What's a sequel you were disappointed by?
See title. I thought this might make for an interesting topic and I can't see one like this in the search, so...
What sorta got me thinking about this - a couple days ago, I noticed that Dying Light 2 got a sizeable update, with a pretty heavy emphasis on changes to the game's parkour mechanics. I absolutely loved the first Dying Light, as well as both Mirror's Edge games - parkour and other kinds of momentum-driven gameplay are my jam - so that got me curious enough to check it out again, for the first time in a year.
I played for a few hours, got some of the way in, and... felt pretty underwhelmed. It certainly feels better than it did last time I played, and the change to retain momentum during parkour moves does feel pretty nice... but it still feels far too slow and floaty to me. It feels awkward and unresponsive to me. On top of that, the combat updates - while I actually appreciated DL2's changes to the combat over DL1's (a major gripe I've always had with DL1's combat is that sometimes zombies take just one or two hits and sometimes they take twenty, and I have never been able to detect any kind of pattern to it - combat level, game progress, weapon damage, etc., none of them seem to impact it so I have no idea what's up with it), playing it again now... left me feeling pretty disappointed.
I booted up DL1 for the first time in a while the next day, just intending to compare how it feels - and I've since found myself drawn several hours into it. Even in the first half hour of the game, where your climbing's super slow and everything, it feels so much more snappy and reactive - it feels good. And while my previous gripes with its combat are still present, it feels so much better to me now than DL2's does (for the most part - fighting human enemies still sucks). I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but there's just something really visceral and satisfying about it that DL2 doesn't have.
As I've been playing DL1, as well, I've been thinking about its story again. As much as it's maligned for its story, I think it's actually a really interesting subversion and deconstruction of expectations in a lot of ways - while that could be a thread (or video essay, I've thought about it) of its own, the way I see it: despite how the intro and story set him up, Crane actually fails pretty hard at being a hero until towards the end. I mean, the very first thing he does is take a crowbar to the back of the head, get bitten, and get someone else killed. It's a pattern that continues throughout most of the game (and even The Following, I'd argue, even though I don't care for it much). I find it pretty memorable beecause of that, even if it falls flat in some places.
Meanwhile, Dying Light 2... I honestly couldn't tell you much about the story? It didn't leave any kind of impact on me at all. I'm not really the kind of person who plays games for their stories very often (unless it's something like Ace Attorney where that's explicitly the point), and I have to admit that I went into DL2 with low expectations to begin with (I held off getting it at launch because of Denuvo, by the time I did pick it up reviews were already fairly negative; and I tend to view "your choices really matter!" in advertising as a huge red flag so that wasn't a good sign either), but even so. It might be in part because I actually quite liked DL1's ending - I found it pretty refreshing for a post-apocalyptic zombie game - so DL2 throwing that out didn't sit well with me from the get-go (also part of why I'm not too keen on The Following, but that's a different matter).
Overall, it just sorta left me thinking about how... even though I'd tried to go in with tempered expectations - all I really wanted was a fun zombie-flavoured parkour game, where climbing and jumping and swinging and stuff felt fluid and rewarding - I still found myself left feeling pretty hollow about it, even after an update that allegedly addressed some of my biggest issues with the game. It's especially frustrating, because the Inner Circle (I think that's what it was called, I can't remember - the second city map) is really, really cool and I would absolutely love to just aimlessly run around it... if the movement didn't feel floaty and awkward. Stuff like climbing to the top of the VNC Tower felt exhilarating and awesome - I could catch a glimpse of something excellent there, but it was so outweighed by everything else.
So... Yeah. I dunno, I thought this'd make for an interesting question. Have theere any been any sequels you've played that left you feeling underwhelmed, in comparison to the previous game? If so, why?
alright maybe some part of me just wants to ask this so i'd have an excuse to waffle about dying light and its story a bit but still i think it's an interesting topic nonetheless
EDIT: formatting
Fallout 4 was a letdown for me. I still can't figure out why, but I got bored with it soon after the intro. Sad part is that I wish I liked it.
I also remember being so disappointed in Metal Gear Solid 2, solely for the fact you don't play as Snake for the majority of the game. It's now my favorite in the series, but I was so disappointed when I got that news.
It's a meme now about Fallout 4, but I believe it was because everything was 100% on rails.
Your character's responses were all 1) yes 2) funny yes 3) mean yes and 4) very mean no but actually yes.
There was no depth to any of the quest writing and most everything in that game was linear.
side tangent here, but i hate when a video game pops up w/ an option like "i dont care" and i pick it as in "Your call, you pick, i'm open." and then my character says "I Don't care about you! You suck!"... dammit that's not what i thought it meant.
One of the worst offenders to that was L.A. Noire. I remember everything was being talked about calmly. And the witness said something I thought was false. So I accuse. And he went off the rails angry yelling at her she did it. And I just wanted you to question her more on that. Not fly off the handle.
[Witcher 3 spoilers]
You’re given a choice to stop a character with a “forceful shove”. A harsh sounding action, but hopefully not going to ruin Geralt’s relation with the character permanently. Well forceful shove turns out it be be break his knee which is loads more severe. I was so shocked when it happened!
Yeah that one I specifically went back to a previous save. That one was so out of left field I didn't like it.
You aren’t a fan of having all the loot tables in your RPG being different types of garbage to craft stuff with? Or a talking protagonist where every option was yes with different levels of snark?
The gunplay was definitely improved at least. I just wish that they stuck to their roots. Hugely hyped for Starfield, hope that I don’t get burned…
I'm a fan of garbage to craft with. But adding it to the loot tables was the mistake imo. It'd be better and cause you to explore more if it was only things to pick up, and was adjusted to that
At least with regards to the conversation system it seems like they've learned a lesson there because they've specifically talked about that.
I was also not as impressed with FO4 on launch but tbh when I went back and played it again with dlc I enjoyed it more and put more time into it.
The DLC expansion Far Harbor is one of the better stories I’ve experienced in the Fallout universe. If you ever decide to give the game another go I’d highly advise prioritizing making it to the Island. The amount of control your character has in influencing the storyline is what I wanted out of the rest of the game.
Honestly I think far harbour is simply just one of the best experiences in all of video gaming, one of the only times a moral choice has actually given me pause and made me wonder if I did the right thing.
In terms of choice, it is difficult to come up with anything comparable, DLC or otherwise. It'd likely take something like Disco Elysium, which I haven't played to rival it. I ended up making 1 decision, then going back to redoing quite a bit of content to make another. I still wasn't 100% happy with how things went down, but that's the point. Sometimes there isn't a perfect answer.
I absolutely loved Fallout 3 and was disappointed with my first play through of Fallout 4.
If you haven't, give it another chance. Roleplaying and conversations are dead. They broke other aspects of what made Fallout 3. Just accept that and move on.
The shooting is much better than Fallout 3. The world is fun to explore, which is what I enjoyed the most about 3. I actually enjoyed the story. The crafting is decent although it kind of recks the joy of finding better weapons outside of unique effects. The changes to power armour are fun too once you have enough power.
Not to mention, there are some incredible mods available for Fallout 4 if you play on PC! SimSettlements to name just one :) I'd also recommend to anyone reading this who hasn't to give New Vegas a try. Not exactly an uncommon opinion, but it feels to me like perhaps the best 3D iteration in the series.
I had such a great time in New Vegas and all the expansion packs that I bought FO4 shortly after release.
I just couldn't get into it. I'm not really sure why, to be honest.
I don't know if its because I seemed like a competant semi-bad ass after a few hours into New Vegas and such a squishy bullet sponge in FO4. (Probably as a result of the expansions like the Gun Runners pack that gave great weapons at the start of New Vegas).
