What's the most okay game you've ever played?

[Hawki]

I disagree that Doom is the horror game (haven't played it, but surely that distinction would go to Doom 3?), while Doom II is the action game. Personally, I never got a sense of horror in Doom. Caution, yes, but caution isn't the same thing as fear. One can argue that Doom II has a wider scope than Doom in that it's set on Earth rather than moon bases, but there's not really anything to convey that scale bar a few exceptions (e.g. there's a wide open temple-like level which I could imagine Hell setting up shop on Earth), but even then, I'm left to ask whether this is an intentional transition, or done simply because it looks "kewl." Doom has an efficient, distinct aesthetic in that each of the three main locations has a distinct feel to it which help with the transition from normality (Phobos) to the insane (Hell) whereas in Doom II it feels far more haphazard.

Doom II feels like more of the same, but a less well designed, less interesting "same." And per the above paragraph, I'm not sure if D2 really counts as iterative. To use another example, consider the leap between Warcraft I and II, where, like Doom and Doom II, only one year separated the two games, and they came out in a similar time period.

First and foremost, I never said it was a horror game.
Second, both Warcraft and Warcraft 2 were publisher games. And Doom was shareware. There's a difference. And you still have Beyond the Dark Portal to criticise for the lack of novelty.

I should have probably phrased the horror aspect better. I know you're not calling Doom a horror game. My point is that I don't see that Doom drifts any further towards horror than Doom II. Both games are ultimately about empowerment - take on demons, kick arse and take names.

As for shareware, I can't really comment on the difference (lack of a publisher, I get that, how much of an effect that would have is another matter), only that Doom II is explicitly labeled as a sequel, one that I feel didn't innovate that much, and is actually a step back from its predecessor. Beyond the Dark Portal on the other hand, is explicitly an expansion back. I assume it was priced as such (I first played WC2 through the battle.net edition), but at the least, it sells itself for what it is - an expansion. More of the same. Beyond the Dark Portal doesn't add nearly as much to WC2 as Brood War would to StarCraft years later, but it still undoubtedly fits the expansion paradigm. And getting into more subjective territory, Beyond the Dark Portal explicitly continues the story of the Warcraft universe. Doom II...well, it technically continues off from where Doom I left off, but it still follows the same three act structure, but falters in environmental storytelling, and is less interesting (IMO) than its predecessor in that Doom I at least had the Prometheus trope (science going too far), and if I really squint, almost a technology vs. magic theme. Warcraft II is nothing special in story, but is still a massive improvement over its predecessor.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

I have a few that fit the bill, but the only one I distinctly remember is Clive Barker's Jericho.
It had it's flaws and all, but it was fun enough. I sunk an afternoon into it and beat it, maybe replayed it once after that. It wasn't terrible, it wasn't amazing, it was okay.

 

[Hawki]

I should have probably phrased the horror aspect better. I know you're not calling Doom a horror game. My point is that I don't see that Doom drifts any further towards horror than Doom II. Both games are ultimately about empowerment - take on demons, kick arse and take names.

As for shareware, I can't really comment on the difference (lack of a publisher, I get that, how much of an effect that would have is another matter), only that Doom II is explicitly labeled as a sequel, one that I feel didn't innovate that much, and is actually a step back from its predecessor. Beyond the Dark Portal on the other hand, is explicitly an expansion back. I assume it was priced as such (I first played WC2 through the battle.net edition), but at the least, it sells itself for what it is - an expansion. More of the same. Beyond the Dark Portal doesn't add nearly as much to WC2 as Brood War would to StarCraft years later, but it still undoubtedly fits the expansion paradigm. And getting into more subjective territory, Beyond the Dark Portal explicitly continues the story of the Warcraft universe. Doom II...well, it technically continues off from where Doom I left off, but it still follows the same three act structure, but falters in environmental storytelling, and is less interesting (IMO) than its predecessor in that Doom I at least had the Prometheus trope (science going too far), and if I really squint, almost a technology vs. magic theme. Warcraft II is nothing special in story, but is still a massive improvement over its predecessor.

I don't know where you got this idea that a "2" on the end owes you something extra. Apparently, I've never been there.
But I can comment on the difference.
And the difference is: You can't release a retail expansion to a shareware game. First: shareware games aready come in parts. Second: a publisher would want a full game anyway. So it has to be a different one. That's how you get a "2" on the end. They're basically one game, split in two. And I don't see a problem with it.
And as for all of the storytelling complaints... seriously?

Also, those words you use "less well designed", can you please convert these to measurable units?

Where did I state that Doom II "owed" me anything? I know that many people seem to think so, considering the regular complaints about rehashes in franchises, but no, I don't think consumers are ever "owed" anything. Giving reasons for not liking something is something else entirely, and the entire point of this thread. Feeling that a game billed as a sequel is not as good as its predecessor, slipping from "good" to "okay," surely fits the criteria of said thread.

On more specific points, I used the phrase "less well designed" with the connotation of "feel," so I'm not sure why this is an issue. No idea how you can even quantify that in any unit of measurement - I've never seen anyone ever give a unit of measurement for level design, I'm not sure how that's even possible unless I'm giving arbitrary rankings. All I can say is what I've already said numerous times - I consider Doom to have superior level design to Doom II because each of the three main areas feels distinct (Phobos, Deimos, Hell, with a clear line of descent, so to speak), whereas in Doom II, the areas blur more, and don't feel as unique when compared to one another.

