I'm quite enjoying Twilight Princess at the moment, after the tedious hour+ at the start mind you. Windwaker was disappointing, but that isn't to say I didn't enjoy it at times. Mind you, I can't remember most of it now, so it couldn't have been that good Most disappointing recently is probably Bioshock and it appears I'm not alone. Decent shooter, but nothing more. The most disappointing for me are usually sequels that don't live up to their predecessors which hold a fond spot in my memory, possibly because they're simply not as good, or maybe because I think that the games before were better than they were: Syndicate Wars, C&C Generals, TA Kingdoms stand out. I was slightly disappointed by Oblivion, which is odd because its still one the best games of recent years in my books, but it never managed to suck me in quite the way Morrowind did. I think I've only put around 150 hours in to it in total
So with most people (including myself) saying Bioshock was OK but not brilliant why wasn't any of the reviews reflective of this? Everyone I read praised it to high heaven & gave it 95%+ Not one said 'yeah its good but nothing special' at least that would have been honest.
hitman contracts was a dissapointment for me. after waiting such a long time for this game and then to get something that has levels from previous games? not to mention that it didn't really feature anything new.
Halo 3, Halo 2, GTA IV, Mass Effect annnd Bioshock. I'm not hard to please, I don't think, I just get disappointed when these games manage to fail to descend from the heavens and solve all the worlds problems, as the hype for them would have you believe.
Problem with the hype machine, effects game reviewers too, they wanted it to be the best game since sliced bread so gloss over it's flaws. It's the reason why games like GTA and Halo get higher scores than they should. It did have very little replayability really, I played it once on medium, missed a couple of tonics and recorders, can't really be bothered to go back and play it on hard and collect everything. I did enjoy my playthrough of it a lot, but as far as FPS/RPGs go, it's quite simplistic, it's very linear, no alternative way of doing things like in Deus Ex. The only real choice you have is to explore everything or not, and to harvest the little sisters or save them, but it has very little effect on playing the game. However I wasn't that disappointed with the game because I knew it would be like that when I bought it, but there was always the voice at the back of my mind saying that this was a wasted potential for something incredible. But there were a couple of things I feel the videos exaggerated, like being able to "customise" your weapons and having a big underwater city to explore freely, a lot of the plasmids and tonics were also pretty useless.
I think I disagree on almost every point there. There's no vehicles - big whoop, most vehicle-based FPS' suck ass, with the vehicles being thrown in for the sake of it, and having no real meaning. The damage on the higher settings was quite harsh, but that's what made it more of a challenge. The character-run animation wasn't great, but it's better than a lot of games. I thought the graphics kicked ass, but I quite enjoy that gritty sort of thing. As for being reaction-based - fine. For me it makes it more exciting than being able to predict exactly what's happening in a scene. One thing I think everyone will agree on is the profile crap. Why you can't just have it stored online somewhere is utterly beyond me.
I must disagree krikkit sorry! (just to spark a debate with you ) I think vehicles in a game are fine! look at the battlefield series! They have been relatively balanced and offer alternatives to the gameplay. Now yes 2142 had its bugs but that didnt take away from the fact that it was still a very enjoyable game that offered fun online action! Also you can actually survive a few hits to turn the situation around in your favour if your able to - dying instantly is a major drawback for me because the graphics are such that players can almost blend right into their environments with great difficulty in knowing where your getting shot at. As for predicting gameplay, i do think the game should open up an element of more skill and other options rather than who can shoot who the fastest. The aiming of the weapons is really horrible and difficult I find. I did get decent at the game but it really didnt give me anything to hook myself in fully and become addicted. I dont know, it just all seemed like it involved too much mindless trigger happy shooting with no structure! It had no major flaws but i found its actual mechanics to be something thats really not my cup of tea and i thoroughly enjoy online fps games! It was good but I cannot say it was anything more than that personally! As for GTA 4, it is the first iv played since the original way back on the pc and im really enjoying it at the moment. Iv put a fair amount of time in and im about 35% completed. I have no real issues with it as of yet but im concerned its simply too big for me to complete it fully before i lose interest! Time will tell! Niiiiiko bellic!
Hmm... Fair enough. I think we must enjoy different things in games. I have to say, I didn't exclude it all from being good. BF2 was a good one, BF2142 was spoilt with the walkers, which were the first thing that everyone ran for at the start of a round... Did you not find the plot of CoD4 interesting? I thought it was a brilliant story which really sucked me in, even though some of the gameplay was a bit lacking sometimes ( Spoiler that bit at the end of the Chernobyl section, for example, was far far too difficult imho ).
Story was very good I must say! That was one of the positive sides to it i found. I guess its down to personal prefference - i think iv become too accustomed to battlefields style of play - 2142 i found it to be more fun than bf2, i know it sounds crazy. The walkers at first seem difficult to take down but i played that game so much i rarely had a problem with them. I only ever got into trouble when i was in open ground but if your near buildings you simply keep running around them. The vehicles were all designed with weak spots, the tiger tanks/hover tanks/walkers were all designed to go down in two hits and thats not too difficult if you make a run for the rorsch turrets at the right moment. The vehicles had their downsides too, especially the walker with its lack of vision of the surrounding area at times so its quite easy to avoid it! I cant wait for Left4dead as that looks good, the new battlefield too so hopefully they will be good shooters!
I don't think every game needs vehicles though, there's no point putting vehicles in there if they're not done right, it just feels tacked on and rubbish, and I don't think it would have fitted CoD very well. The only vehicle bits that were in there (admittedly you had no control of the vehicle) were the worst bits IMO.
The only good vehicle bit was when you're the gunner in the AC-130 (Death From Above) I replayed that mission so many times it became ridiculous!
Yeah that was awesome, the one where you were in a helicopter as the gunner was annoying on higher difficulties 'cos you could get killed by things before you could see them.
That was a seriously fun bit. It shouldn't be so fun indiscriminately killing the enemy when they can't even see you, but I loved it to bits.
mine are: Doom 3 Halo 2 & 3 Pro Street Bioshock Condemned 1&2 F.E.A.R FF 7 Crysis killzone - still an execellent game but not as great as the hype said
