Mass Effect 1 was BioWare's first attempt at having direct combat. Everything else they did before was point and click auto attack. The engine was rather clunky and awkward. But if you're judging what they made after that just based on that.... you are sorely missing out because the improved engines used in Mass Effect 2 and 3, Dragon Age II, and Dragon Age: Inquisition don't have any of the flaws that made things awkward in Mass Effect 1. The guns in Mass Effect 2 and 3 felt similar to the ones you use in Fallout 4. Much more streamlined and comfortable than the ungainly ones in ME1.
Which critically acclaimed games do you dislike?
- Thread starter Spirit
- Start date
1. Castlevania/All Metroids. I honestly find them as boring as watching paint dry to play and even more tedious. The only way I was ever able to enjoy either was watching my elder brother play them and only then with a really good book too.
2. Star Craft. This is online tedium micromanaging that is only a step below Animal Crossing.
3. Animal Crossing. Seriously, like are you guys so successful at your real daily life that you feel equipped for a second one. DO you really enjoy the tedium busy work of real life enough to need more of it? SUCH FAFFING.
4. Diablo One: It looks so bad and it's so not fun.
5. World of Warcraft/many other acclaimed MMOs. I've ranted about this before and it is a lot like Animal Crossing, but these style of games and this game in particular are like having a part-time job including the attempts to climb the corporate ladder, over-spending on your attire, and doing mind numbing drone work. Just because I look like an elf witch doesn't mean that fetching 20 useless objects is fantasy...I've done that **** before in my real life.
6. Uncharted. Seriously, I want to sit in on the writing meetings for these games. Like the part where they were like "How are we going to get this nazi submarine on top of a waterfall for Drake to dig around in?" "I know, we'll say it really stormed badly." "BRILLIANT. That sounds completely like it could happen." Did nobody raise their hand and say "Hey, like...I know we need to get Drake away from this other guy so that he can be betrayed and this start the plot rolling...but why do we even need a submarine on top of a waterfall...why does there need to even be a waterfall?" The gameplay itself is underwhelming, the characters have less effort put into them than the Mummy movies did. "So like...you know Indiana Jones?" "Yeah, I love that character". "What if...we called him Drake."
2. Star Craft. This is online tedium micromanaging that is only a step below Animal Crossing.
3. Animal Crossing. Seriously, like are you guys so successful at your real daily life that you feel equipped for a second one. DO you really enjoy the tedium busy work of real life enough to need more of it? SUCH FAFFING.
4. Diablo One: It looks so bad and it's so not fun.
5. World of Warcraft/many other acclaimed MMOs. I've ranted about this before and it is a lot like Animal Crossing, but these style of games and this game in particular are like having a part-time job including the attempts to climb the corporate ladder, over-spending on your attire, and doing mind numbing drone work. Just because I look like an elf witch doesn't mean that fetching 20 useless objects is fantasy...I've done that **** before in my real life.
6. Uncharted. Seriously, I want to sit in on the writing meetings for these games. Like the part where they were like "How are we going to get this nazi submarine on top of a waterfall for Drake to dig around in?" "I know, we'll say it really stormed badly." "BRILLIANT. That sounds completely like it could happen." Did nobody raise their hand and say "Hey, like...I know we need to get Drake away from this other guy so that he can be betrayed and this start the plot rolling...but why do we even need a submarine on top of a waterfall...why does there need to even be a waterfall?" The gameplay itself is underwhelming, the characters have less effort put into them than the Mummy movies did. "So like...you know Indiana Jones?" "Yeah, I love that character". "What if...we called him Drake."
Fallout 4 . . . but most of the public agree (metacritic critic vs public scores prove that)
Wind Waker - A very good game but not as amazing as the critics say it is. It's the worst TV Single Link (Four Swords crap excluded) game released since 1986.
Sonic the Hedgehog 1-3 - I never liked the whole get hit once and lose all of your rings mechanic. Also not caping the number of rings so only the ones and 10's digits count. As in 100 rings equal zero rings. Rings even existing go against the race to the finish idea that the Sonic games tried to portray. Games that attempted to be anti Super Mario and failed at it.
Wind Waker - A very good game but not as amazing as the critics say it is. It's the worst TV Single Link (Four Swords crap excluded) game released since 1986.
Sonic the Hedgehog 1-3 - I never liked the whole get hit once and lose all of your rings mechanic. Also not caping the number of rings so only the ones and 10's digits count. As in 100 rings equal zero rings. Rings even existing go against the race to the finish idea that the Sonic games tried to portray. Games that attempted to be anti Super Mario and failed at it.
