What games you shouldn't waste money on.
- Thread starter Social_Outlaw
- Start date
- Views 15,431
- Replies 158
I disagree. The original DoA on the Saturn was a great game - for its time.
EDIT - ON topic.....
Piggy Goes Pop
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 14,576
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 29
- Location
- I forgot
- Website
- POCKET.LIKEITS
- XP
- 19,227
- Country
If you're one of those people who can't enjoy a good story with repetitive gameplay mechanics, then stay away from Watch Dogs 
I'm a few hours in, and the story is pretty great, but the gameplay is so boring and repetitive that it's just...irritating to play. It's pretty much "Hack a camera, hack a camera, hack a camera, hack one last camera so you can see the thing you need to h@x0rz to continue" and then occasionally sneaking past/shooting up guards and getting away in car chases.
You also have the whole free-roam "Profiler" stuff where you just look for criminals who are going to do crime shit, then you just knock them out/kill them after or right before they do it...and that's it, there isn't much variation from what I've played so far.
There's also the "Invasion" thing where you'll get hacked by some random people (this is generally where the online stuff comes in, but since it's a bit early I only got invaded by an NPC that was the tutorial) and all you need to do is pinpoint and kill the person...and that's it as well.
The story is pretty nice so far, and if you can tolerate slow and repetitive gameplay I would say definitely go for it, but gameplay wise it's pretty junk
I'm a few hours in, and the story is pretty great, but the gameplay is so boring and repetitive that it's just...irritating to play. It's pretty much "Hack a camera, hack a camera, hack a camera, hack one last camera so you can see the thing you need to h@x0rz to continue" and then occasionally sneaking past/shooting up guards and getting away in car chases.
You also have the whole free-roam "Profiler" stuff where you just look for criminals who are going to do crime shit, then you just knock them out/kill them after or right before they do it...and that's it, there isn't much variation from what I've played so far.
There's also the "Invasion" thing where you'll get hacked by some random people (this is generally where the online stuff comes in, but since it's a bit early I only got invaded by an NPC that was the tutorial) and all you need to do is pinpoint and kill the person...and that's it as well.
The story is pretty nice so far, and if you can tolerate slow and repetitive gameplay I would say definitely go for it, but gameplay wise it's pretty junk
Let's see here. For one, it has a pick up and play aspect that Persona never did. There was no pressure to plan your game out, so you could do one or two things, or do everything. A lot of P4's characters ended up pretty shallow or cliched. Conception II seemed to take a cliche and mix it up into something fresh. Of course not all of them are three dimensional, but with the limited amounts of choices and ease of switching, it didn't leave you feeling cheated if you didn't like your chosen character.
The battle system was quite a bit more complex and varied. It encouraged you to explore your options instead of relying on tried and true tactics. After chapter three the difficulty ramped way up and required some decent strategy along with frequently changing your party members out. The game could have used a bit more variety. Both games could have benefited from more variety. Compared to Conception I, C2 is miles ahead and can only get better.
-snip-
The story is pretty nice so far, and if you can tolerate slow and repetitive gameplay I would say definitely go for it, but gameplay wise it's pretty junk
This is probably why they put a gag-order on reviews for the game not being allowed to be shown untill the game releases. I watched the IGN and Gamespot plays of it and even from that i could tell that the handling on the cars was awful, there was alot to hack but most of it was seemingly pointless and just there for the sake of it. The combat is your typical "hide, shoot, hide" gameplay but overall it really did seem like all the reviewers were struggling to find something really fun about the game. Im predicting that game being a 5/6 review score with all style no substance style comments being widespread.
Fire Pro Wrestling series
It vastly pales in comparison to the mainstream WWE titles
It vastly pales in comparison to the mainstream WWE titles
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 14,576
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 29
- Location
- I forgot
- Website
- POCKET.LIKEITS
- XP
- 19,227
- Country
The driving is one of my biggest complaints, I swear the devs have never driven a car before. Every single vehicle, whether it's some old ass minivan or a sports car, has the same acceleration speed, which is always "Balls fucking fast". I've killed like 2 civilians just because I get launched forward even if I just tap 'W'. I tried with a PS4 controller and even that has the same problem. Someone mentioned it would've made a better DLC for GTA V, and I'd have to agree with that. Shame it plays like crap, because it really has a lot of potential.
The music selection is also crap, but that's just a small bleh lol.
Um, pretty much any game that they have to hype for 2 years is gonna blow ass. Sucks for all y'all putting hope into that crappy Chicago sim.
There was this title for Dreamcast, called Slave Zero... They're trying to push it on PC now, but man, that game suuuuucks. The texture application for the environments has to be just completely random. The enemies are so bad and the controls (at least on the dreamcast) are retarded.
