The most disappointing game sequels Page 9

  • Page

    of 15 First / Last

  • Genji 20 Sep 2011 11:59:15 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Madder-Max wrote:
    I just think that generally, most people are a bit dim and wait to see which way the wind is blowing before stating an opinion which inevitably goes with the flow and isn't actually theirs as a result.

    I feel sorry for thoise people.

    /Went there. yes indeedy
    Charming. How do you tell the dim sheep from people who genuinely feel differently about a game than you?

    Or are they the same thing?
  • andytheadequate 20 Sep 2011 12:00:28 8,186 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    King_Edward wrote:
    So we've done Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2 and Resi 4. Are the haters ready to start spouting nonsense about GTA4 yet?


    No checkpoints and clunky combat in an otherwise great game. The Ballad of Gay Tony improved in every possible way over the main game, except the clunky combat.


    The first game wasn't a cover based shooter, because you never actually needed to use the cover (partly because it was shit). Try completing the game without ever using the cover system. It would practically be impossible because you are forced to rely on it. This is the very definition of a cover shooter.

    And Mass Effect 3 is meant to be more actiony than 2. I'm all for them improving the combat mechanics, but not at the expense of what makes ME interesting (the characters, story, conversation, choice and having a lot of interesting powers).
  • RedSparrows 20 Sep 2011 12:00:28 22,764 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Madder max is a RENEGADE. he so bwave
  • andytheadequate 20 Sep 2011 12:02:36 8,186 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    What about Halo ODST? After an interesting start it went downhill quite quickly. The last level was just tedious. I liked Halo 3 and Reach though. Also, creating an interesting mode (Firefight) then not including online matchmaking. What a genius idea; well worth the 40 they asked for it!
  • Genji 20 Sep 2011 12:03:54 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    "You only like/don't like it because you want to be cool" is a handy argument, in that it lets me safely disregard any future arguments from the person that uses it.
  • Fozzie_bear 20 Sep 2011 12:05:11 15,530 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Genji wrote:
    "You only like/don't like it because you want to be cool" is a handy argument, in that it lets me safely disregard any future arguments from the person that uses it.

    You'll only be ignoring them to try and look cool.

    Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!

  • OmniaVincitAmor 20 Sep 2011 12:08:20 1,521 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    My last opinion on mass effect. From the previews and teasers it does indeed seem they are going more actiony. Which means more mainstream, which means more money for EA. Which is where gaming is at now.

    Defeat is not getting knocked down, but refusing to get back up.

  • DFawkes 20 Sep 2011 12:12:33 22,984 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    andytheadequate wrote:

    What about Halo ODST? After an interesting start it went downhill quite quickly. The last level was just tedious. I liked Halo 3 and Reach though. Also, creating an interesting mode (Firefight) then not including online matchmaking. What a genius idea; well worth the 40 they asked for it!
    To be fair, they never ever asked for 40 for it, it has a lower RRP (30 I think?). That and it wasn't really a sequel. Though I loved it - easily my favourite campaign :)

    Oh for goodness sake, I've caught my scrotum in my zip again - Margaret Thatcher, 1986

  • Deleted user 20 September 2011 12:16:37
    Madder-Max wrote:


    I just think that generally, most people are a bit dim and wait to see which way the wind is blowing before stating an opinion which inevitably goes with the flow and isn't actually theirs as a result.

    I feel sorry for thoise people.

    /Went there. yes indeedy

    I don't think it's a bit dim but i do think that people get far too easy dragged into the hype of some games. I will literally never read a preview or developer diary or any of that shit for a game. I'll just pick something up if i like the sound of it from reviews or forum posts or if i played the prequel and enjoyed it.

    I don't go into any game with the attitude that "this is supposed to be a great game because for the past year people have been saying it will be" so i pick up on flaws much quicker and i'm far less forgiving. There are so many great titles out there now that i'm very quick to abandon games that are a bit shonky rather than forcing myself to play them because i'm meant to like them.
  • glo 20 Sep 2011 12:25:29 3,425 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Fable 2 was a disappointment imho. Far too easy and didn't address the criticisms and limitations of the original as a good sequel should.
  • bad09 20 Sep 2011 12:29:32 5,906 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    AcidSnake wrote:
    @bad09:
    It seems that way but 4 & 5 are quite different...5 is way more action oriented and the companion AI is idiotic at times...
    4 was still quite creepy, whilst 5 was CoD at certain points...
    4 had a better inventory system, weapon upgrade system, story and pacing...