I think part of it was that it seemed like 50% typical Fall Out gun play and 50% base building/settler gathering sim. On paper, it seemed like a cool idea/gimmick but I think the ratio seemed off.
I'll probably give it one more try though before writing it off for good.
The other thing that sort of bothers me about the Fall Out games is that after all I accomplish in the game people still I'm an imbecilic nobody. You want the the guy who committed war crimes on the Powder Gang, the Saviour of the Legion who single handedly defeated the entire NCR, who waged war on the Brotherhood and WON to go pick up a deathclaw gland and you're going to give me shit about it?!
(I know that's a limitation of RPGs but for some reason I never notice it as much as in Fall Out.)
I know it's a hot take, but Borderlands 2. I thought they tried way too hard to be funny. I loved the first game, but the overall vibe and gunplay just felt off in 2 and I could never find myself liking 2. I never bothered playing pre-sequel or 3 after 2. I know BL2 is the general fan favorite, so I guess it just isn't for me and that's okay. Just disappointing, I don't hate it or anything though
I definitely agree with this. The first game felt more serious despite clearly being a satire, the 2nd game just went too far on the ridiculousness and just became a meme. I liked Handsome jack but pretty much every other joke should have been toned down.
Yeah that's true. The first game is still pretty ridiculous but it felt just serious enough to actually make me curious about what was gonna happen when the vault was found, etc.
It sold me on it's world and premise while making that world a bit zany.
Borderlands 2 feels a lot more like it tried to be entirely character focused which had the consequence of making the game feel extremely character-monologue and joke driven. I didn't mind it that much for what it is, but it definitely lost a little bit of extra magic along the way that BL1 had.
Shout-out to my boy Butt Stallion though, he's awesome.
I think a lot of game stories got away with being kind of bad because, at the time, they did something relatively unique or good relative to the rest of the medium. Like, Borderlands 2's social commentary isn't specific enough for it to be a good satire, and Handsome Jack, while charming, is pretty one-note, and the story is a bit meandering, and personally I found it deeply, deeply unfunny, but the thing is, for its time, BL2 was trying things that few other games did. The focus on character-driven storytelling instead of plot-driven, the attempt at some kind of anticapitalist commentary, actually having a charismatic villain, trying to do humor, these were things that not a lot of games were doing, and so a lot of people really found it unique and special at the time and now can look back at the game with rose-tinted glasses.
I disagree, a vast majority of the games I played in the 2000s were character driven and humorous, that was definitely not something that Borderlands 2 invented or even made popular. It's true that some of the biggest games in the PS3/360 era were grey or brown military shooters, but that was only the case for a pretty short period of time.
I'm going to say something controversial here and tell you that 3 is actually the best. Yes, the characters are overwhelmingly irritating, but the huge improvements in gunplay and control are far more important, at least to me. Trying to go back to 2 after beating it felt so wrong...
I think the Pre Sequel actually had the best gameplay IMO. It had some of my favorite classes and I loved the addition of all the different types of laser weapons. It's a shame they only made 1 DLC.
The Oz kits and the constantly- changing gravity were great.
I played BL1 multiple times with each class but mainly Roland, I played 2 quite a bit but not as much and I just can't get into 3. There isn't a class that feels "right" to me. I hate that bear suit thing so much.
Borderlands 2 came out after Hey Ash, Whatcha Playin'? got a bunch of attention... and that was the first big writing gig I remember Anthony Burch got out of it. And... yeah. Not exactly top marks from me either. It felt like an attempt to say "we have beloved YouTubers involved in our game!!" - as they also cast Ashly Burch as well.
IMO she did well as Tiny Tina, but she's been cast in a thousand things since and the problem is she has her normal voice and her Tiny Tina voice and no range otherwise so she usually just ends up coming off bland to me, but she has won awards so what do I know. She's also the worst part of Mythic Quest IMO (which is not an amazing show in the first place, but still).
For what it's worth I haven't played Borderlands 3 either but Burch wasn't involved with writing that one. And was only slightly involved with Tales from the Borderlands (which was celebrated for its better writing).
I felt exactly the same way! Except that Tiny Tina was so unbelievably insufferable I got to the point I had to mute the TV when her dialogue came up. I was super into her from HAWP but after that I just got annoyed by her involvement in anything, including Mythic Quest.
But the writing of the same was so terrible. It felt like it was written by Jr High students "Just call them boner-fats"
I didn't love Tiny Tina's writing necessarily but I meant she did a good job with the voice work. Expressive and manic which is what the character called for at least in that initial appearance (I haven't seen her in the other stuff since like that spinoff game they did recently).
Oh, yeah I loved Tales from the Borderlands. I didn't list it because that's a Telltale game. Didn't play the second that since I've heard it's trash though lol. I remember watching Hey Ash way back, it's one of the reasons why I was excited for BL2 actually. Oh well.
Yeah I didn't mention it, but I actually liked Hey Ash as well (at least earlier on, I just stopped watching it eventually) so I didn't have some problem with them. I thought Ashly in particular was pretty funny. She doesn't slot into a more "realistic" TV show well though.
TPS tried to do the same thing as 2 and kind of failed at being funny. The gameplay is great. I really liked 3 though. The jokes and characters are toned down, there is a great social commentary, and the combat is amazing. You can totally skip TPS and not miss a thing, but give 3 a try. If you've been picking up the Epic free game of the week you may even already have it.
The gunplay was atrocious! There just seemed to be a lag on firing special ammo, which yeah it made sure the guns weren't OP, but it almost made them useless. And the game glitched at one point (an item in a bird's nest at the top of a wind turbine) so I couldn't advance. I quit the game immediately after.
Plus when the news came out that Gearbox funneled money and and resources from Aliens: Colonial Marines into BL2 and that crap made me lose all respect for that group, never looked back.
Kingdom Hearts 3. I really wanted to like it. I grew up with KH, bought CoM as soon as it came out, and KH2 is one of my favourite video games. It successfully merged this weird ass FF, Disney and OC story in a way that made it work really well.
KH3 is mechanically a good game. I don't think it's better than KH2, but I honestly wouldn't care very much. But KH3 feels like the soul is gone. Instead of having Auron from FFX and Hades from Hercules argue, or have a cool badass scene of Cloud and Squall fighting a thousand Heartless back to back, you get the entirety of Let It Go while Sora stares, or a shot for shot recreation of Tangles scenes where the cast is barely in the background. It feels like Disney put their food down and told Nomura, this is advertising for our products, stop trying to tell actual stories. Gone are the days of Beast from Beauty and the Beast surviving a trip to the world of the FF cast, and carrying you in your lowest moments. Even the Disney worlds that were allowed more freedom, like Toy Story, have been completely disconnected from the story.
Forget going back to an evolving hub world, now Zexion calls you on your cell phone. Dilan and Aeleus don't even get VOs. Time travel completely messed up the storytelling through line (though that's DDD's fault). Kairi gets fridged. Powerful emotional moments (Roxas, Namine, Xion) are undone because Nomura won't let anyone stay dead. On every level, it was such a massive disappointment to me.
See - I loved Kingdom Hearts 3. I love it because it was so trash for the story that it let me completely let the series go and not give a fuck if they release more games.
I did replay the older games and those sucked me back in so much, they're just charming, fun, vibrant, unique, and spectacular. But KH3 was just going through the motions, and I was so frustrated that there wasn't, like, any Final Fantasy to be seen because that was where the shit was cool. You had to have this mixture that makes no sense for any of it to work, and abandoning half of it just felt bad.
I need to replay the series soon, now.
I wouldn't even say it's a mechanically good game, as my biggest issue with it was that I was bored!