I really wanted it to be cool. It looked cool. Fuck you Slave Zero.
There was this title for Dreamcast, called Slave Zero... They're trying to push it on PC now, but man, that game suuuuucks. The texture application for the environments has to be just completely random. The enemies are so bad and the controls (at least on the dreamcast) are retarded.
I really wanted it to be cool. It looked cool. Fuck you Slave Zero.
I think your game is broken because i've never had that problem. I find the cars are a little drifty, but overall never really had a problem. I do find it a little repetitive, but most GTA style games suffer from this. Saints Row alleviates it by being batshit insane, GTA gets a free pass due to fanboyism (it's fucking boring), and Mafia is just so story heavy you never really notice. Watch Dogs blows the balls of GTA V, since it's basically just the same game but with more things to do than just "shoot everyone's faces" in every single mission.
My ONLY complaint with the game is sticky cover. I've been screwed a few times because Aiden refuses to get off his damn cover and go where I want.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 579
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 26
- Location
- Where all things matter
- Website
- wiki.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 1,025
- Country
I just watched the gameplay, and the game don't look bad. The story seems interesting while free roaming around don't. Ok you can hack thousands of stuff, and scan people for crimes, but the environment, and interaction feels like another GTA 5, and I can't cope. GTA 4 had way more interaction, and we need a game just like that. The open world environment feels dull, early on I thought this just gonna be like the E3 version, but I was wrong. I'm still gonna get, but I'm gonna look at the gameplay, and see if I have second thoughts about it.
Really chavosaur? I tend not to care for wrestling or its games but fire pro seems to work OK, have a colourful cast of characters and a community, including some pretty good hackers, that I find quite tolerable. Such a thing is no mean feat.
Did we both play the same GTA4? The only things in that game was dating your cousin, shooting pigeons and getting cars for the meathead moron.
If I want wacky things to do outside of story missions i'd just play Saints Row. Watch Dogs as well as Mafia II I played entirely for the story. I've pretty much ignored most activities in Watch Dogs so far besides story, and i'm perfectly content beating the game and leaving it at that. I'm really only interested in the story and for that alone I think it's worth playing.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 579
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 26
- Location
- Where all things matter
- Website
- wiki.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 1,025
- Country
We played the same GTA4, and I will Explain why. The setting when when you first play the game is soothing. When you drive it's more cartoony, and it lead to funny crashes, while GTA5 kept it more realistic. The story of an Immigrant struggle is real which gave us a feeling to play more in GTA4. GTA 5 was very good, but for storywise I'll give it to GTA4 for because Rockstar brought something new to the table when they brought Niko in. For GTA5, It kinda beats GTA4 in every way with the major content, but the plot was to stereotypical, and had a predictable story, so the GTA4 plot destroys GTA5 by a mile long. The interaction was just there I can't explain, but it was just there lol.
Hey everyone! I've actually been plotting a new article series called Games You SHOULDN'T BUY with the pilot article on the portal here. Since a lot of you guys have posted, if you would like to appear on the front portal, all you have to do is take your post and add more information to it so that you properly justify what you are saying, and so that it looks good enough for the front page.
All you have to do from there is to PM it to me. I'll most likely make minor edits to make sure it flows and actually looks presentable, and it'll be on the front page in no time. I do however reserve the right to deny your article, though.
All you have to do from there is to PM it to me. I'll most likely make minor edits to make sure it flows and actually looks presentable, and it'll be on the front page in no time. I do however reserve the right to deny your article, though.
Without further ado, Crysis.
Why? Let's start with the developer, Crytek... these guys have been the pet project for EA for some time, to basically become their subdivision akin to a tech demo company, much like id was before being acquired by Bethesda... only without any of the actual contributions to the game dev environment at large, or the years of advancing technology to back up such a status. So what we have are a bunch of Germans making an FPS engine, with absolutely no idea how to make it fun. And a subversive vegetation fetish that seems pretty out of place. Now, that's not to say that foreign companies can't jump into the industry and do well... take Croteam, for instance. They made their own engine, but also made a fun game with each new iteration of it. which is how it should be done.
At release, the biggest thing everyone was talking about with this game was how it would tax systems. Taxing, isn't even the word I'd use. See, taxing a system at release would be okay... if it actually got better when you were able to have a higher scale experience. This is the key component here. The problem with Crytek and Crysis specifically, is that the experience doesn't really get any better, or any more fluid with new hardware. This isn't a taxing engine. It's an unoptimized and badly written engine. Where do I begin in explaining this?