    Honestly 5 felt as if someone tried to copy 4 and focusing on the wrong things...

    I dunno, I found 4 to be the same action orientated grindathon as 5. 5 actually had the better setting but yeah 4 had some more atmosphere. 4 had a nice creepy village but then that switched to those silly monks and that little dwarf dude, it went totally insane. I 've always thought 4 was a great tech demo that run out of steam after the village (but then I never finished it after jumping around on giant revolving statues - only finished 5 because I was playing on auto pilot and got to the end so easily).


    OmniaVincitAmor wrote:
    I do understand your view/disappointment at the shift from classic Resi to no.4 but the game itself was absolutely amazing and is still being copied today. 5 was just a crap identikit cash in with a different setting and a crap co op character. 4 was the epitome of survival horror - see the very first level.

    If you are unhappy that it was not classic Resi in corridors shooting zombies I see that but quality wise Resi 4 is without question one of the greatest ever.

    Well 0,1,2,3 & CV all play alike so I didn't really consider 5 a cheap cash in (although I was disappointed it carried on the RE4 gamestyle). The co-op certainly didn't hep atmosphere and did kill any horror (I still say she got rushed in at the last minute to dampen the racism claims).

    As for 4 being the epitome of survival horror, no not at all I would give that title to the original (after all it gave these horror adventure games the title of the survival horror genre!). The village was a tense sure but but nothing to do with that genre. RE4 is arcade action not survival horror.
  • andytheadequate 20 Sep 2011 12:36:12 8,186 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    DFawkes wrote:
    andytheadequate wrote:

    What about Halo ODST? After an interesting start it went downhill quite quickly. The last level was just tedious. I liked Halo 3 and Reach though. Also, creating an interesting mode (Firefight) then not including online matchmaking. What a genius idea; well worth the 40 they asked for it!
    To be fair, they never ever asked for 40 for it, it has a lower RRP (30 I think?). That and it wasn't really a sequel. Though I loved it - easily my favourite campaign :)


    The RRP was going to be lower, but they raised it to 40. Luckily I borrowed it off a friend so I didn't feel ripped off, but if I had paid full price for ti I' have been disappointed.
  • Genji 20 Sep 2011 12:37:42 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Fozzie_bear wrote:
    Genji wrote:
    "You only like/don't like it because you want to be cool" is a handy argument, in that it lets me safely disregard any future arguments from the person that uses it.

    You'll only be ignoring them to try and look cool.
    /clicks 'ignore'

    Wait... who said that?

    Seriously though, it's a silly argument to make, as is most speculation about why someone likes or doesn't like something. Plus, it's quite insulting.
  • OmniaVincitAmor 20 Sep 2011 12:41:08 1,521 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    bad09 wrote:
    AcidSnake wrote:
    @bad09:
    It seems that way but 4 & 5 are quite different...5 is way more action oriented and the companion AI is idiotic at times...
    4 was still quite creepy, whilst 5 was CoD at certain points...
    4 had a better inventory system, weapon upgrade system, story and pacing...

    Honestly 5 felt as if someone tried to copy 4 and focusing on the wrong things...
    I dunno, I found 4 to be the same action orientated grindathon as 5. 5 actually had the better setting but yeah 4 had some more atmosphere. 4 had a nice creepy village but then that switched to those silly monks and that little dwarf dude, it went totally insane. I 've always thought 4 was a great tech demo that run out of steam after the village (but then I never finished it after jumping around on giant revolving statues - only finished 5 because I was playing on auto pilot and got to the end so easily).


    OmniaVincitAmor wrote:
    I do understand your view/disappointment at the shift from classic Resi to no.4 but the game itself was absolutely amazing and is still being copied today. 5 was just a crap identikit cash in with a different setting and a crap co op character. 4 was the epitome of survival horror - see the very first level.

