Games you want Sequels to

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Civilization was on the map before CIV IV, as Gamerankings top 100 is not "the map" by any means.

Conker's Bad Fur Day was a huge, gorgeous looking game that was funny but did suffer from questionable controls.

 

[Aramazd]

Why the bloody hell is there a view post option for people on your ignore list?

Swein, I'm sorry but, you're thick headed, pig brained and more of a moron than Bush.

Quoted for Truth, I'm putting Swein on the ignore list.

 

[Harbringer]

You guys are doing it wrong, just put him at 101+ on your important people list, then he wont be "on the map".

 

[Civfan333]

@Quintilius: Why don't we just STOP playing Civilization games entirely? They're not even remotely the best.

Seriously, until the release of Civ4, games like World of Warcraft, Age of Empires II, Super Mario Sunshine, Advance Wars, Rome: Total War, Alpha Centauri, and Call of Duty had a higher Gamerankings average than all Civ games.

Swein.........I don't consider bashing Civ games a very smart move since this IS a civilization fanatics center....

 

[Swedishguy]

He thinks he knows more than me about me on Impossible Creatures since he read an article on IGN.com.

You know what? I'll put him an ignore too.

 

[t0mme]

Okay Swein, listen up.

If I bought my games according to your philosophy (skip everything with a <90% rating on IGN, Gamerankings or Iamastatisticsnerd) I would never ever have bought Steambot Chronicles. Your precious IGN rated it with a 73 and it's nowhere near the top-100 at Gamerankings. But you know what? That game gave me the greatest, happiest single-player experience on my PS2. And I own several of the must-haves (God of War, GTA:SA, GTA:VC, GT4, ICO) and if I have to, I can easily part with them, just let me keep Steambot.
Other examples are: Theme Hospital, GTA2, Gabriel Knight 3 and Moonchild (I'm not ashamed of that last title). And where the f*ck is Dwarf Fortress on Gamerankings? That's almost the best game I've encountered ever!
The opposite can also be true. I do not like Half-Life, Halo, Baldur's Gate, Crysis. And I don't care other people are nuts about them. Am I an outcast for not liking Halo? Am I a pretensious c*nt for disliking Half-Life? Am I a pathetic nonconformist by not playing Baldur's Gate? Really, I couldn't care less and I would never call fans of Crysis air-headed graphic-whores (no, really )

I don't give a damn about what other people think of games and how they rate them. Because I can think for myself. I only listen to other peoples advice if I know they have the same taste in games as me. (Actually, I think people should give up on rating games. Just write the damn review without using numbers, statistics are just pretentious lies )

I also ridicule those stupid lists you've been copy-pasting. Really, I don't give a crap if Zelda:OoT gets a higher ranking than Tetris or if Pong is being omitted or if Elite is dangling at the bottom or whatever. You can't compare them and they're all great. There is no universal truth about which game is the best and every debate about is a waste of time, energy, air and braincells.

Swein, taste is a very personal matter, so grow a brain and sort things out for yourself. If you want to follow the masses, by all means do so. Just don't report here. We already know what the mainstream likes and me in particular doesn't care about it. If you want to discuss certain games, by all means, do so as well. Just stop that "But IGN said" and "It's not in the top 100 at GameRankings" bullsh*t!

Now go make yourself useful and find us a never found before indie-jewel and enlight us. That would be interesting.


To get back on topic... Please, make a sequel to Steambot, I'm craving steam!

 

[Longus]

STTNG: Birth of the Federation. Best Star Trek computer game ever. The strategy is simplistic and game play admittedly rather repetitive, but there is nonetheless something endearing about this strangely stilted, Masters of Orion mutation from Microprose. I think there is supposed to be a fan-made sequel floating around in demo form somewhere, but, alas, anything substantial, let alone official, is yet to emerge.

 

[sir_schwick]

Space Rangers 2:

-Add a criminal underworld that you can interact with. You could be a ranger/mobster, even have your own goons.
-More text adventures, especially ones inspired by Futurama and OST.
-Ways to customize the appearance of your voxeled ship, including what you equip.
-Replace the RTS mode with deeper planetary battle models, including things that happen in normal game space.
-Do not have the overall plot involve invading machines or aliens. That universe seemed perfect for some crazy arse civilization-on-civilization conflict.

DK2:

I am not even going to pretend to know what they should do for this sequel. Be yourselves guys.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

I'm sorry, it's just that I used to play games that most people regarded as "pathetic" but I didn't care. But others did, and they said stuff like "that game's boring". So I wanted to show them that I COULD play the greatest games. Also, with my GameCube, I probably ended up having like 25+ games, but it was never anything like Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, SF Adventures, Viewtiful Joe, Paper Mario, etc. Wind Waker and Paper Mario especially (and Pikmin 2), as they are rated E for Everyone, but I wasn't even remotely interested in Zelda games then and I just kept making do with crappy Sonic ones. And I played Paper Mario in a store and liked it, but then we just kept bringing the crap games. Same with my GBA; I never had anything like Fire Emblem or Golden Sun or Mario 3 or WarioWare or Advance Wars. And I know I would have loved FE, GS, and AW (I like Turn-Based Games).

