What game is immensely popular that you just can't seem to get into?

I have to agree with The Witcher. I just couldn't get over the combat system. The Witcher 2, however, is one of the best games I have ever played. Anyone who doesn't like the first game, please don't let that discourage you from trying the sequel.

Also, Fallout: New Vegas. I liked Fallout 3, but for some reason NV just didn't jive well with me. I couldn't bring myself to finish it... everyone else I talk to seems to think this is the better of the two.

MMOs as a genre are not for me. I've tried WOW, Age of Conan, and SW:TOR. I hated them all. I am digging the hell out of Planetside, but I don't think that counts in the traditional MMO sense.

Anything Final Fantasy. I have tried a handful of them, from the NES all the way up to modern titles. They are very dull.
 
Agreed. I've never had any luck playing MMOs for very long. I probably played SWTOR for a couple of months and that's the longest I've been able to stand any of those games.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Turn based RPG's are worse. I just can't get over the whole "enemy sits and waits for my attack" thing.
Click to expand...
But that's not what is being represented at all. Rather, the idea is that time is frozen and you pick your move, and then your enemy picks his move during the next paused instant in time. In real life combat, you'd find it's pretty rare that both combatants are hacking away at each other. One combatant is on the offensive and the other is reacting/defending... and that goes back and forth. All turn based does is add a pause between those swings in the battle.

Now, I'm not trying to sell you on TB combat. It's definitely not for everyone. But it isn't any less realistic than a real-time combat system where players hack away at health bars.
 
Mass Effect, Skyrim/Oblivion, Fallout.

Basically anything where it asks you to make a choice like: a. do this. b. do that, c. go to hell. I get annoyed easily with those kind of games.
 
Skyrim. I just couldn't get into it at all, no one gave a single shit about what I did in that game. I don't know why they made the world so unreactive. Even in Morrowind the people acted better than in Skyrim. Oh I am a legatus or w/e in the Imperial Legion and the soldiers still tell me "Move along citizen" or BS like that. I will try to get into it again, but damn that really killed the immersion for me.
 
Viper87227 said:
I have to agree with The Witcher. I just couldn't get over the combat system. The Witcher 2, however, is one of the best games I have ever played. Anyone who doesn't like the first game, please don't let that discourage you from trying the sequel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I picked up TW2 for $7.50 or whatever on the Steam Winter Sale, and I've barely played it at all, but I can already tell the combat is way more engaging than the first game.
 
drako said:
But that's not what is being represented at all. Rather, the idea is that time is frozen and you pick your move, and then your enemy picks his move during the next paused instant in time. In real life combat, you'd find it's pretty rare that both combatants are hacking away at each other. One combatant is on the offensive and the other is reacting/defending... and that goes back and forth. All turn based does is add a pause between those swings in the battle.

Now, I'm not trying to sell you on TB combat. It's definitely not for everyone. But it isn't any less realistic than a real-time combat system where players hack away at health bars.
Click to expand...

Depends. If you're looking for a military battle simulation, the real-time firefights and cover mechanics of games like CoD and Battlefield are MUCH more realistic than the "game of chess" style that turn-based battle sims represent. It's not like when we stormed the beaches of Normandy, we reached the shore and fired and then said "OK guys, cease fire! Now it's the Germans' turn!" Both sides were attacking each other, even though one party was trying to defend the beach and the other was trying to advance their position.

Now I'm not saying that CoD is a realistic simulation of war by any means...certainly not with the health regen and respawning enemies. But as far as feeling like you're right there on the battlefield it's certainly more realistic than a turn-based game.

I agree that during war, one combatant can be on the offensive while the other is reacting/defending, but that usually happens in real time, dynamically, unless you're standing over a desk in the war room looking at a map.

This even applies to fantasy style turn-based dungeon games, and could apply to any turn-based game. Let's say I'm a real-life knight fighting a real-life dragon. He might be breathing fire down my neck while I'm hiding behind a stone wall for protection (turn-based), but it's also very possible that he might be swooping in for another hit of fire while I'm charging him with my lance. It's not always one waiting on the other. Both parties can be on the offensive at once, which isn't represented well in turn-based games because one party is ALWAYS in a waiting state.

