(OT) Games That Have Dissapointed You

[gregebowman]

Originally posted by Pax:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregebowman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pax:
What I've been grossly disappointed by:

Civ3 especially the slimeball tactic of their expansion pack!!

All I want to know is if you just want to play Civ 3: Play the World in solo mode, is it worth the price to get the new tribes and the couple of new stuff they included? I heard it's not good for multi-play, which doesn't make sense, since it was advertised for multi-players. But since I don't do multi-play, I just need to know about the solo play mode.

---

I wouldn't know. It won't even run on my frikkin' computer!!!

Who in the Nine Hells ever heard of an Xpac that WON'T run on all the O/S's of the BASE program ... ?!? Civ3 (base) will run on Win95 ... WTH won't the xpac ... ?!?

And, yes, I'd be getting it FOR the multiplay. That's where most games' longevity is ... playing against other human beings.

---

I know. I was so disappointed when I saw the hardware requirements for that expansion. Heck, that's more than most new games coming out. If you're going to require all that, then make Civ 4. Not require all of that stuff for a "xpac". I've never heard of that either.

[sharp]

Eh all you guys bashing Starcraft as a game "not for gamers" and what not... for the most part games on b.net are like that because people who suck or the "non gamers" play on massive money maps. At a pro, or even good skill level the game is VERY strategic (yes there is alot of clicking), dropping, taking cliffs, flanking, countering, intelligence etc. etc. But yea, due to MOO3, and Atrocities?? (whoever posted on MOO3 board) I'll be ordering SEIV (NEVER would have heard of it or even considered buying it if not for Atrocities) as soon as I get my refund.

Anyway on topic... disappointments:
MOO3, biggest ever
FF8, ok story, game etc. is crap
FFX, Square is moving to much for the mass market appeal (eg insanely easy and linear)
Warcraft 3... decent but it has alot of stupid flaws that could easily be fixed
Myth 3, buggy, boring... bad ai

[raynor]

Originally posted by sharp:
Eh all you guys bashing Starcraft as a game "not for gamers" and what not... for the most part games on b.net are like that because people who suck or the "non gamers" play on massive money maps. At a pro, or even good skill level the game is VERY strategic (yes there is alot of clicking), dropping, taking cliffs, flanking, countering, intelligence etc. etc.

I still don't really understand the appeal of playing on a "money" map in which your starting base has more than sufficient resources to preclude the need to ever expand. For me, the real thrill of the game was determining where to position my forces as I expanded. If I didn't defend my expansion bases, then I wouldn't have enough resources to compete with the enemy. If I moved all my defences to the expansion base but left a hole in my defences, then the enemy might go straight for my jugular and destroy my home base. If you don't have to expand to another base, then you aren't really playing StarCraft. It was even more fun when you played with two or more players against two or more either human or AI players. Then, the enemy might combine their attack, and you had to coordinate your defence.

I *thought* WarCraft III was going to be a lot of fun. But even though they have a number of special abilities that the units automatically use, there is still a considerable amount of clicking that must be done. The game centers around your heroes that have multiple special powers that are hotkeyed as well as a half dozen inventory items that are also hot-keyed. I played through the single player campaign and then uninstalled the game. It is truly disappointing that Blizzard is now focusing their efforts on an Online Version of WarCraft instead of working on a successor to StarCraft.

[sharp]

Yup warcraft 3 interface, presentation etc. are very good. But overall the strategy is MAYBE 1/10 of starcrafts. I beat EVERYONE because I can creep faster (kill the neutrals) which gives me insanely powerful heroes that destroy whole armies... strategy... I guess... a little

[Pax]

Originally posted by solops:
10. SM’s Alpha Centauri - aweful graphics, absurdly unintuitive tech tree. Graphics usually do not matter to me, but I found these offputting to the point of making the game unpleasant.

I just thought of something.

Solops, are you by chance red/green color blind? That'd make sense to me; the graphics in SMAC were just fine IMO ... nothign to celebrate, but not "awful" either.

There IS, however, a specific changed graphics set, for R/G color blind players -- Firaxis included it, IIRc, right on the CD. Dunno what effect that has, or how bad the graphics look, though.

Personally, I rather LIKE forestign an entire continent (with Tree Farm adn Hybrid Forest, that's some decent Nutrients and Energy output ... and arid ground doesn't matter ... Great Desert, here we come!)

[gregebowman]

I saw another game on a store shelf I'd like to try out that I know was buggy when it first came out, but the box said Version 1.2. And that is Pool of Radiance. Has anybody checked this game out, and what do you think?

[ March 10, 2003, 15:24: Message edited by: gregebowman ]

[gregebowman]

Looks like I'll be getting my new computer in a couple of weeks, and I was wondering if anybody knew anything about the following games:

Freedom Force
Microsoft Train Simulator
Trainz
the new wargame Heart of Iron? (can't remember the exact title)
America