My system at the time of release was an E6600, 2gigs of RAM and a G80 8800GTS 640. Not top of the line, true, but no slouch either. And at the time, I tried to keep legit and also use the single player demo, as that is the most likely mode I would be playing at, and that was also where I would have my most realistic expectation of how the game was going to be like. At the only combination of settings that allowed me a measurably fluid gameplay (which still wasn't entirely 60 frames/sec), the graphical quality was somehow worse than running Half Life 1 on my last main machine. It wasn't even just lower textures... but it was aliasing out the ass on everything, and the kind of blocky pixelation I had thought we'd grown out of since the original PlayStation console. I was beginning to think something was wrong with my machine... but playing even demos for other games since then showed that this wasn't the case... the problem was with he game, and how it handled things. There were also a number of other problems... such as all the bragging about how you could deform houses, and even seeing footage of cutting down trees with bullets... only to find I wasn't able to do any of that. There was also talk about the "groundbreaking AI"... at the time, it certainly seemed like the AI was just the run of the mill hivemind that was able to spot you from wherever. What I realized much later was going on was at the fault of how the game handled the physics setting. See, with the physics set on high, buildings were fully destructible, and so were the trees. If you toggle this on to medium, the foliage is no longer visibly cut down... but the AI could still see through it like it was chopped free. So they could see me but I couldn't see them because the trees were still in the way. It's like *expletive* logic fail, everywhere!
The biggest sin of all with the SP demo content, however, was how ungodly boring it was... there was next to no real combat through the majority of your playthrough time with it. The story is both badly written and tries to take itself way too seriously, and by the time you actually get to see what might have decked you in mid-air jump, the demo is over. And there's no way to jump ahead and get to any real action.
Oh, and just to rule it out further, I also tried downloading it again as a fresh run when I was able to upgrade my computer to have the specs I'd been trucking along with now... get a load of this. So, while the in-game framerate counter was saying I was doing 90 frames/sec even with everything turned up, the whole thing felt like I was only running at 10. Seriously. I wish I was joking. So instead of getting better... the upgrades made it worse! And while i understand that the game had received a bunch of patches that were supposed to address this... they never patched the demo to provide a realistic expectation. Sadly, the only thing that looked better for all the extra trouble was the foliage... which all things considered, is pretty low on the list of things I care about looking good in an FPS.
And as an insult to injury... one of my roommates at the time had a spare copy of Far Cry 2, which used the same engine, but had some time to be worked on by Ubisoft, right? Not only did the game run better and could be turned up at much higher settings than Crysis, but even when the in-game FPS counter was showing ~25frames/sec, it was running so fluidly, I could have just been fooled into thinking it was a 60fps game. This really confused me, so I did some more investigation into the matter, and trying to find out why Crysis sucked so hard to play even this much later. I then stumbled across one of their dev blogs, with the timeline around the time they were working on Crysis 1 and then its expansion, Warhead... I was honestly insulted with the amount of bitching and whining that they were doing, complaining about things like having to optimize their game when EA requested it of them... and complaining about it for every single facet of the game! The controls, the framerate, the graphics... everything that EA wanted them to fix, they bitched and moaned and whined and pissed and carried on about it, like if EA was trying to get them to cure cancer with it. All they were asking of them was just very reasonably make the game not suck for 90% of the hardware out there... was that really so hard?
It seemed it was the devs' opinion that the only people that should be playing their game were those who could afford to spend north of $3000 USD for god-boxes meant to run the game, and *expletive* everyone else that had a passing interest but a modest machine.
I'll never understand why EA chose to leave these guys alone instead of killing them off like they did:
We already have one tech demo company in the form of id... that is, we used to. But even id software has actually shared their breakthroughs to help everyone make better games. Crytek seems to have no interest for any of that, and just wants everyone else to fix their broken turds. They are a stain on the industry at large, and ticked me off enough, I handwrote them a letter saying that not only did I find their software awful, I wouldn't even waste the effort to pirate their broken mess as long as they continue being such a dev-zilla. Needless to say, they've yet to make anything that was even halfway worth a second glance, much less my interest.
Why? Let's start with the developer, Crytek... these guys have been the pet project for EA for some time, to basically become their subdivision akin to a tech demo company, much like id was before being acquired by Bethesda... only without any of the actual contributions to the game dev environment at large, or the years of advancing technology to back up such a status. So what we have are a bunch of Germans making an FPS engine, with absolutely no idea how to make it fun. And a subversive vegetation fetish that seems pretty out of place. Now, that's not to say that foreign companies can't jump into the industry and do well... take Croteam, for instance. They made their own engine, but also made a fun game with each new iteration of it. which is how it should be done.
At release, the biggest thing everyone was talking about with this game was how it would tax systems. Taxing, isn't even the word I'd use. See, taxing a system at release would be okay... if it actually got better when you were able to have a higher scale experience. This is the key component here. The problem with Crytek and Crysis specifically, is that the experience doesn't really get any better, or any more fluid with new hardware. This isn't a taxing engine. It's an unoptimized and badly written engine. Where do I begin in explaining this?