Like you, I'm not trying to turn anyone off from turn-based games that likes and appreciates them. But you can't claim the system is very realistic in many scenarios. I feel those games are more for people who like to strategically plan their next move as opposed to thinking on their feet and reacting in real time.
 
imyourzero said:
Depends. If you're looking for a military battle simulation, the real-time firefights and cover mechanics of games like CoD and Battlefield are MUCH more realistic than the "game of chess" style that turn-based battle sims represent. It's not like when we stormed the beaches of Normandy, we reached the shore and fired and then said "OK guys, cease fire! Now it's the Germans' turn!" Both sides were attacking each other, even though one party was trying to defend the beach and the other was trying to advance their position.

Now I'm not saying that CoD is a realistic simulation of war by any means...certainly not with the health regen and respawning enemies. But as far as feeling like you're right there on the battlefield it's certainly more realistic than a turn-based game.

I agree that during war, one combatant can be on the offensive while the other is reacting/defending, but that usually happens in real time, dynamically, unless you're standing over a desk in the war room looking at a map.

This even applies to fantasy style turn-based dungeon games, and could apply to any turn-based game. Let's say I'm a real-life knight fighting a real-life dragon. He might be breathing fire down my neck while I'm hiding behind a stone wall for protection (turn-based), but it's also very possible that he might be swooping in for another hit of fire while I'm charging him with my lance. It's not always one waiting on the other. Both parties can be on the offensive at once, which isn't represented well in turn-based games because one party is ALWAYS in a waiting state.

Like you, I'm not trying to turn anyone off from turn-based games that likes and appreciates them. But you can't claim the system is very realistic in many scenarios. I feel those games are more for people who like to strategically plan their next move as opposed to thinking on their feet and reacting in real time.
Click to expand...

Controlling a battlefield vs. being a bullet sponge.
 
Battlefield 3
Cod 2,3,4...17?
Both are horrible.

Counter strike
Skill amounts your ability to aim... that's it. No dodging or timing necessary and teamwork is pretty much vacant 99% of the time.

Starcraft
Dota
Not a fan of competitive of RTS at all.

I'm a fan of any genre but except mmorpg. Mainly because they all follow the exact same guidelines and haven't evolved a bit.

Zelda
I pretty much hate any of the 3d zelda games and i love adventure platformers... i don't know why.

Assassin creed
The story outside the main time period absolutely ruins any fun i could have with those games.

Angry Birds
What the F*ck is wrong with people.
 
Fallout + Skyrim

Skyrim more than Fallout though. Its like some people don't realize a lot of the Skyrim content is randomly generated >.<
 
Skyrim. I cannot stand the Gamebryro engine. If they used another engine and remade it I could get into it.
 
I think a lot of you hate popular games just because they are popular and this for some reason makes you feel like you're a superior gamer because you "know a good game when you see one."

Honesty though, it's the same reason people hate popular movies, music, and TV shows. If they really sucked, they wouldn't be popular.

But what the fuck do I know?
 
Metroid Prime 1 and 2. The level design is great, but every room looks exactly the same and they're so boring to play.
 
OEM said:
I think a lot of you hate popular games just because they are popular and this for some reason makes you feel like you're a superior gamer because you "know a good game when you see one."

Honesty though, it's the same reason people hate popular movies, music, and TV shows. If they really sucked, they wouldn't be popular.

But what the fuck do I know?
Click to expand...

Did you happen to notice there was no thread crapping in here until your post?
 
half life: I just remember walking around in the dark bashing rats with a crowbar and it never grabbed me.
 
OEM said:
I think a lot of you hate popular games just because they are popular and this for some reason makes you feel like you're a superior gamer because you "know a good game when you see one."

Honesty though, it's the same reason people hate popular movies, music, and TV shows. If they really sucked, they wouldn't be popular.

But what the fuck do I know?
Click to expand...