That's just their devemopment company saying, how close to an Indiana Jones game can we make without Disney/Lucas taking us to court for IP theft and infringement.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2016
rockstar games
The first 2 Witchers
Bioshock 1
Fallout 3
Uncharted 3
The first 2 Witchers
Bioshock 1
Fallout 3
Uncharted 3
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2015
Now this is a tricky one. I can name tons of panned or unpopular games I like, but the opposite is hard, and the two that come to mind are more overrated then actually disliking.
Killzone 2 and 3: I don't dislike them, but I really feel like they took everything I liked about the first Killzone and removed it in favor of a more traditional FPS experience. I tend to prefer regenerating health, both due to my lack of skill with the genre and it saving time scouring for healthpacks, so that change wasn't a problem. But the multiple playable characters and approaches to levels was my favorite part of the original, and the sequels totally dropped what I consider the games most memorable aspect. As well as basically never mentioning most the cast again.
Lennus 2: The common sentiment is that Paladin's Quest was a weak game with a vastly superior sequel. But I really disagree. First off, the pacing is horribly repetitive and by the numbers. Start a chapter, collect X useless macguffins, loose macguffins and move on to the next chapter with it's own useless things to collect. I don't mind collection plots normally, but each chapter has it's own, and they do nothing.
This is in stark contrast to the first game; where the collectible items all have a gameplay use, finding them is exciting both for plot and combat reasons, and
Not to mention the fact that the game is not based around collecting them. It's part of it, but the plot moves independently. Lennus 2 feels like a item hunt for most the game. I should note that I have yet to finish the game, and was near the end of the second to last chapter when I stopped. So I can't say how the finale wraps it up and I hope the pacing will improve. Honestly it feels like it's trying to be Terranigma and failing. They had a similar start and collection aspects, but Terranigma does it better in every way. Considering both were from Enix at the same time, I really wonder if there was some cross-pollination between the teams.
But pacing aside, the games cast is far more "conventional" as well. In the original game, most of the recruiteble party members were significantly inhuman. Even the standard "human" race of the planet sometimes sported alien features. There were in fact two perfect Earth-style humans in the cast, and were in fact assumed to be unusual hybrids because of it.
. As opposed to Lennus 2, where the party is primarily human, with the occasional alien character, mostly limited to the opening chapter. The world design isn't quite as creative either. The graphics are very pretty and there's some cool architecture, and collecting giant insect eggs to grow a house was awesome, but besides that it just felt like it was playing it safe compared to the original game which clearly set out to create a setting as unique and alien as possible.
I don't dislike Lennus 2, however as a followup to what was one of my favorite games when I was little, I found it very disapointing, and particularly since it's generally so much better received then the original. I've enjoyed playing it, the battle system and gameplay is probably tuned up from the original, it's honestly been so long I don't remember, but it comes at the cost of sacrificing much of the game's creativity and some very poor pacing and story structure which I don't consider worth it.
Killzone 2 and 3: I don't dislike them, but I really feel like they took everything I liked about the first Killzone and removed it in favor of a more traditional FPS experience. I tend to prefer regenerating health, both due to my lack of skill with the genre and it saving time scouring for healthpacks, so that change wasn't a problem. But the multiple playable characters and approaches to levels was my favorite part of the original, and the sequels totally dropped what I consider the games most memorable aspect. As well as basically never mentioning most the cast again.
Lennus 2: The common sentiment is that Paladin's Quest was a weak game with a vastly superior sequel. But I really disagree. First off, the pacing is horribly repetitive and by the numbers. Start a chapter, collect X useless macguffins, loose macguffins and move on to the next chapter with it's own useless things to collect. I don't mind collection plots normally, but each chapter has it's own, and they do nothing.
This is in stark contrast to the first game; where the collectible items all have a gameplay use, finding them is exciting both for plot and combat reasons, and
When you lose them towards the end, it's not just the characters losing a story item; you become weaker in battle and feel the loss personally.
But pacing aside, the games cast is far more "conventional" as well. In the original game, most of the recruiteble party members were significantly inhuman. Even the standard "human" race of the planet sometimes sported alien features. There were in fact two perfect Earth-style humans in the cast, and were in fact assumed to be unusual hybrids because of it.
And they were actually semi-divine aliens
I don't dislike Lennus 2, however as a followup to what was one of my favorite games when I was little, I found it very disapointing, and particularly since it's generally so much better received then the original. I've enjoyed playing it, the battle system and gameplay is probably tuned up from the original, it's honestly been so long I don't remember, but it comes at the cost of sacrificing much of the game's creativity and some very poor pacing and story structure which I don't consider worth it.
Cfrock
Keep it strong
Half-Life 2
It's a straight up bad game. The only thing I like in it is the sound design. Everything else is straight up bad. Not just over-rated or disappointing, bad. Half-Life 2 is not a god-tier game, it is not a great game, it's not even a good game. It is a bad game.
