Sequels That Didn't Live Up To Their Predecessors

[Sinclair Solutions]

No More Heroes 2. I played it years after the first, and it had been a while since I had used my Wii. To be frank, I found the game to be unplayable. It might still be good, but I just couldn't get past the first level.

Also, Brawl seemed less replayable than Melee for some reason I will never understand. I could play Melee multiplayer for days. Brawl, not so much...

Finally, even as a Bioshock fan, I would have to say Bioshock 2. Still a great game and it had some things better than the original (combat, emotional hook), it really is just the lesser game.

 

[teqrevisited]

Devil May Cry 2. Not just because Dante's personality had completely vanished. This game was easy. Easy to the point that everything could be solved with guns at no risk to the player.

It did introduce some nice combat elements that would be built on in DMC3 as separate styles, but this was quite an unsteady step inbetween.

 

[Xerosch]

Every 'Silent Hill' after 'The Room'. Others may feel to stop me right there but I think 'The Room' was an OK game. 'Homecoming' and 'Origins' on the other hand...

Oh, and I almost forgot about 'Condemned 2'. Prime example on how to completely annihilate a promising franchise before it lived up to its full potential.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Also I would like to add Mercenaries 2.

You should try Just Cause 2, it has all the things I wish Mercenaries 2 had including jets.

My personal favorite disappointment belongs to Bioshock 2. I thought maybe after criticism from the first game they would fix their moral standpoint problem. I killed ONE little orphan and the game told me I was a soulless monster and because of me my daughter became a soulless monster, really?

Also Mercenaries 2, but Just Cause 2 fixed that.

Don't get me wrong, Just Cause 2 was a fun game but I still thought that PoD was better; it actually had a reasonable plot, well voiced and charaterised characters and good atmosphere.

 

[jackpackage200]

Super Smash Bros Brawl
Call of Duty games after 4
Bioshock 2
And Borderlands (i dont care if it is not a sequel or made from bethesda, its still a soulless ripoff of fallout 3)

 

[tklivory]

I'm really surprised I'm the first to mention these, but:

1) Chrono Cross (loved the game, but come on - it had to live up to Chrono Trigger!)
2) Any Castlevania after Symphony of the Night (with the exception of some of the DS games). But no PS2/Xbox/PS3/360 Castlevania game has come anywhere close to living up to SOTN
3) Prince of Persia post Sands of Time. Again, I loved playing the sequels (yes, even Warrior Within and Prince of Nolan North), but none of them lived up to the 'holy shit, this is a fantastic/fun/friggin amazing game' feeling I got with the Sands of Time

And I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of disappointment of Dragon Age 2. Of course, I haven't played it all the way through (watched others played it, though), but then I'm not done with the first one yet (yes, I mod, why do you ask?), and there isn't even a toolset yet for the second one. Grrrr...

 

[Febel]

Mercenaries 2
Sadly inferior in every single way to the original which was crushing to me since the first is easily one of my favorite games of all time.

Bioshock 2
Gameplay was improved but...well, that's the only thing that was improved.

Have not played Red Faction armageddon but unless it's about destroying full scale cities than it will be a disappointment to me. All I really want from Volition is a replica of say, New York City or my Hometown of Cleveland, To completely level to the ground using explosives and such.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I found holotapes [small](notes)[/small] of a family trying to get into a bunker but couldn't remember the pass code. Found a skeleton in a bath tub with a toaster in it, presumably because it was when the bombs fell and he killed himself so he didn't have to face the atomic fires. Outside of Evergreen Mills, there was a nest for a super mutant behemoth with a lone teddy bear inside [small](if you took it, the behemoth appeared and attacked you)[/small]. And, like I said before, I found two pre war skeletons in a bed together, living out their last moments side by side before the apocalypse.

The problem is those were all mostly jokes aimed to give you cheap laughs and make the game way less serious, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fallout 3 needed Wild Wasteland, however, if it did about 75% of the content would probably dissapear if you didn't choose it.

