Popular Rpgs that you tried but never was able to finish?

[Stokowski]

Arcanum and Fallout 2: Spent so much time on non-plot elements (exploring, schematics, etc) that I lost all sense of connection with the plot.

Tales of the Sword Coast: Played all the Infinity Engine games to death, but somehow never completed Durlag's Tower. Must attend to this oversight at some point.

Wizardry 8: Loved it to pieces but ragequit after the party continually got wiped by random encounters on the main road outside the first major town.

The Witcher: boring rhythm-combat + virtually invisible targetting cursor = fail.

Arena and Oblivion: Neither was engaging to me. Guess TES is kinda hit and miss because I completed Daggerfall and Morrowind mulitple times and will certainly re-play them again in the future.

 

[MaskedMan]

Arx Fatalis - 1st time quit cause of QTE in the dorf mines, 2nd time got stuck with a bunch of liches below the crypt...
Divinity 2 - Still working at it, but I got to the dragon tower and I just got really bored of it
Diablo 2 - Catpeople and having to rekill everything every time I quit the game made me rage, get your mmo shit out of here
Demons Souls - Played it during summer vacation, took some time off it when i got back home, fell off the learning curve and now king neg level kicks my ass :X
Fallout 2 - ded in the temple of trials Q_Q
Freedom Force vs the Third Reich - Got a couple missions in, don't really remember why I quit
JA2 - Something else caught my attention
NWN1 - Savegame corruption a couple acts in, fuck redoing the first bit
NWN2otB - Got pretty far but got bored and quit playing for a while cause my character turned out a giant douche, also bad build. Lost the save and i havent managed to restart cause i want that character back damnit.
Oblivion - Got bored
System Shock 2 - gave it a spin, shot a bunch of dudes, ran out of bullets and the guys kept on spawning OMGHALP. Now I can't even get the fucking game to run
Ultima 9 - Lost interest around the gargoyle island thing. Worst controls ever.
Wizardry 8 - The good ending, apparently I built my party with a giant hole in my defense that Mysterio uses to kick my ass. Had no problem joining him, the few party member who objected were as gimp as the others so it turned out a fair fight...


Bonus, games I finished but after several tries:

Arcanum - ragequit in the black mountain mines, boredquit in the elf village, ragequit on gorilla island
PST - Scaredquit in the crypts (creepy rats), rageuit in the bandit houses, ragequit in Curst underground

 

[torpid]

Divine Divinity. I loved the middle of this game very much. Then, in the end, it becomes a boring endless battle.

The secret to finishing the last section is to get your hands on the most broken weapon in the game: a sword with added cold damage. When used as a spell, enemies have saves against a cold attack and more powerful enemies will often resist it, which makes it balanced; but the developers forgot to allow saves against weapon-based attacks. Since cold damage briefly freezes enemies, as long as you have a decent to-hit you can keep your opponents permanently frozen -- unable to move or attack -- and dispose of them very quickly.

And count me in as another Codexer who didn't finish Arcanum. I recall the combat getting really tedious, I remember a mountain pass filled with multicolored apes, and some time later when I reached the Elves in the forest -- not just in the forest but in the fucking trees -- I realized I had left the steampunk behind and thought to myself why am I still playing this? So I stopped. Doesn't look like I missed too much since afterwards there's a long dungeon in the wasteland followed by a long dungeon in another dimension (cause there aren't enough dungeons in this dimension).

 

[PandaBreeder]

JA2- I liked it a lot, and I managed to liberate the first town, I think, but I had just finished X-COM for the first time ( A game I also ragequit a couple of times) and I guess I just felt a bit spent. I will play it again sometime.

 

[Black]

Gothic.
The interface and controls were just unbearable for me.

 

[octavius]

Gothic.
The interface and controls were just unbearable for me.

The interface, controls and behind-the-ass-camera was unbearable to me. Too bad, because by all accounts the game would probably be very good with proper controls and 1st person view.
Oh well, I may give it another chance some day.

