Most MEDIOCRE Game You've Ever Played
- Thread starter IPunchWithMyFists
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Mass Effect 3. Taken on its own, ignoring the series, it was by no means bad - but it wasn't good either. It was just a meh cinematic shooter with a small free roaming aspect for you to walk around and watch cutscenes in it.
CoD also comes to mind. Not bad, but not good, and all round meh. After the first playthrough.
Other than that I'm probably not qualified to talk. I discount a lot of games because they look like they'll be average, so I don't buy or play them, hence I don't know if they actually are average or not, but my money's on the fact that they are.
CoD also comes to mind. Not bad, but not good, and all round meh. After the first playthrough.
Other than that I'm probably not qualified to talk. I discount a lot of games because they look like they'll be average, so I don't buy or play them, hence I don't know if they actually are average or not, but my money's on the fact that they are.
Demon Souls for me. I just can't buy the second one know I never really thought the first was all that great.Zhukov said:
FFXIII. It was just so... meh. It's pretty, but the combat was boring and lacking strategy.
Halo 3-Now. Halo:CE was fun, cause it was kinda new. Halo 2 was fun because of plasma sword, dual wielding and all the glitches. Halo 3 was ok, but the interruptions during the story sucked, and the multiplayer was more of the same. ODST was ODST (Don't really think I need to elaborate on this). Reach was CE with new weapons, better graphics, and a more boring multiplayer.
Marvel Ultimate Alliance. It wasn't bad, but there is no draw to play it either.
Resistance 3. Fun, but the missions were rather generic and the multiplayer was a CoD/Goldeneye baby.
Gears of War. It... yeah. Not much there. Headshots are fun to get though.
CoD 3, WaW, MW2, BO, and MW3. Simply because I had already played them before, when they came out.
The Grand Theft Auto games are all pretty lackluster. Stealin' cars and killin' hookers is fun, but only for about an hour.
Halo 3-Now. Halo:CE was fun, cause it was kinda new. Halo 2 was fun because of plasma sword, dual wielding and all the glitches. Halo 3 was ok, but the interruptions during the story sucked, and the multiplayer was more of the same. ODST was ODST (Don't really think I need to elaborate on this). Reach was CE with new weapons, better graphics, and a more boring multiplayer.
Marvel Ultimate Alliance. It wasn't bad, but there is no draw to play it either.
Resistance 3. Fun, but the missions were rather generic and the multiplayer was a CoD/Goldeneye baby.
Gears of War. It... yeah. Not much there. Headshots are fun to get though.
CoD 3, WaW, MW2, BO, and MW3. Simply because I had already played them before, when they came out.
The Grand Theft Auto games are all pretty lackluster. Stealin' cars and killin' hookers is fun, but only for about an hour.
Yeah. Was fun for the 1 1/2 playthroughs, but then it was all the same. Even the DLC.Ratboy1337 said:
Oh yeah. This too.Inkidu said:
As much as I don't want to admit it, I'm going to have to agree with you on this.Trippy Turtle said:
I rarely enter these kinds of discussions with new games, BUT I'd have to say "Diablo III". It's not a bad game, but it's not a good one either, it's very much the definition of "Mediocre". I mean it does what it set out to do, I run around, click on monsters, they fall down and I pick up treasure, sometimes a harder monster makes me sidestep it's attacks. I can customize my character but only within very specific parameters, and they are the same ones as every other character of that type. None of the skills are paticularly new or exciting, nothing I haven't seen before. The game looks good, but with current technology I expect it to look better than the games that came out a few years ago, so that's pretty much expected, the basic monster models convey menace, but don't have any paticular personality or art direction that makes me feel they are anything special... just passable fantasy monsters like in every fantasy game.
There is nothing wrong with Diablo 3, but nothing exceptional about it either. I'm not knocking it per se, I can't say it sucks, just that it doesn't excite me.
Of course I admit part of it is that there are older games that I think did it better. I keep mentioning this little known gem called "Sacred 2" which I think got overlooked due to people waiting for Diablo 3 and it not having the same brand name. Technologically speaking it's not as good as D3 being both older, and also being buggier due to what I sadly have to say is a less skilled team. But what it had was personality, instead of one hub you visited, you had an open world and multiple towns with quests in them, you could choose to worship differant deities which have you special abillities (like summoning a ginormous demon), you could ride mounts, and while not unique you had skill trees complicated enough where you could build some really cool characters. Where in D3 there is really only one way to play a specific character who has very set builds, you could say take a basically ranged character in Sacred 2 and turn it into a melee monster, such as making a Dryad based around riding a giant monitor lizard and bashing everything to death with dual wielded staves (the Dryad/Wood Elf is by default an archer type character with some nature based druidic magic stuff). One of the Sacred 2 characters was a cyborg (which was justified by the game's lore, even if the story was minimal at best) with an egyptian theme right out of Stargate, that could blast things with all kinds of tech based powers in an otherwise fantasy setting (and honestly had a perfectly good reason for being there and doing this, albiet these guys are very rare and it's a unique set of circumstances having him run around).
