The Most Disappointing Game You've Ever Played

[Belami]

Skyrim.

 

[General Maxson]

Fallout 3. No contest.

I have to ask, what were you expecting it to be? Bethesda made no real attempt to to hide that they were making Oblivion with guns and random lulz.

Funny thing is that when I tried Fallout 1 (long before FO3) I remember thinking that since the turn based combat in Fallout was not very exciting and you only controled one character anyway, it would make a good real time first person RPG in the same 3D open world style as Morrowind. The isometric turn based game play felt a bit wasted on a game where you only control one character.
I haven't tried FO3 though, so I don't know how they failed.

I don't "get" what's so wrong about iso perspective in a single character rpg. I get that when controlling multiple characters there are many tactical and strategic advantages, and that it is a "must have". But I would have never liked Fallout as I do without it being iso. It just gives a certain charm and looks much better than when I play in first person, so I don't know why the complaints? It's just looks like you're really wandering and exploring the wastes, unlike Fallout 3 where I never had that feeling. Is it because it costs much more to make an iso game than first person one, and that money could have been spent elsewhere?

 

[Gregz]

Has anyone mentioned Daikatana yet?

Also on the topic of disappointment, I am disappointed that Codex 2.0 no longer has a working search function.

 

[Ulminati]

I guess the most dissapointing game I played in recent memory was Oblivion. I hadn't followed the development at all, was reminded of it when I suddenly saw a box in the stores and bought it without research, expecting it to be like Morrowind but better.


....Yeah.

 

[Gord]

I don't "get" what's so wrong about iso perspective in a single character rpg. I get that when controlling multiple characters there are many tactical and strategic advantages, and that it is a "must have". But I would have never liked Fallout as I do without it being iso. It just gives a certain charm and looks much better than when I play in first person, so I don't know why the complaints? It's just looks like you're really wandering and exploring the wastes, unlike Fallout 3 where I never had that feeling. Is it because it costs much more to make an iso game than first person one, and that money could have been spent elsewhere?

I've come to the conclusion that the big advantage of the isometric perspective (or similar viewpoints) is the distance it puts between the player and the character.
It really helps to underline the distinction between player (skill) and character (skill). 1st person is much more problematic in that regard:
If a hit in combat misses in an isometric game I can understand and accept easily that my char just missed the roll. In 1st person this disconnection is much more difficult to achieve, i.e. to a player a hit should hit because everything looked like it would (standing right in front of the relatively immobile enemy and swinging the sword in his general direction). This might be the reason why many such games have done away with to-hit rolls and instead make skill levels directly manage damage output. Of course, those issues might go away somewhat if devs put more care into animations (e.g. if I don't succeed with my roll, my swing should be way off, if an enemy manages to evade, the animation should show him jumping to the side, etc.).

Has anyone mentioned Daikatana yet?

Also on the topic of disappointment, I am disappointed that Codex 2.0 no longer has a working search function.

Server overload again, I think. Should come back soon-ish (and hopefully stay, I think the want to move the server or something)

 

[General Maxson]

I've come to the conclusion that the big advantage of the isometric perspective (or similar viewpoints) is the distance it puts between the player and the character.
It really helps to underline the distinction between player (skill) and character (skill). 1st person is much more problematic in that regard:
If a hit in combat misses in an isometric game I can understand and accept easily that my char just missed the roll. In 1st person this disconnection is much more difficult to achieve, i.e. to a player a hit should hit because everything looked like it would (standing right in front of the relatively immobile enemy and swinging the sword in his general direction). This might be the reason why many such games have done away with to-hit rolls and instead make skill levels directly manage damage output. Of course, those issues might go away somewhat if devs put more care into animations (e.g. if I don't succeed with my roll, my swing should be way off, if an enemy manages to evade, the animation should show him jumping to the side, etc.).

Yeah, and that too.

 

[CorpseZeb]

Has anyone mentioned Daikatana yet?

Uh, come one... Daikatana gives you an decent gameplay length, at least (and various weaponry and scenery and stuff at second look). The stark contrast to - and we now speaking about real life disappointment - Deus Ex Invisible War - man - that was a serious, deadly, poisoned blow after first Deus Ex. For me, that was a first experience of dreadfully consolization syndrome.

