Thanks to everyone for the replies. To those who gave their opinions, it seems a lot of you have some sort of gripe about a title/genre, the way things are implemented, etc.


buckED: Thanks! I'll definitely give Splinter Cell a whirl. I never got into RPG's, as I mostly spent my youth playing games at the arcades(shooters, side scrollers, fighters) which I'm sure has an impact on the kind of games I like now. People tell me that some RPG's are more accessible than others. That's what I look for in a game. Accessibility. For me, I guess I would rather play an action title such as God of War, where as soon as you jump into the game you start killing your enemies with a couple of button presses.

I guess someone might label me someone who likes button mashers because of how accessible I want a game to be, without my character dying too soon and without having too read a lot about the games mechanics. Although, in the long run I would disagree with this, because, as I spend more of my time with a game, I will look for the strategy behind it and see how I rank against others with the skills I acquire(if we are talking fighters here). Are there any RPG"s out there that are like this? Also, I should probably mention I don't ever recall playing an RPG.

Kitt3n: I have not played Mirror's Edge. Is it any good? I get motion sick just by watching the gameplay though, due to all the running and jumping in first person, so I probably couldn't stand to play it. I'm not crazy about the visuals either. No, I was actually leaning more towards a game like Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks but not as crappy. Thanks for the suggestion though.

thk123: When you said this, "It isn't so much the lack of innovation, but but more the general laziness and missed opportunities" and "So I get incredibly frustrated that they chuck opportunities like that away, no decent online, poor balancing etc." you are talking about indie devs correct? If so, can you elaborate on what you meant by "they chuck opportunities like that away". Are you saying that they don't focus on these aspects as much as they should?

lightbringer: What didn't you like about Army of Two? I haven't played it, although, I read the reviews at IGN and Gamespot. After staring at some gameplay footage, it does tend to get quite dull after some time. In your opinion, would the games "realism" be the culprit of how boring it gets, or are there other facets that contribute as well?

Quote:

Original post by Swordmaster lightbringer: What didn't you like about Army of Two? I haven't played it, although, I read the reviews at IGN and Gamespot. After staring at some gameplay footage, it does tend to get quite dull after some time. In your opinion, would the games "realism" be the culprit of how boring it gets, or are there other facets that contribute as well?

It's been a while since I last played it, but from what I remember, it felt very monotone, both in gameplay and in the "realistic" coloring which made everything kind of look the same (Real is brown and all that). Well, having two buff guys in face masks running around and acting like they are the shit got really old really fast, too. Them acting all badass felt more like a poser game to me, and I got bored quickly. The plot isn't entirely bad but there isn't much point to it, either - it's very forgettable, you might even forget it while still playing the game.

To be fair, there are some interesting moments in that game, also, like when you drive around vehicles or when you fly a parachute (one person snipes, one uses SixAxis to steer the damn thing). Very rarely you also get one of these sequences where you get to fight back to back (IIRC in slow motion). It's really a two-player game, though, since it relies a lot on coordinating your moves (well, doh, you might say, hence it's called Army of TWO, right?).