Apcizzle
Member
The guy who left your house last night and your mom said i was just there to check the cable.Who's Apc?
(god im so clever sometimes)
Your biggest video game dissapointment?
- Thread starter MJ1284
- Start date
(god im so clever sometimes)
Lepidopterist
Member
Modern Warfare 2. CoD4 was so good, I was extremely upset that they ruined the series so badly.
OmniNept
Actionaut
Legions.
In all seriousness:
I disagree with Dragon Age 2 being disappointing, especially with respect to its predecessor. The combat was most certainly not dumbed down by improving input/reaction response time. That particular change was a boon to those of us who play without pausing (on Nightmare mode, I might add) and enjoy rapidity of thought; and it certainly didn't hamper those of you who prefer pausing. The combat was also improved by nerfing mages, introducing cross-class combos, adding class-specific "evasions" (dodge/backstab/vendetta for the rogue, blast waves for the mage, and stonewall for the warriors) and placing such emphasis on positions and knockback/knockdowns. In DA2, fight location mattered.
Dragon Age 1 was triple-mage, Shale. Or triple-mage, Alistair if you didn't have Shale. There was next to no strategy and the fights were far too easy, even on the hardest difficult settings.
And if you were playing DA2 on "normal", you were playing it wrong. Go back and try it on nightmare or on the second-hardest difficulty.
Dragon Age 1 also had the most trite, callow "story" I've seen in an RPG. It was LOTR for Retards. And the characters! My god, RPG stereotypes the lot of them. Dragon Age 2 focused on DA's one original aspect: the interplay between magic and the church. And it told that story well, with characters that weren't DRUNKEN DWARF NUMBER 1.
Artstyle's another area where DA2 improved upon DA1. Dragon Age 1 had the most vapid "art" I've seen for some time while Dragon Age 2 introduced an actual artstyle, with unique interpretations of fantasy standbys. The Darkspawn were finally Darkspawn instead of retarded orcs.
So no, I don't feel it was a letdown. In fact, I found it a pleasant surprise. There were two areas, though, that definitely needed work:
1) Area recycling was obvious and overdone. While the areas themselves were vast improvements over their DA1 counterparts, there simply weren't enough unique locales.
2) While wave battles test tactics and force adaptation, there were far, far too many in DA2. That being said, at least the waves ramped up difficulty. DA1's combat scenarios simply didn't force tactics.
Supposedly the story expansions will rectify these two complaints. At the very least, hopefully their combat system and artstyle will carry over to DA3 and these shortfalls won't.
I also failed to find Fallout 3 disappointing. I think most people see Fallout through massively rosy hues . . . like rosy to the maximum extreme. Fallout's story was utterly retarded, if you'll recall. And nothing compares to actually wandering Fallout's universe in first-person perspective.
I loved being able to do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciFoilgNpAk (watch where each shot lands)
And it produced moments like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQH_VKuxpSs
As for games I've found disappointing:
1) Unreal Tournament 3. More for its improper release than for its gameplay (which was solid). It failed competitively because Epic was childish and stubborn, blaming their poor launch on the community instead of on their dumbing down of the UI. We had such an amazing team lined up for that one, too. Goddamnit.
2) Shattered Horizon. Counter Strike in space. There's no point having increased maneuverability if using it gets you shot. Way too easy, way too limited.
3) Transformers: War for Cybertron. Excellent game hampered by poor post-release support. Also by competition teams that quit as soon as they were beaten.
4) Oblivion. I don't know that "disappointing" is the right word. Oblivion was a great game, but its story and artistic direction paled in comparison to Morrowind. The Shivering Isles expansion fixed those complaints, though, and I've high hopes for Skyrim (especially after seeing some of the unique architecture).
5) Quake 4. What the *dance* was that *chocolate cookies*.
6) Splinter Cell: Double Agent. Go back to Chaos Theory, its multiplayer and its music.
7) Front Mission Evolved. Good gameplay, poor multiplayer matching system, and poor post-release support.
8) Genesis A.D. They reduced movement instead of increasing it. And then they removed the game because no one was playing.
9) Huxley. If you are attempting to emulate UT-style combat, DON'T REMOVE DODGING. Idiots.