The combat system is flashy and looks great, but it's dumbed down to take care of anything and everything for you. Spacing and attack timing are no longer factors as hitting the attack button will fling Sora toward the nearest target. Airborne enemies no longer pose any unique threat because you can practically fly by use of your attack strings. Enemy gimmicks no longer matter because of your overpowered attack options and countless battlefield nukes the game serves to you: team attacks, attractions, summons, keyblade forms, grand magic.
The most telling thing about the game is that I can't remember even a single enemy in it. I don't know if they introduced any new ones or which returned from previous games, it's all a blur.
I don't think anything has ever broken the heart of my inner child as much as that damn game.
So much time, so many resources were used, and games now have improvements in technology/quality that would boggle the mind of a child playing KH1/2 (and KH3 did have very, very pretty lipstick, for a pig.) It could have been one of the most beloved games of our generation. All for nothing. I know that some people are happy, but it's difficult for me to understand why. Regardless, we all can admit that the hype never culminated in the moment of cultural relevancy that it seemed it would, for so many years.
After the whole experience, I honestly don't think I'll ever be able to have that pure, childlike excitement for any game/movie/etc. ever again.
To your point, that gets to me too. A lot of effort was put into this, even in the story. Recreating Let It Go would've been difficult, and the result is impressive. And there are emotional moments that hit hard (Lea crying when Xion flashes for a second).
I almost would've preferred it if it was just a cash grab, then at least I could easily dismiss it. It's like... if someone put sweat, blood and tears into what most gamers think KH was about, and this was the result. All the wrong elements were worked on, and what did work was left behind.
I completely agree. I'm sure many talented people were involved in the making of that game, and parts of it are beautiful and/or clearly expensive (the landscape of the Olympus level, for example.) Then it misses the mark on everything you were looking forward to since childhood. So it just leaves you wondering what could have been.
Yep. This is the one for me. KH3 was such a let down. I think I got past the starting world and stopped. The issue with KH is that the story went batshit off the rails to the point that it's near impossible to follow.
Nomura believes he's this Game of Thrones level world builder. He's not. He just throws shit at the wall, writes himself into a corner then deus ex machinas his way out of it with some sort of batshit explanation that impacts the entire world in a foundational way (seriously, there's an entire game dedicated to being in a dream world that some how has consequences in the real world because new villains are created). It's almost like he watched inception and was like, "You know what kingdom hearts needs? An inception storyline!"
Not only that, but the reason KH3 was such a shit show was because in order to follow the plot, you'd need to play ALL of the KH games, including the random mobile games.
The game play was ok, but the fact that the story had references to games that came out on PSP almost a decade ago should have been a warning sign that the story was going to be a problem. There's not enough die hard fans who consumed every visual novel related to the game.
GoW did it right. Soft reboot. Lore still exists and is explained, but is not material to the plot. They should have done that, but it's Square Enix and they love doing that shit.
This will probably be contentious, but Tears of the Kingdom just didn’t do it for me. I don’t know if I was spoiled by Elden Ring or something else, I just bounced off it. I felt the tutorial island of TotK was quite poor, and even 10 hours in, it just isn’t sparking joy like the original. With BotW, I spent hours exploring, looking for shrines, and just being immersed in a fantastic world. I can’t quite articulate it, but there just seems to be more friction at all points in TotK that makes that immersion more difficult to come by while playing.
I agree with you about TotK. In addition to what you’ve already said though, for me, I just really hate spatial/physics puzzles. I hate walking into a shrine and seeing a pile of stuff on the ground and I’m somehow supposed to make something out of it to solve puzzles. It frustrates me and makes me feel incredibly stupid.
I like that description of friction at all points. It’s very much how I feel, as well. I’m probably going to push through it at some point, and hopefully it will grab me more, but I’m enjoying running fast in Sonic Frontiers, which I got about the same time, a lot more than TotK
I still really like TOTK but I agree it doesn’t hit the same highs as BOTW. I’m only 2 temples deep so far.
I was also frustrated that it doesn’t really feel like much of a sequel. All the Sheikah stuff is gone, all your amor and progress from the last game is gone. They story-explained the hearts & stamina but where did all my clothes go ? Plus the fact that the Zonai stuff has apparently been there for decades but it was nowhere to be found in BOTW. It all felt a little weird to me.
TotK weirdly feels like a prequel to BotW story wise. Or that it should have been the "first" one. Other than a small handful of dialog lines it's really like BotW didn't happen at all.
I had a blast with ToTK myself, but I kinda agree, I think - it just doesn't hit the same notes as BoTW did. While some of that is by design, I came away feeling that it just wasn't quite as... cohesive, somehow?
It actually kinda feels to me like a game that's not entirely sure of what it wants to be - there's some moments where I feel like it takes on a decidedly darker, almost MM-esque atmosphere, and some where it's a bit too light-hearted (though it'd probably help if it weren't so vague about the timeframe); some places where it's pretty clear about presenting itself as a direct follow-up to BoTW, and some where it seems to be doing everything it possibly can to distance itself from the first game...
As much as I enjoyed it, I can totally understand what you're saying (I think, lol). It wouldn't surprise me if, in final analysis (once the novelty and excitement's worn off a bit), the delays and hype end up working against it somewhat.
I'm the total opposite, biggest surprise like after a disappointment. Yeah I didn't like BotW much, but TotK is amazing. In BotW the exploration was ruined by those overpowered robots that wiped you out before you could see them, the shrine puzzles were pretty annoying, and the world felt empty and depressing. In TotK they've made exploration worthwhile with all sorts of diversions to discover, monster encounters scale to your progress, the shrine puzzles often have multiple clever ways to do them, and the world is whimsical and full of life. The only kind of annoying thing in TotK are the clunky controls.
Perhaps it's because I didn't play BotW when it came out, and experiencing it fresh might have made a difference. I played it in 2021, and by then I could only be disappointed given all the hype it had gotten.
I loved TOTK and went deeper with it than I ever did with BotW because I enjoyed the feeling of cheating the system by building new machines to fight for me or fly me somewhere new. But I completely understand why someone may not enjoy it.
I do feel like it and BotW are amazing games, but bad Zelda games. They both give too much freedom, whereas Zelda has always been about the joy of exploring dungeons, finding new items, and then using that to go back and find something new.
Progression in a Zelda game should be a little more locked than it is in the new games.
My choice is a really niche game that barely anyone knows about.
Back on the Super Nintendo and n64 there was a couple games called Ogre Battle. There was really nothing else like them at the time. And even to this day there’s not really a game that has the same type of gameplay and progression system.
It’s a real time strategy game, where you select where your small squads of soldiers go. And then when they contact the enemy it’s an auto battler.
What makes it fun is you get to choose the formation of your unit. Archers in the back can shoot twice. Soldiers in the front can attack twice. Paladins can either heal or attack depending if they’re in the front or back. That sort of thing. You get to build the formation, and the game auto battles it out for you when enemy contact is made.
Now add on top of that the real time strategy part, where it matters if you attack the enemy from the front or side, because that will effect the formation the enemy has during the battle phase.
And add on top of that a really enjoyable, but simple, story. And complex morality system, it was just my jam perfectly.
Well last year we finally got a new ogre battle game. And it was just a rip off of final fantasy tactics. So now on top of my favourite game not having a real sequel for almost twenty years, I can’t even talk about ogre battle without people assuming I’m talking about tactics.
Which I’m not. It REALLY disappoints me.
Is the new release Tactics Ogre: Reborn, a remake of a game from the SNES era which predates Final Fantasy Tactics and therefore can't be a rip off of Final Fantasy Tactics? If anything, it's like a progenitor to FFT as the creator of Ogre Battle & Tactics Ogre is the creator of Final Fantasy Tactics, so it sort of reads like you're suggesting they've ripped themselves off in backwards order.
