What are the Most Disappointing Game Sequels ?

Kotor II - I enjoyed it, but not as much as I wanted to. I am still hoping for a 3rd.

RE5 - I really wanted the game we were promised when it was announced. Whatever happened to the sun playing a big part? We were supposed to have to stay out of the daylight because it would weaken you quicker. Still no ability to move while firing?

DMC4 was disappointing. the toned down difficulty did the game no favors. neither did rehashing all the levels and bosses (which did absolutely nothing to differentiate nero from dante). the weapons werent even as fun.

ME3. nearly all of the attempts to add variety to the combat scenarios backfired. bioware needed to either polish up all of those sequences or focus more on the new found enemy variety.

i cant really think of any sequels from previous generations that im still notably disappointed in. there are original games i had high hopes for and ended up being let down though. maybe im buying too many sequels this generation.

[QUOTE="Vangaurdius"]

First things first, your dialogue, shove it up your posterior you pretentious **** You don't sound smart, you sound like an idiot. Now that the insults are out of the way. I never said that the first Advanced warfighter was influenced by Call of Duty, I said the quality started to go down with that release, and now they want CoD's audience with the upcoming game. You can easily judge from gameplay footage unless your mental capacity is similar to that of a squirrel with downs syndrome, and that's impossible. And you can play Diablo 3. Go back to your hugbox and shorten your response. It was unnecessarily long. Now I really wish I could find that image where a man has his pants and underwear down to his ankles and has feces starting coming out of his rear, parked over a man's plate. The man the plate belongs to said "DUDE! Why are you s***ing on my plate?" And the man doing said action, said "How do you know it's s***, it's not even out yet."

Grammaton-Cleric

I'll ignore the insults (A clear violation of the TOS) because you strike me an overtly emotional person. You should learn to control that temper and perhaps a bit more logic would find its way into your writing.

As to Ghost Recon, this is a direct quote: "Ghost Recon: Went from a tactical game to another Call of Duty clone starting with advanced warfighter."

You clearly call the game derivative of COD. If that wasn't your intention then perhaps you should learn to articulate yourself better.

I do find it amusing that you feebly defend the notion that you can judge a game entirely from footage. It's a specious and illogical assertion but since you are clearly entrenched in your own myopic philosophy I won't bother attempting to pry you from your convictions, tenuous as they are.

I will state that your comments on Diablo III seem ridiculous given both the pedigree of the developer and the overwhelmingly positive impressions from those who have played the beta. A close friend of mine who played it extensively stated it was clear evolution of Diablo II but with vast improvements.

But then again, he only played the game.

You watched a video.

There really isn't much to be done about somebody who thinks they can formulate an opinion on something they haven't experienced. It's the apex of ignorance and worse, you extol such vapidity as if it is something worthy of praise.

