So you bought the dud of the series.
- Thread starter Sronpop
- Start date
Recommended Videos
FFX-2. I loved FFx and thought that FFX-2 must clearly be pure awesome ... it was horse-faeces (sorry Julianking93).
Star Ocean 4.
I had played 2 when i was really young, then gotten 3 a few years ago for the PS2 and it was amazing, then got 1 & 2 for the psp and they were great.
Found out there was a 4 for the PS3 so i bought it without even thinking about it.
God do i wish i could return it. such a disappointing piece of crap.
I had played 2 when i was really young, then gotten 3 a few years ago for the PS2 and it was amazing, then got 1 & 2 for the psp and they were great.
Found out there was a 4 for the PS3 so i bought it without even thinking about it.
God do i wish i could return it. such a disappointing piece of crap.
I understand, you could ahve done what I did and subscribed to the mag for the console, I did that for a bit with the official xbox magazine, it was very helpful in determining what was worth buying.Sronpop said:Hey those were Pre-internet days, we didn't even have Dial-up. There was no way I could have known how bad Re-loaded was going to bePDizzle418 said:It still happens to this day. Just ask all the people who pre-ordered Too Human(sick burn).
Games were bought purely on hype for me back in those days. But no longer, I will not be burned again.
these days I don't usually hear about stuff pre release anyways so I just look at 4-5 reviews and kinda shoot for the middle.
I was just poking fun at ya though cause I have had a couple expieriences like that
another one that comes to mind is Shattered Horizon, granted I picked it up for 5 bucks after a free weekend, but I had a ton of fun with it on that free weekend, unfortunately no one else bought the game so it was me vs all the people that have been playing the game since the beginning and once all the noobs left I got torn to shreds.. I still miss playing that game, it had so much potential and it never fully realized itself. It was set in space but it never really used the amount of space it was given.
so much potential, wasted. I still don't regret paying the 5bucks, if only to support the devs
I have to consider myself very lucky, I can't seem to recall myself having this problem. I'm sure I did, somewhere... but it doesn't seem to be on my mind. So it must have traumatized me into a small bout of amnesia in regards to it.
If I ever do remember it, I'll post it.
Mass Effect came before Mass Effect 2, so you would want to say the combat was vastly improved in Mass Effect 2. Not really horrible in comparison. Also there are people that would argue otherwise, which just needs to be said.
If I ever do remember it, I'll post it.
... that doesn't make sense, to me.Vrach said:
Mass Effect came before Mass Effect 2, so you would want to say the combat was vastly improved in Mass Effect 2. Not really horrible in comparison. Also there are people that would argue otherwise, which just needs to be said.
All my friends were harping on about the Final Fantasy series, so I decided to pick up the most recent one at the time. That being Final Fantasy X-2.
I usually don't buy games by namesake, but the closest one to the 'worst in the series' I paid for would probably be Fable 2. I liked that game, although it paled in comparrison to the first. Then again, thats one game in what's so far just 2 games...probably doesn't count.
I also played and purchased Silent Hill 4 as my first in the Silent Hill Series, which at that point was regarded as worst. Again though I don't know if that counts, because I really enjoyed that game and didn't consider it a 'dud' at all.
I guess my ultimate answer would be that I haven't bought a game for legacy and only got the dud, I tend to rent first if I'm unsure, and all times I haven't I've gotten lucky and got at least a somewhat worthy sequal.
I also played and purchased Silent Hill 4 as my first in the Silent Hill Series, which at that point was regarded as worst. Again though I don't know if that counts, because I really enjoyed that game and didn't consider it a 'dud' at all.
I guess my ultimate answer would be that I haven't bought a game for legacy and only got the dud, I tend to rent first if I'm unsure, and all times I haven't I've gotten lucky and got at least a somewhat worthy sequal.
He's got a point about the PC port controls though, unlike Mass Effect 2 the first game took awhile to get onto the PC after the 360. The controls weren't that bad but I can see why someone would dislike it, Mass Effect 2 runs much better due to it being made in junction with the 360 version.Mr. Grey said:
There are 2 contenders here, Devil May Cry 2... christ was that a bad game, just really, christ. Secondly, MGS 2, things could only get better after that one really
I suppose I did somewhat argue that... didn't intend to, but ended up doing so.Blind Sight said:
The controls are actually fine and played well for me in the first, there hasn't been a single problem in its regards that I haven't quickly adapted to. Then again, that's just me. I've always been that way and I played Mass Effect on the PC - though I had completed it on the Xbox 360 at first, but wanted to swap platforms - in anticipation for Mass Effect 2, which would make me somewhat biased. Just as he is due to which he played first and became accustomed to first. It's really what game you played first scenario, but regardless... for him it would be that they were vastly improved in Mass Effect 2. Which I will concede to, they were... but the other aspects weren't.
My favorite example is that you always knew when an ambush was coming, which really defeats the purpose of an ambush. The controls were perfect, it was really everything surrounding it that I took issue with. The combat is poorer for it, but that doesn't mean I can't push through it.
If I played the first one first, I'd have said second was a vast improvement. Sadly, as I had played the second one first, I found the first's combat to be... horrible in comparison. Comparing isn't a word you can only use when comparing progressively upwardsMr. Grey said:
Anyway, yeah there are people that would argue otherwise, like with any argument... which makes it a bit of a useless statement unless it's your way of saying you would argue that way or unless I said it was a fact and not simply my experience... which I didn't
I simply found the game to be choppy (obviously not due to computer specs if I could run the next, improved part flawlessly), the stick-to-wall to work worse and kinda fall out of covers where that shouldn't be happening, I found the "you must level a weapon before being able to put a bullet where your crosshair is" silly when using a sniper rifle and zooming in, the weapon modifications seemed unnecessary... etc. The combat in the second part just felt a lot more natural and simple to me, though again, of course, that was just my experience
Halo 3 was my example. It was by no means bad, I still enjoyed the atmosphere and music and gameplay that it delivered and as a plot it at least gave a good epic sendoff, even if it was kind of rushed. Also the multiplayer, forge and theatre were awesome.
But, when all that's said and done, it was still the weakest. Despite the nifty features the campaign itself was very short and felt kind of rushed, the Arbiter was pushed into a sidekick role and the primary focus on multiplayer didn't help me much because I lack Xbox Live.
So while to me it is still essentially a good game, it just comes quite weak compared to the bars set by Halo: Combat evolved and Halo 2. A notable phenomenon in Halo is that in Halo 1, the campaign was awesome and the multiplayer was kinda 'meh', then in Halo 2 both campaign and multiplayer were superb, then in Halo 3 the campaign was 'meh' and the multiplayer superb.
So yeah with the exception of Halo 2 I tend to think the series has problems keeping the two in balance and in the end went off to please the multiplayer crowd and although that's 'good for them' for me without Xbox live it was a bit of a betrayal.
But, when all that's said and done, it was still the weakest. Despite the nifty features the campaign itself was very short and felt kind of rushed, the Arbiter was pushed into a sidekick role and the primary focus on multiplayer didn't help me much because I lack Xbox Live.
So while to me it is still essentially a good game, it just comes quite weak compared to the bars set by Halo: Combat evolved and Halo 2. A notable phenomenon in Halo is that in Halo 1, the campaign was awesome and the multiplayer was kinda 'meh', then in Halo 2 both campaign and multiplayer were superb, then in Halo 3 the campaign was 'meh' and the multiplayer superb.
So yeah with the exception of Halo 2 I tend to think the series has problems keeping the two in balance and in the end went off to please the multiplayer crowd and although that's 'good for them' for me without Xbox live it was a bit of a betrayal.
