Games you dislike that everyone else loves

Potatoeman

Landoflemon wrote: »

Bioshock: I tried 3 times, I found the gun mechanics awkward and I got really tired of that pipe puzzle. Having said that, I'm currently really enjoying Bioshock Infinite.

I didnt like the controls at the start of bioshock but I quickly got use to them. You didnt need to hack muck at all either.
I didnt like infinite. It was missing the atmosphere from the other games and the handymen were just no fun to fight. Even the big sister frim the second on were better.
It wasnt bad just not what I was looking forward to.

They need to do one in space again.

Gbear

Landoflemon wrote: »

Mass Effect: Tried this 3 or 4 times, I think I found the structure of the game difficult to comprehend, and again didn't like the shooting mechanics.

Are you talking about number 1?

I played 2 first and really took to 1 when I tried it afterwards (to get the storyline imported for another playthrough of 2).
It's engaging in terms of plot but the actual gameplay is mostly pretty ****.
I can replay it now and enjoy it (you get used to the idiosyncrasies) but I recognise that it's the worst of the 3 in terms of gameplay by a wide margin and very hard for someone to get into.
It's not just about the gameplay but the feeling of being linked in to the rest of the story that makes it playable.

I'll 2nd Skyrim.
I wont complain in terms of value for money but it got to a stage where I realised that I wasn't actually enjoying the game and never really had. It hooked me in with addictive rubbish like smithing 4000 daggers so you build better armour or whatever. The actual gameplay mechanics are mostly terrible. Combat should be the cornerstone of the game and it's so ****ing boring.
The dragons look epic but when a game manages to make fighting a dragon boring and routine they've seriously failed.

Beautiful landscape - that's filled with **** all. It felt like the surface of the moon at times. Plot was not even worth mentioning. Side quests repetitive.

I don't think it's a bad game. I think it's an outright con job that cleverly tricks you into thinking it has depth and quality.

eyescreamcone

Am I allowed to say Rugby Union??

Gbear

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You did if you wanted to unlock Anima which required backtracking to Macalania and Besaid temples if you didn't get the destruction sphere treasures. Don't even start me on the palette swapped arena enemies. Blasted Dark Aeons should have been in the battle arena instead of randomly cropping up while recruiting Blitzball players and sorting out destruction sphere treasures.
FFVII only requires grinding if you want to fight the weapons, a fruitless exercise IMO. The main storyline is so easy that no grinding at all is needed.

Fair enough on the first playthrough. And you certainly had the option to grind if you wanted.

The biggest disappointment to me was the end game was so easy. End was an anti-climax.

So you could totally avoid grinding and pretty much go straight to the end game once you got the airship and nothing after that would be all the much more difficult than Yunalesca and Seymour Flux. You didn't need the legendary weapons, any of the "bonus" aeons or ridiculously powerful characters with 255 in all stats to beat it.

And once you know where the Dark Aeons are you can avoid them (assuming you remember to get the destruction spheres beforehand if you still want anima.).

Grimebox

Gbear wrote: »

I'll 2nd Skyrim.
I wont complain in terms of value for money but it got to a stage where I realised that I wasn't actually enjoying the game and never really had. It hooked me in with addictive rubbish like smithing 4000 daggers so you build better armour or whatever. The actual gameplay mechanics are mostly terrible. Combat should be the cornerstone of the game and it's so ****ing boring.
The dragons look epic but when a game manages to make fighting a dragon boring and routine they've seriously failed.

Beautiful landscape - that's filled with **** all. It felt like the surface of the moon at times. Plot was not even worth mentioning. Side quests repetitive.

I don't think it's a bad game. I think it's an outright con job that cleverly tricks you into thinking it has depth and quality.

Skyrim was excellent until you realise how shallow it is. I put around 60 hours into it then suddenly it was incredibly mundane. But for those 60 hours, when the world felt real, it was fantastic.

Grimebox

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Am I allowed to say Rugby Union??

Football can go fcúk itself if we're bringing up spectator sports

Retr0gamer

briany wrote: »

It took me maybe 3 tries, and a realisation that the game wouldn't be about instant gratification, to really get into STALKER. It's pretty unforgiving compared to most FPS games. Getting shot usually means something, for example (especially early on), and resources are not particularly plentiful. It's one part FPS, one part survival horror and one part RPG. It's not everyone but if anyone's thinking about playing it, I say do lots of sidequests early, loot everything to f*ck and use the earnings to buy some better gear. The game flows a lot better if you prepare, I think.

