Games that are to big for their own good.

WatchTower · 10 Sep 2009 at 10:32

Ever play a game that's so big that you get bored before finishing it and never complete it? Games that I find are to big for their own good are games like Oblivion and Fallout 3. They start out great fun but I get bored of them because they feel like a huge world of sameness.

antijoke · 10 Sep 2009 at 10:37

Fallout 3, played 2 hours of it, saved Megaton, and got bored of walking to that village that gets attacked at night and stopped playing.

I really should start playing again.

mame · 10 Sep 2009 at 10:39

Far cry 2

Jeimuzu86 · 10 Sep 2009 at 10:41

I loved Fallout 3 and Oblivion as it suits my playing style but I can see why some people would get bored fairly quickly.

LeJosh · 10 Sep 2009 at 10:43

Just Cause... I thought that game was awful. :\

Shamikebab · 10 Sep 2009 at 10:48

mame said:
Far cry 2

This, miles and miles of copy and paste terrain. Just put there so that they can make you walk for 30 mins for each mission to extend the amount of 'gameplay' in the game.

antijoke · 10 Sep 2009 at 10:48

Lets not forget the crappy malaria thing in FC2.

Dyson · 10 Sep 2009 at 10:52

Far Cry 2 is the exception for me, but generally I love playing games with huge open worlds. Not a fan of corridor shooters etc.

vincent1989 · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:03

Dyson said:
I love playing games with huge open worlds. Not a fan of corridor shooters etc.

this. i cant beleive some of you got bored in FO3 that games was great, well thought out story and maps, interesting side missions, excellent characters and fairly decent graphics to boot. and it wasn't that long (20 hours (vanilla) if you just go down the main story route?)

Streeteh · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:11

WatchTower said:
Oblivion and Fallout 3

mame said:
Far cry 2

Those three come screaming to mind. Don't get me wrong i LOVE open games like Baldur's Gate and Fallout 1+2 but these games just seemed to miss the point for me. While i like games to be open, i also want it to feel like it's bustling with activity, in the classics mentioned above every area would have something to do (often dozens of things to do) and people to talk to. Every enemy had a story behind them and a reason why they were attacking you, every quest had multiple subtle outcomes but behind it all (and this is the most important part for me) the main storyline quest was working its influence, every optional quest had at least partial relation to the main quest.

There i think is what bugs me most, in these huge open games of today they are TOO open, the main quest isn't actually the main point of the game. In Oblivion for example if you just carry on with the side quests nothing really happens with the main quest, despite the 'impending doom' that the oblivion gates signify they do nothing until you trigger them by continuing with the main quest. In fallout 1 for example if you leave the main quest too long, all of your fellow vault dwellers will die of thirst, cities will be invaded and pillaged by mutants and assassin teams will be sent out for your head. All the time the main quest is chasing you, making it hard for you to survive and thus your drive to complete it is greater.

Farcry 2 however was just a poor game padded out by miles of terrain.

Substance · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:13

I don't think many people will agree with me here but I hated GTA:SA

I really enjoyed GTA3 and vice city before it but absolutely hated San Andreas

LeJosh · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:16

Streeteh said:
snip

Realistically for fallout 3 the capital had just been nuked so you're not going to see many people and it retains the idea of how people would live in a post apocolyptic world.

But I agree more activity should have been available in Oblivion, it was lacking in that sense. Which is why I prefer morrowind...

Streeteh · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:18

LeJosh said:
Realistically for fallout 3 the capital had just been nuked so you're not going to see many people and it retains the idea of how people would live in a post apocolyptic world.

But I agree more activity should have been available in Oblivion, it was lacking in that sense. Which is why I prefer morrowind...

I see what you mean, but Fallout 1 + 2 were set in the same world yet it still felt 'busy'. It's hard to explain but the feel of its predecessors just wasn't there any more.

Morrowind is indeed far superior to Oblivion

Dyson · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:20

SuBsTaNcE said:
I don't think many people will agree with me here but I hated GTA:SA

I really enjoyed GTA3 and vice city before it but absolutely hated San Andreas

Wouldn't say I hated SA, but I know where you're coming from.

LeJosh · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:24

Streeteh said:
I see what you mean, but Fallout 1 + 2 were set in the same world yet it still felt 'busy'. It's hard to explain but the feel of its predecessors just wasn't there any more.

Morrowind is indeed far superior to Oblivion

Unfortunately I havn't played Fallout 1 or 2. But I can guess that is was a lot more condensed due to limitations of software and hardware but had a lot to say within it's story? Maybe I should just play the game and see what you mean.

Fubsy · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:27

SuBsTaNcE said:
I don't think many people will agree with me here but I hated GTA:SA

I really enjoyed GTA3 and vice city before it but absolutely hated San Andreas

I agree. I've done all the others but SA just got too big and I cba with it.

Streeteh · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:32

LeJosh said:
Unfortunately I havn't played Fallout 1 or 2. But I can guess that is was a lot more condensed due to limitations of software and hardware but had a lot to say within it's story? Maybe I should just play the game and see what you mean.

I'd actually say Fallout 1 and particularly 2 had more content, they did condense the large open expanses into a sort of RTS travelling system with random encounters that then pulled you down into the 'game' view, but there were numerous huge locations to explore. It was a completely different style of game to Fallout 3 and imo far, far superior. Fallout 1 is one of my top 10 games of all time.

mame · 10 Sep 2009 at 11:33

I agree slightly on GTA:SA. I love the game though but the map was bordering on being too big. When I play either of the GTAs on the PSP I can still remember the whole map without even thinking about it. Just shows well well designed and sized the maps to GTA3 and VC are. (PSP versions are the same game/map with different missions for anyone who hasn't played them)

Kreeeee · 10 Sep 2009 at 13:14

6-8 hours is ideal for me for single player games, the only games I've played that are longer are the Zelda series.

Dyson · 10 Sep 2009 at 13:23

Kreeeee said:
6-8 hours is ideal for me for single player games, the only games I've played that are longer are the Zelda series.

Far too short for me, I don't really touch the multiplayer side of gaming now i'm just on the playstation. I like a game I can sink a few months into.