I just explained the ghost recon. Your direct quotation supported my argument. No where in there did I say specifically Advanced Warfighter was a Call of Duty clone. I said it's become that, and that the downhill trend started with Advanced Warfighter. That does not mean it was inspired by Call of Duty as you insist. I mean it's fallen into the same category of desperately trying to reward the player with superficial items to hide the empty husk of a game that it truly is. Twisting the meaning only works for sensationalist news. Akin to the childish bickering of politicians. And I'm not emotional. I always have, and always will swear a lot and insult people without feeling any anger. You did as well, albeit not as direct as me. I don't mind people insulting me, I do when you try to hide it though, thinking you're super sneaky when it's as obvious as UN peacekeeper hiding in the bushes. I've already heard the "you can't judge from footage" argument thousands of times. And every one of those times the response is the same. You can judge from the footage easily. I'm not talking about some pre-rendered trailer here. That may simply tell you that the story is terrible. I'm talking actual gameplay footage. You can easily make a well informed decision. Once again, enough with attempting to sound like a Harvard professor. I took English in university, it was mandatory. I have yet to not know a word you have typed. They are unnecessary, pretentious as I already stated, and if I didn't know any better I'd say your vapid. Diablo 3 was not a clear evolution. The skill tree is very dumbed down and the cash shop was a pathetic attempt and dealing with the trading in the previous games. Diablo has become a cartoon. The first 2 were grimdark, but not on the ludicrous scale of Warhammer. It's their blatant attempt at getting at a younger and less intelligent audience. Path of Exile is what should have happened with Diablo 3. I understand that you retreat behind your vocabulary to avoid coming up with any sort of argument, but that doesn't work when you are arguing with people who are familiar with it. Also, don't flatter yourself. I'm not hunting down everything you say on this site, or any site, or anywhere for that matter. On a closing note, the only emotion I'm feeling is pity, with a side of amusement. I've seen plenty of people such as yourself (don't take that as an insult, because that's not intended). I'm not so harsh as to tear you apart as I've seen others do, but someone will eventually. And you'll gain nothing of it, because you're not making people angry, you're providing entertainment, much like laughing and feeling pity for those teenagers that wear fedoras thinking they are the coolest thing since sliced bread and look like a 50's gangster or detective.

Vangaurdius

It's fantastic that you took English at the university level. I'm assuming at some point they refreshed you on the use of paragraphs and how their utilization makes your points far more cogent by way of concise organization.

Also, you're not the first to attack my vocabulary usage rather than address the issue at hand and I'll share with you the same rebuttal I've implemented before: I've been posting on these boards for ten years and I assume those I discuss this medium with are intelligent people so I don't bother to employ a low-brow vernacular and rather assume the best - intellectually speaking - of my fellow enthusiasts.

If that makes me pretentious so be it but frankly the elitist mentality that permeates your pedestrian ramblings makes you come off as far snobbier, especially with all those allusions to the casual gamer.

As to your quote, regardless of your intent it read as a direct comparison to COD and furthermore your analysis of the games is wholly incorrect. Both Ghost Recon AW games play very similar to the earlier installments and it's of interest to note that your critique of those games is vague and undefined.

You traffic in vagaries because specificity requires edification and it's clear you have no intention of actually playing many of the games you deride.

Then we come back to the main issue: the ridiculous notion that you can effectively and accurately critique a game you haven't played based on some gameplay footage. The very fact that I must point out the clear and inherent fallacy of such a stance suggests you are either purposely obstinate or you are generally clueless as to how ridiculously baseless such an assertion is. Videogames are an INTERACTIVE medium which means we gauge them by interacting and playing them. Passivity is to miss the point of gaming and no one can fully grasp software until they've actually played at least some measure of it.

It's a very simple and obvious truth.

For example, you assert you've made some viable argument with Diablo III but when distilled it comes off as nothing more than random speculation and a heap of conjecture about the mechanics and the game being simplified and geared towards a younger audience, none of which seems true based on what beta testers (aka people who have played the actual game) have said. Also, if the game was aimed at a younger crowd as you claim, why is it currently an exclusive on the PC, which by default skews to an older demographic?

Lastly, I don't usually lose arguments because, unlike most bravado-infused chest-thumpers, I only tackle issues that I'm versed in or can logically and intelligently debate. If you think you possess the requite tools to dismantle my arguments then by all means do so, though you may find that task difficult if you continue employing poor logic and vacuous postulations.

Above all else please understand one thing: my knowledge of this medium is vast and unlike you I actually take the time to play the games I comment upon.

Halo 2. Wasn't a horrible game, but the hype was too much
GT5. Honestly never played it thanks to the less than perfect reviews for a game that was being built forever...hype too much
Animal Crossing: City Folk. This shouldn't even be considered a sequel, it is the same exact game without the NES games deserving of a 0/10. Unbelievable

Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike. - The first two were amazing, but then Factor 5 had to go and ruin the third one with ground missions. It was really too bad, because the normal flight combat missions were still fun, but they were just annoyingly hard to get to.