Forgettable quests? I find that hard to believe. In New Vegas, maybe, but in Fallout 3? What about the town full of fire breathing ants? What about the ghouls who wanted access to Tenpenny Tower? What about the entirety of the Wasteland Survival Guide, a series of crazy quests held together by a madwoman? I don't know where you get the idea that Fallout 3's quests were forgettable, but I sure as hell remember them.

A town full of fire breathing ants, how is that memorable? The actual storyline behind that quest was boring and pointless. I could not stand the Wasteland Survival Guide quest, Moira was just way too annoying and what I don't understand is why she would do all those things but not even bother to figure out a way to filter water which is apparently a big issue in the Capital Wasteland. Personally I think the companion's personal quests in New Vegas were more interesting than every quest in Fallout 3, especially Veronica's and Boone's.

I probably derailed a bit, there, defending Fallout 3 more than I needed, so I'll just leave you with this final thought: New Vegas's flaws were more than noticeable. I guess everything I said about it could be said for Fallout 3, as well, but that just means that New Vegas screwed up even worse. If you didn't like Fallout 3, then you won't like New Vegas.

Saying that you don't like Fallout 3 does not mean you will not like New Vegas, they're very different when you look at the story, feel and get into the gameplay mechanics more specifically.

 

[RuralGamer]

KOTOR 2 - It wasn't bad, its just whenever I used to play KOTOR and then KOTOR 2, I was rather disappointed by the difference. KOTOR 2 had its moments, but largely I felt it was quite... empty; most of the worlds weren't that enjoyable (Telos and Nar Shaddaa felt dull and unfinished in places, Korriban felt way too short and Malachor V was just... meh.)
The story also kinda petered out as well and the game was a pretty boring grind of bad guys after defeating Nihlus.

The Call of Duty series after Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - It was an interesting deviance from the WW2 theme, but the fact they identikit copied most elements and unbalanced multiplayer really ruined it for me. WaW was meh, MW2 was controller snapping and BlOps was urgh... MW3 can stay out of my game collection, perhaps only allowed in for a quick dalliance with the campaign and that's it.

Crackdown 2: First game wasn't great, but it had potential as a concept. The second game was just... no, just no. They copied the same city with a few changes, made really bland enemies and turned the whole thing practically into a fetch quest.

I am allowed to name more than one game though, so here's another one that'll have the fanboys reaching for the pitchforks: Mass Effect 2. Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the ride all the way through to the end (except the planet scanning), but I was really annoyed by the "streamlining" (*exaggerated quoting gesture*), and looking back on it, I really don't remember much of it. I remember much of ME1 (especially Virmire, of course, such an awesomely atmospheric level), but the second? I dunno. I just lacked a little... soul. I guess. I'm getting a bit of a vibe from Bioware that they're going on autopilot nowadays. They seem to have forgotten what rpg's are all about.

This pretty much, Mass Effect 2 was good, but it just wasn't as good as the first one; they cut out some of the crap, but were a bit zealous and took some of the good stuff as well. The fact you spend most of your time doing a massive fetch quest made it feel a bit repetitive. Still, it was enjoyable.

 

[War Penguin]

I found holotapes [small](notes)[/small] of a family trying to get into a bunker but couldn't remember the pass code. Found a skeleton in a bath tub with a toaster in it, presumably because it was when the bombs fell and he killed himself so he didn't have to face the atomic fires. Outside of Evergreen Mills, there was a nest for a super mutant behemoth with a lone teddy bear inside [small](if you took it, the behemoth appeared and attacked you)[/small]. And, like I said before, I found two pre war skeletons in a bed together, living out their last moments side by side before the apocalypse.

The problem is those were all mostly jokes aimed to give you cheap laughs and make the game way less serious, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fallout 3 needed Wild Wasteland, however, if it did about 75% of the content would probably dissapear if you didn't choose it.

I have no idea how those were supposed to be cheap laughs. They were supposed to give you a faint idea of what the world was like before and after the war. I didn't even smirk at half of the random things I found. Maybe some of them were made for laughs, but the ones that stuck to me were the most dramatic.