 

[Azalin]

TOEE I tried to play it when it was released,it was a buggy mess so I quit after a few hours,I never tried again,maybe I will someday

Morrowind I don't usually enjoy open world games/rpgs,I get bored after a few hours and give up if there isn't a good main story

Fallout 3 The same as Morrowind
Never played Daggerfall,Oblivion and Skyrim for the same reasons

Divinity II .I know many ppl around here have a raging erection for this game but it never gave me one,not even a small one like the first.I plan to try and reply it evntually

Torchlight I bought in some steam sale because it was very cheap but got bored like in most dungeon crawlers and gave up

Diablo As I have said hack n slash dungeon crawlers don't seem to work for me

Wizardry and MM games.Unfortunately these series were never to my taste

Lionheart It starts good but really goes down hill after you leave Barcelona

 

[Morkar Left]

Wizardry 8: Loved it to pieces but ragequit after the party continually got wiped by random encounters on the main road outside the first major town.

Oh another one I forgot and I quitted for the exact same reason :D

 

[Roguey]

Divinity Emo Draconis(or what):I dunno,killed a few chickens,found a big village(the 2.) and just got bored

The part before you reach Talana is the undisputed lowest point of the game.

The flying fortresses and any dungeon with jumping puzzles are worse. The former's pure timesink padding, the latter's just shit.

 

[Skittles]

JA2- I liked it a lot, and I managed to liberate the first town, I think, but I had just finished X-COM for the first time ( A game I also ragequit a couple of times) and I guess I just felt a bit spent. I will play it again sometime.

There are some games, like this and Darklands, where I don't feel like fighting the final boss is 'completion.' JA2 is one of those games where it's all the most brilliant part of the game--starting, your first battle, taking your first town, getting your first uber armour, all the random shit in between like the obligatory Kingpin assassination, Mike, the bloodcats, and, for me, blowing up the church in Drassen. Finishing the game doesn't mean you get to see the best parts or see all of the 'important' parts. It's completely about the moment.

Likewise Darklands, which is a game that gives you a 'lol mebbe some other day' option when face to face with the endboss--you leave (naked and destitute? Do I remember correctly?) and go play the game some more and can come back if you feel like it. Even if you defeat him, it's definitely a game you can keep playing.

Yeah, so no shame in not killing the boss at the end of the game in either of these. It's the dicking around, not the main plot, that really makes them.

 

[mugarod]

I had a hard time finishing Arcanum as well. Tried it probably 4-5 times throughout the years it came out and allways went for some tech char but would end up quiting in different points of the game. Last year I forced myself to finish it to the end no matter what and made a wizard char instead, took me few weeks but I finished it and did all the sidequests as well.Really enjoyed the story and sidequests. Looking back it was actually a good experience and I am glad I set a goal for myself to finish it, maybe one day I can do it with a tech char as well.

 

[Noddy]

I could count on one hand the amount of crpg's ive finshed. There all so long....

 

[MMXI]

Stupid comparison. In U4 you have about two dozen main line quests that you can complete in any order before everything funnels down to the Abyss. In BG1 those 25 areas are all completely irrelevant, because they have nothing to do with the MQ, which has to be followed in strict order starting with the 26th area, which opens the 27th, which opens the 28th... I'm not sure I'd agree with DraQ that this makes the whole game linear, but the main line is as rigid a line as can be. Probably even moreso than Oblivion's.

And that's exactly why I made the comparison. Why focus so much on the main quest? The main quest in a TES game is about a 5th of the game's content and DraQ loves that series (well, Morrowind at least). It's actually nearly the same (~10%) in Baldur's Gate if you include the expansion pack areas. When you sit back in your chair while the credits roll up the screen, do you only consider the exact steps required to get you there, even when those steps are such a small portion of the product? With Ultima IV you have to go to all the dungeons and get all the stones. You have to visit all three altar rooms. You have to get the bell, book and the candle. Yes, you can do them in any order, and that's one of the reasons why the game is so great, but it changes absolutely nothing in terms of the gameplay or the story. Do you still remember which order you collected those items in? I don't, and I last played the game a couple of years back. Do I still remember the way in which I whipped around the Sword Coast when I last played Baldur's Gate, knowing full well that 90% of those areas have nothing to do with the main quest? Yeah, I actually do, especially as those optional areas provided a ton of high quality loot that made a huge difference to my party's combat prowess, the only thing to actually give a fuck about in D&D games (and most RPGs for that matter).

Do you even need to get the water chip in Fallout to complete the game? If not, that entire arc taking you to the majority of the zones in the game is completely optional and thus has no impact at all on the game's (non)linearity (according to you and DraQ, apparently).