    If you are unhappy that it was not classic Resi in corridors shooting zombies I see that but quality wise Resi 4 is without question one of the greatest ever.
    Well 0,1,2,3 & CV all play alike so I didn't really consider 5 a cheap cash in (although I was disappointed it carried on the RE4 gamestyle). The co-op certainly didn't hep atmosphere and did kill any horror (I still say she got rushed in at the last minute to dampen the racism claims).

    As for 4 being the epitome of survival horror, no not at all I would give that title to the original (after all it gave these horror adventure games the title of the survival horror genre!). The village was a tense sure but but nothing to do with that genre. RE4 is arcade action not survival horror.
    This is going off thread but I never saw any of the Resi games as actual horror. If it wasn't for zombies and monsters its just a shooter. The only time I have ever jumped in a Resi game was the window. You say survival horror but for me 4 felt like you were actually surrounded and trying to survive. Early Resi was one zombie at a time etc etc. Great at the time but not horror.

    Now silent hill was horror.......



    Defeat is not getting knocked down, but refusing to get back up.

  • bad09 20 Sep 2011 12:48:20 5,906 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    OmniaVincitAmor wrote:

    This is going off thread but I never saw any of the Resi games as actual horror. If it wasn't for zombies and monsters its just a shooter. The only time I have ever jumped in a Resi game was the window. You say survival horror but for me 4 felt like you were actually surrounded and trying to survive. Early Resi was one zombie at a time etc etc. Great at the time but not horror.

    Now silent hill was horror.......




    Well I guess i depends on how easy you scare I suppose :)

    The survival part though traditionally is really about low resources/ammo, managing loot you scavange etc. I don't think I once worried about ammo in 4 so really didn't get that vibe, was too busy running and shooting to worry about what was behind a door unlike the old resi where I would be terrified of opening a door as I had no herbs and 5 rounds in the gun :(
  • zisssou 20 Sep 2011 12:51:51 604 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I thought this was for disappointing sequels and well mass effect 2 was a huge improvement over the first..

    I did find the combat not overly to my liking, but still it's not a disappointing sequel.
  • Genji 20 Sep 2011 12:53:58 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    zisssou wrote:
    I thought this was for disappointing sequels and well mass effect 2 was a huge improvement over the first..

    I did find the combat not overly to my liking, but still it's not a disappointing sequel.
    You're only saying that to be cool against all the people here who didn't like it.

    You unthinking, dimwitted clod.
  • zisssou 20 Sep 2011 12:56:15 604 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Genji wrote:
    zisssou wrote:
    I thought this was for disappointing sequels and well mass effect 2 was a huge improvement over the first..

    I did find the combat not overly to my liking, but still it's not a disappointing sequel.
    You're only saying that to be cool against all the people here who didn't like it.

    You unthinking, dimwitted clod.
    Pretty much.

    *back to COD*

    /joke
  • King_Edward 20 Sep 2011 12:56:51 11,454 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    andytheadequate wrote:
    The first game wasn't a cover based shooter, because you never actually needed to use the cover (partly because it was shit). Try completing the game without ever using the cover system. It would practically be impossible because you are forced to rely on it. This is the very definition of a cover shooter.
    You did need to use cover though. You still had to hide behind walls to avoid taking damage, you just couldn't velcro yourself to them. You could play ME2 that way quite easily.
  • Genji 20 Sep 2011 12:58:53 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    King_Edward wrote:
    andytheadequate wrote:
    The first game wasn't a cover based shooter, because you never actually needed to use the cover (partly because it was shit). Try completing the game without ever using the cover system. It would practically be impossible because you are forced to rely on it. This is the very definition of a cover shooter.
    You did need to use cover though. You still had to hide behind walls to avoid taking damage, you just couldn't velcro yourself to them. You could play ME2 that way quite easily.
    The first game was a shit cover-based shooter. It made up for it in other areas, but I don't know how anyone could seriously argue that the combat was better in ME1.
  • Madder-Max 20 Sep 2011 13:02:49 11,656 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Madder max is a RENEGADE. he so bwave