Now, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you meant when you that Fallout 3 needed Wild Wasteland. Though I will say that Wild Wasteland was a necessity for New Vegas. However, it shouldn't have been an option in the first place, all of that stuff should have been there as a part of the actual game. Because even if you don't have all of those interesting little things to tie you in, you still have a huge world out there. And if you don't have anything in that world, that world becomes boring. Sure, you don't have to explore the wasteland, but you still need to cross it in order to progress. Without those little things that tie you in, it's just one long chore to get you from point A to point B.

Forgettable quests? I find that hard to believe. In New Vegas, maybe, but in Fallout 3? What about the town full of fire breathing ants? What about the ghouls who wanted access to Tenpenny Tower? What about the entirety of the Wasteland Survival Guide, a series of crazy quests held together by a madwoman? I don't know where you get the idea that Fallout 3's quests were forgettable, but I sure as hell remember them.

A town full of fire breathing ants, how is that memorable? The actual storyline behind that quest was boring and pointless. I could not stand the Wasteland Survival Guide quest, Moira was just way too annoying and what I don't understand is why she would do all those things but not even bother to figure out a way to filter water which is apparently a big issue in the Capital Wasteland. Personally I think the companion's personal quests in New Vegas were more interesting than every quest in Fallout 3, especially Veronica's and Boone's.

How is town full of fire breathing ants not memorable? I remember that being one of the most craziest parts of the game! And at least it had a better story than 90% of the side quests in New Vegas. One New Vegas side quest involved an NCR officer having me clear a road full of ants [small](a recurring theme, it seems)[/small]. It essentially went "I want you to get rid of those ants and if you do, I'll give you some loot." That's it. It was done in ten minutes and it felt like a cheap little distraction from the main story. At least in Fallout 3's ant quest [small](titled "Those," by the way)[/small], it was better paced. A boy comes running to you for help out of nowhere. He tells you that his home is overrun with monsters that he doesn't know how to describe. You get there and find out that it's just some ants, fooled into thinking that it's no big deal. Then they breathed fire. I literally jumped out of my seat once I saw the fire shooting out of their mouths. You then find out that they were made by a scientist who was hiding in the metro tunnels. Once you found him, he asked you to clear a path to the queen so he could fix his mistakes. There, much more depth than nearly all of the side quests in New Vegas, excluding the companion quests, of course.

Now, the Wasteland Survival Guide wasn't the best example, I admit, but there's a few things I feel as if I should point out: Firstly, the reason why Moira didn't think of purifying the water, yet, was more of a "learn to crawl before you could run," method. You can't just try to study something so nearly impossible while you have a whole wasteland trying to kill you. You have to learn how to survive before you could tackle something that huge. At least until then, she studied how to deal with radiation and where to get food and medical supplies. Secondly, I understand Moira was annoying [small](not to me, but to everyone else, I understand how she could get on one's nerves)[/small], but at least she had more character and personality than nearly any of the characters you would find in New Vegas [small](with the exception of the companions, of course)[/small].

I probably derailed a bit, there, defending Fallout 3 more than I needed, so I'll just leave you with this final thought: New Vegas's flaws were more than noticeable. I guess everything I said about it could be said for Fallout 3, as well, but that just means that New Vegas screwed up even worse. If you didn't like Fallout 3, then you won't like New Vegas.

Saying that you don't like Fallout 3 does not mean you will not like New Vegas, they're very different when you look at the story, feel and get into the gameplay mechanics more specifically.

Now this, oddly enough, is something that I both agree and disagree with. Maybe you're right: The story is very different than the one in Fallout 3, and in a good way. Much more freedom and much more mystery and intrigue behind it.

Feel and gameplay mechanics, however, I can't side with you on that. With the exception of iron-sights, the gameplay was exactly the same as it was in Fallout 3. Same controls, same handling, same VATS, everything. That was what the guy I quoted earlier was complaining about, along with other things. It all felt the same, but with a less atmospheric? well, atmosphere. I'm not saying New Vegas didn't have any atmosphere. I mean, a game that combines western and gangster elements should be oozing with atmosphere. However, it felt kind of bland in comparison to Fallout 3. Fallout 3 knew how to have some atmosphere by adding crazy encounters. New Vegas barely had any of that and felt empty.