Ability to visit a lot of areas right from the start is not relevant here, it doesn't matter if your starting area is large part of the gameworld if you still have to ride a rail.

Well that's a load of crap. If the game is more than one giant mandatory linear quest then you do start to have freedom. And why does the fact that you have to ride rails from time to time automatically make something linear? In fact, I can't think of many cRPGs in which you don't have to ride a rail at least once during the game. What matters is how big that part is in relation to the whole game. How often do you find yourself in a position in which you can only do one thing. Because I can tell you that for the vast majority of Baldur's Gate you do have the freedom to do other things. In fact, the only times you're put on a rail is the chapter endings (Nashkel Mines, Cloakwood etc.) and the final section of the game (the return to Candlekeep to the end game) that you seem to prefer over the rest.

 

[Infinitron]

MMXI is of course correct and the rationalizations of the morons retroactively hating on Baldur's Gate because they hate modern-day Bioware are pathetic

Actually, I think a lot of the Baldur's Gate haters just didn't like the feel of the Infinity Engine, and are making up other, less lame-sounding reasons why they didn't like it.
I know a lot of fairly hardcore RPGers (Ultima fans) who just didn't enjoy a slow-paced isometric D&D game with 'fog of war' type exploration, full party control and lots of text. It's not for everyone.

 

[Excidium]

MMXI is of course correct and the rationalizations of the morons retroactively hating on Baldur's Gate because they hate modern-day Bioware are pathetic

Actually, I think a lot of the Baldur's Gate haters just didn't like the feel of the Infinity Engine, and are making up other, less lame-sounding reasons why they didn't like it.
I know a lot of fairly hardcore RPGers (Ultima fans) who just didn't enjoy a slow-paced isometric D&D game with 'fog of war' type exploration, full party control and lots of text. It's not for everyone.

You talk like Baldur's Gate is a flawed gem that requires a special mindset to enjoy or some shit.

There aren't "made up" reasons or anything, people that don't like Baldur's Gate just don't like the shitty RTwP combat.

 

[Infinitron]

There aren't "made up" reasons or anything, people that don't like Baldur's Gate just don't like the shitty RTwP combat.

Sure, but it's usually not because they want turn-based combat.

The number of people who reject Infinity Engine full-party-control RTwP combat because they prefer things to be even MORE slow-paced is miniscule, and you know it.

 

[Wolfus]

Wizardry 8: Loved it to pieces but ragequit after the party continually got wiped by random encounters on the main road outside the first major town.

Oh another one I forgot and I quitted for the exact same reason :D

I tried to play Wiz 7/8 many times and I always quit after some time. I like them, but I was unable to play them.

 

[MMXI]

Sure, but it's usually not because they want turn-based combat.

The number of people who reject Infinity Engine full-party-control RTwP combat because they prefer things to be even MORE slow-paced is miniscule, and you know it.

I can agree with this if we're talking about gamers outside of the Codex. But on the Codex? Nah. I think the vast majority of Infinity Engine haters here would have much preferred turn-based combat. Personally, I think RTwP is an abomination that was part of the reason for the decline of turn-based combat and I'm sure a lot of others agree. I can, however, look over it in the IE games because the combat is still a million times more tactical than the average cRPG.

 

[Sceptic]

MMXI is of course correct and the rationalizations of the morons retroactively hating on Baldur's Gate because they hate modern-day Bioware are pathetic

Dude... some of us played BG1 back in '98. Back when we thought it was internally developed by Interplay and the first time we saw the Bioware logo we went "who?"

Also, lol at your hyperbole. Criticizing specific aspects of BG != hating on it. I had fun with the series as a whole (though TOB was really the low point) but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly gonna ignore the flaws, because otherwise I'd be a fanboy (as someone else already pointed out)

@MMXI: Your post deserves a more detailed answer than I can write now, will get back to you later.

 

[Infinitron]

I can agree with this if we're talking about gamers outside of the Codex. But on the Codex? Nah. I think the vast majority of Infinity Engine haters here would have much preferred turn-based combat. Personally, I think RTwP is an abomination that was part of the reason for the decline of turn-based combat and I'm sure a lot of others agree. I can, however, look over it in the IE games because the combat is still a million times more tactical than the average cRPG.

To me, RTwP is bad only when mechanics, AI and encounter design are such that you don't really need to control your entire party (even if that's possible) but only yourself. Or possibly even run it on auto like U7.
That's the difference between Dragon Age and IE games.