10) Tribes 2. Surprise! Hated that game. Way too slow, way too floaty, way too splashy. I'm always amused when Tribes players think their shooting skills transfer across other FPS'. They don't, because in no other FPS are you permitted TEN SECONDS TO AIM EACH MASSIVELY PREDICTABLE SHOT. That being said, I appreciated its strategic potential. I just appreciated that strategic potential more when it was introduced (and ramped up) with increased maneuverability in U2XMP.
10 A) Legions. For serious. Legions had a lot of potential but was restrained by both finances and player/private tester attitudes. There was a tendency toward blaming one's ineptitudes on game mechanics such as maneuverability and weapons balancing. Instead of adapting and improving, players asked that the bar be lowered - an issue that was prevalent in Planetside as well. That's the danger of live development: instead of focusing on gameplay additions, developers get distracted by vocal, inept vets.
I am glad, however, that we played Legions. It allowed us to assemble another team of top-tier FPS players and friends while exposing us to friendly clans and community members (and a fair number of delusional assholes). The lower skill differential also forced strategic innovation. Our core members were accustomed to games where one outstanding player could win entire matches, something that's not possible against decent Legions/Tribes teams. While one outstanding player certainly impacts the outcome, they cannot kill the enemy team twice over, grab the flag, and return home while annihilating pursuers (something that was quite common for us in U2xmp/UT-style games).
And once in awhile, I found myself having fun.
In all seriousness:
I disagree with Dragon Age 2 being disappointing, especially with respect to its predecessor. The combat was most certainly not dumbed down by improving input/reaction response time. That particular change was a boon to those of us who play without pausing (on Nightmare mode, I might add) and enjoy rapidity of thought; and it certainly didn't hamper those of you who prefer pausing. The combat was also improved by nerfing mages, introducing cross-class combos, adding class-specific "evasions" (dodge/backstab/vendetta for the rogue, blast waves for the mage, and stonewall for the warriors) and placing such emphasis on positions and knockback/knockdowns. In DA2, fight location mattered.
Dragon Age 1 was triple-mage, Shale. Or triple-mage, Alistair if you didn't have Shale. There was next to no strategy and the fights were far too easy, even on the hardest difficult settings.
And if you were playing DA2 on "normal", you were playing it wrong. Go back and try it on nightmare or on the second-hardest difficulty.
Dragon Age 1 also had the most trite, callow "story" I've seen in an RPG. It was LOTR for Retards. And the characters! My god, RPG stereotypes the lot of them. Dragon Age 2 focused on DA's one original aspect: the interplay between magic and the church. And it told that story well, with characters that weren't DRUNKEN DWARF NUMBER 1.
Artstyle's another area where DA2 improved upon DA1. Dragon Age 1 had the most vapid "art" I've seen for some time while Dragon Age 2 introduced an actual artstyle, with unique interpretations of fantasy standbys. The Darkspawn were finally Darkspawn instead of retarded orcs.
So no, I don't feel it was a letdown. In fact, I found it a pleasant surprise. There were two areas, though, that definitely needed work:
1) Area recycling was obvious and overdone. While the areas themselves were vast improvements over their DA1 counterparts, there simply weren't enough unique locales.
2) While wave battles test tactics and force adaptation, there were far, far too many in DA2. That being said, at least the waves ramped up difficulty. DA1's combat scenarios simply didn't force tactics.
Supposedly the story expansions will rectify these two complaints. At the very least, hopefully their combat system and artstyle will carry over to DA3 and these shortfalls won't.
I also failed to find Fallout 3 disappointing. I think most people see Fallout through massively rosy hues . . . like rosy to the maximum extreme. Fallout's story was utterly retarded, if you'll recall. And nothing compares to actually wandering Fallout's universe in first-person perspective.
I loved being able to do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciFoilgNpAk (watch where each shot lands)
And it produced moments like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQH_VKuxpSs
As for games I've found disappointing:
1) Unreal Tournament 3. More for its improper release than for its gameplay (which was solid). It failed competitively because Epic was childish and stubborn, blaming their poor launch on the community instead of on their dumbing down of the UI. We had such an amazing team lined up for that one, too. Goddamnit.
2) Shattered Horizon. Counter Strike in space. There's no point having increased maneuverability if using it gets you shot. Way too easy, way too limited.