Now, I feel as if I need to stress this overtime I make this argument: I loved New Vegas. It did a lot of things right and I enjoyed playing it. But Fallout 3 gave me so many more memorable moments that stuck with me for so long, which I think is what categorizes a great game. New Vegas didn't have that with me, which is why it fell short compared to Fallout 3. But no matter what, I loved New Vegas, don't you worry.

 

[CrazT]

Golden Sun: Dark Dawn

Probably the most disappointed I've been with a game. The first two games are two of my favourite games of all time, and after 7 years, I was really expecting something more. For me, it felt like a step backwards: the battle and Djinn system (while still functional) wasn't expanded upon from the second game, the story felt very unfocused (with the first two, the final objective was made clear at the start of each game, yet with Dark Dawn, the final objective isn't introduced until about 15 hours into the game), the progression felt very linear (the first two were also linear, but the entire game world was always explorable that it cleverly disguised its linearity. Dark Dawn restricts your exploration to a small section of the world, with no ability to return to previously visited areas after a certain plot point) and the game was very easy (I only failed in battle once, and that was the final boss, which I passed after a second attempt because it had a checkpoint, unlike the boss battles at the end of the first two)

As for a more mainstream example, I'd have to say Mass Effect 2. For me, the exploration element (which I loved in the first game, vehicle sections and all) felt very lacking. Additionally, the first game's story was really interesting, almost feeling like a sci-fi mystery thriller. With Mass Effect 2, the story lacked an element of adventure, as I felt like I was just waiting for the game to say, "You are now good enough to go through the Omega 4 relay

 

[Srs bzns]

Supreme Commander 2.

The really only had its massive scale going for it, and it killed that off completely with smaller maps, diluted strategy and a massively stripped variety of units and buildings. It was just AoE in space, something Halo Wars did better, frankly.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Now, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you meant when you that Fallout 3 needed Wild Wasteland. Though I will say that Wild Wasteland was a necessity for New Vegas. However, it shouldn't have been an option in the first place, all of that stuff should have been there as a part of the actual game. Because even if you don't have all of those interesting little things to tie you in, you still have a huge world out there. And if you don't have anything in that world, that world becomes boring. Sure, you don't have to explore the wasteland, but you still need to cross it in order to progress. Without those little things that tie you in, it's just one long chore to get you from point A to point B.

Why did Fallout 3 need Wild Wsteland...Mothership Zeta that's why. Wild wasteland makes New Vegas more stupid and funny, for those who want a more serious experience they don't take Wild Wasteland, it makes everyone happy, especially those who were pissed off about Mothership Zeta because Wild Wasteland pretty much retcons the hell out of that pathetic excuse for humour and story.

How is town full of fire breathing ants not memorable? I remember that being one of the most craziest parts of the game! And at least it had a better story than 90% of the side quests in New Vegas. One New Vegas side quest involved an NCR officer having me clear a road full of ants [small](a recurring theme, it seems)[/small]. It essentially went "I want you to get rid of those ants and if you do, I'll give you some loot." That's it. It was done in ten minutes and it felt like a cheap little distraction from the main story. At least in Fallout 3's ant quest [small](titled "Those," by the way)[/small], it was better paced. A boy comes running to you for help out of nowhere. He tells you that his home is overrun with monsters that he doesn't know how to describe. You get there and find out that it's just some ants, fooled into thinking that it's no big deal. Then they breathed fire. I literally jumped out of my seat once I saw the fire shooting out of their mouths. You then find out that they were made by a scientist who was hiding in the metro tunnels. Once you found him, he asked you to clear a path to the queen so he could fix his mistakes. There, much more depth than nearly all of the side quests in New Vegas, excluding the companion quests, of course.

Don't be condescending, I've played through Fallout 3 thoroughly because I'm not one of those kind of people who make ignorant or half-researched claims. Those side quests in New Vegas were just simple side quests for exp, to make the various NPCs seem more useful instead of just useless people standing there doing nothing. Also you picked a bad example; "Can You Find it in Your Heart" is a mini quest the courier will most likely encounter during the early parts of the main quest, it serves kinda like an extension of the tutorial by giving you a simple objective and the reward received introduces you to new food that can be found and made, and weapon repair kits. Also the quest serves as an indication of the NCR and how they can barely take care of their own trade routes, Cass who is also found at Mojave Outpost claims the NCR do a shit job as securing their roads and the fact that Ranger Jackson is giving you such a simple quest shows how desperate they are for help.