See, that's what Diablo 3 lacks... personality. It's dark "halloween town" atmosphere just doesn't cut it, I mean it's good, it does the job, but it's nothing more. It's like a fast food cheeseburger, it's tasty, it gets the job done, but it's not something that your going to say "wow, this is great" about. It fills the need when there aren't other options. Diablo 3 is mediocrity personified, and I really can't say that I remember playing a game that was just so bloody average in every respect, even games that I say are "meh" tend to be weighted one way or another, but Diablo 3 is incapable of motivating me to either love or hate.
There is nothing wrong with Diablo 3, but nothing exceptional about it either. I'm not knocking it per se, I can't say it sucks, just that it doesn't excite me.
Of course I admit part of it is that there are older games that I think did it better. I keep mentioning this little known gem called "Sacred 2" which I think got overlooked due to people waiting for Diablo 3 and it not having the same brand name. Technologically speaking it's not as good as D3 being both older, and also being buggier due to what I sadly have to say is a less skilled team. But what it had was personality, instead of one hub you visited, you had an open world and multiple towns with quests in them, you could choose to worship differant deities which have you special abillities (like summoning a ginormous demon), you could ride mounts, and while not unique you had skill trees complicated enough where you could build some really cool characters. Where in D3 there is really only one way to play a specific character who has very set builds, you could say take a basically ranged character in Sacred 2 and turn it into a melee monster, such as making a Dryad based around riding a giant monitor lizard and bashing everything to death with dual wielded staves (the Dryad/Wood Elf is by default an archer type character with some nature based druidic magic stuff). One of the Sacred 2 characters was a cyborg (which was justified by the game's lore, even if the story was minimal at best) with an egyptian theme right out of Stargate, that could blast things with all kinds of tech based powers in an otherwise fantasy setting (and honestly had a perfectly good reason for being there and doing this, albiet these guys are very rare and it's a unique set of circumstances having him run around).
See, that's what Diablo 3 lacks... personality. It's dark "halloween town" atmosphere just doesn't cut it, I mean it's good, it does the job, but it's nothing more. It's like a fast food cheeseburger, it's tasty, it gets the job done, but it's not something that your going to say "wow, this is great" about. It fills the need when there aren't other options. Diablo 3 is mediocrity personified, and I really can't say that I remember playing a game that was just so bloody average in every respect, even games that I say are "meh" tend to be weighted one way or another, but Diablo 3 is incapable of motivating me to either love or hate.
To be fair, it's not like you really need the gold by that point. I was rolling in dough by the time I hit the double digits in levels. Fuck do you get a lot of gold dungeon crawling o_oNightmare-Child said:
OT: I would have to go with Dungeon Siege III I played through it once with the guns lady (I can't remember names) but there's utterly nothing else to do in subsequent playthroughs so... I don't... which is sad.
*carefully looks at thread* Hey, I actually don't think anyone's said mine yet!
Gotham City Impostors. Maybe I'm an idiot for getting excited at all about it, but I bought it for $10 on Steam and STILL felt like I had wasted money on a total snoozefest. Despite having the Batman license to play with and some genuinely funny little videos and animations on the menu, everything about the actual gameplay was dreadfully boring and copy-pasted from one thousand other, better shooters. A couple grappling hooks and bouncy things were really not enough to differentiate it from an already-saturated market for me, so I put it away after maybe four matches and went back to Arkham City for my Bat-fix.
The funny thing is, I don't even play that many shooters, so I shudder to think how bored a shooter veteran must be.
Gotham City Impostors. Maybe I'm an idiot for getting excited at all about it, but I bought it for $10 on Steam and STILL felt like I had wasted money on a total snoozefest. Despite having the Batman license to play with and some genuinely funny little videos and animations on the menu, everything about the actual gameplay was dreadfully boring and copy-pasted from one thousand other, better shooters. A couple grappling hooks and bouncy things were really not enough to differentiate it from an already-saturated market for me, so I put it away after maybe four matches and went back to Arkham City for my Bat-fix.
The funny thing is, I don't even play that many shooters, so I shudder to think how bored a shooter veteran must be.