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

[Disgustipated]

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.

This. I pretty much agree with every point you make. I hated Civ5 at launch, but I'm playing it now, and find G&K pretty fun. I have yet to buy any dlc. Just not enough bang for the buck.

I haven't gotten into Diablo 3 end game yet. My brother hasn't been on, and I don't want to play without him. So I'm only at level 57 in Act 2 hell. I haven't seen the hit box issues you have talked about, but I don't play a melee character, so maybe that's why. Kiting and poor skill balancing on the higher levels I very much agree with. From what I read on the O-boards, kiting is just a thing witch doctors have to do in inferno (and my gear isn't top notch, so I have to do it when playing solo in hell too- only against certain rare monster trait combinations). I agree about the AH. I found it interesting that they did the real money AH, but it's also pretty slimy. Even though they had a decent reason, they still sold their soul. I agree.
______________

One point I wanted to make about FNV (which somehow got into the discussion of this thread), is I'm not the biggest fan of the DLC. Except for honest hearts (which is actually considered their worst dlc). Despite people not liking honest hearts, I like it. And play it in every FNV game. I like outdoor locations in general (because I like hiking outdoors most likely), and I think Joshua Graham is the most interesting character of all the dlc (I thought the other courier would be interesting, but he wasn't). It's just too bad Graham doesn't have more to say. I still prefer a real expansion over DLC. DLC is too short. I'd love to have seen honest hearts as a full expansion, and have more interaction with Graham. The DLC in general seems to interrupt the flow of the game, and seems too disconnected from the events of the vanilla game.

 

[homeyg]

Civ5 because I have never played any of the Diablo series. I'm not into any sort of RPGs whatsoever. (maybe I would be interested in RPGs if RPGs weren't all centered around weird magical spell and dungeon type crap)

 

[Ajidica]

(maybe I would be interested in RPGs if RPGs weren't all centered around weird magical spell and dungeon type crap)

To each their own, but in that case may I reccomend Deus Ex: Human Revolution? (The original might be better, but HR is much easier to get into. Although for the love of God avoid Invisible War!)

 

[Kozmos]

My disappointments are too many to list. Besides DX:HR and maybe, maaaaaybe Skyrim (moddability saves it) I haven't played a satisfying game in a long time. I could be just getting old though.

 

[JohnRM]

Mafia II

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Stronghold 2. They took everything that made the first game great, laughed at it, and took a giant dump on it.

 

[carmen510]

Empire Earth III anyone?

 

[Crezth]

Empire Earth III anyone?

Oh, god, yes. Such a step down from Empire Earth II.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Stronghold 2. They took everything that made the first game great, laughed at it, and took a giant dump on it.

Ha. The original game was brilliant. The same is true for Masters of Orion, Railroad Tycoon, and many others.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Double post. Plz delete.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Ha. The original game was brilliant. The same is true for Masters of Orion, Railroad Tycoon, and many others.

I disagree. I thought RRT3 was an excellent game. Very different from 2, but in a good way.

 

[Akka]

I didn't expect anything from Diablo 3 after seeing what Blizzard became since the merge with Activision. Starcraft 2, the extreme dumbing down of WoW and the force-feed of Battlenet 2.0 already warned me.

So between the two, Civ5 has a comfortable lead when it comes to disappointment.
SupCom2, Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 were all quite heavy disappointment too, though. Consolization for casual ******s sucks.

 

[G-Max]

Personally, I haven't played Civilization V because of all the negativity surrounding it, and no one ever told be about Diablo III: Hellgate London until long after it came out. Diablo IV: Torchlight is excellent, however, and I'm looking forward to Diablo V: Torchlight II. As for Blizzard's latest piece of crap pretending to be a Diablo game, I'm not touching it.

When it comes to non-Civ, non-Diablo games that have tremendously disappointed me, I'm casting a vote for Madness Returns. The original American McGee's Alice had the best single-player campaign of any shooter ever made, but Madness Returns was just another entry in a long conga line of shooters (CoD, Crysis, Ghostbusters, Fall of Cybertron, Duke Nukem Forever...) that got lobotomized to accommodate the limitations that consoles suffered from 15 years ago, lacking a true save function, the ability to carry 10+ weapons on you at once, etc... I'm shocked that it didn't take the CoD/Halo approach to healing ("screw first aid kits, just hide behind a wall and you'll heal like Wolverine!"). Adding insult to injury, it was unplayable. I mean literally, I was not able to experience any of the content past a certain point in the Mad Hatter's realm because the fight was, as far as I can tell, impossible to win and there were NO CHEAT CODES. I spent more time running through the same stupid obstacle course of smashy stompy things over and over again and fighting the same unwinnable fight 200 freaking times than I did playing the entire rest of the game put together.

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.

I sympathize, brah.

Master of Orion III was an early disappointment for me.

(shudders)

WHY MUST YOU BRING UP THOSE HORRIBLE MEMORIES?

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

there were NO CHEAT CODES.

Ah yes, this reminds me, there were a lot of games that I had been looking forward to, only to find out when playing it that there was absolutely no way to cheat, and thus I get utterly pissed off. 007: The World is Not Enough for the Nintendo 64 was one of the worst offenders, where every single cheat that was allegedly available for the game, didn't work.

I know there were plenty of others, but their names escape me.

So, as such, any game that doesn't allow cheating is always a major disappointment.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Civ5. Meier's Corporation is now part of monopolist conspiracy of hardware manufacturers. Shameful!

And Diablo is just some stupid series since the second title which I do not care about.

 

[midget_roxx]

Few games dissapoint me because I go with the intention that every game is until it proves otherwise. I never played Civ5 after hearding all the bad comments about it and Diablo 3 I didn't mind aside from the connection issues. I only played diablo 3 up to around level 15 so overall it wasn't worth the money (if I payed for it)

BF3 would be my biggest dissapointment this year, I'm not sure about ever though. Perhaps ME2 or Star Ruler

 

[PhroX]

While I've gotten more enjoyment out of D3 than CiV, I'd probably say the latter is the better game. Civ 4 was, IMO, pretty much perfect, so I fully agree with Firaxis' decision to take 5 in a different direction, as "Civ 4 with a couple of new features" would've been pointless. Not everything they did appeals to me, and as such I stick with playing 4 instead, but overall, I think they've put together a good solid game, and most importantly, one that is actually different to it's predecessors.

D3 on the other hand, feels like they've gone back to D2 as it was at release, ignored all the great stuff that LoD and the patches added, then found more ways of making money. It is still fun to play - even Blizzard can't take that away from Diablo - but whereas Civ 5 provided a sufficiently different alternative to Civ 4 (or 3 or 2, or even 1, whichever your game of choice is) to be worth making, D3 is just D2 lite.

 

[J-man]

Stronghold 2. They took everything that made the first game great, laughed at it, and took a giant dump on it.

seconded.

Latest installment of Heroes (of might and magic).
Civ 5

 

[squadbroken]

I still play 5 and with G&K it's actually become a pretty solid game, on par or better than BtS.

I played D3 for two weeks and haven't gone back. The game is fatally flawed as a hack-and-slash ARPG, which is a shame, because the combat and skills are pretty fun.

 

[holy king]

(maybe I would be interested in RPGs if RPGs weren't all centered around weird magical spell and dungeon type crap)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3