The companion quests aren't the only quests with depth, there are also all of the casino quests, a bunch of Freeside quests (like the Kings quests), the two large quests given at McCarran, the fight for Goodsprings, all of the quests involved wit the Vaults, the Khans quests etc etc.

Now, the Wasteland Survival Guide wasn't the best example, I admit, but there's a few things I feel as if I should point out: Firstly, the reason why Moira didn't think of purifying the water, yet, was more of a "learn to crawl before you could run," method. You can't just try to study something so nearly impossible while you have a whole wasteland trying to kill you. You have to learn how to survive before you could tackle something that huge. At least until then, she studied how to deal with radiation and where to get food and medical supplies. Secondly, I understand Moira was annoying [small](not to me, but to everyone else, I understand how she could get on one's nerves)[/small], but at least she had more character and personality than nearly any of the characters you would find in New Vegas [small](with the exception of the companions, of course)[/small].

Filtering radiation through water isn't difficult, it requires soem buckets, rocks, dirt and cloth, all things which can be found in the Capital Wasteland.

Seriously, "nearly any character...except for comapanions? What about Chief Hanlon, Marcus, Col. Moore, President Kimball, Gen. Oliver, Col. Hsu, caesar, Joshua Graham, Daniel, Julie Farkas, Papa Khan, Regis, Mr House, Benny, Legate Lanius, Doctor Henry, Orion Moreno, Father Elijah, McNamara, Dean Domino, Dog/God, Christine, Frederick Sinclair et cetera.

All characters with interesting stories and opinions on the current events happening in the Mojave and the Fallout universe.

And we can't forget the most mysterious character...Ulysses.

Feel and gameplay mechanics, however, I can't side with you on that. With the exception of iron-sights, the gameplay was exactly the same as it was in Fallout 3. Same controls, same handling, same VATS, everything. That was what the guy I quoted earlier was complaining about, along with other things.

Yes, iron sights were new, along with...

*Special VATS melee attacks
*Special Unarmed attacks that can be learned
*Different unarmed attacks
*Survival - and everything that stems from that
*The companion wheel
*The fusion of small/big guns
*New speech system that isn't luck based
*Taking normal damage in VATS instead of only 10%
*Perks every other level
*Traits
*Weapon mods
*Companion perks
*The ability to become homosexual
*Nerve
*The reputation system
*Gambling
*Hardcore mode
*New animations
*Changing the character's age (useless, but a nice addition)
*Challenges
*Medical implants
*Unique weapons now have unique designs
*Damage Threshold
*Night vision

 

[marurder]

ALL of Blizzards *sequels* (with the sole exception of Warcraft II) have been dissapointing to me. Not because of game play (they are great games), most have been fun, but because of the story, it is the same thing again and again and again. "It was all part of the greater plan"
- ref Diablo 2 (setting up the hero to jam the stone in their head in the first game)
and Warcraft 3 (getting the orcs to attack Azeroth)
and wait a sec, Starcraft 2 as well! (the Overmind making Kerrigan)
Why not make it someone woke up and the whole experience was 'just a dream'?

Another is MW2 and after

 

[War Penguin]

Now, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you meant when you that Fallout 3 needed Wild Wasteland. Though I will say that Wild Wasteland was a necessity for New Vegas. However, it shouldn't have been an option in the first place, all of that stuff should have been there as a part of the actual game. Because even if you don't have all of those interesting little things to tie you in, you still have a huge world out there. And if you don't have anything in that world, that world becomes boring. Sure, you don't have to explore the wasteland, but you still need to cross it in order to progress. Without those little things that tie you in, it's just one long chore to get you from point A to point B.

Why did Fallout 3 need Wild Wsteland...Mothership Zeta that's why. Wild wasteland makes New Vegas more stupid and funny, for those who want a more serious experience they don't take Wild Wasteland, it makes everyone happy, especially those who were pissed off about Mothership Zeta because Wild Wasteland pretty much retcons the hell out of that pathetic excuse for humour and story.