Stalker only really gets good once you get a scoped weapon. Up to that point it's a bit of a drag. After that point it's amazing.

seamus wrote: »

Put a good 30 or 40 hours each into FFVII and FFX, and while I was blown away by the graphics in the latter, the level-up grinding and turn-based fighting just becomes.

I don't really get the whole grinding thing being an issue in final fantasy games. The games since ff4 have been so easy that grinding isn't required at all except for optional end game super bosses

Gbear wrote: »

The biggest disappointment to me was the end game was so easy. End was an anti-climax.

So you could totally avoid grinding and pretty much go straight to the end game once you got the airship and nothing after that would be all the much more difficult than Yunalesca and Seymour Flux. You didn't need the legendary weapons, any of the "bonus" aeons or ridiculously powerful characters with 255 in all stats to beat it.

I've got to totally disagree here. I played through the whole game the first time and couldn't complete a lot of the side quests because of the stupid dark aeons. I went straight for the final boss and he was an absolute nightmare to try and beat. I used every dirty trick in the book to take him down. Sure he is a joke if you do some side quests but he really isn't if you don't do anything before hand.

Vinz Mesrine

I've yet to play a FPS that I enjoyed. From C64 through to ps3, I hate them, all of them.

Professional Griefer

Borderlands 2, could not get into it at all.

Gbear

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I've got to totally disagree here. I played through the whole game the first time and couldn't complete a lot of the side quests because of the stupid dark aeons. I went straight for the final boss and he was an absolute nightmare to try and beat. I used every dirty trick in the book to take him down. Sure he is a joke if you do some side quests but he really isn't if you don't do anything before hand.

Fair enough. I never actually fought him "cold". I just assumed because it's so ludicrously easy later that it was balanced to be on a par with all the other boss fights.

Still, if you get the destruction spheres I can't think of anything else you miss due to the Dark Aeons. Mostly they're out of the way (Ifrit, Bahamut, Yojimbo, the 3 insecty ones) or you get a chance to leg it if you spot them (Anima).

The Pheasant2

FIFA.

****ing despise that game; every time the lads are all together I've to sit there watching them shouting at the same **** over and and over again

briany

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Stalker only really gets good once you get a scoped weapon. Up to that point it's a bit of a drag. After that point it's amazing.

It certainly makes some things a bit easier but I also enjoy the scrambling, gun-jamming desperation of taking down a bandit gang with a dilapidated AK or going room to room, clearing an area of Monolith soldiers with a pump action shotgun.

K.O.Kiki

Dark Souls.

Game just wasn't as fun as Dragon's Dogma, which I can happily play for hours.

Retr0gamer

Gbear wrote: »

Still, if you get the destruction spheres I can't think of anything else you miss due to the Dark Aeons. Mostly they're out of the way (Ifrit, Bahamut, Yojimbo, the 3 insecty ones) or you get a chance to leg it if you spot them (Anima).

Well that's kind of no good if you want to get through as much of the game as possible and go back and do the side quests later, especially if it's your first time and don't know where those items are. The Dark aeons efectively ruined the post game on me. If I ever play the game again it will be the US version with the added bonus of it not suffering from horrendous slowdown and aspect ratio issues that the European version had.

Dravokivich

World of Warcraft:
Wasn't the grinding, every sub based MMO is going to have an element of it and WoW's leveling system had a higher rate of levelling than other MMOs I've played or tinkered with before the F2P concept caught on. The game was just dull to me. I only played it because I'd subbed to it. Stopped subbing, stopped playing.

Arkham Asylum/City:
Both these games have the same problems to me. The level design is atrocious. I could only see what I was doing with the "detective mode," and anytime something happened in City, it switched back to the normal mode. There were ridiculous "puzzles" as well to advance further through a mission, that made no sense at all or had to be hit at the excat spot with a batarang. And I absolutely hate any game that requires you to constantly jump between platforms to get from one end of the room to another. I don't see the point in it. Felt the primary storylines in both games was a bit weak and short. Never really felt like I accomplished anything after completing them.

GTA IV:
That f**king phone and those relationships. With the worse camera angles avail I'd ever seen for driving. Turn and the camera doesn't pivot for a couple of seconds.

Dermighty

Assassins Creed....bollocks...