Sequels that Squandered Potential

[Captain Pirate]

Red Faction: Armageddon

Only thing about that game that was good is that Magnet Gun.

Yeah, this.
Took the perfect, destruction-based open world game and put it underground with barely any buildings to destroy.
WHAT.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

HALO 2. FUCKING HALO 2. I mean, WTF happened?

Mismanaged scheduling, taking 3 years and still ending up with a product that felt rushed. Plus, and I know I'm in the minority on this pet peeve, but they cared sod-all about the campaign and spent the majority of the assets and schedule focusing on the multiplayer. Which would be fine if it were in addition to a good story mode rather than at the expense of it.

I love Halo, but more for the story and sci-fi setting than anything else. And Halo 2 remains the series low point for me. And I didn't even mind the cliffhanger ending. They nailed the multiplayer stuff and good on them for doing that at least. But yeah, it let me down in the area I most cared about.

Wow, I pretty much agree with everything you just said TO THE LETTER.

One of my major issues was that the combat in campaign feels stacked in the enemies' favor: large groups of enemies are given ample cover and flanking routes, while the player is largely channeled down a narrow, naked corridor into enemy fire without any backup. Enemy damage resistance isn't so high that it makes the game impossible, but it is so high that shooting enemies feels repetitive and ineffective.

And, IMO, duel-wielding was pretty unneeded.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

And, IMO, duel-wielding was pretty unneeded.

Yeah, that's the case with any dual wielding if you ask me. Anyone who knows a thing about firearms knows that it's nonsense. Sure, a Spartan with their enhanced musculature and reaction times could make use of that in a way a normal person would not or could not. But it's still just mindless ammo dumping in most cases. In my mind, a Spartan would make every bullet count, not blind fire with two weapons and run the risk of having no ammo for a critical encounter later on.

But of course that's putting real world logic on to a video game which truly isn't fair. And to be honest, dual needlers was kinda badass when the buggers attack. Nonsense still, but explodey pink nonsense. Which is, honestly, the best kind.

 

[Newby_Newb]

Dragon Age 2
Mass Effect 2
Mass Effect 3

 

[Teshi]

I will say ME2 and ME3 although this will get me flamed.

I agree even though I enjoyed ME2 and most of ME3. The first game wasn't perfect, but IMO it was a fresh new gameworld and mostly buzzed along at a good pace thanks to the balanced mix between shooter, adventure and RPG gameplay. ME2 was a calculated but uneven remake of the first and lacked its charm, and ME3 felt like the writers got a massive collective case of writer's block thanks to the pressure of popularity, melted down, then got drunk and pumped out whatever they could to meet their deadline. Basically, a lot of what made the first ME game good was the newness of it, and in the sequels they seemed to be terrified disturb the winning formula they'd hit upon.

I'd also cite SW: TOR. I've been enjoying TOR, but the first two KOTOR games were clever and had big ideas and seemed to be building toward something, where as TOR is more like "Oh, you liked KOTOR? Wouldn't it be fun to run around in that universe a bunch?"

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Right. So to be fair, everyone who's disappointed in D3 is in some form delusional?

No. Diablo 3 wasn't always going to be shit (never mind a disappointment), and the reason it is is because it's a failure on a lot of counts. It's because the story sucks harder than a black hole, the presentation of the story is unnecessarily overbearing, the itemization is way too simplistic and lacking in any meaningful variety, the character building/customization is borderline non-existant and it's made for idiots who literally can't figure out what the word "life" entails in a game and because the game is hugely restrictive. Not because people, conveniently for you, think so highly of D2 that nothing's ever going to reach it or other some such nonsense.

The story is just fine, certainly no worse than your usual gaming fair; and please do explain how story that can be speed-clicked through is "unnecessarily overbearing", I'm all ears. The itemization is just fine, not exactly sure what D2 did that people were expecting more from the stats in D3, so please do explain how the itemization is lacking, because I still don't get it despite numerous D2 fanboys trying to explain it. Character customization is just fine, if you want a rigid "no going back except to re-roll" system, then play any-other RPG on the market. Heaven forbid that D3 try a new system that answers the problem of not wanting to force rerolls while avoiding the hokey "pay to respec" option. And that last comment is clearly just flaming for the sake of flaming, because I don't even know what point you're trying to make with it.

So yeah, to be fair - to Blizzard - Diablo 3 was always going to get picked apart and bashed for having the gaul to not be Diablo 2. Most complaints I see people try to levee against it are just asinine and desperate attempts to have a gripe in the first place. The game could be 100% flawless, and people would still have picked it apart to find reasons to slam it; unless it was a carbon-copy of D2 (though even then they'd find things to pick at).

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

To be fair, Diablo 3 was ALWAYS going to be a disappointment. It doesn't matter how flawless of a launch it had or how good or bad the game itself was, Diablo 3, simply by virtue of the fact that gamers are gamers, was always going to disappoint. The only way for Diablo 3 to have satisfied the Diablo 2 fans was if Blizzard just copy-pasted Diablo 2 and put a "3" sticker over the logo.

Are you suggesting that there kind of arguments....

*Videos Snipped*


....don't have a foundation on logic?