Your logic says that that which caters to the average and under demographic is superior due to the fact that the average and over demographic doesn't endorse it and is a minority is as silly as saying Kraft Macaroni and Cheese is better than anything the best chefs can cook because your average person prefers it.

Your assumption that popular things can't suck is beyond idiotic.
 
Skripka said:
Thing to remember is that most linear shooters that you'd rate better are remakes of half-life with a few improvements. The only media more responsible for how design of most shooter games evolved is the movie Aliens.
Click to expand...

No. Half life is like a pile of other linear corridor shooters that came before it (it's a mod of Quake 2). It isn't significant in any way other than the massive overhype machine that surrounds it for some reason. I'd rather play Quake because a) it's much much more fun, b) it has co-op c) it doesn't pretend to be all plot filled with some inane rubbish; it focuses on the gameplay, not trying to be a lame movie with some occasional bland shooting of a bunch of morons. If anything it pushed people even more (because it wasn't the first) towards the no fun, moar film gametype...:p

Dion said:
This and so this. I think the worst thing is the Story. It pretty much has ZERO story. And they never explain anything. If that happened in these days oh man it would be bashed to hell.
Click to expand...

Thats probably why the 3rd one hasn't been released. They got lucky with the first, they got very lucky with the second, probably don't want to roll the dice on the third. That and Valve graphics are still some of the worst and outdated of any AAA studio (and they are probably waiting for the next consoles). :D
 
I'm glad I actually shared my experiences with a lot of people.

Witcher 1 - I played through to completion, but did not enjoy my time with it. I'll have to try W2 that I got during the recent sale.

BF3 - The nostalgia of BF2 really made me want to like it, but it's too different.

Earlier FF and Zelda series - Seems too tedious. I actually really like AC series, though, especially after the first one. I think the environment is doing it for me.

Bioshock - Playing through it right now, but don't much care for any of the aspects of the game.

FONV - FO3 was semi-enjoyable, but the setting and the story of NV did not appeal to me.

I actually enjoyed Metro and STALKER series, and the only MMO I seriously played was CoH, which I'll be missing in a week or so now as it shuts down.
 
DeathPrincess said:
No. Half life is like a pile of other linear corridor shooters that came before it (it's a mod of Quake 2). It isn't significant in any way other than the massive overhype machine that surrounds it for some reason. I'd rather play Quake because a) it's much much more fun, b) it has co-op c) it doesn't pretend to be all plot filled with some inane rubbish; it focuses on the gameplay, not trying to be a lame movie with some occasional bland shooting of a bunch of morons. If anything it pushed people even more (because it wasn't the first) towards the no fun, moar film gametype...:p



Thats probably why the 3rd one hasn't been released. They got lucky with the first, they got very lucky with the second, probably don't want to roll the dice on the third. That and Valve graphics are still some of the worst and outdated of any AAA studio (and they are probably waiting for the next consoles). :D
Click to expand...

Half Life has pacing down to a science. That's what you're missing. It may not jive with you, but it is a strength Valve has. HL1 made people tense while playing it. The second tried to focus more on storytelling and theme.
 
True, the pacing was special in HL2. I'm more of an open world / sandbox guy, but sometimes the linear rails is just nice every once in a while whenever I'm over-saturated with the open world stuff. Which reminds me. Not all games work for me the same way at all times.

For example, Tomb Raider Guardian of Light was hard to get into at one point in my gaming life. I needed something else. I came back to it maybe a year later and it hit the sweet spot. Real fun. I've had this happen with several other games. Many of you Diablo2 heads should know. Some periods you just get sucked in like crack, and other times you just can't stand it. The mind and it's gaming "needs" are in flux through various times in the month or year.

Back to HL2, I just don't think I'd get into it right now at all. The thought of HL3 wouldn't really stir my emotions too much atm. But man, that game was awesome when I played it.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Half Life has pacing down to a science. That's what you're missing. It may not jive with you, but it is a strength Valve has. HL1 made people tense while playing it. The second tried to focus more on storytelling and theme.
Click to expand...