Halo 2 - It just couldn't live up to all the hype, and the arbiter and his "I don't give a **** story" really dampened the fun in the campaign. The MP was still great since there was nothing else like it on consoles.

Fable II - The first one was good, but with all the promises that Molyneux failed to implement, he just had to do a better job with the second one right? Nope, Fable II sucked on almost every level, and that "final boss fight," just WTF was that?

Wind Waker - After being so hyped from the Space World 2000 demo, me and everyone else I knew eagerly anticipated the eventual new Zelda for GameCube. Instead, we got a watered down game that was inferior in comparison to every Zelda that came before and after aside from maybe the NES ones.

Renegade_Fury

How in the WORLD is Wind Waker watered down. Correct me if I'm wrong people, but isn't Wind Waker the most advanced Zelda to date. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were the Zelda series on a decline afterwards. Wind Waker had the largest and most lively world in the series with the most to do out of every Zelda game ever made... Every Zelda has made steady improvements including Wind Waker and then things started getting removed as soon as Twilight Princess came out. Wind Waker also had the most well thought out and deep story in the series by miles to boot.

Wind Waker represents the pinnacle of advancement for the Zelda franchise

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike. - The first two were amazing, but then Factor 5 had to go and ruin the third one with ground missions. It was really too bad, because the normal flight combat missions were still fun, but they were just annoyingly hard to get to.

Halo 2 - It just couldn't live up to all the hype, and the arbiter and his "I don't give a **** story" really dampened the fun in the campaign. The MP was still great since there was nothing else like it on consoles.

Fable II - The first one was good, but with all the promises that Molyneux failed to implement, he just had to do a better job with the second one right? Nope, Fable II sucked on almost every level, and that "final boss fight," just WTF was that?

Wind Waker - After being so hyped from the Space World 2000 demo, me and everyone else I knew eagerly anticipated the eventual new Zelda for GameCube. Instead, we got a watered down game that was inferior in comparison to every Zelda that came before and after aside from maybe the NES ones.

Pikminmaniac

How in the WORLD is Wind Waker watered down. Correct me if I'm wrong people, but isn't Wind Waker the most advanced Zelda to date. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were the Zelda series on a decline afterwards. Wind Waker had the largest and most lively world in the series with the most to do out of every Zelda game ever made... Every Zelda has made steady improvements including Wind Waker and then things started getting removed as soon as Twilight Princess came out. Wind Waker also had the most well thought out and deep story in the series by miles to boot.

Wind Waker represents the pinnacle of advancement for the Zelda franchise

Easy Difficuly. Way Less Dungeons. Annoying musical instrument. Horrible travel system. Taking forever to build up rupees. etc. etc. I could go on and on. WTF did WW do that was an improvement? "Most advanced Zelda?" "Largest and and most lively world?" Huh? Just because it's a big empty waste land that took forever to get anywhere? Even if you bothered to sail to some far away place, it's not like you could do anything unless you were supposed to be there just like every Zelda before. The most lively world was MM, because at least there were a ton of sidequests that affected the townsfolk's lives, as it was one of the major focuses of the game. TP and SS got back on track after WW's **** ups, because improved combat aside, they actually brought back the dungeon and puzzle amount. Sorry, but I never saw what was so great about WW in 2003, and I still don't in 2012. Hell, this is the only site where I ever see it get such praise, because anywhere else the game comes up, or if I talk to someone about it in real life, they think it blows as well. I think that the people that liked it must have fallen in love with the art or atmosphere, because I have no problem calling it easily the worst Zelda I've ever played from start to finish.

Oh, and I HATED WW's story. All it made me feel was that the Hero of Time was so much better than that wimp, and accordingly, gave me the urge to take out my N64 and play OoT or MM instead.