 

[DraQ]

Fallout 3. No contest.

I have to ask, what were you expecting it to be? Bethesda made no real attempt to to hide that they were making Oblivion with guns and random lulz.

Funny thing is that when I tried Fallout 1 (long before FO3) I remember thinking that since the turn based combat in Fallout was not very exciting and you only controled one character anyway, it would make a good real time first person RPG in the same 3D open world style as Morrowind. The isometric turn based game play felt a bit wasted on a game where you only control one character.
I haven't tried FO3 though, so I don't know how they failed.

I don't "get" what's so wrong about iso perspective in a single character rpg. I get that when controlling multiple characters there are many tactical and strategic advantages, and that it is a "must have". But I would have never liked Fallout as I do without it being iso. It just gives a certain charm and looks much better than when I play in first person, so I don't know why the complaints? It's just looks like you're really wandering and exploring the wastes, unlike Fallout 3 where I never had that feeling. Is it because it costs much more to make an iso game than first person one, and that money could have been spent elsewhere?

Actually Fallout would've benefited in all kinds of ways from FPP. First and foremost - weapon ranges. You could have workable sniper rifles, that were actually sniper rifles. You could have firearms with somewhat non-retarded ranges.

Second, you could have non-retarded grenades. There is no way to satisfactorily implement thrown explosives that both use character skill and are targeted in respect to very coarse hex grid and Fallout makes it painfully evident.

Third, you'd get better exploration.

Fourth, you wouldn't have to deal with stuff obscured by level graphics (like ammo just behind a wall) - no more need to "character scan" the area with transparency bubble by walking by each and every wall.

Sixth, if you made the game RT, you'd getter better control over combat (timing!) and eliminate cheesy exploits.

And last but not least, there would be less faggots now on the 'dex complaining about non-TB non-iso games being non-RPGs.

 

[Angthoron]

The latest disappointment for me was Deus Ex: Invisible War. Mind you, I expected it to be shit. But it wasn't. It was just blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Like playing a big pile of nothing.

Other disappointments include:

Major disappointments:
Age of Empires 3 because fuck
Dawn of War 2 because fuck
Empire Earth because I just wanted a nice AoE clone with more ages and what did I get. Also, cheating AI cheating.
Far Cry 2, because how could they fuck it up so much.
Warhammer Online, the game that wouldn't even be improved if the sky was made of tits that would reach out and rub themselves on the player's face.
Might & Magic 9. Fuck Ubisoft. Or whoever. Just fuck whoever responsible for this.
Mayday. I wanted a decent RTS and I got a pile of unplayable shit. Well thanks.

Mild disappointments:
Age of Mythology because I expected it to be more fun.
Warcraft 3 for all the stupid it did with the Horde. And for Hero unit-centric gameplay.
Prey. Not that I expected a lot, but it disappointed anyway.
Doom 3. Again, not a lot of expectations but fuck this game.
Rage. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand shit. I expected it to be less bland and more shit. Fuck id for ruining my expe*
Angry Birds. Why are people fapping blood all over this? Is it because you get to finger birds who bang pigs? I must be missing something.

Weird disappointments:
Baldur's Gate 2, because where the fuck is Baldur's Gate in this? Like, the city. Why not have called it Bhaalspawn 2 or what the fuck ever. It's like calling a film World War 2 and then having it be about farm life in 1935. Fucking no.
C&C Generals, I'm not sure what I was expecting but it didn't quite meet my expectations so whatever.


*and fuck id for that ending.

 

[Carrion]

I forgot one game that deserves to be mentioned here: ArmA. I'm not sure if it even counts as a game since it's little more than a platform for user-created content. I bought a new computer just to be able to play it because I was sure it would be good. Well, I was wrong. I could create a better and less broken campaign myself, and I think I've actually done so multiple times with the OFP mission editor. It was just so damn lazy and horrible that I just can't understand why they even included in the game. Every mission was obviously created by a different person and the result was just an awfully disjointed mess that fortunately was over relatively quickly.

 

[undecaf]

Fallout 3. No contest.

I have to ask, what were you expecting it to be? Bethesda made no real attempt to to hide that they were making Oblivion with guns and random lulz.