Eh, just my train of thought. "Horrible by comparison" just doesn't seem to work for me. Again, I'm weird like that. I will concede the point, however.Vrach said:If I played the first one first, I'd have said second was a vast improvement. Sadly, as I had played the second one first, I found the first's combat to be... horrible in comparison. Comparing isn't a word you can only use when comparing progressively upwardsMr. Grey said:
Anyway, yeah there are people that would argue otherwise, like with any argument... which makes it a bit of a useless statement unless it's your way of saying you would argue that way or unless I said it was a fact and not simply my experience... which I didn't
I simply found the game to be choppy (obviously not due to computer specs if I could run the next, improved part flawlessly), the stick-to-wall to work worse and kinda fall out of covers where that shouldn't be happening, I found the "you must level a weapon before being able to put a bullet where your crosshair is" silly when using a sniper rifle and zooming in, the weapon modifications seemed unnecessary... etc. The combat in the second part just felt a lot more natural and simple to me, though again, of course, that was just my experience
Just needed to be said, like say if there was a wombat right behind you. That sucker will feck you up, they're the masters of subterfuge and put ninjas to shame. Wouldn't you want that needed to be said? Irrelevant! I know, it's just one of those things to cover so someone else doesn't go crazy about it. It could happen. That wombat could be right behind you, right now. But don't look! You'll only anger it.
I've never had a choppy problem, nor a stick-to-the wall or fell out of cover. As I said in another post, though, I am very adaptable to these things for some reason. Not entirely sure why. And what do you mean by leveling the weapon? You mean by skills? By putting points into what you want? Like how an RPG works? Mass Effect was more of an RPG than Mass Effect 2 was so I can understand your reasoning. In Mass Effect 2 they really cut back on that, which I found to be disappointing... but that's my opinion and probably where we disagree. I'm sure you enjoy RPGs, but I can understand why you felt estranged in Mass Effect in comparison to Mass Effect 2.
Your complaints are legitimate. I rescind my comment, save for when it didn't make sense to me. Then again, I have been up for over twenty four hours... this always happens when I do this. Hehe.
Don't get me wrong, I love RPGs and RPG aspects. Possibly it just felt unnecessary and out of place because I played ME2 first so I got used to them just not being there. But mostly it was because it was... a sniper rifle. I mean, if you point that sucker at something that's 10 feet away from you, it's kinda ridiculous that it misses the target. I'm all for shots from the hip missing more the less you're trained or even if you're aiming down the iron sights, but snipers are kind of a special case at short range. If I was shooting a-la-Modern Warfare sniper mission from a kilometer away, fine, but this just felt silly.Mr. Grey said:
I might give the game another go. I suppose I mostly didn't enjoy it and couldn't get into it cause I wanted just more of ME2 and instead went into a game that ME2 actually built on, which obviously wasn't gonna work with that mindset. Oh also, I found it annoying (100% logical, but still annoying) that I couldn't import my character from ME2 to ME1 x.x . Yes, I know the notion is ridiculous, but I didn't want weapons, stats or stuff like that just wanted to play with the same face and making it from scratch always sent me bonkers for just missing one facial line being different or something >.<
Your mercenary wombat made his point though. I promised it to try the game once more if he'd spare my AC unit - heartless little bastard was ready to let me slowly boil to death. Perhaps look for a mod that imports the facial features from ME2 to ME1 first, that might exist/work!
Oh! Yeah, the Sniper Rifle sucks early on. You'll have to get a million credits and unlock the Rich Achievement to buy the SPECTRE Sniper rifle or level to thirty or so before you see a good one of the manufactured variety and loot. Luckily, you can cheat your way to get that million credits. Or you can scour the map searching every planet, doing a lot of side-quests, etcetera -- so that you feel you earned it. It shouldn't be that hard so long as you sell a lot of useless junk you don't need and scour the maps on planets or on the system. The Mass Effect Wiki can help pinpoint that stuff out.Vrach said:
I hope you find it more enjoyable this time around and I'm sure there is a mod out there for the face impor-- wait, my wombat? I never sent any... OH MY GOD WHATHE--..... *Krrrsshhhhhhh*