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike. - The first two were amazing, but then Factor 5 had to go and ruin the third one with ground missions. It was really too bad, because the normal flight combat missions were still fun, but they were just annoyingly hard to get to.

Halo 2 - It just couldn't live up to all the hype, and the arbiter and his "I don't give a **** story" really dampened the fun in the campaign. The MP was still great since there was nothing else like it on consoles.

Fable II - The first one was good, but with all the promises that Molyneux failed to implement, he just had to do a better job with the second one right? Nope, Fable II sucked on almost every level, and that "final boss fight," just WTF was that?

Wind Waker - After being so hyped from the Space World 2000 demo, me and everyone else I knew eagerly anticipated the eventual new Zelda for GameCube. Instead, we got a watered down game that was inferior in comparison to every Zelda that came before and after aside from maybe the NES ones.

Renegade_Fury

How in the WORLD is Wind Waker watered down. Correct me if I'm wrong people, but isn't Wind Waker the most advanced Zelda to date. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were the Zelda series on a decline afterwards. Wind Waker had the largest and most lively world in the series with the most to do out of every Zelda game ever made... Every Zelda has made steady improvements including Wind Waker and then things started getting removed as soon as Twilight Princess came out. Wind Waker also had the most well thought out and deep story in the series by miles to boot.

Wind Waker represents the pinnacle of advancement for the Zelda franchise

Easy Difficuly. Way Less Dungeons. Annoying musical instrument. Horrible travel system. Taking forever to build up rupees. etc. etc. I could go on and on. WTF did WW do that was an improvement? "Most advanced Zelda?" "Largest and and most lively world?" Huh? Just because it's a big empty waste land that took forever to get anywhere? Even if you bothered to sail to some far away place, it's not like you could do anything unless you were supposed to be there just like every Zelda before. The most lively world was MM, because at least there were a ton of sidequests that affected the townsfolk's lives, as it was one of the major focuses of the game. TP and SS got back on track after WW's **** ups, because improved combat aside, they actually brought back the dungeon and puzzle amount. Sorry, but I never saw what was so great about WW in 2003, and I still don't in 2012. Hell, this is the only site where I ever see it get such praise, because anywhere else the game comes up, or if I talk to someone about it in real life, they think it blows as well. I think that the people that liked it must have fallen in love with the art or atmosphere, because I have no problem calling it easily the worst Zelda I've ever played from start to finish.

Oh, and I HATED WW's story. All it made me feel was that the Hero of Time was so much better than that wimp, and accordingly, gave me the urge to take out my N64 and play OoT or MM instead.

Wind Waker's story was perhaps Nintendo's most deep, poetic, and artfully constructed tale ever made. It would take me way too long to delve in to the metaphors and messages that permiate the entire experience from setting to each thing every individual NPC says in the game.

As for the rest... Wind waker offers the most to explore with 49 islands and the largest amount of gameplay in total out of every Zelda ever made. It has a lengthy single player and an insane amount of content to do outside the main story. Twilight princess pretty much remove sidequests as well as a lively world leaving you with a true wasteland. Skyward sword removed exploration all together. So I stand by what I said. Wind Waker's the furhtest the series has evolved. More to explore,lively characters, a lengthy quest, and the most to do outside that quest. It was the complete Zelda package. Almost all the other Zeldas are missing one or more of these aspects or don't have it to the degree Wind Waker does

- Shift 2 Unleashed: The first game was great, but the sequel did everything but improve the core racing experience. The graphics were improved, but otherwise touchy physics and over-aggressive AI made the game extremely frustrating. Presentation was also poor compared to the first, and having the aggressive element taken away and making you focus on clean driving was not how it should have been. Very disappointing game. 6.5/10

- Resistance 2: This sequel was so different from the first. The dark and gritty tone to the visuals and violence exhibited in Fall of Man were excruciatingly absent from the experience, and instead the visuals were bright and colourful which didn't suit the setting, and the gore was almost comical. The story and characters were also weak. Still a decent game, but disappointing. Thankfully Resistance 3 returned to the successful roots of the original well. 7/10

- Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood: It included many frustrating missions that revolved too often around broken stealth elements and irritating time constraints that weren't welcome to the normal assassin's creed formulae. A great game nonetheless, but the aggravating moments were unneeded. As a follow-up to the awesome Assassin's Creed 2, I deem this game disappointing in comparison. 8.5/10

- F.E.A.R. 3: The psychological horror that worked so well in the original was even less integrated into this third game of the franchise than in the second game, and the second half of the game was boring and included far too much shooting and no way near enough scares. Luckily the shooting mechanics were solid. 7/10

- Red Faction: Armageddon: The only thing disappointing about this sequel to the excellent Red Faction: Guerrilla was the fact it took place under the surface of Mars and wasn't an open world sandbox experience, otherwise it was an explosive improvement in key areas of gameplay. 8/10

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

How in the WORLD is Wind Waker watered down. Correct me if I'm wrong people, but isn't Wind Waker the most advanced Zelda to date. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were the Zelda series on a decline afterwards. Wind Waker had the largest and most lively world in the series with the most to do out of every Zelda game ever made... Every Zelda has made steady improvements including Wind Waker and then things started getting removed as soon as Twilight Princess came out. Wind Waker also had the most well thought out and deep story in the series by miles to boot.

Wind Waker represents the pinnacle of advancement for the Zelda franchise

Pikminmaniac

Easy Difficuly. Way Less Dungeons. Annoying musical instrument. Horrible travel system. Taking forever to build up rupees. etc. etc. I could go on and on. WTF did WW do that was an improvement? "Most advanced Zelda?" "Largest and and most lively world?" Huh? Just because it's a big empty waste land that took forever to get anywhere? Even if you bothered to sail to some far away place, it's not like you could do anything unless you were supposed to be there just like every Zelda before. The most lively world was MM, because at least there were a ton of sidequests that affected the townsfolk's lives, as it was one of the major focuses of the game. TP and SS got back on track after WW's **** ups, because improved combat aside, they actually brought back the dungeon and puzzle amount. Sorry, but I never saw what was so great about WW in 2003, and I still don't in 2012. Hell, this is the only site where I ever see it get such praise, because anywhere else the game comes up, or if I talk to someone about it in real life, they think it blows as well. I think that the people that liked it must have fallen in love with the art or atmosphere, because I have no problem calling it easily the worst Zelda I've ever played from start to finish.

Oh, and I HATED WW's story. All it made me feel was that the Hero of Time was so much better than that wimp, and accordingly, gave me the urge to take out my N64 and play OoT or MM instead.

Wind Waker's story was perhaps Nintendo's most deep, poetic, and artfully constructed tale ever made. It would take me way too long to delve in to the metaphors and messages that permiate the entire experience from setting to each thing every individual NPC says in the game.

As for the rest... Wind waker offers the most to explore with 49 islands and the largest amount of gameplay in total out of every Zelda ever made. It has a lengthy single player and an insane amount of content to do outside the main story. Twilight princess pretty much remove sidequests as well as a lively world leaving you with a true wasteland. Skyward sword removed exploration all together. So I stand by what I said. Wind Waker's the furhtest the series has evolved. More to explore,lively characters, a lengthy quest, and the most to do outside that quest. It was the complete Zelda package. Most of the others sacrifice one of these things

You don't have to bother explaining anything, because I can gurantee it would not be anything I hadn't figured out on my own, and even if it wasn't, not something that would even begin to register as profound to me. Nothing about the story touched me, and no matter how much analysis you could go into, it would not change my opinion that the story sucked.

Oh wow, so there a bunch of little rocks spread out. Oh, boy, that makes it so much better lol. Lengthy SP? Sorry, WW was also the fastest Zelda I ever beat, and with nothing to like about it, I had no urge to go out of my way to collect anything extra. Why bother? The game was so easy and short to begin with; it had no staying power.