The necessity for full party control adds exponentially more challenge and depth than does turn-based versus real-time (which really only dumbs down the use of area effect spells, making them twitchier).
And that's why *dons flame shield* Infinity Engine combat is more interesting than Fallout combat (although the latter's guns and gore make up for a lot).

Dude... some of us played BG1 back in '98. Back when we thought it was internally developed by Interplay and the first time we saw the Bioware logo we went "who?"

Also, lol at your hyperbole. Criticizing specific aspects of BG != hating on it. I had fun with the series as a whole (though TOB was really the low point) but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly gonna ignore the flaws, because otherwise I'd be a fanboy (as someone else already pointed out)

Played it in '98 too. As for the hyperbole, we are on the Codex.

 

[Excidium]

Combat just isn't very enjoyable in BG for me because it's a low level adventure which means limited spellcasting ability for the larger part of the game, and spellcasting is the high point of IE combat...also, because the game doesn't have combat maneuvers, most characters are unable to do anything but attack miss once or twice every 6 seconds.

 

[Raghar]

BG2.

I don't know why are people complaining about the first dungeon, it was painless. The later part was much worse.

You can't dig into previous dungeon, for items you didn't take, and for clues. Too bad.
The atroctious number of various mages that attack you for no reason. For example you enter a warehouse by an accident, and there are 5 mages who start to attack you for no reason whatever. You move out because you of course don't want attack evil mages, but they don't negotiate they move after you out like stupid. Now if you kill theirs leader before use one hit kill spell on the main character, you'd find some spells and trivial stuff. 5 incredibly strong mages, few low grade spells and no explanation what they did whatever.

Random encounters in the city tends to be brutal, if you run away from them, you will not have money...
Also the incredible number of mages, are not powerful mages supposed to be rather uncommon. There are 10 powerful mages in each quarter of that city, and the city isn't called mage academy.

Then you have that interface. NWN2 allowed to queue actions, there you need to remember the spell you want to use imediatelly after.
Also they are unable to attack at theirs own will.
Then there was the problem with that evil mage. Doesn't matter what you did, they killed him. Though he would probably rise himself from dead again, you wasn't able to have him in the party. Of course you could have different mage, but killing him without allowing to get you a clue?

Then there is a problem when you have evil party. It's extraordinarily hard to play evil party in that game.

It was much better when starting XP was lowered to 100, so you become at the start more dependent on companions and was forced to find proper spells, but it was still quite uninteresting.

Basically it had too much combat, and too little content, and the whole world wasn't dynamic at all.

Though it has funny moment like when that mage cast breach which did exactly nothing because the affected person was too busy with casting magic missile to cast any protection whatever.

Also that random asking about secret prison to random innkeeper, and subsequent premise of ravaging that secret prison sounded fun. Too bad it wasn't 3.5 edition, and that filler content.

I had more fun with Bloodlines, when I sneaked in sewers and ate rats, to look unsuspicious.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I strongly prefer Fallout combat with its aiming and critical hit tables and Darklands combat with parrying/berserk/precise, over the slow generic attacks of Baldur's Gate. The spellcasting was pretty nice, though. Except for the part where they fucked up stuff like for example *the* defence spell - Mirror Images making it protect from area damage attacks and making it not protect from stuff like poison and paralysis from "hits".
Stealth was horribly lame - practically an invisibility spell with skill checks for re-casting where you can prance around enemies with them unable to spot you.

Also, the implementation of armour which makes characters miss an armored character. Yuck!

 

[Lagole Gon]

Neverwinter Nights - piece of shit.

M&MVIII - I gave up at the very end. Using exploits/dragons suddenly stopped working.

Icwind Dale I & II - I'm not a big fan of pure dungeon crawling. I'm slowly replaying the second one right now.

Daggerfall - lost interest after some random dungeons.


Honorable mention ToEE - I gave up at the beginning many, MANY times, though I really enjoyed it at the end. Except for the friggin' balor.

 

[Infinitron]

I strongly prefer Fallout combat with its aiming and critical hit tables and Darklands combat with parrying/berserk/precise, over the slow generic attacks of Baldur's Gate.

Yes, it's more fun to take aimed shots at people's eyes and watch the awesome gore and read the funny messages in the text box in the corner, but is it more ? IMO, not really.