Now, with my Wii, I own 6 games, and that number isn't likely to increase by much. With my DS, I have 3 games (1 crap Tony Hawk game, one average Super Mario 64, and one being the legendary Mario Kart).

As far as my PC, if I hadn't run to those websites, than I would have probably bought Empire Earth III for Christmas and then opened the box and found a handful of bugs.

 

[Harbringer]

You would have gotten a hell of a lot more than just bugs.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Like what?

And some people don't even need critics; they just hear about the features and make up their minds. One of my friends is a huge SimCity fan, but he immediately took a pass on Societies because he thought that "taking zoning away pretty much kills the game".

 

[Aramazd]

As far as my PC, if I hadn't run to those websites, than I would have probably bought Empire Earth III for Christmas and then opened the box and found a handful of bugs.

I don't think anyone is saying don't look at review sites, that would be silly. However, a review isn't the final word on a game. The important thing would be to read the review, not just look at score.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

Can't be arsed to mention the b****in' that's going on.

I suspect that the Civs rank lower on list's cause they are not so much a pick-up/put down game that some of the others that have been mentioned.

Come on, nobody's gonna say that 25 turns of an early game (let's say 30 mins) is fun, when all that happened was you discovered a couple of tech, you built a city or two, and with your warrior you discovered tile after tile of empty desert. Oh, and you saw a barb warrior, but it went away. Not the most riveting of games. In say, a TW game that's a couple of battles, and on a generic WWII shoot-a-German/Japanese you've allready single-handedly won a major battle . (Is there a game played from the Axis point of view? If there is, please tell me!)

A civ game is often about really long-term planning - even TW's don't need that. By the end, I've often used loads of paper, making notes and working out stuff, like upgrade costs etc. That can really put off a fair amount of casual players. My nephew, who's gotten into civ this year, only plays the limited scens (like the WWII and the Zombies one) because he finds said planning off-putting.

I allways remember that a reviewer is just a person. Either a person who is doing it for their salt, who will be jaded and will be forced to pretend to have reactions to things they don't care for. Or they are a normal person, who usally will be writing a review about a game they either love to bits or want to shoot the designers. Or they are plants from the game companies.

When it comes to buying new games, I just take a look at sites like this. Places like this are built by people who give their own energy - and for me, nothing says 'I love this game!' than a well-run site, with enthusiastic posters and a healthy modding area. Even older games have this - I cite No Mutants Allowed (for the Fallout series) even though they've hardly had much new official game info to talkabout for years (until recently, that is)

I've never made a hedious mistake working on this method...yet. Using old-style reviews, I have.

 

[Maniacal]

You use paper to plan Civ O_o?

You may like Red Orchestra as it is on the Eastern Front between Germany and Russia. The singleplayer is a Practice mode which is the same as multi but with bots (that have AI levels between beyond brainless that can't get out of the spawn to ones that have okay path finding and then ones that can pick you off across the map with a pistol)

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Come on, nobody's gonna say that 25 turns of an early game (let's say 30 mins) is fun, when all that happened was you discovered a couple of tech, you built a city or two, and with your warrior you discovered tile after tile of empty desert. Oh, and you saw a barb warrior, but it went away. Not the most riveting of games. In say, a TW game that's a couple of battles, and on a generic WWII shoot-a-German/Japanese you've allready single-handedly won a major battle . (Is there a game played from the Axis point of view? If there is, please tell me!)

A civ game is often about really long-term planning - even TW's don't need that. By the end, I've often used loads of paper, making notes and working out stuff, like upgrade costs etc. That can really put off a fair amount of casual players. My nephew, who's gotten into civ this year, only plays the limited scens (like the WWII and the Zombies one) because he finds said planning off-putting.

Then, in the Modern Era, you've pretty much won the game, but there is a tremendous slowdown. Bah.

@Tomme: Make that <80%.

 

[Maniacal]

Almost every strategy game get's easy/boring/you start ignoring stuff because you have too many cities/etc near the later game because you often have more than enough territory and resoruces and production to mop the floor with any enemy (which is often most everyone around you).

 

[Civfan333]

well, gaming websites are fine........as long as you DON'T say a game sucks just because people reviewed it that way.......

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

And sometimes the websites can have their own opinions. Gamespot thinks that Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn sucks (6/10) while IGN thinks it's average (8/10) while Gamespy thinks it rocks (4th best Wii game of 2007).

 

[Metromonkey]

Wait if 6 sucks and isn't average what does that make games that get 3? Not quite the worst game in the universe?

 

[sir_schwick]

Almost every strategy game get's easy/boring/you start ignoring stuff because you have too many cities/etc near the later game because you often have more than enough territory and resoruces and production to mop the floor with any enemy (which is often most everyone around you).

That is when games like EUII start throwing random events at you, often ones you chose to get so ahead earlier in the game. But I do agree too many strategy games have already reached climax by the 50-70% mark.


They really need to remake the original Suikoden.