If the take is that you just don't like the Tactics Ogre side of the franchise, fair enough. It's okay to not like something. But when tuning expectations to the history of the series, I'm surprised your take isn't framed more along the lines that you wish the new release was a remake of Ogre Battle SNES or Ogre Battle 64, if not a non-remake new title instead.
When ignoring ports, remakes, and remasters there's essentially 5 titles in the series, with a 3:2 Ogre Battle to Tactics Ogre ratio, with a TO title being the second release only 2 years after the first Ogre Battle, so they've coexisted nearly as long. I would find it more understandable if your post was framed as enjoying Ogre Battle SNES and being disappointed by the original Tactics Ogre release in 1995. (or more likely 1998 on PS1 for the first English release.)
As it stands, it sort of comes off like you're treating TO: Reborn as if it's a sequel to Ogre Battle 64 for the purposes of this thread.
Well I wasn’t necessarily assuming I’d have people jumping down my throat because I was discussing a very specific style of game I enjoy.
Still a big disappointment for me either way. And once again I have no one to talk with about ogre battle because yet again ogre tactics takes the front stage.
But yes, you are correct that there was more information I could share.
I played Ogre Battle. I got a little confused and quit but plan on trying it out again sometime.
It’s great, it might not be for everyone, but it’s criminally underrated.
Oh man, I rented OgreBattle way back when and fell in LOVE. I remember redoing the opwning questions til i got a leader with a powerful attack and then created 3 or 4 really strong units and proceeded to steamroll my way to the end of the game.... and got the bad ending cause i didnt fight fair. lol
Im glad I didnt know about the 'sequel'.
I lived out on a farm as a kid and had barely any internet access.
Ogre battle was the first game I ever bought, had to get it through eBay because by the time I had money to spend they weren’t selling it in stores any more.
Yeah… I also got the bad ending the first time I beat it haha. If there’s one thing I’d want from a remaster it would be a more clear indicator on the good/evil scale, and what actions you do actually change it…
Also, I actually enjoyed dying light 2. I got it to play with 3 of my buddies because that’s what we did for the first game, so my point of view is skewed because it’s just fun to hang out with friends. Haven’t tried out the new update yet, not sure if I will.
The dying light games are sort of a “once you beat the story you’re done” sorts of games to me.
Kawa already covered your confusion on Tactics Ogre vs Ogre Battle thoroughly, but I did want to add that there is a rumored remake/remaster of Ogre Battle coming as well. I personally love both games though I give the nod to TO.
Halo is my all time favourite thing. I've played all of the games, I've read most of the books.
Everything after Halo 3 has been poor. Halo 3: ODST has the best single player atmospheric campaign, Halo 1,2, 3 has the best Master Chief campaign run.
Agree with this, I actually didn’t play anything after Reach until I played through Infinite with some friends a few months ago. I remember finishing it and thinking “that’s it?”. The whole campaign just felt like flashback and it was just missing the great story Ioved from the first 3 games (plus ODST and Reach).
Halo died after Bungie left. I know they made Halo Reach but it's just not as good as the first three games in my opinion. They were contractually obligated to make two more Halo games before they were set free and it shows.
Microsoft/343 Industries has ruined the franchise and I doubt it can ever recover.
It's not going to recover. They are going to buy Call of Duty and that will be it.
Also I think Reach was the best game in the entire franchise, but it had a sense of finality. If you know Halo, you know how Reach ends. If you know Bungie, you know this is their last game before they fall into the MTX well and the Marathon reboot well.
Middle Earth: Shadow of War was a poor imitation of Shadow of Mordor. It added a whole bunch of stuff… but not the stuff I wanted — chasing war chiefs and being called out by them — it added stuff that got in the way of that. I want that experience from Shadow of Mordor when I got into an enemy camp, spotted the war chief — all the orcs start chanting their name — and they say something that calls back to our history. It's such a cool feeling! No other game makes you feel like you're in the spotlight the way Shadow of Mordor does. Shadow of War didn't double down on that and instead added a bunch more busywork and an endgame grind that I heard about but didn't even care to get to.
I kinda feel the same about the Rocksteady Batman games. They add more with each iteration, but it's just noise around the good stuff. Sometimes a sequel doesn't need to have more filler mechanics because that just decreases the signal to noise ratio. It makes me wait longer to do the stuff I actually want to do and has me doing stuff I don't care about to get there. I'm not happy because you're occupying more of my hours because I'd rather be having more concentrated fun over fewer hours.
Oh man, this. I LOVED Shadow of Mordor. I don't even consider myself a gamer and I don't play very often at all, but that game got me and I played through it several times. I couldn't wait for the sequel.
But I grew disheartened by it pretty quickly when I was aiming catapults and programming trolls or whatever. It just wasn't the same kind of gleeful tearing ass that the first one was.
For my entry into this thread, it's an old game called Syndicate Wars, the sequel to the first game Syndicate. I spent many nights playing through the first one and I finally beat it after a super long time trying. Like Shadow of War, I was excited for Syndicate Wars and just couldn't get into it. The Zealot angle was kinda cool but the game seemed to be more a showcase of how the camera could move around and you could see behind buildings, which you couldn't do in the first game. I do remember that one of the cheat codes for it was POOSLICE, which has always stuck with me.
This one usually gets me some shit, but I'm firmly in the camp that Mass Effect 1 is the better game over Mass Effect 2.
As someone who missed them when they came out, Ive tried playing through the trilogy several times and always fell off at the second installment for various reasons. The farthest into the second I've ever gotten was maybe fifteen hours? Whereas I've played the first one I think four times and am willing to go back for a fifth playthrough sometime soon.
You might be asking why I hold this opinion that is shared by so few, and it mainly boils down to the combat funny enough. I really enjoy the combat in the first one, you can combo the fuck out of enemies if you play Vanguard which is what I usually play, using multiple biotic abilities in sequence to set off compounding effects. There is cover but it's not super common so you have to think a lil about placement in a lot of encounters. Weapons are cool down based but critically aren't super punishing, leading to a nice rythm to combat. You have more skills to invest in to build your party the way you want, even if it's still kind of simple. The story is fantastic, the build up to the reapers is amazing and slowly uncovering the deep lore of this universe is an amazing experience. The companions hold up well too. Garrus and Wrex are my kings, and I love Tali and the lore of her people. Kaiden is great bc his voiced by the guy who voiced my other main man, Carth Onasi in Knights of the Old Republic. The citadel is a great hub with a real feel of a sprawling space station and the different places you visit all feel very unique and varied. The whole package holds up very well in my eyes, even the pre-legendary edition, which I played first years before legendary came out.
Then starting up ME2, I am always immediately underwhelmed. The switch to clip based ammo bothers me, as it feels less engaging and less fitting to the setting for me. It's immediately a very cover heavy shooter, with rooms set up with waist high cover everywhere. Abilities are more limited in use, leading to less combo capability, and levelling/characters builds are far too streamlined and have less options. The companions feel less immediately gripping and far more basic, having collected a good chunk of them on my last attempt with the game (Mordin and Garrus being the exceptions to the basic vibes, them boys are my kings.) In a lot of ways it feels like I'm playing the dumbed down mass market appeal version of a sequel. Trendy with design choices of other moneymakers of the time, but losing it's soul. Maybe it's similar to how a lot of TES:Morrowind Diehards feel about successive entries in that series.
The story is still interesting, which is why I'm conflicted and do truly want to love this game. It's just whenever I try, I usually have to do a new playthrough of ME1 due to unfortunate circumstances, which leads me to falling in love with that game again and having my experience with 2 feel vastly inferior by comparison. I think not having the time in between releases contributes to that. Playing them back to back is a different expectation than years of anticipation at the new entry to the series you love.