Mothership Zeta? Okay, look, I'm not going to talk about any DLC in Fallout 3 or New Vegas, I'm talking about the base game. Just thought I'd get that out of the way because in another argument you made, there were DLC characters, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Again, I'm afraid I'm a little lost on what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Wild Wasteland in New Vegas denounces the events of Mothership Zeta in Fallout 3? I need a little more clarification before I can continue with this argument.

How is town full of fire breathing ants not memorable? I remember that being one of the most craziest parts of the game! And at least it had a better story than 90% of the side quests in New Vegas. One New Vegas side quest involved an NCR officer having me clear a road full of ants [small](a recurring theme, it seems)[/small]. It essentially went "I want you to get rid of those ants and if you do, I'll give you some loot." That's it. It was done in ten minutes and it felt like a cheap little distraction from the main story. At least in Fallout 3's ant quest [small](titled "Those," by the way)[/small], it was better paced. A boy comes running to you for help out of nowhere. He tells you that his home is overrun with monsters that he doesn't know how to describe. You get there and find out that it's just some ants, fooled into thinking that it's no big deal. Then they breathed fire. I literally jumped out of my seat once I saw the fire shooting out of their mouths. You then find out that they were made by a scientist who was hiding in the metro tunnels. Once you found him, he asked you to clear a path to the queen so he could fix his mistakes. There, much more depth than nearly all of the side quests in New Vegas, excluding the companion quests, of course.

Don't be condescending, I've played through Fallout 3 thoroughly because I'm not one of those kind of people who make ignorant or half-researched claims. Those side quests in New Vegas were just simple side quests for exp, to make the various NPCs seem more useful instead of just useless people standing there doing nothing. Also you picked a bad example; "Can You Find it in Your Heart" is a mini quest the courier will most likely encounter during the early parts of the main quest, it serves kinda like an extension of the tutorial by giving you a simple objective and the reward received introduces you to new food that can be found and made, and weapon repair kits. Also the quest serves as an indication of the NCR and how they can barely take care of their own trade routes, Cass who is also found at Mojave Outpost claims the NCR do a shit job as securing their roads and the fact that Ranger Jackson is giving you such a simple quest shows how desperate they are for help.

The companion quests aren't the only quests with depth, there are also all of the casino quests, a bunch of Freeside quests (like the Kings quests), the two large quests given at McCarran, the fight for Goodsprings, all of the quests involved wit the Vaults, the Khans quests etc etc.

How am I being condescending? I'm not denying that you've played through Fallout 3 and did research. Otherwise, if I thought you didn't, I wouldn't have bothered to have this discussion with you. But that's not the point, back to the main discussion.

And maybe I did pick a bad example; You did bring the quest into an interesting light for me, but I still didn't think it was as properly executed as it was in "Those." "Those" was in it's own little world that didn't require the support of the main story. "Can You Find it in Your Heart" needed that support, which I thought crippled it in story telling. In "Those," a boy needs some help because of fire breathing ants which were made by a crazy scientist. That's all you needed. It was all told in a neat little story. In "Can You Find it in Your Heart," it required much more back story that wasn't as tight as it was in "Those." I guess you could make the argument that it give the sense that much more connected, therefore alive. And you know what? I'd be fine with that answer. But to me, the story wasn't as nicely and clearly told as it did in "Those."

Now, there were a few examples of other quests that I agree were interesting, like the casinos and the Vaults. And the fight for Goodsprings? Not the most interesting, but it wasn't bad. However there were other quests that I just don't agree with you on. The quests at Camp McCarran consisted of "Go here, kill this guy, go there, kill that guy, go there, kill another guy." Fine, I know that these were the Fiends that we're talking about, the group of raiders that were crippling the NCR, thus showing how much of a wreck the NCR has become. But that's pretty much all there was to it. Other than that back story, it was just a simple "fetch" [small](I say this because you had to fetch the heads)[/small] quest. The Khan quests? Same problem. Hell, the rest of the quests suffered that problem.