    Nope. just consistent

    99 problems and being ginger is one

  • Madder-Max 20 Sep 2011 13:03:52 11,656 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Genji wrote:
    King_Edward wrote:
    andytheadequate wrote:
    The first game wasn't a cover based shooter, because you never actually needed to use the cover (partly because it was shit). Try completing the game without ever using the cover system. It would practically be impossible because you are forced to rely on it. This is the very definition of a cover shooter.
    You did need to use cover though. You still had to hide behind walls to avoid taking damage, you just couldn't velcro yourself to them. You could play ME2 that way quite easily.
    The first game was a shit cover-based shooter. It made up for it in other areas, but I don't know how anyone could seriously argue that the combat was better in ME1.

    Combat was not the main point of ME1 which is why it is far better than 2

    99 problems and being ginger is one

  • Deleted user 20 September 2011 13:04:28
    Genji wrote: but I don't know how anyone could seriously argue that the combat was better in ME1.

    Because ME1 didn't strive to be something it wasn't. It felt like a boosted version of KoToR's (excellent) system, where ME2 felt like a dumbed-down Ghost Recon.
  • Physically_Insane 20 Sep 2011 13:04:34 8,876 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Ugh.
  • Genji 20 Sep 2011 13:12:24 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Rhythm wrote:
    Genji wrote: but I don't know how anyone could seriously argue that the combat was better in ME1.

    Because ME1 didn't strive to be something it wasn't. It felt like a boosted version of KoToR's (excellent) system, where ME2 felt like a dumbed-down Ghost Recon.
    Ok then. I haven't talked with many people who preferred the combat in the first one, but interesting to know! Even though I disagree, there's not much point in arguing, though. People like what they like!

    But you're still insane. :)
  • King_Edward 20 Sep 2011 13:13:05 11,454 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Absolutely insane.
  • bad09 20 Sep 2011 13:13:21 5,906 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Rhythm wrote:Because ME1 didn't strive to be something it wasn't. It felt like a boosted version of KoToR's (excellent) system, where ME2 felt like a dumbed-down Ghost Recon.

    Yeah I've not long finished KOTOR again and you can clearly see ME1 was it's spiritual successor. Also as some said here earlier instead of polishing the flaws in the excellent ideas like planet exploration they seemed to rip it all out and plump for a streamlined experience taking away from it's KOTOR roots.
  • Khosrau 20 Sep 2011 13:16:22 85 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    KOTOR did have exploration like ME 2, not like ME 1.

    There were no barren, boring, uninspired planets in KOTOR with nothing to do but drive a damn Mako.

    Edit @ Widge: spot on.
  • Widge Moderator 20 Sep 2011 13:16:27 13,614 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I hated KOTOR and felt like ME1's combat could be floaty and detached sometimes. Main story missions were good (if a little "here is long snaking mako road and now base at the end) but the side missions were bobbins. Also disguised how meat free the game was.

    ME2 actually gave you unique and interesting side missions and the locations were much more solidly realized. Better characters too.

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • glaeken 20 Sep 2011 13:41:27 11,177 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I actually liked the Mako stuff. It gave the game variety. Yes a lot of the Mako stuff was quite dull but there were also some great Mako missions. The one on Noveria along the road with all the turrets was great as it gave the remote base you were going to a context. It felt like you had gone on a real journey not just been dropped off straight in the level. I also really enjoyed it on Virmire, Feros and Ilos

    The parts of ME1 where you used the Mako on actual missions were great. Once you got the hang of the jump jets and the long range zoom there was some fun to be had.

    I admit there were issues with the Mako but nothing that would not have been easily fixed in the sequel. To throw those sections out completely was a stupid move.


    I guess a lot of the frustrations for me with ME2 was the things that were wrong with ME1 were easy to fix. The inventory could have easily been improved. The dull level design and identikit side mission locations given time could have been vastly improved. The Mako could have been made awesome. Instead they threw out all these.

    The first game has lots of ambition that it did not always succeed in whereas the second game decided to play it safe. Give me ambitious design over safe design any day.
  • Page

    of 15 First / Last

Log in or register to reply