Nevertheless I feel like a crazy person when most people in games media large and small shit on ME1, especially post legendary edition. The Legendary edition shaved off some of the older rpg woes like weapon training now being universal and some slightly better handling to the Mako, without changing the stuff that made that first game so good, yet I still see people saying it's not a great experience or could have used a full remake which I do not get at all, and if anything I would want rework of ME2 to be more in line with the foundations laid by it's predecessor.
I fully agree, but I think part of why I liked ME1 was that it felt like it was 80% KOTOR minus the Star Wars story and theme. The sequels were decidedly more inspired by popular cover based console friendly shooters. It just wasn't or me in the slightest.
Yeah I am much more of a fan of ME 1 than 2. ME 2 was still a fun play but it just felt like an overall downgrade from the first. The first had a wonderful retro sci-fi feeling that just...wasn't there with the second. The clip based combat switch didn't make sense and never really felt right after the first one. The games story just felt like a setup for the sequel (which to be fair, it was) and was never satisfying on it's own (however the first games story did set up the sequel and WAS satisfying on it's own). Heck, even the villain was less scary; speaking to Sovereign felt like speaking to some lovecraftian horror whereas Harbinger felt like a generic baddy.
Portal 2 was an ok experience, not bad, but just ok. Which, when compared to how fantastic the first game was, was a bit disappointing. When the original Portal came out, it was an insane, unique, unexpected experience, where everything hit just right, capped off by the ending credits song that I still listen to. Putting my Companion Cube in the incinerator is still one of the all-time character deaths that hits the hardest. Just a masterpiece that got everything right. I beat it over the course of maybe two days in marathon sessions and I still remember those days fondly.
Then Portal 2 came along and it was just… ok. The writing and humor wasn’t as good, the gameplay additions weren’t terribly interesting, and it was just kind of… ok-ish, slightly above meh-quality. It’s like when they’ve already produced perfection, what else is left? It was more like a DLC than a true sequel. The inclusion of multiplayer was probably the bigger contribution it made, the single player just couldn’t hold a candle to the first.
I thought the humor was too good in Portal 2. I like 2 a lot, but I think the difference was that in Portal 1, GLaDOS felt like a completely insane, deranged, decaying superintelligence and the game felt a little more scary and real as a result. She feels completely sane and just a little too human in Portal 2.
Portal 1 is one of the very few, perhaps the only, perfect 10 games ever made. The concept was and still is mind-blowing. The controls are flawless. The puzzles are all unique and challenging, but not so much that you're likely to get stuck and have to search up a walkthrough. The writing was pitch-perfect, and every joke lands.
Most of all, it only lasted exactly as long as it needed to. I don't think anyone has ever said "you know, I think Portal kinda overstayed its welcome." That in and of itself makes it one of the rarest works of art I've ever encountered, and as I was an English major, I've encountered a lot of narrative art.
It's not even out yet (even tho it should have been) but Beyond: Good & Evil 2
The first one was released in 2003 and it was a criminally underrated masterpiece, a life defining experience, while the second one has been stuck in development hell for what seems to be the last 15 years with no release date in sight. The original Beyond Good & Evil (BG&E) has to be one of the best stories told in any media form ever, i've been watching movies for a while, read a ton of books from classics to new releases, tv series, videogames, and the original BG&E is up there amongst the best works out there.
But knowing modern game development practices i know already that BG&E 2 is not going to live up to the first one. The first already had a perfect ending that didn't need a sequel and the fact that they're hellbent into making one screams "moneygrab" to me.
Do you think the game would still hold up today if played for the first time?
Not OP, but I don't think it would hold up mechanically. If you play today and try to put it into context, I think you could still see it was special, but it's going to feel off if you're comparing it against the 20 years of evolution since its release.
I played it about seven years ago. I had played it at a friends house a little when if first came out so I knew it was fun, but playing through it for the first time seven years ago was very enjoyable. I really like that era of games so maybe it’s nostalgic for me? I think it holds up as well as psychonauts.
I feel like BG&E is aptly rated, just underplayed. I've talked about that game to many people and almost no one played it, but those who did absolutely loved it.
Still, I agree with you. At this point in the gaming world, there is no way that the sequel can match the charm and tension of the first game. I replay it from time to time and it's crazy to me not only how well it holds up, but how better it is than modern games.
Deus Ex: Invisible War as a life long PC gamer
I tried playing that game again after I beat it back in the day as I recall enjoying it at the time.
Boy howdy, I think I just had low standards because I had less games to play back then and my bar hadn't been raised to where it is today. Ye gods was that voice acting terrible and the writing ho-hum in comparison to the first one. Also I think it was the bloom effect, but everything in that game just felt very... sleepy? It does make for very relaxing background noise (as does the first one) putting on a no-commentary playthrough from YouTube while I work.
The only thing I found my self liking on a play through about two years ago (first and likely last revisit) was the lighting from the tops of burn barrels dancing on the walls wildly. The male voice actor for Alex was particularly crap. NG's wasn't much better but I can't recall if that was just the script she was given or a large helping of ham from the voice actress.
Both Dragon Age sequels. I played Origins when it came out, I played it to the end, I cried at the end because I'd become so invested in my character that I both knew which choice I had to make and absolutely hated making it, and I remember the entire story and all the characters clearly. I didn't love (or even like) all those characters, but they were all memorable.
DA2 I was broke so didn't get a chance to play until after it had been out some time. Because I avoided spoilers I also completely missed the complaints, which would have told me I'd hate it. At the point where Anders pulls his little stunt I was already sick to death of the railroading, the characters, and really just the whole game. The whole scene just irritated the hell out of me. Not one of the character reactions matched witnessing the violent death of so many people, and the stilted dialogue full of unnatural pauses, poses and facial expressions just finished me. At the point where it forced my hand to pick a side, I closed the game. I never bothered finishing, and at this point I've forgotten most of it. I had to google the plot to remember the characters and when the Anders scene happens.
DA3, I lost interest shortly after getting my cattle, which... I mean that is a statement in itself. I got a castle and I still wasn't interested. I just felt like all I was doing was running in circles. I didn't deliberately quit like DA2, but I found it harder and harder to bother playing again and eventually just stopped trying. I forget almost everything except a lousy creating system and a LOT of gathering.
I was looking for someone to mention Dragon Age. I played Origins multiple times (always making a blood magic battle mage cause it was too good to pass up) and loved every minute of it. Except for maybe when you have to go to the Circle of Magi. Those missions can be a bit tedious. Origins was complex and deep, with tons of skills and spells you could have equipped. The dialogue, and dialogue choices, were good, as well as the story missions and even side quests were interesting. I still vividly remember a good chunk of the game even though I haven't played it in 9 years.
Then DA2 came and it was a shell of Origins. Everything was simplified and made boring. The dialogue wheel sucked having your choices being sassy, mean, or nice. The number of spells and skills that were available were drastically reduced, and I think the number you could equip was lower as well. The maps were my biggest issue. Going to the same like 6 locations throughout the entire game, and then just blocking off different paths got old instantly. I don't even think they would change the mini map to reflect which paths were open/closed, so you'd walk to a path you think is the way just for a random boulder to be blocking it.
I can't remember how far I got in DA3. I MIGHT have gotten to the castle, or I might have still been in the tutorial, I have no idea. I just remember being so hyped for it and it came out on or around my birthday, so I took the day off in order to play a long session. I spent the first hour trying to get my Origins and DA2 saves to load in, so my choices from those would mean something, but never got it to recognize my saves. I spent probably another hour or two going through their manual choice options and researching each one to remember what I would have done. When I finally was able to play, I ended up hating the changes they made to the combat and stopped playing almost immediately.
I also came to mention Dragon Age. The sequels never gave the same experience. I get some game developers want to make adjustments, but there was something off about the sequels.
