77
What game sequel ruined a beloved franchise or character for you? (fedia.io)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/games@lemmy.world
172 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

You fell in love with a game and it's characters, sunk hundreds, maybe even thousands of hours into it. It became a comforting, immensely satisfying part of your daily life. Then you heard a sequel was coming and got really hyped but when it came out it was utter rubbish...

Which game(s) was that for you?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

Fallout 76?

I played it with coop mates (via game pass), all EGS fans since Oblivion, well after 76 was released and patched up, and it was just… boring. And grindy. Yet kept trying to upsell us stuff. I kinda get how some like the game with those BGS environments, but that was still a shock to me.

Starfield did nothing either. I watched YT story videos/tried out of a friend's Steam library instead of buying and felt like I was looking at a AI slop Skyrim mod, both technically and in terms of writing. Again, I’m a hardcore fan going way back, warts, glitches and all.

It’s remarkable the studio has fallen so far, without basically changing anything, yet still has such a loyal following. I just don’t get it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Think you could take it back a step there.

    • Fallout 1 - exceptional world-building, fantastic game, great character writing, superbly replayable RPG. Your build is instrumental to what you can do; decisions affect the world. Held together by jank and bugs, alas, but generally superb.
    • Fallout 2 - fixes most of the jank and bugs and has a much bigger and deeper world, but not quite as well-integrated a story. Worthy sequel, though.
    • Fallout 3 - "Oblivion with guns", but has a pretty decent story, lots of interesting side quests. Seems like Bethesda misunderstood the point of the setting a bit, but very promising. Has some RPG replayability - different builds and different choices change what's available in the world.
    • Fallout New Vegas - best game in the whole series. Good plot, great sidequests, great characters, reactive world. Actually makes it seem like the Creation engine can be used for 'proper' RPGs - everything by Bethesda tended to be a mile wide and an inch deep up till then. Obsidian actually understand the setting, which is not surprising since they had a lot of original Black Isle devs in their team. Held together by jank and bugs, which I'm going to pretend was a callback to Fallout 1.
    • Fallout 4 - just what the fuck. Plot that you can barely believe is as stupid as it is. One-note, irritating characters. Dreadful writing. Gives up being an RPG in favour of crafting and base-building. "Talking" interface which was the butt of jokes at the time and an insult to the history of the series. Barely any decision is of consequence, you could save near the "final decision" point, see all the endings, and miss nothing of consequence. All of Bethesda's worst habits, given free rein.

    Not going to be spending money with Bethesda again unless the reviews turn up exceptional. After F4, I was expecting nothing from 76, and was not surprised. Was expecting nothing from Starfield, and was not surprised. Am expecting Elder Scrolls 5 to be a bag of shite as well - am whatever the complete opposite of 'hyped' is for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I think the rose tinted glasses effect is strong. Fallout 4 wasn’t that bad and had some neat characters and sidequests. I played heavily modded NV too, and while great, has plenty of missed beats and slow quests.

    Also, making a (mostly) top down, tight text game is very different than producing a voice acted, sprawling 3D world. It’s like trying to compare the writing quality of a novel vs a 2 part blockbuster movie.

    Not that I disagree with the decline, but I think that’s putting it too strong and ignoring huge differences.

    For me the technical and artistic of aspects are factors too. Starfield would’ve been unreal if it came out in 2012… but look at its contemporaries. CP2077? KCD2? Even ME Andromeda utterly trounces it in artistic creativity, animation quality, graphics, scripting, performance, HDR quality, combat, even some voice acting; I could go on and on. And it’s basically the same premise.

    Yet Starfield feels like modded Skyrim, looks only superficially better, and runs at like a tenth the speed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    One thing that really threw me off FO4 was the voiced main character. They had to simplify the dialogue options significantly, and I just don't need my character to have a voice, my imagination can sort that out just fine. That way I can make up my own mind about how my character sounds in my head, have more detailed dialogue options (like FO:NV), and not have a locked in boring voice with boring dialogue options. Lots of cool additions in FO4, but it just seemed so shallow, I stopped playing quite early.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent