Which game release let you down more? Civ 5, or Diablo 3?

[PlutonianEmpire]

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.

You know it's gonna happen. There's nothing you can do.

 

[GenMarshall]

You know it's gonna happen. There's nothing you can do.

Gabe Newell is not amused.

 

[Ajidica]

I haven't played Civ5 in over two years, so I can't really comment on it. From what I have heard, now that it has been patched up and G&K, it is pretty decent. Quite a bit different from the earlier civs with some questionable design decisions, but it was nice to see Firaxis go in some interesting directions.

For me, the most dissapointing game has to be Oblivion. Don't get me wrong, it was very good and loads of fun, but I had started with Morrowind. Morrowind's combat system may have been clunkly, but the enviroment, the exotic cultures, the plot, the myriad guilds, the complete open-endedness of it all let me overlook the downsides.
Oblivion, on the other hand, had a rather dull plot (save a fantasy version of Medieval Europe from an invasion of Demons) with a grand total of 5 guilds and repetative dungeons. While Morrowind felt like I was exploring a truely unique world, Oblivion felt like I was walking around a mediocre D&D world.

Honorary mention has to go to Deus Ex: Invisible War. So much right, but oh so much wrong.

 

[Arakhor]

Oblivion was disappointing in the face of a long-time modded Morrowind, but further skill accretion in Skyrim is really annoying (the removal of Acrobatics, Athletics, Hand-to-Hand and Unarmoured absolutely butchered my previous pugilist concept). I expect great things from TES games, but they seem to be getting simpler and simpler with every iteration.

 

[Ajidica]

I haven't played Skyrim, but from what I've heard I do have to agree with you.
And now that they are engaging in the TES Online silliness (I mean come on, are you seriously putting the Dunmer, Nord, and Argonians in an alliance?) I have little hope for a return to a Morrowind level plot and depth.

 

[Synobun]

I haven't played Skyrim, but from what I've heard I do have to agree with you.
And now that they are engaging in the TES Online silliness (I mean come on, are you seriously putting the Dunmer, Nord, and Argonians in an alliance?) I have little hope for a return to a Morrowind level plot and depth.

Unfortunately children aren't taught to enjoy story and depth anymore. They get thrown a glittering Call of Duty at age 5 and that is how they base their future enjoyment of video games. Companies have to adapt to that or else they would die out/have to cut back by a lot.

 

[Ajidica]

Eh, the fact Deus Ex 3 did so well gives me hope.

 

[Murky]

I didn't buy Diablo 3. Civ V is ok, but it was feature poor at release then they want to nickel and dime you on the DLC.

Spore was a bigger let down than Civ V.

 

[History_Buff]

Oblivion was disappointing in the face of a long-time modded Morrowind...

Actually, the whole modding note brings something else to mind. Fallout New Vegas was a huge let down for me, having played huge amounts of (typically modded) Fallout 3. Now I haven't played either of the first two Fallout games, so there might be some nostalgia factor I'm missing out on, but NV felt really hollow next to 3.

It's quite possible it was just the idea of putting us in a giant desert where you can see everything for miles away, rather than spending so much time in claustrophobic subway systems and burned out buildings. Fallout 3 made it such a treat when you stumbled on an occupied building (though in retrospect it would lead you to all the important ones anyway).

Then there's the whole modding state, which for Fallout 3 was pretty advanced by the time I played it. The fact that with the Wanderer's Edition pack, guns could actually kill you in a handful of shots, and you weren't almost immediately some sort of super man was really, really nice. And then in NV you were back to being an ubermensch again. So sad.


Of course, I suppose the transition from balanced modded games to wacky vanilla versions should be no stranger to one who has played as many Paradox Interactive titles as I.

 

[civver_764]

The last games I wasn't disappointed by were the new Fallout games. I'm starting to think it just might have something to do with getting older.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'd say Civ5 since that was unfun at launch, where as Diablo 3 is fun at launch. I think you guys problem is you all listen to the haters. I'm not a fanboy mind you. The game hasn't justified all the time spent on it. But is it fun? Yes.