Now, the Wasteland Survival Guide wasn't the best example, I admit, but there's a few things I feel as if I should point out: Firstly, the reason why Moira didn't think of purifying the water, yet, was more of a "learn to crawl before you could run," method. You can't just try to study something so nearly impossible while you have a whole wasteland trying to kill you. You have to learn how to survive before you could tackle something that huge. At least until then, she studied how to deal with radiation and where to get food and medical supplies. Secondly, I understand Moira was annoying [small](not to me, but to everyone else, I understand how she could get on one's nerves)[/small], but at least she had more character and personality than nearly any of the characters you would find in New Vegas [small](with the exception of the companions, of course)[/small].

Filtering radiation through water isn't difficult, it requires soem buckets, rocks, dirt and cloth, all things which can be found in the Capital Wasteland.

Seriously, "nearly any character...except for comapanions? What about Chief Hanlon, Marcus, Col. Moore, President Kimball, Gen. Oliver, Col. Hsu, caesar, Joshua Graham, Daniel, Julie Farkas, Papa Khan, Regis, Mr House, Benny, Legate Lanius, Doctor Henry, Orion Moreno, Father Elijah, McNamara, Dean Domino, Dog/God, Christine, Frederick Sinclair et cetera.

All characters with interesting stories and opinions on the current events happening in the Mojave and the Fallout universe.

And we can't forget the most mysterious character...Ulysses.

The characters I put in bold are DLC characters who I will not discuss [small](with the exception of Joshua Graham, Father Elijah, and Ulysses, because they were mentioned in the base game)[/small].

Chief Hanlon? The guy who made false field reports? Okay, I agree, he was interesting to talk to, but he was gone ten minutes after I first met him [small](by gone I mean... well, bang)[/small].

Marcus? I only found him memorable because of Fallout 2, nothing more.

Col. Moore? I saw her as nothing more than a hard-ass colonel, very generic.

President Kimbal? When did you actually see him? I only saw him when he was making that speech and was trying to prevent his assassination. I saw no character in that.

Gen. Oliver? Reminded me of Patton, minus the personality. That was probably because of the laughably bad performance of the voice actor, though.

Col. Hsu? Other than caring for his soldiers, I thought was your standard military officer, just as generic as Moore.

Caesar? Okay, I'm not going to deny it, I loved Caesar. I thought he was bursting with personality and character and was the coolest guy in the game. I still disagreed with his politics, but that does not make him a bad character.

Joshua Graham? Okay, I thought the lore of the Burned Man was an interesting one. He had a really cool back story and he really seemed to have an influence on the Legion.

Julie Farkas? I thought she was incredibly boring. At least Moira Brown had personality to her, Julie Farkas sounded like she was bored out of her god damn mind whenever she talked.

Papa Khan? I admit, he had some character to him. He seemed much more calm compared to the rest of the Khans, which made me much more interested in him. He was no Caesar, but he was worth talking to.

Regis? You mean that one Khan that followed Benny when he shot you? Because that's all I remember of him.

Mr. House? I guess he was pretty cool but he seemed too much like the Illusive Man from Mass Effect 2 and Andrew Ryan from Bioshock. Idealistic but mysterious. Interesting, but in no way original, I've seen this character too many times before.

Benny? He was a little bastard, but he still had some cool stories behind him. I liked how he would go behind House's back with creating Yes Man, but that's all I liked about him... and that he was voiced by Matthew Perry, but I digress.

Legate Lanius? He suffered the same fate as President Kimball: You barely saw any of him so you can barely judge him.

Doctor Henry? Okay, pretty cool, too, but he had some flaws. I liked that he showed some sympathy for the Nightkins, but since they were mutants and he was a former Enclave member, where did all of his care for these creatures come from? He was raised to hate mutants, why is he liking them all of a sudden?

Orion Moreno? Just another former Enclave member, but lacking as much story as Henry.

Father Elijah? I saw him just like Joshua Graham: A mysterious entity that you never saw buy wished you did [small](with the exception of DLC of coures)[/small].

McNamara? I thought he was contradicting. He wouldn't accept Veronica's proof or claims that the Brotherhood needed to evolve but he would side with the NCR? What?