My system at the time of release was an E6600, 2gigs of RAM and a G80 8800GTS 640. Not top of the line, true, but no slouch either. And at the time, I tried to keep legit and also use the single player demo, as that is the most likely mode I would be playing at, and that was also where I would have my most realistic expectation of how the game was going to be like. At the only combination of settings that allowed me a measurably fluid gameplay (which still wasn't entirely 60 frames/sec), the graphical quality was somehow worse than running Half Life 1 on my last main machine. It wasn't even just lower textures... but it was aliasing out the ass on everything, and the kind of blocky pixelation I had thought we'd grown out of since the original PlayStation console. I was beginning to think something was wrong with my machine... but playing even demos for other games since then showed that this wasn't the case... the problem was with he game, and how it handled things. There were also a number of other problems... such as all the bragging about how you could deform houses, and even seeing footage of cutting down trees with bullets... only to find I wasn't able to do any of that. There was also talk about the "groundbreaking AI"... at the time, it certainly seemed like the AI was just the run of the mill hivemind that was able to spot you from wherever. What I realized much later was going on was at the fault of how the game handled the physics setting. See, with the physics set on high, buildings were fully destructible, and so were the trees. If you toggle this on to medium, the foliage is no longer visibly cut down... but the AI could still see through it like it was chopped free. So they could see me but I couldn't see them because the trees were still in the way. It's like *expletive* logic fail, everywhere!
The biggest sin of all with the SP demo content, however, was how ungodly boring it was... there was next to no real combat through the majority of your playthrough time with it. The story is both badly written and tries to take itself way too seriously, and by the time you actually get to see what might have decked you in mid-air jump, the demo is over. And there's no way to jump ahead and get to any real action.
Oh, and just to rule it out further, I also tried downloading it again as a fresh run when I was able to upgrade my computer to have the specs I'd been trucking along with now... get a load of this. So, while the in-game framerate counter was saying I was doing 90 frames/sec even with everything turned up, the whole thing felt like I was only running at 10. Seriously. I wish I was joking. So instead of getting better... the upgrades made it worse! And while i understand that the game had received a bunch of patches that were supposed to address this... they never patched the demo to provide a realistic expectation. Sadly, the only thing that looked better for all the extra trouble was the foliage... which all things considered, is pretty low on the list of things I care about looking good in an FPS.
And as an insult to injury... one of my roommates at the time had a spare copy of Far Cry 2, which used the same engine, but had some time to be worked on by Ubisoft, right? Not only did the game run better and could be turned up at much higher settings than Crysis, but even when the in-game FPS counter was showing ~25frames/sec, it was running so fluidly, I could have just been fooled into thinking it was a 60fps game. This really confused me, so I did some more investigation into the matter, and trying to find out why Crysis sucked so hard to play even this much later. I then stumbled across one of their dev blogs, with the timeline around the time they were working on Crysis 1 and then its expansion, Warhead... I was honestly insulted with the amount of bitching and whining that they were doing, complaining about things like having to optimize their game when EA requested it of them... and complaining about it for every single facet of the game! The controls, the framerate, the graphics... everything that EA wanted them to fix, they bitched and moaned and whined and pissed and carried on about it, like if EA was trying to get them to cure cancer with it. All they were asking of them was just very reasonably make the game not suck for 90% of the hardware out there... was that really so hard?
It seemed it was the devs' opinion that the only people that should be playing their game were those who could afford to spend north of $3000 USD for god-boxes meant to run the game, and *expletive* everyone else that had a passing interest but a modest machine.I'll never understand why EA chose to leave these guys alone instead of killing them off like they did:
- Westood Studios (the good C&C games)
- Pandemic ( Destroy All Humans )
- Bioware ( Kotor
) - Clover ( Okami )
We already have one tech demo company in the form of id... that is, we used to. But even id software has actually shared their breakthroughs to help everyone make better games. Crytek seems to have no interest for any of that, and just wants everyone else to fix their broken turds. They are a stain on the industry at large, and ticked me off enough, I handwrote them a letter saying that not only did I find their software awful, I wouldn't even waste the effort to pirate their broken mess as long as they continue being such a dev-zilla. Needless to say, they've yet to make anything that was even halfway worth a second glance, much less my interest.
Similar threads
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
Is it safe to update a modded ps3?
Can I play online in pirated games? (with ps3hen either enabled or not) -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@salazarcosplay, I used apollo save tool to activate my ps3 offline so i could play a game that wasnt working
-
S @ salazarcosplay:from what I understood. you load up the piratged game. you the clear the syscalls, then you play
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
