Yeah game was kinda shittyKinkaido said:I'm going to say Spore, too. It went from looking like the best and most innovative game ever to a set of editors with a game grudgingly attached. Not to mention the fact that you see almost nothing of your creature once you enter the Civilization part of the game.
I've always called it "Final Fantasy: Sailor Moon". I have yet to finish it, especially since I don't think I'm getting the 100% ending. And when did FF games have multiple endings? Especially ones that depended on a completion percentage? Fuck you Square! (Not yet SquareEnix at the time).Solo-Wing said:Final Fantasy X (Something just did not click like the others had before it
Really? Now I'd say SC4.NeutralDrow said:If you'd asked me a month ago, I'd have said Soul Calibur 3 (console version; arcade was fine).
You're not, Schizoid mentioned it on the previous page.freakydan said:How am I the first one to mention Duke Nukem Forever?
Yup that pretty much sums up my feelings on the gamethebobmaster said:Grand Theft Auto 4. For all the great scores it got, when I played it, it was lacking one thing that any game really needs for me. Fun. It looked good, and had a great story. But it wasn't any fun to play, like the older games were.
Agreed yet whenever you say this people tend to say "oh it's meant to be played in co-op".No,no,no if co-op is optional in a game then my enjoyment of a game shouldn't depend on me using the damn thingNecromancer Jim said:Borderlands. I heard tales of hundreds of thousands of guns and GOTY material.
What I got was a grinding quests through uninteresting environments with lousy combat using a few guns with their stats modified in many different ways.