3) Transformers: War for Cybertron. Excellent game hampered by poor post-release support. Also by competition teams that quit as soon as they were beaten.
4) Oblivion. I don't know that "disappointing" is the right word. Oblivion was a great game, but its story and artistic direction paled in comparison to Morrowind. The Shivering Isles expansion fixed those complaints, though, and I've high hopes for Skyrim (especially after seeing some of the unique architecture).
5) Quake 4. What the *dance* was that *chocolate cookies*.
6) Splinter Cell: Double Agent. Go back to Chaos Theory, its multiplayer and its music.
7) Front Mission Evolved. Good gameplay, poor multiplayer matching system, and poor post-release support.
8) Genesis A.D. They reduced movement instead of increasing it. And then they removed the game because no one was playing.
9) Huxley. If you are attempting to emulate UT-style combat, DON'T REMOVE DODGING. Idiots.
10) Tribes 2. Surprise! Hated that game. Way too slow, way too floaty, way too splashy. I'm always amused when Tribes players think their shooting skills transfer across other FPS'. They don't, because in no other FPS are you permitted TEN SECONDS TO AIM EACH MASSIVELY PREDICTABLE SHOT. That being said, I appreciated its strategic potential. I just appreciated that strategic potential more when it was introduced (and ramped up) with increased maneuverability in U2XMP.
10 A) Legions. For serious. Legions had a lot of potential but was restrained by both finances and player/private tester attitudes. There was a tendency toward blaming one's ineptitudes on game mechanics such as maneuverability and weapons balancing. Instead of adapting and improving, players asked that the bar be lowered - an issue that was prevalent in Planetside as well. That's the danger of live development: instead of focusing on gameplay additions, developers get distracted by vocal, inept vets.
I am glad, however, that we played Legions. It allowed us to assemble another team of top-tier FPS players and friends while exposing us to friendly clans and community members (and a fair number of delusional assholes). The lower skill differential also forced strategic innovation. Our core members were accustomed to games where one outstanding player could win entire matches, something that's not possible against decent Legions/Tribes teams. While one outstanding player certainly impacts the outcome, they cannot kill the enemy team twice over, grab the flag, and return home while annihilating pursuers (something that was quite common for us in U2xmp/UT-style games).
And once in awhile, I found myself having fun.
MJ1284
Member
That's one aspect I actually liked in DA2, combat is indeed vastly improved, but it feels like it was done at expense of other aspects. As a long time RPG fan I really hated it when they decided "oh btw, you can't change your companions armor. On top of that, you can't make dual wield/bow warriors anymore" and there was no damn reason to restrict classes in such manner. Sure, mods will fix that but it's still an idiotic restriction.
Complaining that the game wasn't challenging with over-the-top party setup is redundant. Why not complain "Doom was too easy with IDDQD & IDKFA" while you're at it?
Beat it twice, once on Normal & once on Hard. Did two playthroughs to see if it makes any difference wheter I ally myself with templars or mages. It really didn't make a damn difference, I got almost exact same ending regardless which side I picked (having to fight O****o even if you side with mages is retarded) and both endings felt lacklusters compared to Origins endings.
Yes, the "story" is callow, but BioWare did such damn fine job with characters and dialogues it really didn't bother me at all. Characters area leaning toward stereotypes, I admit, but you can definitely see character development in each party members (well, maybe Oghren is an exception here) and you start to see they have actual personalities. Even on my first playthrough I was aware of "shocking" plot twists (*cough* Loghain is bad guy *cough*) but I still had tons of fun with the game.
As for artstyle, I prefer DA:O over DA 2 any day. DA2 looks and feels too cartoony (gore overkill much?), Darkspawns look ridiculous and laughable in DA2 (thank god there aren't alot of them). While character models are mostly better in DA2, I cringed when I was DA:O cameos in DA2, felt like Zevran & Alistar had face surgeries that went horrendously wrong.
1. Totally agree
2. At first waves feel like nice improvement but once you figure out that spawn points are fixed you can win most fights with little effort by simply backing out and drawing enemies in small groups. One thing I absolutely loathe is that rogue backstab is WAAAAY too OPed (both in DA:O & DA2) and in later stages enemy groups have several backstabbers, even templars (how does one sneak and deploy sneak attacks in FULL PLATE armor is beyond me). You can't blow their cover, you can't determine who they're going for -> you can't do much besides hoping they ain't one-shotting your mage/archer. On top of that, backstab works on pretty much anything (atleast in D&D 3.0+ ruleset backstab doesn't work on undead/elemental creatures, they ain't got vital organs or other such weak points). And again, if you steamrolled your fights through in DA1 with 3 mages & 1 tank spamming broken Force Field + AoE spells combo in each fight you really shouldn't complain that game doesn't force you to use tactics.
Fallout 3 was disappointing because story was pretty much "Fallout 1 story for retards + Brotherhood vs Enclave fer *chocolate cookies* and giggles", character building is badly implemented (horray for all skills maxed, besides INT it doesn't make difference where you pour SPECIAL points into) and game world itself felt too boring. And don't even get me started on dialogue and voice acting, they both suck.
Fallout New Vegas on the other hand was pleasant surprise, after Failout 3 I was skeptic about trying NV. I'm glad I tried it, NV looks more lively and feels much more interesting, it really DOES make a difference how you build up your character and game has ALTERNATIVE ENDINGS (shame on you FO3!).
OmniNept
Actionaut
MJ said:
Personally, I prefer vastly improved combat over companion armour aesthetics (although it'd be nice to have both, admittedly). As for classes, Dragon Age: Origins wasn't particularly great either, with the added inconvenience of rogues/warriors sucking absolute ass compared to mages. It would be nice to have more class options, certainly, but DA's never been a Neverwinter sort of game. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there were reasons for class restrictions (class interplay).
MJ said:
The problem is that you could accomplish exactly the same with Shale or Alistair and a single mage. Mages were massively overpowered if you were at all experienced with RPG's, and since I prefer playing magic classes, I ended up being rather bored. You also have to admit that warriors/archers were not particularly fun in DA1. Besides, I ran that setup because I enjoyed those particular characters. I shouldn't have to artificially handicap myself before a “tactical RPG” on its hardest difficulty settings becomes tactically challenging. (And it didn't, anyway – breezed through with no mages as well).
Also, there is a massive, massive difference between cheat codes and in-game (easily acquirable) mechanics. That is an extremely weak analogy.
MJ said:
Regarding gameplay, I recommend playing on Nightmare difficulty because of its drastic effect on tactics. IIRC, Hard didn't include FF. You liked the combat though, so that's not really an issue.
Regarding endings, I personally (much) preferred DA2's over DA1's. However, I do agree that having to fight O***o felt forced.
A game's story can't be distilled to only its ending, though: DA2's themes and presentation were big improvements over those of DA1.
MJ said:
The dialogue was excellent, yes – no argument there. However, I also enjoyed DA2's dialogue and preferred its characters. And it actually had a story. God, Loghain's betrayal was so obvious that it hurt.
MJ said:
Artstyle's often personal preference, but it's difficult to ascribe style to DA:O. The graphics were so poor that they looked cartoony anyway, regardless of intent; and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that felt DA2's gore superseded the amount in DA1. Quite the opposite, imo.
As for Darkspawn, if you were to replace “DA2” with “DA1”, your descriptive sentence would delineate my sentiments exactly. Personal opinion, I suppose. I do agree that Alistair wasn't well-ported, though I didn't mind Zevran.
MJ said:
Well you'll be happy to learn that rogue attacks on nightmare mode are well-balanced – at least for your characters. As for the enemies, well, lols they get worse. However, it's not true that you're helpless. With awareness/rapid reactions (or a good sense of timing if you're pausing), it's easy to activate protective abilities on vulnerable characters. Enemy rogues select an initial target, but if that target becomes unavailable, they switch to close-proximity targets. Beyond simply noticing a rogue has stealthed and moving your vulnerable characters manually, here are a few tricks:
Rogues: Back-to-Back and Vendetta are useful rapid-relocation techniques. Enemy rogues almost never follow. Techniques such as Goad also work wonders, as do AOE like Cone of Cold. IIRC, vanished rogues weren't immune to damage – you simply couldn't see/target them automatically. Of course, you can always stealth too! You're a rogue!
Mages: Barrier. While supremely nerfed when compared to DA1's forcefield, it's very useful and fits with DA2's emphasis on fast-paced combat. Of course, it's not limited to the caster and I'd highly recommend casting it on squishier allies in the immediate vicinity of stealthed rogues. Mind Blast and Glyphs should also be effective. People don't use Glyphs for some reason.
