Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Melissia wrote: Since when has Blizzard EVER had a radical formula change?
(hint: the answer is never)
Are you saying from their established formula for a franchise or an original core concept for their games? Warcraft 3 was a big jump from it's predecessor as far as more narrative play and focus on heroes. That seems to be about it for them doing anything new for their games though since SC 2 is just upgraded and balanced SC 1. Before you say it, yes I remember you saying that the hero system wasn't original to WC 3, I just never played the other game that did it first. I do agree though, when sequels are exactly like the game before them, or worse, dumbed down to make it "more accessible" it is really demoralizing. Looking at you Mass Effect 3.
Other than that, having the fire button not on the trigger button and not being able to change it.
That is why is called a mother&@!#^%! trigger button!!!
This is silly! Buttons are not how one escapes dungeons! I would smash the button and rain beatings liberally down on the wizard for playing such a trick!
Ahtman wrote: I have also found that if a title starts with the words "Grand Theft Auto" I get bored to tears within an hour and never go back.
Not even Grand Theft Auto London Edition?
- 1250 points
Empire of the Blazing Sun (Combined Theaters)- 1950 points
FUBAR Starship Troopers- Would you like to know more?
GENERATION 9: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.
I put Metal Gear something or other down in disgust about two hours in. I don't remember which one it was, but I played it maybe ten years ago on the PS2.
It was like "dude, get over yourself!" We want to play a game, not watch some egomaniac video game designer pretend to be a movie director.
Avoiding Dakka until they get serious about dealing with their troll problem
I'm surprised nobody mentioned this, but on the subject of cutscenes, the biggest turn-off for me are load times. Both cutscenes and load times after a death or other failure are punishing and problematic.
Look at games like "I Want to Be The Guy", "Super Meatboy", and "Hotline Miami" and such. You're expected to die and you die often. However, after a loss, you're instantaneously put back in the action.
Extrapolate that with higher-budget games, and after a death in Metal Gear, you have to endure a load-to-checkpoint, run to a waypoint, wait for a cutscene to load, etc. It's punishing and not fun.
A long time to get back into the action after a failure is too punishing for me, and causes me to put down the game.
Illogical difficulty. Meaning they have made it difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Anyone who played Stuntman on PS2 knows what I am talking about. It was pure stubbornness and spite that drove me to finish that game.
I will also vote for too many non-skippable cut scenes and poorly timed save points. I will drop a game quick that makes you play entire levels over again.
Also, probably my biggest peeve, is taking a series that has spanned multiple generations of gaming systems and then suddenly deciding "Hey, lets completely change the way the game plays!" .... Yes I am looking at your Armored Core 5.
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
SickSix wrote: Illogical difficulty. Meaning they have made it difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Anyone who played Stuntman on PS2 knows what I am talking about. It was pure stubbornness and spite that drove me to finish that game.
Oh dear God. This was one of the first games I was given when I got my PS2 as a lad. I thought it was just me that spiked my controller in hate filled raged at the unneccessary difficulty. Never moved beyond the 007 knock off film.
SickSix wrote: Illogical difficulty. Meaning they have made it difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Anyone who played Stuntman on PS2 knows what I am talking about. It was pure stubbornness and spite that drove me to finish that game.
Oh dear God. This was one of the first games I was given when I got my PS2 as a lad. I thought it was just me that spiked my controller in hate filled raged at the unneccessary difficulty. Never moved beyond the 007 knock off film.
Not just you brother. I really feel like there should be a support group for victims of that game.
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
SickSix wrote: Illogical difficulty. Meaning they have made it difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Anyone who played Stuntman on PS2 knows what I am talking about. It was pure stubbornness and spite that drove me to finish that game.
Oh dear God. This was one of the first games I was given when I got my PS2 as a lad. I thought it was just me that spiked my controller in hate filled raged at the unneccessary difficulty. Never moved beyond the 007 knock off film.
Not just you brother. I really feel like there should be a support group for victims of that game.
Didn't that abomination spawn a sequel?
- 1250 points
Empire of the Blazing Sun (Combined Theaters)- 1950 points
FUBAR Starship Troopers- Would you like to know more?
GENERATION 9: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.
SickSix wrote: Illogical difficulty. Meaning they have made it difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Anyone who played Stuntman on PS2 knows what I am talking about. It was pure stubbornness and spite that drove me to finish that game.
Oh dear God. This was one of the first games I was given when I got my PS2 as a lad. I thought it was just me that spiked my controller in hate filled raged at the unneccessary difficulty. Never moved beyond the 007 knock off film.
Not just you brother. I really feel like there should be a support group for victims of that game.
Didn't that abomination spawn a sequel?
Indeed it did. I just looked it up on Amazon this morning. And guess what? The reviews tell a similar tale of unreasonable difficulty.
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
Boredom . Difficulty and cheesyness For example: Playing Mechwarrior 4 on something above normal is something I would never do, The enemy FROM THE START score nothing but center torso hits on you. I also hate timers. I ragequit Republic Commando because in 5 minutes WITHOUT BACTA you were supposed to defeat 6 super battle droids, 3 Droidikas, and a host of B-1 Battle droids! All this while running to hack some consoles before you explode a ship. by the time you get to the consoles your health is so low that the battle droids there can 2-shot you. So in conclusion, cheese. Cheese cheese cheese! I hate cheese!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/29 21:56:10
Pay to win, getting a character I spend dozens (or hundreds in many cases) of hours playing deleted, repetitive games with no point, games where the boss battles are irrelevant and impossible (see: Deus Ex HR), and unforgivable graphics (I don't care if you had a tiny amount of money to work with, these are 1996 graphics at BEST)
Illusion of choice. I've found that with some of the more recent RPG's this has become more rampant (Mass Effect I'm looking at you) and even more annoying. Why bother giving me the choice to save/not to save that person if the game won't progress or gimp me in some way that the game becomes unbeatable? Or rather, make me spend hundreds of hours perfecting my playstyle, character loadouts, standings, etc, only to have them not factor into the decision at all?
Melissia mentioned action sequences. HOLY BALLS, totally in agreement there, yet one more thing that drove me to stop playing the new Tomb Raider.
I mentioned difficulty earlier as have a few others but I think there's an addition we forget; the requirement for an insane difficulty setting in order to complete the story more fully. That gak pisses me off something fierce.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
- 1250 points
It was a good game, but I put it down.).
Tyranids - Main Army about 2000 pts 
Draconians, a BA successor chapter - around 1000 pts still calculating Other armies: 
3rd Company (3000 points)