I was a huge fan of the original Metro 2033 when it came out, but I really didn’t like how Last Light made the atmosphere feel more bright and hopeful than the original. I also did not like how theh changed stealth to be ”on/off” when in shadows, when the original had a gradual stealth meter. The gunplay also became more arcade-y.
I have the same complaints about 2033 Redux, I think the original is far superior overall. The biggest improvements there is the stealth AI and. That the library is 1 level instead of 2.
Exodus felt a little more like the original, but I wish it would have taken place in a semi-open world metro system instead, where the surface could act as shortcuts but with the caveat of being more dangerous.
Total War: Rome 2. So, I played the first Rome back in 06, after I had gotten Medieval 2 Total War. Both RTW (Rome Total War) and M2TW (Medieval 2 Total War) were fantastic games, that I still to this day play. The first Rome got remastered a year ago, and it brought Rome back for me, since I generally favour Med2. I truly love it. So when Rome 2 was announced, me and a few friends were hyped. The first Rome was to all of us some of the best that the Total War series could offer. I followed the whole build up towards R2s release, and the closer it got, the more excited I was. A big map, cool factions (I actually was hyped about Pontus unlike a lot of others), naval warfare, better political system, food systems and so on. It looked to be a game changer in a lot of ways. Well it was...kinda... Rome 2 released a buggy and broken mess. Nothing worked as intended. There were animations that didn't work, and even a friend with a really good pc at the time, could not play without fps drops. It was bad, real bad. It put me off on the game for a long time. Tried it many years later, and they have fixed it, and it is actually fun. But oh man was it shit when it released.
I'm in the same boat as you. I was so disappointed after being incredibly hyped for the release and getting it on launch day.
My brother let me know the game has been fixed but I never felt like going back and giving it another try. Maybe one day when I build another computer and can play games again.
It is pretty good now, after years of fixes. I recommend going back to it. And the Warhammer series have been a blast, I like them quite a lot. I hope we will get a Medieval 3 some day.
I think I still need to get used to the difference in how armies are made. I wasn't a big fan of being forced into a smaller number of armies limited by general count. I always enjoyed the hodge podge armies I'd throw together in Medieval 2 and Rome 1 to put down rebels or the small-scale fights when it felt valuable swarming a unit of valuables enemies knights that we were being moved up with whatever I had on hand.
Looking forward to having time to play again at some point. Typing that made me want to boot up Medieval 2 again lol
Same. I really miss being able to just scrap together am army, to reinforce a region, or to focus my army. I also miss the visual change when units got upgraded armour and weapons. I hope they bring that back eventually. It felt good to se how much better your units got with time.
Yeah, I have to boot it up later as well. Medieval 2 and the first Rome are ported to mobile now, which feels insane to me as my first computer could barely handle Medieval 2 when it released. Now I can play it on mobile.
I loved seeing the armor upgrades, it made me feel like my army was progressing and advancing.
I feel like I could easily get another thousand hours in Med 2 if I could find the time, especially since I've barely scratched the surface of mods.
Same. The mods are insane. My favorites are "Stainless Steel" and Divide & Conquer. I will play Med 2 until it no longer is possible I think.
I was half way through my first Stainless Steel campaign that I'd been playing for a few years and then my harddrive with the save died. Learned my lesson and I plan to keep any future saves backed up.
I haven't tried Divide & Conquer. I've played some of Third Age and I know there's still more go check out. I've also meant to try some of the original Rome Total War mods as well.
Do you have the mobile version of the games? I'd be curious how it plays but I also know I'd spend way too much time on it and already have some great games on my phone that I haven't really played enough of.
In my opinion, Divide and Conquer is an immense improvement to Third Age, highly recommend.
Some old RTW mods are getting ported to the remaster, I think that is worth checking out.
Have the mobile version, but I generally don't like playing on my phone. The controls are wonky. But if you get used to them, it is the same game as on pc. Been great for killing time.
I grabbed the RTW remaster and then realized I didn't have time to play it so there it sits till today.
I'll have to check out Divide and Conquer when I have time. I wish I could save during the real-time battles since right now that is my one hurdle with playing the game. I don't want to get 3/4 a long siege and then have to stop.
My dream for Medieval at this point isn't even really Med 3, but if CA would just go in and release a patch that removes any hard limits on things like civ count, settlement cap, or whatever else and let modders have a field day.
A Medieval 2 remaster would be perfect. It would make me so happy, and also somewhat sad, as I have very little free time in my life now.
You and me both man, you and me both. I'd be happy if it came out but probably wouldn't pick it up for a long time if it did.
I miss having the time to just pour into a campaign over a few weeks. Maybe one day when I retire lol
Haha, I share the feeling. Oh well, perhaps one day I will have more free time.
The Last of Us: Part II. It wasn’t bad, and I had a great time playing it. But the end of the game is where it starts to fall apart. I did not like the very long time playing as Abby when I wanted to see a resolution to the story with Ellie. I also though the part afterward was weird and a bit out of place. Every reviewer said this game is not quite as good as the first (story wise), and I have to agree.
It’s a minor disappointment, but it’s disappointment nonetheless.
I feel compelled to reply since The Last of Us Part II has become my favorite game of all time. I thought the split structure was a fantastic choice. Playing as Abby was off-putting to me... for an hour or two, but once she picks up Yara and Lev and you start getting a feel for what her story was going to be about, I was sucked in and enjoying the story again. Obviously the point of splitting the story that way was to fully immerse yourself in Ellie's mindset and then to flip your feelings on their heads and try and force you to understand why Abby did what she did, and it landed pretty much perfectly for me.
The last section in Santa Barbara feels bit tacked on and has you thinking, "God, there's more?", but it's absolutely necessary. At the end of the Seattle arc, Ellie still didn't have closure over
TLOU II SPOILERS
Joel's golfing accidentI feel like Abby's part would've been better as DLC or a playable mode after beating the main game. Forcing us to do it right at the part it happens was just miserable, even if parts of her campaign were interesting. Santa Barbara really felt off as well. Like I said, the final part of the game is where it falls apart.
I hope a Part III ends things nicely. I still want one as I still do like Part II.
I think the story fundamentally doesn't work if Abby's half isn't part of it. Making you feel miserable about playing as the girl who
TLOU II SPOILERS
bashed Joel's skull inI see your point. It has been since the game launched that I played. Maybe I'll feel differently playing through it a second time. I just feel like it could've been handled better. Forcing you to play as her right as she goes and [spoiler]shoots the person she shoots and makes her attack[/spoiler] is not the place to do it. We're at the climax of the story between those two and instead of seeing it play out, you're forced into a 6-8 hour side story you didn't want nor expect. The placement is what bothers me, and that contributes to the final act of the game: it started to fall apart there.
I do feel bad for her and I don't see her as an evil bitch, but it would've helped to put that part of the game elsewhere IMO. I think finishing the game and thinking you've seen it all and understand it, only to see an "Abby" mode appear would work better. Then you'd finish it and think, "Maybe I was wrong after all." Or perhaps alternating levels? You play as Ellie for a bit, then Abby, then switch back and forth. I don't know. I'm just throwing ideas of how it could've been handled differently as I just can't say I like how it's implemented in the game.
GTA IV got me to stop playing Rockstar games and it's for a few different weird reasons.
San andreas and vice city were more vibrant and fun locations to play with and explore. Additionally, you started having legit challenges to the throne with Saints Row starting to develop a good competitor.
It seemed like they wanted to go deeper into immersive sim styles but to me it felt half assed, the easter eggs and side stuff was fun filler but you've done it before.
Finally, I was fortunate enough to play a ton of San Andreas and the SAMP mod which did the online and modding thing very well. So when Gta5 comes out and takes that angle, but with mtx, I just decided I didn't care anymore.