You can also be proactive and keep enemy rogues locked in Horror/otherwise Hexed or stunned. It's all about timing locks and bursting dangerous targets. Oh, and I set Anders' tactics to have him constantly spam Martyr. Risky tactic, but he was always prepared with Barrier, Cone of Cold, and heals. Damn useful ability.
Warriors: Stonewall. Against everything. All of the time.
Honestly, it's often easiest to run allies away from the rogue and past your tank. Or set them up carefully in the first place. My playstyle was quite aggressive and focused on lock/burst/cc more than on defensive hack and slash. When I did get into trouble, I typically moved characters manually (or through skills/spells) while executing barriers and cone of cold walls.
Regarding waves, you'd be surprised to find out how many people didn't think of selecting their battlefield. Just visit the forums to see how many complain about "impossible" fights.
MJ said:
Again, you can steamroll DA1 with a single mage. The class itself is broken and the encounters aren't tactically demanding, even if you're running no mages. Also note that you can't steamroll DA2 on its harder difficulties with any party combination. The class interplay demands either balanced party composition or adaptive/intelligent/rapid play. I finished the last chapter with rogue/triple-mage for old times' sake (rogue Hawke) and found the Nightmare non-pausing gameplay extremely challenging and satisfying. Fighting 2-3 templar rogues and a mob of enemies/other bosses with 4 squish targets in real time? Awesome.
MJ said:
I'm going to have to go with Fallout 1's super-intelligent-Master-who-doesn't-think-to-check-creation-fertility as being for retards
. In all seriousness, while Fallout 3's story wasn't inspired, I wasn't playing for thematic brilliance. I loved the gameworld and atmosphere; in fact, I preferred it to NV's world. (NV had great individual areas, but they seemed incongruous when placed on the map). The voice acting wasn't particularly bad either, though it wasn't spectacular.I did prefer NV overall, especially with respect to options. Having Boone along during incursions into Legion territory was hilarious and well-scripted. (I loved being able to kill Caesar on your summons mission).
*Note: My one complaint about DA2's Nightmare mode is the time it takes to kill bosses. Way too much health/damage mitigation.
Lepidopterist
Member
Fallout 3 is not a good game compared to the other Fallouts. It shouldn't have even been called Fallout.
Fallout 2>Fallout 1>Fallout Tactics>Fallout NV>Fallout Brotherhood of Steel=Fallout 3.
Fallout 2>Fallout 1>Fallout Tactics>Fallout NV>Fallout Brotherhood of Steel=Fallout 3.
MJ1284
Member
There are of course many factors that people weight differently in video games, but I for one appreciate the storyline + character development + game world presentation over combat system and how XP leveling works, whereas you seem to put more weight behind two latter aspects. I'm totally fine with that, if you think story is "dumbed down clichêd fantasy RPG" plot and some character classes have balance issues, I won't try to convince you otherwise.
To me DA:O was more of a "look how much rich dialogue and interesting character development we can get out of general fantasy theme settings", BioWare knew the story was very clichéd and they didn't try to hide it. One major flaw I see in DA2 is that it comes short in terms of replay value compared to DA:O, you only got two endings (that look pretty similar anyways) and game doesn't really tell you what happens to your companions once they go on separate ways with Hawke.. not that I really care, since besides Fenris none of the characters had any interesting backstory/character development through the game.
You can argue that I'm saying "two endings won't score much replay value" but I've beaten Baldur's Gate II + ToB expansion more times I can remember (never was good with numbers though), I remember story better than back of my hand and I still keep going back to that game from time to time. Why? Because of replay value, atleast half the sidequests can be solved in different ways and you can fiddle around with party setups almost to no end.
If you think mages were OPed to no end in Origins, wait till you see what they did with Rogue archers in DA:A, Accuracy talent is classic example of "*dance* you! button" (89% Crit chance & Crit damage 250+ without incurring penalty to attack speed? Yup, TOTALLY balanced).
I'm all for improving archers we saw in DA:O but when you can single handedly kill a dragon I call BS.