Civ5 has grown on me with patches, and I like the expansion except that the expansion has slowed the game down to a crawl. I wish I had a supercomputer to run it. I turned the graphics settings to medium, but that had no effect on time between turns. It's not a graphics drawing issues, it's a AI processing issue.

Actually, the whole modding note brings something else to mind. Fallout New Vegas was a huge let down for me, having played huge amounts of (typically modded) Fallout 3. Now I haven't played either of the first two Fallout games, so there might be some nostalgia factor I'm missing out on, but NV felt really hollow next to 3.

It's quite possible it was just the idea of putting us in a giant desert where you can see everything for miles away, rather than spending so much time in claustrophobic subway systems and burned out buildings. Fallout 3 made it such a treat when you stumbled on an occupied building (though in retrospect it would lead you to all the important ones anyway).

Then there's the whole modding state, which for Fallout 3 was pretty advanced by the time I played it. The fact that with the Wanderer's Edition pack, guns could actually kill you in a handful of shots, and you weren't almost immediately some sort of super man was really, really nice. And then in NV you were back to being an ubermensch again. So sad.

It seems most people prefer Fallout 3 over NV and I don't understand why. F3 isn't even a real rpg in my book. It's more of a shooter. FNV is a real rpg, and the best one ever created in my book. I hate the plot of Fallout 3, and have only played it through once. It's horrible writing that shows lack of understanding about the fallout universe.

 

[Azale]

Unfortunately children aren't taught to enjoy story and depth anymore. They get thrown a glittering Call of Duty at age 5 and that is how they base their future enjoyment of video games. Companies have to adapt to that or else they would die out/have to cut back by a lot.

Nah. When the gaming industry was in it's infancy, I would bet there was a greater ratio of trash/good game. But Mario and Zelda, the glittering games thrown at us in our youth (well, my youth) were so rich in story and depth right?

The sky isn't falling.

Actually, the whole modding note brings something else to mind. Fallout New Vegas was a huge let down for me, having played huge amounts of (typically modded) Fallout 3. Now I haven't played either of the first two Fallout games, so there might be some nostalgia factor I'm missing out on, but NV felt really hollow next to 3.

Play NV again. I found it much more engaging. Your decisions are more varied, and they actually matter. More voice actors makes for better immersion.

I don't understand the "hollow" criticism, since New Vegas felt much more alive than FO3. It feels like they've kinda gotten on with life since the apocalypse, while in FO3 it feels like the bombs fell 10 years ago, not 200+.

I loved both though.

It's quite possible it was just the idea of putting us in a giant desert where you can see everything for miles away, rather than spending so much time in claustrophobic subway systems and burned out buildings. Fallout 3 made it such a treat when you stumbled on an occupied building (though in retrospect it would lead you to all the important ones anyway).

I disagree. While I didn't hate the subway thing (helped me learn the DC metro system!) it did get a bit repetitive after a while.

I could understand your preference for urban decay over desert/rustic thing FNV had, besides places like Freeside.

Then there's the whole modding state, which for Fallout 3 was pretty advanced by the time I played it. The fact that with the Wanderer's Edition pack, guns could actually kill you in a handful of shots, and you weren't almost immediately some sort of super man was really, really nice. And then in NV you were back to being an ubermensch again. So sad.

Well, just talking about the vanilla version, FNV has much better trait/perk balance. It's also cool that you can realistically do energy weapons in the early game now

 

[Disgustipated]

My biggest problem with Fallout 3 was the Brotherhood of Steel being the "good" guys. It made no sense to me. I think FNV got it right. I was always bothered by the fact they took technology, and kept it from others. I don't remember that much of Fallout 2, but I think they were like that there too. And despite what you said above, about Fallout 3 being so "bombed out", I still felt like the Brotherhood organizational structure was too developed in F3. It made the game like some military game. I don't want to be in the military, you weren't in the military in F1 or F2, so why F3? Fallout 3 just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There were a couple good things about that game (I never played any of the DLC). I did like the Wasteland survival guide quest, and I thought it was cool being able to watch that wedding. . To be fair Fallout Tactics also had the Brotherhood of Steel being the good guys. I actually liked Tactics, but not as a rpg game, but as a squad level tactical game.