Have you played red dead redemption 2? I’m curious what your opinion on that game would be, in my opinion rdr2 has one of the best stories and had a sense of realism that other games haven’t captured. Maybe it’s the photorealism of the environment or the great work put into the characters to make them feel like real people, but I think it’s one of the most well executed games of the past few years.
I have not yet. I have strongly considered it as a fan of westerns and I don't doubt there ability to make a well polished game that delivers.
Unfortunately, now my issues stem from time management rather than openness to trying it.
I might give it a go during a winter sale when I have a good hunk of time off.
GTA4 just took itself way too seriously compared to its predecessors. It got particularly annoying with the constant "hey cousin, let's go bowling"
Hotline Miami 2 totally messed up 1's urgent map design and tempo. Way too much shit outside your view. It's a shame, I love the story in 2 and some of the playstyles would have been cool if they just kept the flow better.
NEO: The World Ends With You
Where do I even begin? I think it's an okay JRPG by itself having 100%'d it myself because of the TWEWY name, but it's just missing the mark on almost every category as a TWEWY follow-up. It feels like the team had ideas back when the phone port came out and they teased Hype-chan, but none of them ended up working so someone had to clear the table and glue on the old characters to release something. What's released feels not completely stand-alone nor quite a direct sequel; like a 1.5 journey where the OG characters don't actually matter and they're in the same position as they were when the previous game ended, but they were brought back to ensure the nostalgia money. Now instead of Shibuya being just one place in the UG, the Secret Reports made it the only important place in the franchise which determines the fate of the universe or some crap because of retcons because of course, sequels have to up the stakes to affect the whole damn world.
Anyways, nothing actually happens in the plot because the entire game is Rindo and co following the mission instructions and asking other people what to do while the bad guys twiddles his thumb in the background until he decides to get off his ass and do something. No really, Rindo's arc is supposed to be him being more decisive, but the last Day is literally running around to ask other people how to deal with the final boss. Speaking of, Rindo's thing is being indecisive, so when his second bestie Fret gives his opinion, Rindo acts like a contrarian asshat to keep his options open instead of I dunno, going with the flow initially and then learning to speak up and choose for himself? Neku was asocial rude, Rindo is just whiny rude (unless he's simping for Swallow, his first bestie).
It's just so shallow. The plot doesn't have the same build-up or pacing. All the new characters could be accurately described in one sentence with zero depth besides Shoka. New Game+ isn't a journey of seeing all the subtle foreshadowing, but a reminder that what could have been got cashed in for sequel money. And Another Day just felt so obligatory on their part with so much less dialogue compared to the first game.
I don't know if I've developed higher standards or if some devs just lose the spark of the original because I also feel similarly about Zero Escape: Zero Time Dilemma and AI: The Somnium Files - Nirvana Initiative, but TWEWY is what I feel the most strongly about.
I didn't buy the sequel just because TWEWY was one of my best gaming experiences and I can't stand the thought of diluting it with a half-hearted followup.
Dungeon Siege 3 lack all the vibe from the first two games.
Settlers series got murdered somewhere aong the way too. I played Settlers 2 which was special kind of RTS. Then Settlers 3 came to 3D but still managed to play smwhow the same. And then I saw something like Settlers 6 or whatever and it's just one big shame on the Settlers name.
First time I've ever seen Dungeon Siege talked about in the wild. I was playing Dungeon Siege before I knew what Diablo was.
I was so excited for 3 until I saw gameplay. I think they didn't want to be seen as a Diablo clone. It was a completely different game. Shouldn't have even called it Dungeon Siege.
Overwatch 2
Hard yes. I never got into it but my whole cadre of IRL gaming nuts were for the most part using the original as their time sink of choice.
All I have heard is heartache from those boys and girls.
Master of Orion 3 and Master of Orion: CTS were disappointments to me. The latter had an especially great voice cast announcement, too.
I remember being confused, not disappointed, by Super Mario Brothers 2. It's a great game, it was just confusing to me, since it was so different from the first one. And I was very young when it came out.
Also, my next answer is probably not the type of game you're asking about, but 7th Sea and Legend of the Five Rings both had second editions that were, in my view, far inferior to their first editions. I realize you're asking about video games, not TTRPGs but I thought I'd throw that out there anyway.
Master of Orion 2 was so great that basically anything after that would be "regression to the mean", but 100 pct agree on that one. I'd love to see a modern attempt, though.
The only thing I can think of for it would be revisiting the graphics (and perhaps the AI as an option, or perhaps standardized build queues for new colonies, but playing the classic game is nice too). The UI is a masterpiece -- there's 4-5 screens, total, and it encapsulates a lot.
Oh and fix that stub code where leaders take 5 turns to get to any colony that isn't the capitol. I'm pretty sure that calculation was a stub code at some point that got kept.
I guess I'm saying yes, you're right :-)
I think Final Fantasy did something similar: they remade the first game, updating the graphics and a few pieces that were artifacts of the old system, such as very short name limitations (monsters got full names, spells got full names). They changed a few things, but it was fundamentally the same game.
Life is Strange 2. It's like the studio looked at what people loved in LiS1 and decided to deliberately do the exact opposite.
Oh, people loved the time travel mechanic and how well it intertwined with the story? Let's remove it and replace it with a lame superpower you aren't even directly in control of.
People loved the morally difficult choices? Let's make every choice very easy so people don't spend more than 5 seconds on each.
People loved the overarching story and mystery? Let's make LiS2 have no interesting overarching story, just a couple of kids on the run as random shit happens to them, that's it.
People absolutely adored Chloe? Let's make the new side-kick an annoying little kid!
People loved the relationships and felt strongly for the characters in general? In LiS2, let's make everyone leave after 2 scenes as we are on the run, that way the player won't have enough time to start caring!
I really don't know what they were thinking.
Xenoblade 3.
That game has probably the best side questing in the entire series, with hero quests being one of the most fun things to do.
It doesn't fare as well as the other games in exploration, story or music, unfortunately.
It's a fun game, but it's my least like Xenoblade, not counting Torna.
In the Zero Escape series, I was honestly pretty disappointed by both follow-ups to 9/9/9. The first game just felt so vibrant and unique, with a crazy setting (a Titanic replica) and a colorful cast. There's a big mystery of what's going on, and you find out how everyone's stories are tied together in ways they don't even know. It's just a fun ride as you puzzle it all together.
The sequel, Virtue's Last Resort meanwhile... It's set in this dull, confined space that feels just plain claustrophobic. Just a generic metal bunker-style structure, and with more emphasis on the grim aspects. Then it's gradually revealed the stakes are for the whole world instead of just the small group, and the final act has such a heavy-handed approach to time travel. (Not to mention the way they handled Alice, just felt hollow after the first game.)
Then Zero Time Dilemma... It's just dark and gritty. The deaths are way more gory and explicit, and the overall tone is just so grim, it has none of the fun zany qualities from the first game. The new characters just don't stand out, and the returning characters are trapped in their own grim drama. And it still doesn't resolve everything on-screen. There's a lot of epilogue stuff found in text-only files after you complete the game. Just... A disappointing end to the series, which I don't think needed to be a series.
One more that disappointed me: Ace Attorney: Spirit of Justice. It's the end of the Apollo Justice trilogy, and in some ways it's pretty neat. I liked how it made an actually plausible explanation for how the legal system is so intertwined with a country's government, to the point the country is devoid of defense lawyers and the main characters could thus cause a revolution. I also liked that we could see a victim's last moments, that was a neat thing to work with. And of course, we finally get Maya back.