TP had dungeons, which is what I want from Zelda. WW had, what, 5 little simple and barren ones and a fetch quest?

SS took out exploration, but installed a far superior linear pathway with nonstop puzzles. It actually gave me something to do all the time unlike WW which threw me into nothingness and where I spent most of my time just trying to get to where I needed to . Having an "open world" (and I say that loosely because the game still follows a linear structure) does not make it better. It's a design choice, and personally, I'll choose depth any day of the week over something so artificial.

You can describe WW with as much flowery compliments as you want, but to me, I still look at it as the most simple and boring Zelda to date. Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks were even far superior games.

CoD 3 & CoD WaW, FEAR 2 (wtf happened here?:( ) Resistance 2; I didn't bother to finish the campaign and Uncharted 3.

I will also add DMC 4, the combat was exceptional but the recycled boss battles and backtracking midway through the game felt I was being ripped off.

Halo ODST, it was meh. Firefight mode was awesome though.

Gears 3, I enjoyed the campaign but the 4 player co-op forced you to not care if you die since you will be revived immediately, similar to RE 5.

Resident Evil 5, no doubt.

[QUOTE="Vangaurdius"]

I just explained the ghost recon. Your direct quotation supported my argument. No where in there did I say specifically Advanced Warfighter was a Call of Duty clone. I said it's become that, and that the downhill trend started with Advanced Warfighter. That does not mean it was inspired by Call of Duty as you insist. I mean it's fallen into the same category of desperately trying to reward the player with superficial items to hide the empty husk of a game that it truly is. Twisting the meaning only works for sensationalist news. Akin to the childish bickering of politicians. And I'm not emotional. I always have, and always will swear a lot and insult people without feeling any anger. You did as well, albeit not as direct as me. I don't mind people insulting me, I do when you try to hide it though, thinking you're super sneaky when it's as obvious as UN peacekeeper hiding in the bushes. I've already heard the "you can't judge from footage" argument thousands of times. And every one of those times the response is the same. You can judge from the footage easily. I'm not talking about some pre-rendered trailer here. That may simply tell you that the story is terrible. I'm talking actual gameplay footage. You can easily make a well informed decision. Once again, enough with attempting to sound like a Harvard professor. I took English in university, it was mandatory. I have yet to not know a word you have typed. They are unnecessary, pretentious as I already stated, and if I didn't know any better I'd say your vapid. Diablo 3 was not a clear evolution. The skill tree is very dumbed down and the cash shop was a pathetic attempt and dealing with the trading in the previous games. Diablo has become a cartoon. The first 2 were grimdark, but not on the ludicrous scale of Warhammer. It's their blatant attempt at getting at a younger and less intelligent audience. Path of Exile is what should have happened with Diablo 3. I understand that you retreat behind your vocabulary to avoid coming up with any sort of argument, but that doesn't work when you are arguing with people who are familiar with it. Also, don't flatter yourself. I'm not hunting down everything you say on this site, or any site, or anywhere for that matter. On a closing note, the only emotion I'm feeling is pity, with a side of amusement. I've seen plenty of people such as yourself (don't take that as an insult, because that's not intended). I'm not so harsh as to tear you apart as I've seen others do, but someone will eventually. And you'll gain nothing of it, because you're not making people angry, you're providing entertainment, much like laughing and feeling pity for those teenagers that wear fedoras thinking they are the coolest thing since sliced bread and look like a 50's gangster or detective.

Grammaton-Cleric

It's fantastic that you took English at the university level. I'm assuming at some point they refreshed you on the use of paragraphs and how their utilization makes your points far more cogent by way of concise organization.

Also, you're not the first to attack my vocabulary usage rather than address the issue at hand and I'll share with you the same rebuttal I've implemented before: I've been posting on these boards for ten years and I assume those I discuss this medium with are intelligent people so I don't bother to employ a low-brow vernacular and rather assume the best - intellectually speaking - of my fellow enthusiasts.