I can understand people liking the bombed out city feel of F3 over the open desert. That's a matter of personal taste. One reason I like FNV is because I'm from Las Vegas, and I love hiking, and know many of the places in the game. I have been to the top of Fortification Hill (the Fort), and of course Red Rock Canyon and Mt. Charleston (Jacobstown). Other locations like Devil's throat are real locations (haven't been there yet, but I think I'll go there later this year). Even the bomber beneath Lake Mead is real. There is a bomber down there. I think touches like that are cool. I actually went to school (1st grade) in Goodsprings Elementary school.

So of course I prefer the open desert to the closed in city. In fact, I got so tired of the metro tunnels. I avoided them when I could. They all looked the same to me, and I had trouble keeping my sense of direction. But some people might like that better.

Anyways I still feel like FNV is a true rpg with actual choices. You aren't forced to follow the Brotherhood and their misguided philosophy. I don't like the fact they think they are god, and others are unfit to handle technology. And I dislike the military organizational structure. How are they even that different from the Enclave? I don't even think you can side with the bad guys in Fallout 3. No other factions like FNV had. The number of factions is what I liked most about FNV. I also think they had a pretty cool "bad guy" with the Roman themed legion. I thought they were the coolest bad guys I've seen in any rpg I can think of. What's not to like about Roman themes?

 

[Till]

Civ5 was a sad but somewhat expected failure (only played the demo). Diablo 3 makes me blink in disbelief as to what people put up with just to play a roguelike with fancy graphics (never even tried the demo).

 

[Save_Ferris]

Civ IV was the game made for most of OT, and it had been modded to perfection for them. With that portion of the audience pleased, Civ V was geared towards a different audience. Each game has its place.

 

[History_Buff]

It seems most people prefer Fallout 3 over NV and I don't understand why. F3 isn't even a real rpg in my book. It's more of a shooter. FNV is a real rpg, and the best one ever created in my book. I hate the plot of Fallout 3, and have only played it through once. It's horrible writing that shows lack of understanding about the fallout universe.

What's wrong with shooters? It's really far more fun to play than a game where I just wander about talking to people. FO3 was just RPG-ey enough for it to be great. As far as I'm concerned the best attribute about either of them is just exploring.

Play NV again. I found it much more engaging. Your decisions are more varied, and they actually matter. More voice actors makes for better immersion.

Meh, the voice acting never really mattered to me. Matt Perry did a great job, and it was nice having Col. Tigh around, but I miss Three Dog and Richardson on the radio. Of course, I'm sure most of the voice acting work was done for the companions, but that's an awful choice. In like half the world, having companions with you is a pointless liability. They're little more than mules.

I don't understand the "hollow" criticism, since New Vegas felt much more alive than FO3. It feels like they've kinda gotten on with life since the apocalypse, while in FO3 it feels like the bombs fell 10 years ago, not 200+.

Yeah, the time lines for a lot of that stuff is odd, to say the least. Though I'd say you can make a good canon argument in the form that D.C., as the US capital, was going to be hit a hell of a lot harder than Vegas, which we're told mostly escaped the fire.

It does bother me that there is food and, of all things, wine from before the war. If there was wine that had been lying in a rubble pile for 200 hundred years, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to drink it.

Also, what the hell are these people eating? NV does a better job of handwaving this issue away than 3 did, but it's still bizarre that we don't see any farming or ranching happening. Especially on the Boomer base, given that they have large amounts of defensible land. Presumably these people must have gotten by before NCR rolled into town. This criticism goes well beyond the Fallout universe of course (where it makes little sense in the first place). I'm really hoping GW2 will at least bother to show a lot of farmland, even if we're never forced to visit it.

I could understand your preference for urban decay over desert/rustic thing FNV had, besides places like Freeside.

The subway tunnels at least had the advantage of being surprising. Half of the New Vegas seemed to be just animals wandering in the desert, or raiders around some building. Climb any hill and you can see what's going to happen to you for the next hour or so. Best stuff in either game always happened underground.

