flowers, no-one trys to fuck you over or steal from you and also, its an 18 rating for what? Cartoon gore? A few cuss-words here & there? It's not an adult game.
The VATs system can kiss my arse, its rubbish, there is no need for it, the guns have uber-aiming allready, infact Sniper Rifles are the most un-accurate guns in the entire game! A SMG can score a long-range kill just as easily as a rifle.
The story was also a fuckload of shite your dad is a superman scientist who gets bored of the vault and runs away, thus you have to go find him, ok that could of been good, then the fucker goes and 'sacrifices' himself, so that was what, 1-1 1/2hours of gametime wasted, yes, another complaint is the hurrendously short time the main story takes, its what, 31/2 hours long, maybe to 4, that is not good gameplay, that is shite, ok there are aload of side-quests, but thats just it, they are side quests they are not required, theyare just padding. I played through ME1 doing a handful of sidequests, you know howlong it took me? 14hours, thats decent, 31/2 to 4 hours is not good lenght for a story.
RPG's are not about the ammount of side quests, they are about depth, about immersion, oh yeah! Another point, FO3 never immersed me, I had to do that via a WW2 armour mod and dressing myself as a Waffen SS and beging the adventure of Vimlar, the ***** ho SS supremacist.
The sole reason I left Fallout off of my list is because I honestly have not played the first two games (I did play Tactics. Kind of fun, actually); and cannot fairly judge the series myself.Someperson307 said:Yeah, Fallout 3 wasn't as awesome as I hoped it would be. The best post-apocalyptic game I've played is Stalker. If you haven't played it yet, you should.
I bought the collection, and even the goofy Terror of the Deep outright slaughters all recent contenders for gameplay. I suppose taken from that perspective, yeah, it doesn't even come close to X-COM 1 or 3 (yes, I love 3 as well). I can't say it "ruined" the series for me though.P.Tsunami said:I beg to differ. The first game was great. X-COM: Terror of the Deep was embarassing.
Well keeping in mind that this thread was about favorite series that they screwed up I'm sure you can appreciate why I have this game here.Furioso said:Oh no no no no no, it didn't do the origional series justice at all, but looking at the game as a brand new IP I had fun with itLooK iTz Jinjo said:I'm not a fan of this whole user generated content stuff, build your own vehicles, not my stuff. Despite enjoying the game, you cannot sit there and tell me it actually does the original series justice (assuming you've played them). To me it seems like they came up with a whole new IP and slapped the BK name on it to try give it an instant selling point, worked I guess, I bought it.Furioso said:Really? I actually enjoyed N&B, I thought the building vehicle thing was great funLooK iTz Jinjo said:Banjo-Kazooie. Nuts and Bolts made me cry tears of physical pain while playing it. It raped my childhood. I could name some more but they have already been said so no point.
AMMO Kid said:The Windwaker fits though. You aren't running circles around the map in five minutes like in OoT and TP. And it actually ends in a way that ensures that Ganondorf can't return. Unlike Oot where all that you have to do is kill of the guardians to save him.captainaweshum said:No. Just no.AMMO Kid said:I totally disagree. The Windwaker was an amazing game, with a huge world, a great story, and lots of islands to explore!captainaweshum said:But it's apparent that we will never see a game as strong as OOT or (the golden beacon of games) Majora's Mask.
god, Fallout 3 is one of those games that it completely baffles me that Bethesda got away with it at all. I never played the first two, I'll admit, but man Fallout 3 was one of the worst games ever in it's laziness.Atmos Duality said:The sole reason I left Fallout off of my list is because I honestly have not played the first two games (I did play Tactics. Kind of fun, actually); and cannot fairly judge the series myself.Someperson307 said:Yeah, Fallout 3 wasn't as awesome as I hoped it would be. The best post-apocalyptic game I've played is Stalker. If you haven't played it yet, you should.
However..
I found Fallout 3 to be a disgraceful cash-in. A monster of hype and empty promises.
A game whose ending was one of the first in a long while to make me literally jump to the menu and go "That's it? IS THAT SERIOUSLY HOW THEY ENDED THIS?!". I reloaded the game, thinking it was a bad decision. Nope. That only made it worse.
There are good things to talk about, but I'll be damned if the stupid does not vastly outweigh them.
I bought the collection, and even the goofy Terror of the Deep outright slaughters all recent contenders for gameplay. I suppose taken from that perspective, yeah, it doesn't even come close to X-COM 1 or 3 (yes, I love 3 as well). I can't say it "ruined" the series for me though.P.Tsunami said:I beg to differ. The first game was great. X-COM: Terror of the Deep was embarassing.
