Saints Row 2 was ported badly and at least the GOG version caps out at 40 fps and no GOTR (Gentlemen of the Row) has no fix for it and neither is it the modder's but it probably comes down to the people who ported which is CDProject to the best of my knowledge.
It is playable and works fine on a computer with a good graphics card but will be unplayable on a laptop without a dedicated Gpu.

Dark Souls, yes the first one. To the point of where I was hesitant to even buy it. Even when it went on sale because I heard terrible things about the PC port. The sales were even over charging for what it was. Had it been 2 dollars before the remaster I would have thought about it but the reviews for the remaster are no better but reading in between them says it at least made the improvements it should have. It's still overpriced for what it should have done in the first place but everyone is clouded by the fact that it's a remaster. I have a personal bias, of course because I've been recommended this game by more than one person due to my play style in other games like Skyrim and GTA but I guess for now, I'm missing out on this game. Maybe even the remaster.

Could also be a matter of preference, seeing that they quite differ in style. LOL1 is grid-based with 90 degree turns only (like Dungeon Master and Eye of the Beholder), while LOL2 allows you to move freely in every direction. That does have an impact not only on the gameplay but also on the graphics, as LOL2 uses a real 3D engine like an old FPS game with fluid movement and a fullscreen window, while LOL1 has a smaller viewport and step-by-step movement that allows for static graphics; and since this was the 90's when 3D games were still in their infancy, as a result the static 'handcrafted' 2D pixel art look of LOL1 is cleaner, clearer, prettier to look at than the somewhat ugly and generic looking early 3D graphics of LOL2, IMO.

It's also possible that LOL2's mix of pixel art, 3D graphics and live-action FMV sequences with real actors was not that well received compared to the very consistent style of LOL1. And with regards to the gameplay, since the terrain in LOL2 is actually open instead of a grid-based dungeon, I imagine it's easier to get lost in it or overlook items lying on the ground somewhere (and maybe it makes combat a bit less tactical? not sure about that, but in the end these games aren't all that tactical in the first place, so it might not matter that much).

Anyway, for me it's the other way around, I've played through LOL1 and liked it a lot at the time, but I've never played enough of LOL2 to judge whether it's a good game or not. I'll have to give it another try one day.

I see. That is indeed personal opinion territorry.

Which reminds me:

StarCraft 2

Was really disappointing for me. Especially the story. Remember in previous comments a guy said that "pain and despair that never ends" shouldn't be part os Sonic franchise? I would say that for StarCraft the opposite is true - a harsh universe where people die in scores and high ups are playing their own game (and too die horribly) was an intergral part of first StarCraft. And StarCraft 2 is more like Sonic franchise now - kid-friendly and optimistic.

Also gameplay in SC2 is identical to SC. THAT is what devs should have really try to change (remember the difference between Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3?)/

So it is like your opinion on RA3 - StarCraft 2 is not a bad game, but it is bad StarCraft.

I bought the pair during the summer sale after doing some research, and yeah, the bulk of negative reviews on #2 seemed to be about how random transformations killed the experience.

I am enjoying #1 so far though it's far from perfect it's charming enough; haven't decided if I'm going to risk #2.

Got a few

Halo: Combat Evolved: This one stands out for me as it was one of the first overhyped and underwhelming games I ever played. It was just a generic sci-fi FPS, entirely forgettable.

Dreamfall: The longest Journey: After playing the excellent The Longest Journey, I was surprised the sequel gameplay was just walking between the points you had to be at. Not a worthy sequel to The Longest Journey at all

TES3: Morrowind: I'm gonna get flak for this one but vanilla Morrowind was just too easy and time consuming. However mods made the game so much better

TES4:Oblivion: While I did like the game, it just wore out its welcome.

X-Rebirth: I want to like this game more than I do

Pillars of Eternity: I liked this game.................while I was out of combat. The combat was just bogged down with mechanics I didn't find it ejoyable. Not to mention some of the enemies you face are complete bullshit. I just put the difficulty on story mode to finish the game. I might try this one again later.

What the hell, I'll list a few:

Spellforce 2: - RTS/RPG combo. I like both genres! Really wanted to like it, but both aspects felt underdeveloped. Not terrible, but meh.

Nightmares from the Deep 3: Davy Jones Cure - an underwhelming conclusion to an otherwise enjoyable trilogy.

Plants vs. Zombies 2: No no no no no nonononoooooo. What did you do to the game I loved? Waaaaah

Max Payne 3: Similar to a comment someone made above [about a different game], the checkpoint feature killed it for me. I didn't love it anyway, as it felt like a drop-off from the first two, but was inclined to just plod through. I screwed up somewhere in the stadium when I wasn't really on top of my game, and it kept eternally reloading into a stage where I was walking into a major ambush with about half the ammo I needed.

Titan Quest: Starts strong. Gets dull as the environments get repetitive and the combat just not deep enough to justify the length. Too much grinding required given the uninspiring combat.

Unfortunately it got the "how to make Activision $$$$$$$$$$$$$$" part right, which more or less guarantees they'll continue to make that their model, but yeah, they stripped really all the RPG elements out and made it a shallow combatfest. I do feel somewhat smug that I didn't shell out for it. If it ever went on sale for $5 I'd probably knock it out just for the sake of knowing I did. $30 for the battlechest? Hells no.


1 or 2? I couldn't finish 1 (got to final boss on sheer intertia and kinda threw in the towel), but 2 is significantly better. Have beaten it twice and keep it in mind to replay again someday.

At least devs put some efforts in minigames and various gamplay mechanics (though they should've test and adjust combat more). Dreamfall: Chapters - that's where you indeed just walk between points. There are only three(!) descent puzzles in the whole game!