Yes, yes, I've seen those videos already. See, here's the thing though, just because someone voices their opinion (and yes, I apologize to be the one to break this to you, but those videos are just his opinion, not facts) in a calm and informative tone doesn't somehow make him more right. And I don't really feel like re-explaining myself since you can just refer to my last post for my responses to his points (since Hammeroj, like a good little sheep, already voiced the tired "cons" of D3 that everyone harps about since they can't find their own gripes to take).

 

[-Drifter-]

See, here's the thing though, just because someone voices their opinion doesn't somehow make him more right.

Nor does being pompous and arrogant, so I'd ask that you either cut it out or leave. Your opinion isn't law just because you say so, and disagreeing with it doesn't make one a "sheep."

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

See, here's the thing though, just because someone voices their opinion doesn't somehow make him more right.

Nor does being pompous and arrogant, so I'd ask that you either cut it out or leave. Your opinion isn't law just because you say so, and disagreeing with it doesn't make one a "sheep."

I'm sorry, but having a Clint Eastwood avatar doesn't make you the sheriff of the forums. If you can't handle some opposing opinions and a debate there-in, then you should probably find some other corner of the internet to amuse yourself.

Edit: Though thanks for making me notice that I forgot to include part of my intended phrasing in that sentence so that I could edit it.

 

[-Drifter-]

I'm sorry, but having a Clint Eastwood avatar doesn't make you the sheriff of the forums. If you can't handle some opposing opinions and a debate there-in, then you should probably find some other corner of the internet to amuse yourself.

That means a lot coming from you, friend, but opposing opinions have nothing to do with it (I've never even played Diablo III.) I'd just rather you not be an ass when you're speaking yours. And no, I'm not "the sheriff of the forums" but it is my thread so if you're going to continue being presumptuous and condescending to everyone who disagrees with you then I think I'm well within my rights to ask you to leave.

 

[Yali]

Oblivion

Now, no matter if you liked Oblivion or not, if you've played Morrowind you know what I mean. If they had taken Morrowind and developed it (in the sense of evolve/develop)it could have been a great/awesome/fantastic game. They didn't. Instead they gave us a watered down, stripped-of-good-Morrowindyness console port that takes place in England.

 

[McMullen]

Every Assassin's Creed after II. HUGE difference between I and II, very little difference between II and anything that came after. Not enough new good stuff, and not enough of the old bad stuff was fixed. In fact, I think the controls are even more unresponsive in Revelations, which kinda makes sense considering Ezio's age, but is NOT good in game design.

Sometimes I feel that for all the influence I have on what Ezio does in AC:R, it may as well have just been a movie.

*Ezio did not kill civilians*

"Then why the hell did he turn away from the Templar I was following and double-stab the two civilians to the side instead?"

 

[Aeshi]

-Story gripes

In contrast to Diablo II's plot about some random guy on the run from demons choosing to follow a guy who regularly loses control and summons demons for no real reason, said Demon/Guy trying to free his brothers (with the help of Lesser Evils who were his mortal enemies previous to this but are now BFF for no real reason) in order to corrupt a MacGuffin that never existed in the previous games that existed solely to give the villains an insta-win card?
.

We had on this very issue. In a nutshell, it offers zero meaningful variety, and on top of that, is broken on several counts, like the vendors and gems being complete shit and boring respectively, and the randomness being cranked up way too much even in places where it shouldn't be, like legendaries.

The Randomness is a little too much I agree, but the Vendors were pretty worthless in Diablo II as well.
.

You can switch skills without paying, something I'm not actually objecting to, and you can choose a whopping 3 passives, which have about as much power in changing your characters as maybe a sixth of what an actual talent tree would allow.
&
The fact is that the only thing different from one barbarian to the next are their items. And given that neither the itemization, nor the skill system, gives one any reason to build something other than "Main stat, attack speed, crit, stamina, all resistances" (a combination of as much of these stats as the item slot allows), the item build is never actually any different either. Just weaker or stronger.

And that's different to everyone just using the same 2 most effective builds for their current class because anything else ceased to stand a chance past Normal...how? Seems like that Illusion of choice is all that separates 'Freedom' from 'Linear'
.

The Path of Exile passive tree, for instance, lets you get bonuses as high as +100% physical damage, +50% elemental damage, +50% life, +5% life regen per second, easily.

And $10 says that when that game comes out of beta somebody will have found the combination that is the best/most optimized and everybody will just use that and all be the same anyway.

Because it turns out that if you have 100 doors, 54 of them kill you and 45 of them cripple you for life then (for all sane intents and purposes) you only have one door. That's about as 'complex' as a Keypad.

I kinda agree with WhiteTiger, seems like the best thing to do to appease the fans would've been to just copy-paste Diablo II and add a line about the Worldstone's destruction creating a time loop or something.

 

[Gincairn]

Blood Omen 2
Soul Reaver 2

But for you young 'uns who'd like something a little more current, it's going to have to be

Dragon Age 2 and the latest SSX.

(I would have said Kane and Lynch 2, but let's be honest, after the ball of poo that was the first one, the second one HAD no potential.)

 

[Saviordd1]

Command and Conquer 4

*Shudders*