The problem is, the setting and characters just aren't that compelling compared to other games. It uses the fact it's set in a fictional country, Khura'in, to be lazy with the name puns. They're literally just oddly spelled versions of phrases and words (like Ahlbi Ur'gaid—I'll be your guide, or a character's real name being revealed to be Rheel Neh'mu), to the point it almost feels offensive. Then there's the fact that the cases flip between Khura'in and Japan/America, with most focus being in Khura'in. Which is a neat setting, but it feels dull compared to the last two games.
Also, the rival prosecutor, Nayuta, is probably the most irritating one to me. While they've always been kinda smug, he's a religious zealot-type character who rants a lot and has a quite literal holier than thou attitude. It just struck a nerve. By the end I just started button-mashing to get through his rants. Meanwhile Athena, who was introduced in the previous game, only really appears in one case this time. And that case just feels totally disconnected from the rest of the game.
As a final note: we never got closure for a certain plot point dating back to the first Apollo Justice game. Anyone who played it will know what I mean.
Diablo 3. It lacked the gear charm of 2. I was trying to go through it, building up a few characters and had one in the early parts of Hell. Didn't try the expansion pack as I lost interest before that. At this point, I'm not sure I want to deal with any Blizzard games and haven't picked up either D2R or D4.
Rollercoaster Tycoon World and probably some other bad iterations I'm forgetting post-RCT3. For now, OpenRCT2 is scratching the itch. I've also got Planet Coaster if I feel like something modern, though I haven't played it much and haven't even touched it in years. I might eventually pick up Parkitect, though things like having to put the bathrooms in certain areas and such are throwing me off a bit.
I waited for D3 for years and my disappointment was unmeasurable.
Felt too straightforward and almost no substance, compared to D2.
Jedi: Survivor
I picked up Fallen Order years late for like $15, went in with no expectations, and had a blast with it. So naturally I was excited for the sequel, which promised more of the same but bigger & better.
It came out, and it just ran so gosh darn terribly. I have a 12700K and 3080, so my PC is no slouch, but the game just looked like a blurry, stuttery mess. Frustratingly, that’s still the case today. It’s basically unplayable IMO, though some people consider that exaggeration. YMMV.
It’s frustrating because Fallen Order already looked really good, and it ran great on my rig ! And yet somehow, in the quest for better graphics, Respawn shipped a sequel that manages to perform AND look worse. Sad.
I just bought it (yesterday) to see if Survivor was still awful and it is.
You have me in the CPU department but my 5800x3d w/ 3800MT CL14 and supremely tuned secondary and tertiary timings + modestly pushed RTX 4090 stutters randomly and hard. @ 1440p ultra I average around 170FPS, see 1% lows just under 120FPS via CapFrameX but I will get four hard stutters in two seconds at random (>40ms) and then much softer traversal stuttering. It's absolute dog excrement. Dropping quality doesn't relieve it.
I refunded it just over the 2 hour mark and won't revisit until it's sub $30 because that is all it is worth to me in that state and I am going to assume they will never fix it because it's EA and Respawn.
An older disappointment, but Ace Combat 3 was one of the most disappointing experiences I have ever had. Ace Combat 2 was tons of fun and they tried to do a sci-fi future tech focused version. However in the localization they decided to cut out literally ALL of the plot and leave only a loosely threaded together plot that only served to turn me off.
Thank goodness they decided to focus on building a quality foundation for the series with Ace Combat 4
At the time, Streets of Rage 3 seemed to me to be a huge downgrade. Now gameplay-wise I was wrong, it adds running and more moves and plays really well. It's just..that soundtrack did not compare to the bliss that was SoR2 - and that was a huge problem for me. I've learned to appreciate it more over time, but at that moment I severely disappointed.
Has the be TLOU II for me, probably the most disappointing sequel I've experienced in any format, and a testament to the saying that you should master the rules before you try to break them, especially in storytelling.
I loved the Saints Row games. Yeah it was another GTA clone but 1 and 2 were great, and I love the direction they took it in 3 and some of the levels of absurdity so it didn't have to stay grounded.
4, I thought it would take the crazy to another level with the Matrix-style gaming and bringing almost everyone back from previous games. So once you got into the actual game I stepped away from the story-line and started doing side activities to get used to the new controls and abilities. Until I went back to the story and found the bulk of it is...just doing side activities to disrupt the system. Turns out it started as DLC for 3 but they just pushed to a full release...it genuinely felt like nothing more than DLC.
This may be a bit of a hot take, but Horizon Forbidden West wasn’t the best sequel in my eyes. It wasn’t a particularly bad game, per se, but I felt that overall it didn’t do much to really move the game forward or make it feel like a true leap. The game was more of the same and while that’s not a bad thing by any stretch…I just felt underwhelmed. So disappointing was a good word for my viewpoint. I wish it evolved the game play more. I really think the best thing they did was add a flying mount…that you get at very end of the game.
I did enjoy the game though. I just wish more was done to evolve it.
Most people won't remember it but MechWarrior 4. I loved MechWarrior 2 and 3 because of the flexibility with the build rules, and 4 introduced a new build system that hard slotted certain weapon types, and mechanics like MFBs and allies are gated behind the campaign, which is pretty good for what its worth. We get the Davion arc in its full, but the days of tinkering were gone.
It would be 15 years before they returned to normal with MW5 but even that feels...well it looks nice but it doesn't feel like the space epic 4 did, the one thing I liked about it. Microsoft butchered the IP.
It's generally held in high regard, but I was not that hot on Dark Souls III. It felt like a retread in many ways, and where it did fill in some new ideas, I often didn't enjoy the way it explained things about the series's lore that may have been better left to the imagination. In addition to that, the combat and boss design was just a tad too fast-paced, punishing and unbalanced for slow builds. You could roll for days because stamina management largely went out the window, but I liked having to be considerate about that stuff. And as opposed to the previous two, the progression was generally very constricted and the levels design didn't feel quite as sprawling and multilayered.
The game felt like a response to what the general fandom said they liked about the series after Dark Souls II didn't hit quite as well, with its multi-stage bosses that constantly do fake-outs and countless callbacks to Dark Souls, but I don't think it was better for it. DSII had plenty of flaws, but it was took the series to new places, and I felt like I couldn't predict where it'd go next because it wasn't contrained to the Gwyn-verse. That's what I would've preferred from DSIII.
Dead Space 3
By this point in the series it had departed so far from the original and from the more horror roots that it just felt like I was playing a shooter with quick time scares.
Front Mission 2+.. the first one is so fun, the rest are just terrible.
Commandos 2. I couldn't believe they could make the game worse in pretty much every possible way.
For me it was Destiny 2, pre Forsaken expansion. They changed so much for the worse that it just wasn't that fun, and everyone that I knew who played D1 religiously, or even started playing D2 when it came out, stopped playing after a couple months and none have returned back to the game besides one person, who occasionally might hop in.
Final Fantasy X-2 was a bit disappointing because of the percentage based nature of the game. I don't go to game walkthroughs by default but prefer to play the game and experience it fresh without any outside knowledge. Before the internet when we were completely stuck and no one I went to school with had beaten that section, that was that. Sometimes the game had a number to call. Sometimes, a classmate had a game guide. Once we had the internet, then segasages (later gamefaqs) was there, in case of emergency.
Final Fantasy X-2 constantly drew the player's attention to the the completion percentage and the knowledge that if you didn't get 100%, the best ending would not be seen. How would anyone get 100% not knowing what they don't know? That sapped some of the joy out of the game for me.
Oblivion was my first letdown after Morrowind, but only second worse. Also the first game I ever preordered (because I cancelled my TF2 preorder after it hadn't been released for 5+ years). Fortunately, I eventually added enough mods to make Oblivion enjoyable.
Then I preordered FO3. Talk about the hugest letdown ever - worse than Oblivion, due to having spent so much of my youth playing FO2 (and some original FO). After that, I stopped preordering games. Maybe it was Bethesda...