And finally, story. You mention "all of the storytelling" complaints, despite the fact that I was praising Doom I over Doom II, outright stated that story is subjective, and again gave clear reasons why, as minimal as the storylines of the early Doom games are, in the scope they provide, I feel Doom has a better story than Doom II for the reasons given, regardless of how minimal those stories are.

 

[MilkQueen]

Dead Rising. The original one. Maybe the hype was too much, but by the time i got around to playing it, it was just "Meh,".

 

[Bad Jim]

I don't know where you got this idea that a "2" on the end owes you something extra.

Well, the original Doom cannot be considered an "okay" game because it was a massive technological leap forward at the time. Doom 2 was not. It added a few extra enemies and an overpowered shotgun, it was fun to play, but wasn't anything amazing. It was okay.

 

[tacotrainwreck]

Most recently for me would be Shadow of Mordor. It was okay, there was nothing particularly weak about it, and the combat was fun for a little while. Just didn't hold my interest for very long.

 

[Yoshilord]

Wii sports - It is just ok. It can be fun with the right people, but overall, meh.

The Magic Circle (demo I guess) - I just played the demo, and it kind of killed the interest I had in that game. I guess it could get better, but no one has told me it does, so I don't think I'll bother. I didn't think it was very funny or interesting. The graphics were nice and the concept was good, but overall, it was just ok.

Dark Echo - Just a mobile horror game. It was an interesting idea, but it is killed by repetition.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Someone mentioned it already, but Prototype. I loved the concept of the game, the powers, the free-roaming "you're a ridiculously powerful being" feel to it (similar to the very awesome "Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction") but so much of the game felt sort of half-assed, and the execution of a lot of the powers left me wanting. If they could have combined the powers and upgrades system (not to mention the side missions) of Prototype 2 with 1, it would have been a really amazing game.

WH40K, Dawn of War 2: I loved the hell out of Dawn of War, so I had high hopes for 2, but the game was kind of blah. The "boss battles" were lame, and I hated how they cut down the squad size, but the art direction and sound effects were just top notch, and the game didn't really do anything wrong, it just didn't really do anything right either.

Kingdoms of Amalur: This game seemed to have so much going for it, but once you actually started playing it, it was just kind of 'meh'. Way too many quests to keep track of, story felt nonsensical (just endless blathering about fate and destiny), and I wasn't a huge fan of the art style. But the combat and upgrades systems were a lot of fun and very well done, so honestly I might chalk the game up as disappointing more than anything else.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I realize we aren't supposed to trash any game, but the hallmark of an okay game for me is one I have difficulty remembering. I remember the good and bad ones for varying reasons. Okay games just don't have anything notable about them.

Singularity. It's the one I did remember. I gave it to a friend two years ago. I see him on a regular basis yet I still can't be bothered to get it back from him. It just doesn't occupy any headspace for us.

Area 51. I remember playing bits of it when I was younger. I picked it up from an old games retailer (which has sadly closed) and played it again. Wow was it mediocre, even for the time. It's trying so hard to be a cross between Half-Life and Doom but it just doesn't have anything remarkable about it. That's accounting for the voice acting of David Duchovny and Marilyn Manson. And that you get to play as the enemy effectively.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Total War: Rome II when they finally "fixed" the game. It was alright but it lacked the charm Medieval 2, Rome or Shogun 2 had. Fights still felt unenthusiastic and dull, the factions all felt samey (even by TW standards) and the generals/units felt so disconnected. Attila and its expansions brought a lot more flavor to the table but I still feel the series, currently, is overshadowed by Shogun 2. Maybe Warhammer is going to change that.

I guess maybe Dishonoured? I still go back and play it again sometimes and the DLC is actually pretty damn good but the emphasis on non lethal playthroughs being the "correct" way to play the game killed it for me.

You have so many cool toys and stuff for lethal runs and the best thing you can get for non lethal runs are fuckin chokeholds and sleep darts? I feel like i'm missing half the content, plus I never cared for the non lethal assassination methods. The entire level is based around killing this one guy now you suddenly want me to not kill this one guy? Fuck off, he's getting a sword to the dick.

This really grinds my gears about that game. They sold the entire game's premise based on creative ways to ambush enemies and they just had to put in some obligatory, finger-wagging morality counter in place to tell you how bad of a person you are for having fun. The stealth system wasn't particularly good or unique to begin with to encourage nonviolent gameplay.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Borderlands. Didn't play it for very long. I felt it was very much like an MMO, but in offline mode.

 

[JaKandDaxter]

The original BioShock.

I know there are huge fans of that game out there. But the shooting/combat mechanics are very dull and unsatisfying. Ultimately those mechanics brought down the game so much in my opinion, that I can't say I liked BioShock. I did finish it and the environments were not bad. With some nice enemies and the cool relationship between Big Daddy and the girl. But BioShock is largely forgettable for me. And I couldn't bother with Infinite knowing it too suffered with lackluster gameplay mechanics.

 

[SweetShark]

I need to check the my list with my played games, put right now I remember this game:

Deadly Premonition

I liked the weird story and characters and the REALLY awkward moments while you were playing the game.
However the gameplay was baaaaaaaAAAAaAAaAAaAAaAAAAAAAd!!! REALLY BAD! I decided to check the story of the game on Youtube and I don't feel guilty about. The people who played it as well doesn't feeled pleased as well....