Why Video Games Suck!

You know, if it was so easy they would have already done it. But obviously it's not that easy. Therefore we have games like they are.

I for one liked Diablo 2 and I played it singleplayer as well as a very long time multiplayer, doing baalruns with friends and stuff.

I never liked NWN though, because it was too complex and whatnot.

See where I'm going? It's all personal opinion. Games you say suck are liked by many, many other people. Otherwise they wouldn't sell like they did.

But nobody forces you to buy them. Play the games you like and stay away from the ones you don't like. This rant of yours is kind of a waste of time for all of us, you included.

Actually, thats the thing: it IS easy, the reason is that games like all other products have become more marketable, companies have more reason to make a mediocre game in a few months than spend a few years on a good one.

Correction: To spend a few years on a game that might be a good one. You never really know until it is out. And if you spent years on a game only to realize that it doesn't sell as expected then you are bankrupt and will never make games again.

You're forgetting how expensive it is to make games. They are forced to not have years and years of development because they'd run out of money or spend so much money that they would never make profit even if the game sold somewhat good.

True, but it depends on the company, just look at Diablo Three, its been in production for years!
Also, consider Fable 3 and DA2, both are horrible games that not only to not add anything new to the old games, but remove basic features like save files and maps which have been part of the game for ages!

Mrsebi wrote:True, but it depends on the company, just look at Diablo Three, its been in production for years!
Also, consider Fable 3 and DA2, both are horrible games that not only to not add anything new to the old games, but remove basic features like save files and maps which have been part of the game for ages!

> horrible games

They aren't horrible games. In fact, they are very good games. My favourite game magazine gave Fable 3 88/100 points and DA2 got 87/100. And those are quite good scores, only exceptional games get a score of 90 or higher from them. If I remember right they never gave a higher score than 93, which means they are picky.

So, both are good games. The developers might have made changes that make them different from their predecessors, but that doesn't mean they're bad games. That only means that you personally don't like the changes.

Look, I understand your point. They made a sequel you don't like to a game you liked. I've experienced the same with Black&White. I played the original Black&White for hours and hours. Then Creature Isle came out, I didn't like it because it focused too much on the creature. Then Black&White 2 came out and I didn't like it that much either because they came up with armies and whatnot. But does that make Lionhead a bad game company? No it doesn't, because there are lots of people who enjoyed those games

Like I said, if you don't like particular games, don't play them. Get a demo version or read a review before you buy a game to avoid spending money on games you don't like. Do whatever tickles your fancy, but don't say "ALL RPGS SUCK BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE FABLE SEQUEL!!!1". That's just shallow, biased and a rage induced rant which helps nobody.

I dont like that nobody mentioned the elder scrolls series as an example of a series that gets progressively better. Skyrim may be iffy with the whole 2 hands thing though.

Tom Gaskarth wrote:Good RPGs: Pokemon, Legend of Zelda.

Zelda IS good, its just... I dunno, kinda easy after you play a few of them?
Really looking foward to the remake though.
Now, as for Pokemon, Im not saying its a BAD game perse, it just seems like... I dunno, like it could be so much more better? Gamefreak doesnt really go out of the comfort zone if you think about it, every single game has been the same sans a few small changes (following pokemon which they removed for some reason, extra island, battle frontier, etc)
I mean, it would be nice if they put more work into it.
Or made a Pokemon Online.
OR a spore or monster hunter based pokemon game.

>kinda easy
>water temple

Actually, I found that to be the easiest dungeon in the game.
No joke, I dont get it why people found it hard.

Not all games are bad these days, and I'm a big proponent of that.

Bioshock, is actually an a mazing game, one of my top 3 favorites of all time, and yes, the 2nd one fell a little short of it's mark, which was to be better than a work of art. So what? It was good anyway, I had fun.

Portal is amazing, and so was Portal 2. No argument there.

Team Fortress 2 just gets BETTER AND BETTER AND BETTER. Again, no argument.

And I strongly disagree about your Fable 3 opinions, actually I found F:LC veryveryvery repetitive and boring, at least Fable 3 TRIED to give a new way to play the game. So what if being king isn't as fun as killing stuff? I HAVE WINGS, DERNIT.

.... diddog i completely missed that sorry

Mrsebi wrote:True, but it depends on the company, just look at Diablo Three, its been in production for years!
Also, consider Fable 3 and DA2, both are horrible games that not only to not add anything new to the old games, but remove basic features like save files and maps which have been part of the game for ages!

What basic feature has been removed from DA2? DA2 has save files and maps bro, you press start and then move the cursor to save files, or you press the Xbox 360 "back" button and it shows you a map. Where is the issue?

I feel like DA2 got a worse reception than expected because it didn't have much of a main story, it was just side quests galore with a couple main quests in the middle that hardly connect in the end. It has much better mechanics than DA:O however, I mean, in DA:O you couldn't even choose when to attack! It was just click "A" then use spells, at least in 2 you could choose when you hit the enemy, like to stop attacking if the enemy is a mage with a shield up.

I'll give you one thing, Fallout: New Vegas was a bit of a step downwards from Fallout 3. Less sidequests, weaker (imo) storyline.