They forgot fun. It doesn't matter how often you send on the clowns or when you send in the clowns if the clowns are totally dull. It was probably popular because it was easy and simple, I feel zero tension because, I don't know, after a while you notice that the enemies are just annoying instead of deadly, and just serve as an annoyance or a pointless excursion from godamnit more tarmac.

The "story" isn't anything groundbreaking, just stupid fanfiction cues and might have well have been "there's this guy we don't know who he is and this mysterious thing happens for mysterious reasons. Now guess the rest of the plot and post it on Facebook!". It's like the Emperors new clothes for some reason... :p




Also, while we're on the huge subject of Valve over hyped but actually really mediocre games. CS = CoD:MW with smaller player counts in slow motion.
 
DeathPrincess said:
No. Half life is like a pile of other linear corridor shooters that came before it (it's a mod of Quake 2). It isn't significant in any way other than the massive overhype machine that surrounds it for some reason. I'd rather play Quake because a) it's much much more fun, b) it has co-op c) it doesn't pretend to be all plot filled with some inane rubbish; it focuses on the gameplay, not trying to be a lame movie with some occasional bland shooting of a bunch of morons. If anything it pushed people even more (because it wasn't the first) towards the no fun, moar film gametype...:p



Thats probably why the 3rd one hasn't been released. They got lucky with the first, they got very lucky with the second, probably don't want to roll the dice on the third. That and Valve graphics are still some of the worst and outdated of any AAA studio (and they are probably waiting for the next consoles). :D
Click to expand...

Ya I never got the Half-life love. I never played HL1 single player, I tried Action Halflife since I liked AQ2 but the HL multi-player engine was so bad it was pretty intolerable.

However I gave HL2 a shot, since everyone couldn't shut up about it. I was seriously, seriously unimpressed. The shooting was only so-so and the rest of the game was very bleh. Long, repetitive sections of just driving down corridors (punctuated by loading screens), lots of silly "Look! We have a physics engine!" kind of puzzles. I just couldn't finish it, I got way too sick of it.

Never got why people loved it so much.
 
The Witcher rings a bell. I Never could get very far into any of the HL series. I love pretty much all FPS's but never could get into CS, because I hate waiting to respawn. (CS:GO and the Arms Race mode have actually been enjoyable) I've started so many games and not finished them that I've lost count...it's not even that any of the games mentioned in this thread so far are bad...I think it has more to do with my attention span. If any of the games in this thread were, say, the only game's (or game) I had available, I'm sure I'd love them.

Thanks to CoD and the instant gratification/action that it provides, I rarely finish ANY single player games. I just bought Dark Souls and am going to make a personal vow to tear myself away from leveling in BO2 to finish it within the next couple of months.
 
Let me see.. Driver San Francisco.. EYE .. Fable Lost Chapters..
Flat Out series.. Metro 2033,, Rage.. and Velvet Assassin..
 
Any Stalker game , I serious hate them. I simply can't understand why people love them so much , they are honestly to me .. some of the most boring gaming on the market.

Rayman (more a console game for sure) , can't stand any Rayman game.

Tried like hell to like Dark Souls and I just couldn't. I don't understand why people would want to play a game so hard that it constantly is trying to get you to quit playing it...

By the way for all those saying "Rage".. saying you couldn't get into Rage is like saying you couldn't get into being stretched on a Vice.
 
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

I always chalked it up to not experiencing it when it was first released. After playing it in the early/mid 2000's, it didn't grab me the way it did with other people. I did however, absolutely love A Link to the Past, and still do today. Something about the SNES era of games seems timeless to me. Hell, some of my best memories happened on emulators, long after the era passed.
 
Just remembered .... FF7. I liked the system, but the story lost me like 5 times after the first part that I quit. Took me forever to grudge my way through it and beat the game.

And by lost, I mean bored me to death.
 
Battlefield 3... though this may have something to do with shitty server owners

Wished I spend those $60 bucks elsewhere.
 
Hard Reset

Everybody prize it but I think shooting mechanics is terrible there. I felt like spraying bullets around hoping to hit as many targets as possible. No feeling of careful aiming and satisfactory kills.

Bought it, played 30 minutes, uninstalled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top