Besides, I played X-COM for the first time back in 2003 (so no nostalgia argument, as many are wont to do), and since has only cemented my belief that most (close to all) new games lack soul. Case in point...
I tried X3 Terran Conflict recently in an attempt to find a modern equivalent, and found that the game could be truly amazing....if there was a coherent goal; a reasonable endpoint.
Taking over the galaxy sounded like that, but after a while, I realized it would present the Fable 2 dilemma: I'm king...now what do I do?
Having a difficult, but achievable win condition changes everything. Conversely, hyper-linearity destroys the immersion, because you feel as though you are playing nothing but a bunch of pre-scripted events. That's the biggest problem I have with today's cut-scene-heavy, hyperlinear "badass" games.
Sorry to go off on a tangent like that, but all I'm saying here is that even Terror of the Deep rocks the tripe we get today so hard, I couldn't really bring myself to hate it.
Oh, also adding to the list: Star Fox (I need not say any more, lest the space furries slay me)
Haha, keep in mind, those are the *series* I think that have gone down hill since conception. There's plenty more I'm sure I didnt list but stretch too far back to be worth mentioning. Turok, any Bond game, Spyro, Gex, etcMrhenners12 said:you have a very good taste in gamesgally912 said:Halo
Metroid
Zelda
Metal Gear Solid
Prince of Persia
Pokemon
Elder Scrolls
Final Fantasy
Mortal Kombat
Street Fighter
FALLOUT 3
C&C 3+4, Red Alert 3
Dawn of War 2
Now, as much as I didn't like Twilight Princess compared to its predecessors, the zelda series didn't start sucking OUT LOUD until it went to the DS. Phantom Hourglass is by far one of the worst games ever made.captainaweshum said:Mine would have to be the Zelda series. I mean Twilight Princess was okay, a bit of pandering to the fans (but I'm not complaining) was present, but still it was decent. But it's apparent that we will never see a game as strong as OOT or (the golden beacon of games) Majora's Mask.
The Wii motion plus is making sure of that.
I thought wind waker was good too.captainaweshum said:Mine would have to be the Zelda series. I mean Twilight Princess was okay, a bit of pandering to the fans (but I'm not complaining) was present, but still it was decent. But it's apparent that we will never see a game as strong as OOT or (the golden beacon of games) Majora's Mask.
The Wii motion plus is making sure of that.
Well they could be and I have had very good ones. Fair enough if you had a bad experience but my point still holds that Heroes killed the social side of the game. If don't want to do it with people you should have the Heroes as back up but you shouldn't have to rely on them if you want people. Also I don't see why it is bad people play in Guild groups it is kinda the point of the game. As I have said countless times it was the end for GW as everything went down hill after NF but the final nail in the coffin sorta came with EoTN but it did start before that though. After they got rid of troll farming at droks and the centre of trade moved it caused a massive shift in the game as it made monks much much harder to find in PvE and although the price of items plummeted it made gold much harder to ome by which is damn hard enough.Abedeus said:PuGs were never good, never will be. All of the good players play either in guild groups, alliance groups (rarely) or Hero/Hench.Glademaster said:Well that is kinda the point as Heroes encouraged people to be more like this and not work together even more and killed the socil aspect of the game. Fair enough there are bad Pugs but there are plenty of good ones. Regardless of opinion on the matter it did spell the end of GW.Abedeus said:Glademaster said:The Hero system I think spelled the end of GW as people could do missions easily on their own which killed the need to have a party for a mission. So sad though as the best part of it for me was getting a party and doing it with them.Abedeus said:Uhm, Neverwinter Nights 2 was pretty damn terrible. I regret pre-ordering it... I mean, for a game it's okay, but series has gone downhill ever since.
Oh, and Guild Wars. Loved it for 3 years, then the "add-on" with 6 hours campaign and recycled armor skins and boring missions + power creep to nth power came along.
Hero system is what saved the game. I never felt the need to party with other people. All pugs so far were:
a) stupid
b) moronic
c) disobedient
d) unskilled
e) ALL OF THE ABOVE.
And yeah, e) is the most common option. After Nightfall, I never EVER had to join a PuG. Thank God. If not for the heroes, I would probably continue playing with henchmen till I got bored with the missions.
But those really, really good players just don't play anymore because of boredom. The only reason I can see myself coming back to game if they give us 7 heroes.