Ulysses? Again, another mysterious character. I can't say much about him.

I will admit, there were some really cool characters in New Vegas, but there were still so many boring ones, too, that overwhelmed them.

And where did you get the idea that that was the method for filtering out radiation? I may not know much about that, but I know it has to be more complex than that!

Feel and gameplay mechanics, however, I can't side with you on that. With the exception of iron-sights, the gameplay was exactly the same as it was in Fallout 3. Same controls, same handling, same VATS, everything. That was what the guy I quoted earlier was complaining about, along with other things.

Yes, iron sights were new, along with...

*Special VATS melee attacks
*Special Unarmed attacks that can be learned
*Different unarmed attacks
*Survival - and everything that stems from that
*The companion wheel
*The fusion of small/big guns
*New speech system that isn't luck based
*Taking normal damage in VATS instead of only 10%
*Perks every other level
*Traits
*Weapon mods
*Companion perks
*The ability to become homosexual
*Nerve
*The reputation system
*Gambling
*Hardcore mode
*New animations
*Changing the character's age (useless, but a nice addition)
*Challenges
*Medical implants
*Unique weapons now have unique designs
*Damage Threshold
*Night vision

Don't tell me all of that actually made gameplay feel different. Sure, maybe companion wheels and perks and traits changed things up a little bit, hardcore mode did add a challenge or two, and a none luck based speech system was quite noticeable. But did that really affect the way you held and fired a gun? Sure, all of that was all nice and good, but it barely had an affect on the over all gameplay.

 

[back pain]

SHOGUN 2: TOTAL WAR (when compared to EMPIRE: TOTAL WAR)
This is more of a personal disappointment then a objective one. The lack of the global scale that empire had, never noticed how great it was to have such a expansive campaign map that allowed me to fight wars on multiple different fronts spanning several continents until I started playing Shogun 2. This is essentially the only reason I still play Empire.

BIOSHOCK 2
Has the exact opposite problems Dragon age 2 had (will discuss these later), too similar to the first game considering it's longer development cycle. It's got better game-play then the original but in my opinion the game-play wasn't that spectacular to begin with. The setting is kinda stale because it no longer has the originality that made the first one so great. The plot was just average and lacked the fantastic twists and turns the original had. Multiplayer was fun but not good enough to compete with the likes of COD or even Uncharted 2.

FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS
Significantly better game-play than the original but the world map doesn't mesh together all that well, its way to broken up by impassible obstacles and, especially at the beginning, is too restrictive. The story fails to give the player any real motivation, lacks proper pacing, and ends way to abruptly. lack of any really long faction quest chains was also disappointing given the relative importance of the differing factions in this game, but Fallout 3 had this problem as well. Also, as others have mentioned the game was almost unplayable due to bugs.

DRAGON AGE 2
A good game in it's one right but it committed the gaming industry's cardinal sin of not being better then it's predecessor. It had had signification better gameplay then origins (I played both games on PC), in Dragon Age 2 the combat is essentially origin's combat on a drug cocktail consisting of crack cocaine, jet fuel, and pixie sticks, (although the animations were a bit to flashy for some). Dragon age 2 also had the best conversation system I have ever seen an RPG. Characters, writing, and voice acting were also top notch but this a Bioware game so they get no points for that. Unfortunately the game was so rushed that it seemed liked it was patched together the night before release, eventually the game to repetitive due to environment recycling. Had Bioware given the game a proper development time. It is my opinion that had Bioware not decided to make so many changes in the small amount of time given, the game would have been just as "bad' but with different problems.

 

[Sir Boss]

Halo 2, a thousand times Halo 2
It god rid of the things I liked about combat evolved, (health system, 60 round AR) and put in more of the stuff i hated from it (Master Chief, Flood) and put in new things for me to hate (brutes, the prophets, the grave mind) over all, i just hated it.

 

[Icaruss]

Kotor 2 not that its a bad game by any means.I played it to death and enjoyed it a lot.Its just not as good as the orginal.It felt a bit rushed like they did't have time to finish a lot of little things.Which i blame on lucas arts.