If that makes me pretentious so be it but frankly the elitist mentality that permeates your pedestrian ramblings makes you come off as far snobbier, especially with all those allusions to the casual gamer.

As to your quote, regardless of your intent it read as a direct comparison to COD and furthermore your analysis of the games is wholly incorrect. Both Ghost Recon AW games play very similar to the earlier installments and it's of interest to note that your critique of those games is vague and undefined.

You traffic in vagaries because specificity requires edification and it's clear you have no intention of actually playing many of the games you deride.

Then we come back to the main issue: the ridiculous notion that you can effectively and accurately critique a game you haven't played based on some gameplay footage. The very fact that I must point out the clear and inherent fallacy of such a stance suggests you are either purposely obstinate or you are generally clueless as to how ridiculously baseless such an assertion is. Videogames are an INTERACTIVE medium which means we gauge them by interacting and playing them. Passivity is to miss the point of gaming and no one can fully grasp software until they've actually played at least some measure of it.

It's a very simple and obvious truth.

For example, you assert you've made some viable argument with Diablo III but when distilled it comes off as nothing more than random speculation and a heap of conjecture about the mechanics and the game being simplified and geared towards a younger audience, none of which seems true based on what beta testers (aka people who have played the actual game) have said. Also, if the game was aimed at a younger crowd as you claim, why is it currently an exclusive on the PC, which by default skews to an older demographic?

Lastly, I don't usually lose arguments because, unlike most bravado-infused chest-thumpers, I only tackle issues that I'm versed in or can logically and intelligently debate. If you think you possess the requite tools to dismantle my arguments then by all means do so, though you may find that task difficult if you continue employing poor logic and vacuous postulations.

Above all else please understand one thing: my knowledge of this medium is vast and unlike you I actually take the time to play the games I comment upon.

Vaangardius, I've seen Grammaton post for many years. This is the way he writes, he's not trying to impress or show off his vocabulary knowledge. I think he is an English College professor, I could be wrong though. Don't know why it offends you the way he writes, if anything its good to see Grammaton's writing knowledge than today's butchering of the English language on the internet. To each his own I guess.

Stop abusing the enter key you tit. Secondly, you still haven't added anything to the argument. Once again, you can play Diablo 3, it's not idle ramblings. You do not have to play a game to know if the gameplay is good. And seriously, cut it out with the dialogue. It makes skimming through your actual points a pain in the ass. By watching something you are interacting with it. You're not sophisticated, your insipid, trying to make yourself more appealing by feigning intelligent dialogue. It doesn't mean **** on the internet, just like it doesn't mean **** in real life. PC gaming is no longer exclusive to adults anymore because it is far more affordable than it was in the past in addition to having a fully functioning computer growing increasingly important. I shouldn't even have to direct your attention at WoW to prove my point about a young audience. The rest of your ramblings are utterly meaningless and serve nothing more than an attempt to stroke your ego.

Vangaurdius

The continued name-calling is amusing and further serves to demonstrate how intellectually hollow your arguments actually are.

And no, watching something is not interactivity, it's passivity. Novels, films and other forms of media that do not require interaction are passive mediums. Gaming by sharp contrast is based on interactivity; that is its defining characteristic and why it occupies an entirely different space than passive forms of expression and entertainment. Watching a game and playing a game are two entirely separate experiences and to deny this is to misunderstand the crux of the medium.

As it pertains to DiabloIII, I'll freely admit I'm not a fan of the franchise and have only played the second game briefly. That said, the game is clearly making some large changes to the formula and while those changes may be controversial within the hardcore community they are far from universally despised.

David Sirlin, a man who knows more about game design than you and I combined, wrote an extensive blog on the game and lavished its changes with praise. The article is here onGamasutra:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/DavidSirlin/20120507/169854/Diablo_3s_Ability_System.php

Of course the man has also played the beta extensively which is more than can be said of you.