At least to have some semblance of connection to the series and its design goals. Nothing more. I wasn't really aware of what Bethesda was "all about" at that point, so I kinda expected that, despite being turned into a first person shooter, there'd be at least something left to identify with as Fallout. That it wouldn't be as straight a copy of Oblivion as it ended up being. Storytelling elements, less fucked SPECIAL, something actually interesting along with the new take. Stuff like that.

I didn't have high hopes in the end anymore, but I was kinda blind at the time in expecting something more out of it because of the title.

 

[Spectacle]

Actually Fallout would've benefited in all kinds of ways from FPP. First and foremost - weapon ranges. You could have workable sniper rifles, that were actually sniper rifles. You could have firearms with somewhat non-retarded ranges.

Second, you could have non-retarded grenades. There is no way to satisfactorily implement thrown explosives that both use character skill and are targeted in respect to very coarse hex grid and Fallout makes it painfully evident.

Third, you'd get better exploration.

Fourth, you wouldn't have to deal with stuff obscured by level graphics (like ammo just behind a wall) - no more need to "character scan" the area with transparency bubble by walking by each and every wall.

Sixth, if you made the game RT, you'd getter better control over combat (timing!) and eliminate cheesy exploits.

And last but not least, there would be less faggots now on the 'dex complaining about non-TB non-iso games being non-RPGs.

Those aren't really inherent problems with TB isometric combat though, JA2 suffers from none of those issues. It's just that Fallout has a rather poor implementation of TB combat, just like Failout 3 has a shit implementation of FPS combat.
I definitely agree with your last point though.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Picking just one is pretty hard... I've managed to narrow it down to 4.​

​

Fallout 3​

Star Control 3​

Final Fantasy XIII​

Bioshock​

​

Honorable mention goes to Mass Effect 2. While it didn't induce as much rage as the others, it was still a massive disappointment.​

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Actually Fallout would've benefited in all kinds of ways from FPP. First and foremost - weapon ranges. You could have workable sniper rifles, that were actually sniper rifles. You could have firearms with somewhat non-retarded ranges.

Second, you could have non-retarded grenades. There is no way to satisfactorily implement thrown explosives that both use character skill and are targeted in respect to very coarse hex grid and Fallout makes it painfully evident.

Third, you'd get better exploration.

Fourth, you wouldn't have to deal with stuff obscured by level graphics (like ammo just behind a wall) - no more need to "character scan" the area with transparency bubble by walking by each and every wall.

Sixth, if you made the game RT, you'd getter better control over combat (timing!) and eliminate cheesy exploits.

And last but not least, there would be less faggots now on the 'dex complaining about non-TB non-iso games being non-RPGs.

Two things:

# Faggots on the 'dex would STILL be complaining about non-TB non-iso games being non-RPGs, they'd just be listing all Fallout games as an example, and we'd have two fewer awesome RPGs.

# Learn to count.

 

[Gozma]

Eye of the Beholder III. Fuck youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I don't "get" what's so wrong about iso perspective in a single character rpg. I get that when controlling multiple characters there are many tactical and strategic advantages, and that it is a "must have".

There's no much benefit to it. As you point out, it's useful if you're controlling multiple people so you can position them tactically. Who's gonna stay within the enemie's reach, holding them off? Who's gonna flank them? Who's gonna stay way behind the party to pelt the enemy with ranged attacks?

If you have one character, everyone is coming for your one guy one way or the other. The most you can do is move behind cover with your last few points so the enemy wastes a turn circumventing it.

But I would have never liked Fallout as I do without it being iso. It just gives a certain charm and looks much better than when I play in first person, so I don't know why the complaints? It's just looks like you're really wandering and exploring the wastes, unlike Fallout 3 where I never had that feeling.

Well, this is a matter of personal taste.

I forgot one game that deserves to be mentioned here: ArmA. I'm not sure if it even counts as a game since it's little more than a platform for user-created content. I bought a new computer just to be able to play it because I was sure it would be good. Well, I was wrong. I could create a better and less broken campaign myself, and I think I've actually done so multiple times with the OFP mission editor. It was just so damn lazy and horrible that I just can't understand why they even included in the game. Every mission was obviously created by a different person and the result was just an awfully disjointed mess that fortunately was over relatively quickly.