Freeside was cool I guess, but was there really anything to do there? After 2 full play throughs, I found that all I did was run back and forth through the town, occasionally hitting a homeless person with a sword. Westside was better, but still not a lot to do there.

Well, just talking about the vanilla version, FNV has much better trait/perk balance. It's also cool that you can realistically do energy weapons in the early game now

The trait balancing I'll give you, particularly with the combined plus/minus life choices or whatever those were called. Still I couldn't help but feel like I could absorb three full clips of bullets before ever being in danger. Meanwhile if anyone hits you in melee, 75% of your health would go. Made no sense.

Also, I feel like each team missed an obvious balance choice: energy weapons as things that you realistically wouldn't get till the mid game, but were necessary for harming people in power armor. My salvaged M4 carbine probably shouldn't be able to tear through that stuff. You can keep energy weapons against un-armored targets, because they were cool as hell, but it should be required for fighting powered opponents.

My biggest problem with Fallout 3 was the Brotherhood of Steel being the "good" guys. It made no sense to me. I think FNV got it right. I was always bothered by the fact they took technology, and kept it from others. I don't remember that much of Fallout 2, but I think they were like that there too. And despite what you said above, about Fallout 3 being so "bombed out", I still felt like the Brotherhood organizational structure was too developed in F3. ...

Anyways I still feel like FNV is a true rpg with actual choices. You aren't forced to follow the Brotherhood and their misguided philosophy. I don't like the fact they think they are god, and others are unfit to handle technology. And I dislike the military organizational structure. How are they even that different from the Enclave? I don't even think you can side with the bad guys in Fallout 3. No other factions like FNV had. The number of factions is what I liked most about FNV.

The goodness of the Brotherhood did seem overdone, even to someone who hasn't played the previous games. Though I'd say their explanation of Lyons choices and the subsequent Outcast stuff was well done, if a little cheesy.

Personally, I'd really love to see a game set in Greater Boston where the android building Institute and the Western Brotherhood are both trying to crush one another, and being apathetic jerks to everyone else. And if they could avoid the situation where the player becomes the single saviour of all there is to know. I know it's a video game, but it's such a cliche. Why can't I just be one small if influential part of a much wider process? Definitely avoid the NV situation where you can wind up running the whole city. Any ending such as this should end with the untimely death of the player.

I also think they had a pretty cool "bad guy" with the Roman themed legion. I thought they were the coolest bad guys I've seen in any rpg I can think of. What's not to like about Roman themes?

The slavery mostly. They were just so hilariously bad there was no possible sympathy for them. If you want a game with bad guys you can actually get behind, check out Freelancer. That game did it so well.

 

[carmen510]

I thought Fallout 3 had the feel of a truly depopulated Wasteland (and hence, good for exploration), whereas New Vegas seemed much more crowded (which means more action).

 

[Nares]

Both.

 

[Malachi256]

Civ 5 was immediately disappointing, but has gotten better and now I'm getting a good amount of enjoyment out of G&K. The AI is still ultimately disappointing, but it doesn't completely ruin the game, it just stops it short of its ultimate potential. I find the DLC content to be overpriced and so haven't bought any.

D3, on the other hand, started out really strong (for me at least), but then trips you up at end-game, you smack into a brick wall, and then you get kicked while you're down. I got my money back and have very little inclination to ever play it again (for the record, my complaints are "hitbox issues, poor skill balancing at end-game, and excessive (un-fun) kiting req'd" - I had very little problem with the extreme difficulty, which obviously was going to be tweaked around a bit, and would also decrease drastically as item inflation set in). I find the monetization of the AH to be both intriguing and insidious. It just feels a bit like Bliz sold their soul, even if I can understand at least some of the rationale for it.

And I'm a NV guy - F3 was fine, but NV is my favorite RPG of recent years.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I just hope Bethesda does not get swallowed up by the EA Octopus.

If Bethesda gets eaten by a larger company I think it will be Valve over anyone else. Bethesda is well aware of the EA/Activision death sentence to smaller developers. Plus
Id software might revolt.