As to the issue of PC gaming, a game like Diablo III most certainly appeals to an older demographic regardless of platform, especially as the game is a sequel to a title released twelve years ago. Blizzard caters to a certain hardcore demographic and they certainly have little interest in a casual community of children who will abandon the game in six months.

Or is your hubris such that you think to understand their clientele and fan base better than Blizzard themselves?

Also, the average age of a WOW player, according to various surveys, is 30 years of age. So thank you again for making it that much easier to dismantle your arguments.

Of course once again I would direct you to the issue at hand: the notion that watching a video of a game offers the same probative value as actually playing said game.

Again, it is an outlandishly juvenile and illogical philosophy to employ when critiquing games but let me know if you ever muster the audacity to actually define and defend your personal metric.

Grammaton-Cleric vsVangaurdius

[QUOTE="Vangaurdius"]

Stop abusing the enter key you tit. Secondly, you still haven't added anything to the argument. Once again, you can play Diablo 3, it's not idle ramblings. You do not have to play a game to know if the gameplay is good. And seriously, cut it out with the dialogue. It makes skimming through your actual points a pain in the ass. By watching something you are interacting with it. You're not sophisticated, your insipid, trying to make yourself more appealing by feigning intelligent dialogue. It doesn't mean **** on the internet, just like it doesn't mean **** in real life. PC gaming is no longer exclusive to adults anymore because it is far more affordable than it was in the past in addition to having a fully functioning computer growing increasingly important. I shouldn't even have to direct your attention at WoW to prove my point about a young audience. The rest of your ramblings are utterly meaningless and serve nothing more than an attempt to stroke your ego.

Grammaton-Cleric

The continued name-calling is amusing and further serves to demonstrate how intellectually hollow your arguments actually are.

And no, watching something is not interactivity, it's passivity. Novels, films and other forms of media that do not require interaction are passive mediums. Gaming by sharp contrast is based on interactivity; that is its defining characteristic and why it occupies an entirely different space than passive forms of expression and entertainment. Watching a game and playing a game are two entirely separate experiences and to deny this is to misunderstand the crux of the medium.

As it pertains to DiabloIII, I'll freely admit I'm not a fan of the franchise and have only played the second game briefly. That said, the game is clearly making some large changes to the formula and while those changes may be controversial within the hardcore community they are far from universally despised.

David Sirlin, a man who knows more about game design than you and I combined, wrote an extensive blog on the game and lavished its changes with praise. The article is here onGamasutra:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/DavidSirlin/20120507/169854/Diablo_3s_Ability_System.php

Of course the man has also played the beta extensively which is more than can be said of you.

As to the issue of PC gaming, a game like Diablo III most certainly appeals to an older demographic regardless of platform, especially as the game is a sequel to a title released twelve years ago. Blizzard caters to a certain hardcore demographic and they certainly have little interest in a casual community of children who will abandon the game in six months.

Or is your hubris such that you think to understand their clientele and fan base better than Blizzard themselves?

Also, the average age of a WOW player, according to various surveys, is 30 years of age. So thank you again for making it that much easier to dismantle your arguments.

Of course once again I would direct you to the issue at hand: the notion that watching a video of a game offers the same probative value as actually playing said game.

Again, it is an outlandishly juvenile and illogical philosophy to employ when critiquing games but let me know if you ever muster the audacity to actually define and defend your personal metric.

crysis2:furturistic CoD custom loadout killcam.....

RE4,5:it's annoying to see the greatest survival horror series turn into a typical action game that everyone seems to praise cause it now appeals to the masses

skyrim:added nothing new at all small tweaks

ninja gaiden 3:remove all weapons make it flashy and remove dismemberment? and keep the tutorials through every fight? disable them and remove quick time buttons im supposed to use? gtfo