Yeah, Diablo 2 was a boring, repetitive click-fest, Supreme Commander 1 is one of the best designed games of all times in terms of game features and minimizing boring micro.
Which game release let you down more? Civ 5, or Diablo 3?
- Thread starter Pojman
- Start date
Yeah, Diablo 2 was a boring, repetitive click-fest, Supreme Commander 1 is one of the best designed games of all times in terms of game features and minimizing boring micro.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Nah, Supreme Commander was a boring, repetitive click-fest, Diablo 2 is one of the best designed games of all times in terms of game features and minimizing boring micro.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Actually, the worst release I ever participated in was a game called 'World War II Online'. It was utterly unplayable on release and even for months afterward. Ugh.
Playing Diablo 3 right now and enjoying it quite a bit. Definitely playing it more than I did Civ 5.
Playing Diablo 3 right now and enjoying it quite a bit. Definitely playing it more than I did Civ 5.
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
SimCity 5. I'm even disappointed 6 months beforehand.
But CiV is one of my favorite games of all time, even ahead of CIV.
But CiV is one of my favorite games of all time, even ahead of CIV.
I'm sorry you wasted so much of your youth playing Diablo.
Eat_Up_Martha
Prince
Dragon Age 2 probably takes top spot, followed by Supreme Commander 2. Civ 5 was a bit of a disappointment, but I felt that it was not an intrinsically bad game, like DA2 or SC2, but that it just wasn't for me.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
actually i didn't play any diablo at all in my youth
anyway stop posting opinions like they're fact, it's really annoying.
PlutonianEmpire
King of the Plutonian Empire
All Civ releases after Civ 2 MGE and ToT. Civs 3 to 5 all suck.
Yes, I am a hater and am damn well gonna hate.
Also, Sims 3, Spore, and all releases of SimCity after SimCity 2000.
Yes, I am a hater and am damn well gonna hate.
Also, Sims 3, Spore, and all releases of SimCity after SimCity 2000.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
What now? Starcraft 2 is awesome.
Edit: Unless you mean Supreme Commander, which I suppose might be a more obvious acronym...
Yea, I know EA's history, but in the case of Mass Effect 3 I would place the blame on Bioware. Shoddy writing and terrible PR can't really be blamed on EA in this instance. Bioware had all the creative freedom they needed, and were even allowed to push back the release date when they thought it was necessary. They just bungled it.
Master of Orion III was an early disappointment for me. Recently though, with the rapid upsurge in punitive DRM and the like, I've been fairly regularly disappointed, though the biggest one by far has been Dragon Age 2.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
Civ 5 was a game I wanted to play. I didn't give a flying... um... raven's wing about Diablo 3. So I guess the answer is obvious.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Oh, so many things.... This thread merely makes me depressing... Oh Spore. Spore... :/
Turquoiside
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,552
Shh, shh...it's okay, everything's going to be okay.
Spore actually wasn't that bad for me. I never saw the 2005 trailer and for what it's worth the game kept me mildly entertained for long enough. In no way is it a good game, but it had its moments.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
Dragon Age 2 is the greatest letdown in the last decade, to me, but given the choices presented, I'll go with Civ V. I never had high hopes for Diablo 3, but I expected Civ V to build on, expand, enhance, improve Civ IV BtS, & it did none of those. It consolized it.
It could not have been decently Beta-tested, or, possibly, the Beta-testers were ignored. Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, ICS, the Diplomacy system? These problems should have been obvious after a couple of games. No matter that some have been nerfed/dealt with, they should never have existed.
And even if those aspects had been dealt with, they removed too much stuff. They made it so you were better off *not playing the game*, not improving your cities, not growing, not building, just conquer, puppet, conquer, puppet, conquer, puppet.
Dragon Age 2 was an abomination (& the sad thing is they've already said they're keeping most of DA2 "features" for DA3), but Civ V was simply a bad game.
It could not have been decently Beta-tested, or, possibly, the Beta-testers were ignored. Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, ICS, the Diplomacy system? These problems should have been obvious after a couple of games. No matter that some have been nerfed/dealt with, they should never have existed.
And even if those aspects had been dealt with, they removed too much stuff. They made it so you were better off *not playing the game*, not improving your cities, not growing, not building, just conquer, puppet, conquer, puppet, conquer, puppet.
Dragon Age 2 was an abomination (& the sad thing is they've already said they're keeping most of DA2 "features" for DA3), but Civ V was simply a bad game.
CivCube
Spicy.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,824
Quiet now. I play on Prince.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I'm disappointed with everything that EA pumps out. And not just because they butchered ME3. But also SC5 and pulling out of Steam and backstabbing Valve.
I just hope Bethesda does not get swallowed up by the EA Octopus.
I just hope Bethesda does not get swallowed up by the EA Octopus.