 

[tuluse]

What's the benefit of first person compared to ISO?

I think iso gives a better sense of scale, and the creation of a barrier between player and character actually helps with suspension of disbelief.

It also means the designers and artists can cheaply and quickly create assets and levels. Things only have to look good from one angle.

 

[Raapys]

The main benefit of FPP is that the game sells better.

 

[Xor]

The most disappointing game? Probably Oblivion. It made me realize I needed to look beyond a game's marketing for information, and it completely destroyed any hope I had that Fallout 3 would be a good game.

Other disappointments include:
Earthworm Jim 3D: I loved the first two games, but this one was so bad it was almost unplayable. The only saving grace is that I didn't spend money on it.
Spore: I really, really wanted Spore to be a good game. The initial buzz made it sound like SimEarth, which I love, but better, with actual detailed evolution that you could control as your species went through life. Instead, it was crap. 5 different types of gameplay packaged together with little replay value. I'm told EA is responsible for mandating that Spore be dumbed down, and if that's the case, it's another reason why I won't buy EA products.
Super Smash Bros Brawl: I've probably put more than 200 hours into SSBM, playing by myself or with friends. I was naturally looking forward to its sequel, especially with the expanded cast of characters and new features. Long story short, it sucked.

I'm sure there have been more, but nothing else really stands out in my memory.

 

[DraQ]

Actually Fallout would've benefited in all kinds of ways from FPP. First and foremost - weapon ranges. You could have workable sniper rifles, that were actually sniper rifles. You could have firearms with somewhat non-retarded ranges.

Second, you could have non-retarded grenades. There is no way to satisfactorily implement thrown explosives that both use character skill and are targeted in respect to very coarse hex grid and Fallout makes it painfully evident.

Third, you'd get better exploration.

Fourth, you wouldn't have to deal with stuff obscured by level graphics (like ammo just behind a wall) - no more need to "character scan" the area with transparency bubble by walking by each and every wall.

Sixth, if you made the game RT, you'd getter better control over combat (timing!) and eliminate cheesy exploits.

And last but not least, there would be less faggots now on the 'dex complaining about non-TB non-iso games being non-RPGs.

Those aren't really inherent problems with TB isometric combat though

Only the sixth fifth point addresses TB, and there is this problem that grenade accuracy just doesn't really matter unless you need to throw them into some small openings - this isn't really possible to represent sensibly in isometric view.

Long ranged weapons are an absolute ass to aim in iso, exploration is pretty much inherently better in FPP, and object behind scenery affect iso but not FPP.

Two things:

# Faggots on the 'dex would STILL be complaining about non-TB non-iso games being non-RPGs, they'd just be listing all Fallout games as an example, and we'd have two fewer awesome RPGs.

Actually they proabably wouldn't.
FO was one of the major factors in "RPG therefore iso" taking root, was it not for FO, there would be more talk about oldschool blobbers and FPP RPGs like Daggerfall.

# Learn to count.

Would you believe me if I said it was intentional trolling on my part?

 

[tuluse]

I don't see why grenade bounces can't be represented in isometric.

Just show all the available tiles a grenade can end up in counting places where you don't have LoS.

 

[Jasede]

You make my blood boil.

Edit: not you.

 

[dnf]

Legacy of Kain: Defiance was a let-down compared to Soul Reaver 1\2. A good action adventure platformer substituted for a poor Devil may Cry clone(the only good moments was the boss fights and Kain vs Raziel), with recycled OST from the previous games(they are pretty good, but i would expect new exciting OST). Would be better to me to just spend my time watching the good cutscenes...

 

[DraQ]

I don't see why grenade bounces can't be represented in isometric.

Just show all the available tiles a grenade can end up in counting places where you don't have LoS.

And how will you attempt to aim this grenade precisely, so that it (hopefully) bounces the way you want?

In first person it's easy - aim, throw, possibly adjusting force as well. You can do it both in RT and TB, you can even have trajectory shadow of sorts projected onto surfaces, showing you how much inaccuracy you'll have if you want to give player this information.

In 3D overhead required controls would already be clunky as fuck.

In 2D iso?
HAHA OH WOW.

 

[tuluse]

You pick where you want the grenade to land and your character aims it. The same way anything works in iso turn based.