Terrible level and game design, terrible shooter mechanics, the whole 'they're not cut-scenes, they're just you in the world experiencing things realistically' is a stupid design choice that strips the story of any engagement or excitement. It's terrible on every level, bar the sound. The sound is nice.
The Episodes are even worse, and yes, I played it when it came out.
The Last of Us
The story in this was great. Should have been a movie. Naughty Dog clearly wanted to make a movie, not a video game. The actual gameplay was the most lazy, derivative thing I've played in years. None of the mechanics were unique, none of them had any kind of individual twist to separate them from other third-person action titles. It was copy/paste game design at its absolute worst, just taking mechanics from various other popular games and pasting them in with no care for whether they were fun or interesting. It is such a bland, uninteresting game that fails to rise above 'meh'.
The story was good, though, and it was well presented. As I said, Naughty Dog clearly had a story they wanted to tell, not a game they wanted to make. All of their effort went into the story and none went into the gameplay. So, as a story, it's pretty good. As a game, it's a shambles.
People who want to make movies should not be making games. They are not the same thing, and making a game for the purpose of telling a story as your main priority will ensure the game is not good.
It's a straight up bad game. The only thing I like in it is the sound design. Everything else is straight up bad. Not just over-rated or disappointing, bad. Half-Life 2 is not a god-tier game, it is not a great game, it's not even a good game. It is a bad game.
Terrible level and game design, terrible shooter mechanics, the whole 'they're not cut-scenes, they're just you in the world experiencing things realistically' is a stupid design choice that strips the story of any engagement or excitement. It's terrible on every level, bar the sound. The sound is nice.
The Episodes are even worse, and yes, I played it when it came out.
The Last of Us
The story in this was great. Should have been a movie. Naughty Dog clearly wanted to make a movie, not a video game. The actual gameplay was the most lazy, derivative thing I've played in years. None of the mechanics were unique, none of them had any kind of individual twist to separate them from other third-person action titles. It was copy/paste game design at its absolute worst, just taking mechanics from various other popular games and pasting them in with no care for whether they were fun or interesting. It is such a bland, uninteresting game that fails to rise above 'meh'.
The story was good, though, and it was well presented. As I said, Naughty Dog clearly had a story they wanted to tell, not a game they wanted to make. All of their effort went into the story and none went into the gameplay. So, as a story, it's pretty good. As a game, it's a shambles.
People who want to make movies should not be making games. They are not the same thing, and making a game for the purpose of telling a story as your main priority will ensure the game is not good.
Viral Maze
Verb the adjective noun
MGS (pretty much all)
Dragon Age: Inquisition
Every CoD except 2 and 4
Dragon Age: Inquisition
Every CoD except 2 and 4
I don't have a PS3 or PS4, so I've never played it. But I have watched Let's plays of it, both ones that just had cutscenes and those that had gameplay. Just from watching those, the gameplay didn't actually look that appealing, but the story.... the story was fantastic. So I think you're right, it'd have been way better as a movie. I guess I'm not missing anything from not getting it. It's literally the only Playstation exclusive game in the last two generations that has even remotely tempted me to get either Playstation.
I'll order them:
- League of Legends/DOTA2
- Street Fighters
- Dark Souls 1/2/Demon Souls
- Skyrim
- Halo
- Mass Effect series
- Pokemon series
- Call of Duty series
- Team Fortress 2
- Grand Theft Auto 3 up until 5. I liked 5
- Borderlands
- 95% of indie games
Last edited:
Ah Doom Dash has reminded me. I also think League of Legends and games of that nature are a complete waste of time.
I also don't like playing street fighter or Tekken for that matter though Tekken is playable for me. SF I just can't get on with at all. They probably aren't bad games. I like the characters from them but I just don't like playing them. It's got to be SoulCalibur for me if I'm going to be playing a fighter.
I also don't like playing street fighter or Tekken for that matter though Tekken is playable for me. SF I just can't get on with at all. They probably aren't bad games. I like the characters from them but I just don't like playing them. It's got to be SoulCalibur for me if I'm going to be playing a fighter.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Gender
- V2 White Male
Doesn't SoulCalibur fit into the same nature of League of Legends? Unless it's a fighter with an awesome story to tell, which would be quite odd for a fighter. Most people play fighters for the player vs player aspect though.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Gender
- V2 White Male
I thought he may have been referring to the competitive nature of both games as I too sometimes feel I'm just wasting my time playing yet another round of game x with no story and real sense of progression. Of course there's no harm in enjoyable time sinks, as long as they don't become time black holes.
Not really the same. In SC your skill improves and you become better at it and that has a big impact on your victories. There is also the custom character creator which is great fun I spent over 80 hours in that in SC5 and people loved my customs the nodded ones were even better.
In team games like LOL it doesn't matter how good you are, if your team is **** you will still lose. I don't see the point in that. It's the same with team shooters, I'm not really into that sort of thing.