1. I had such a bad impression of the first one that I didn't even consider the second one.

Yeah, I did appreciate the few puzzles the game had, some of the environments were nice to look at too, especially the areas from the first game. The combat was laughably bad, I found out if you step back whenever the enemy moved to attack and hit strong attack after the enemy finished their attack, you would win every single time.

Thanks for the warning about Dreamfall:Chapters, I am actually going to start that game pretty soon. I got the game free from a previous sale (back in 2016 I think) but did play it because i haden't played the preceding games yet. The cliffhanger ending of Dreamfall still left me curious to try Chapters but from your last post and the games user reviews, I probably shouldn't get my hopes up too high.


I had the same complaints about SC2. The harshness and grittiness of the first game was gone and instead we got Raynor and his merry band of Mary Sues (especially Hanson and Swann) romping around doing odd jobs and trying to save Jim's girlfriend I guess. Story wise, I found it laughable that Mengsk was giving Raynor so much trouble over the years yet when the zerg show up after all this time, they're subdued in like 3 missions. The zerg were biding their time for 8 years (I think) then get snuffed out within 8 hours? There is no facepalm hard enough to express the idiocy there.

Seen this and had to respond. I 100% agree with everything you've written. The story loses all credibility the moment you have to officially state that "a group of adventurers/heroes/whatever" killed this and that important character. MMOs and story are integrally incompatible. "Only you and 100000 other people can save the world and do exactly the same things as you. Go get them!!!" Even the lore books in Diablo 3 kept triggering me when Deckard kept saying things like "He was defeated by brave heroes...".

As far as I am concerned, the Warcraft story ended with Frozen Throne and I'm waiting for Blizzard to announce Warcraft 4 and declare WoW non-canon. That will 99.9999999% not happen, but a man can dream. I was super into W3 and FT story and then the MMO unfortunately killed all immersion, forcing me to ignore everything that happened in it to preserve the enjoyment from the story.

And now on topic:

Mass Effect 2 - story was okay (although still a complete filler), but the gameplay was catastrophic. I was contemplating switching to the easiest difficulty just to see the story and be done with it ASAP. Stand there, shoot till your screen turns red, hide for 3 seconds, repeat till boredom or end of the game. An interactive movie would have been more enjoyable.

Dragon Age II - probably the most severe case of consolitis to date.

Dragon Age Inquisition - it is too obvious it was originally meant to be an MMO. Maps way too big and practically empty with little points of interest. Uninteresting and unthreatening villain. Flashy combat. "Engaging" quests: "I know you have to save the world, but could you please find my lost bull? Thank you, I know that you are going to do it because it is now in your quest log and it will never disappear unless you finish it BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!".

Diablo 3 - the RPG part of ARPG got lost somewhere. They still haven't found it 6 years later. All efforts to find it seem to have ceased as all Blizzard is currently doing is just launch a new season every 3 months.

C&C 4 - fuck EA. Once for making this game and twice for having the rights to C&C, effectively making sure this franchise if dead in true EA fashion. It is a pity as they obviously still cared with C&C 3 but that was more than 10 years ago and probably a very different EA.

Unreal 2 - disappointed not because it was a bad game, but because it had almost nothing to do with the Unreal universe. Putting Dispersion Pistol and Skaarj in there doesn't suddenly make it Unreal. At least the Skaarj look badass. Name it anything else and it would just be your regular FPS. With Unreal name on it, it is a disappointment.

Heroes of Might & Magic IV - changed everything for no reason and the result is, at least for me, an unplayable mess. Never could play more than 15 minutes before I got bored.

Lords of the Realm 3 - I literally waited years for this game to appear after it was announced. Then instead of getting a Total War-like game, we got a crappy RTS settlers clone.

You might be right with one exception, which is why the game is ultimately broken, to the point of being too easy. The developers were forced to release the game early, and they had to sacrifice upgrading the AI. Which is why the AI always loses its heroes to wondering monsters on the map.

Personally, I found the campaign stories superior to Heroes 2/3. I also loved the addition of heroes fighting on the battlefield, and the possibility of having multiple heroes in the same party is a superb addition, which makes the campaigns even better. Also keeping with the fighting heroes, the change to the skills perfectly complements that change.

Having said that, Heroes 4 is not really a Heroes game, and it should have been named something else, because it changes so much from Heroes 1/2/3. They took a turn-based strategy game, and they added turn-based tactics elements, while balancing the game in such a way that the tactics trump the strategy. So they released a TBT game as a sequel to TBS series. No wonder most fans of Heroes games hate Heroes 4.

I just realized that New World Computing pulled a Bethesda move, but they did it with their own game.

Oh yeah, Mass Effect 2 ... It's not the game that disappointed me the most as I came to like it eventually, but it tried its best to put me off at first. There were so many things wrong with it in the beginning, compared to ME1 (e.g. big ass info windows popping up all the time, but with too much text to read them comfortably before they vanish again; new ammo and overheating mechanics, IIRC; terribly silly story premise, weird change in tone towards a more sleazy 80's styles - boobs, high heels and cigarettes in space, lots of overpriced DLCs purchasable only with BioWare points etc.). Lots of "improvements" for the worst, and the things that were already bad in ME1, just were a different kind of bad in ME2 (planet exploration for resources is still a tedious waste of time). And if I recall correctly, the main story wasn't that great and full of plot holes. But the companion quests were awesome and after I got used to the gameplay changes, I had lots of fun with ME2 despite all.

My brother from another mother.

Considering how simple the premise of Settlers is, how does one screw that up?