I'm going to have to go with Fallout 1's super-intelligent-Master-who-doesn't-think-to-check-creation-fertility as being for retards
I did prefer NV overall, especially with respect to options. Having Boone along during incursions into Legion territory was hilarious and well-scripted. (I loved being able to kill Caesar on your summons mission).
It's true they never mentioned anything about curing mutant sterility in Fallout 1/2, but who needs that crap when you have VATS facility that can turn humans into mutants? Surely Master would have kept small reservation of humans until they cured sterility... until some nameless dude shows up and blows his headquaters and lab facility
Things that infuriated me in Fallout 3 was that Bethesda didn't even bother coming up with good storyline, Obsidian definitely did better job with storyline and dialogue. Main story is short & unintuitive, game world feels too empty (I know it's a wasteland, but surely couple more settlements wouldn't hurt), subway tunnels feel cheap way to force player go through mazes, BoS & Enclaves never feel like real threat (FO 3 Enclaves are complete pussies compared to FO 2 Enclaves) and Bethesda did SPECIAL -system all wrong. Oh and Fawkes... goddamn Fawkes is far too OPed compared to any other follower.
There, I'll leave it here and let other people carry on the original topic.
Lepidopterist
Member
To be honest, Fallout 3 had amazing exploration, and with mods, the game could be great. But it just isn't a fallout game, that's why it's a disappointment.
On topic, though, another disappointing game was S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky.
On topic, though, another disappointing game was S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky.
OmniNept
Actionaut
MJ said:
The point I've been making in my previous posts is that DA2's storyline, character, and game-world presentation were far superior to its DA1 counterparts. In my opinion. Also, like yourself, I much preferred its combat. However, I've not placed more weight on any particular aspect. My favourite RPG is NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer, precisely because of its story, themes, and character development.
As for Lepidopterist, I agree that Clear Sky was a disappointment; Call of Pripyat reinvigorated the series, though.
Halo reach. Its still a good game but imo ruined the series. What I loved about halo is the fast pace of the game and how everyone spwaned with the same stuff and fought for power weapons. Halo reach introduction of class loadouts completely ruined this and slowed down the game. Oh yea almost forgot, I like the DMR but halos BRs was another reason what made it fast pace. Dont get me wrong I like the skill needed to use the DMR properly, but it slowed the game down also.
Silkroad online. I used to play this game way back in the day, it had a lot of potential but kept the constant "grinding" style of mmos. But it still had a lot of options on the way you can build your character. The dissapointment was that the game had a lot of servers but they were always full by BOTS. Constant bots everywhere you go leading people to buy "silk passes" that allowed you to get into the server very quickly. The problem was huge, and the company didnt do nothing about it and the forums to this very day are still complaining about the bots.
Assassin creed brotherhood. Still they havent fixed the AI, the guards are dumb as *dance*.
Silkroad online. I used to play this game way back in the day, it had a lot of potential but kept the constant "grinding" style of mmos. But it still had a lot of options on the way you can build your character. The dissapointment was that the game had a lot of servers but they were always full by BOTS. Constant bots everywhere you go leading people to buy "silk passes" that allowed you to get into the server very quickly. The problem was huge, and the company didnt do nothing about it and the forums to this very day are still complaining about the bots.
Assassin creed brotherhood. Still they havent fixed the AI, the guards are dumb as *dance*.
57thRomance
Member
Watch out; Halo Reach just might rape you... and cause you to mutate and rape other people as well...
Shisk
Member
Do mean mean all three DS games or the last
Because between the first two and the last are hughes differences
Armageddon
Teapot
i dunno it was fun trying to find reese's pieces.
AFireInAsa
#1
The Tribes series was pretty disappointing. I heard so much great things about it from Legions, and when I tried it, it was just meh imo.
Age of Conan would be my largest disappointment though. Great ideas and stuff, but it had a lot of problems when I tried to play it.
Age of Conan would be my largest disappointment though. Great ideas and stuff, but it had a lot of problems when I tried to play it.
Armageddon
Teapot
Damn bumped again.
Well to add to the thread then..........Skyrim
Not all of it is horrible but here are some things that are.
UI, complete *chocolate cookies*. Feels like the Halflife main menu. Just doesn't fit imo.
Main Quest, the main quest is pretty boring. I ditched it 5-6 times now right after arriving at Whiterun. Most large quest in general are boring.
Side Quests are pretty bland, Find x amount of x item and give it to x npc.
Buggy, even after these 2 patches i still have the same issues with the UI not working correctly during lockpicking and dialog. They also cause me to crash now when i load an interior cell, which didn't happen until now.
Sneaking, is way to easy. Sneak into a house get caught then hide in a shadow for 10 seconds and the npc stop looking for you even though you are 3 feet from them and they are looking dead at you.
Archery, usually my favorite combat type but in skyrim it's so bad. You can point your shot at an enemies feet and still manage to land the shot in the upper body, my guess is there is some slight autoaim correction involved. Same goes for shooting birds, you can be off by feet and still manage to land a shot.
Alchemy is nearly useless for most players since cooking is now in the game, cooking food always ends in health regen so making potions for healing is not needed.
Weapons not taking damage and breaking also kinda pisses me off, we have smithing now but they removed the repair hammer... wtf?
Magicka, the new spells are nice(runes) but i hate learning spells from books. Most places don't have a real magicka shop now they've been replaced by the court wizards who sell spells.
The guilds really don't attract me either, The fighters guild is now replaced by the "Companions". The mages guild is now the Mages College and still doesn't interest me. The thieves guild no longer has the gray fox as the guild master. They also have a secret sect called the Nightingales which makes little sense. The dark brotherhood is pretty much the same ol same old.
Most of my time spent playing(Which is little anymore) is me wandering around doing random delving and hunting bunnies.
Well to add to the thread then..........Skyrim
Not all of it is horrible but here are some things that are.
UI, complete *chocolate cookies*. Feels like the Halflife main menu. Just doesn't fit imo.
Main Quest, the main quest is pretty boring. I ditched it 5-6 times now right after arriving at Whiterun. Most large quest in general are boring.
Side Quests are pretty bland, Find x amount of x item and give it to x npc.
Buggy, even after these 2 patches i still have the same issues with the UI not working correctly during lockpicking and dialog. They also cause me to crash now when i load an interior cell, which didn't happen until now.
Sneaking, is way to easy. Sneak into a house get caught then hide in a shadow for 10 seconds and the npc stop looking for you even though you are 3 feet from them and they are looking dead at you.
Archery, usually my favorite combat type but in skyrim it's so bad. You can point your shot at an enemies feet and still manage to land the shot in the upper body, my guess is there is some slight autoaim correction involved. Same goes for shooting birds, you can be off by feet and still manage to land a shot.
Alchemy is nearly useless for most players since cooking is now in the game, cooking food always ends in health regen so making potions for healing is not needed.
Weapons not taking damage and breaking also kinda pisses me off, we have smithing now but they removed the repair hammer... wtf?
Magicka, the new spells are nice(runes) but i hate learning spells from books. Most places don't have a real magicka shop now they've been replaced by the court wizards who sell spells.
The guilds really don't attract me either, The fighters guild is now replaced by the "Companions". The mages guild is now the Mages College and still doesn't interest me. The thieves guild no longer has the gray fox as the guild master. They also have a secret sect called the Nightingales which makes little sense. The dark brotherhood is pretty much the same ol same old.
Most of my time spent playing(Which is little anymore) is me wandering around doing random delving and hunting bunnies.
Heartsong
Member
Sneaking was hilariously OP in Oblivion as well. It's one of those things that you can either take in stride or hold against the game and not be wrong either way. I was surprised that they managed to balance the 100 point sneak talent in combat, though, it sounded hilariously OP in its description, but it feels fine in practice.
The arrows actually leave your bow with a bit of lift. It's different from other TES games, but it's pretty easy to learn (100 Archery here).
I actually love that they took out durability, but I know that's totally a personal preference thing.
All in all, I like Skyrim more than Oblivion. My favorite part was having to rebuild the Thieves' Guild, though I could understand how some people would find it tedious. I wish all of the guilds required that much investment in order to bring them to power, but I realize that it would probably alienate some people who don't like that kind of investment.
In terms of questing, I really prefer just exploring without a quest. Of the many quests that I have done, only a few really stick out in my mind as funny - one that starts with a drinking contest and then Sheogorath's quest. "You were one of the greatest Septims ever to reign! Except for that Martin fellow, but he turned into a DRAGON and that's hardly sporting!"