I didn't leave my favorite game series, my favorite game series left me.

[Koga No Goshi]

Name some of the gaming series that you feel have changed so much or embraced such a totally different audience that they've left behind the older fans. For me, Total War is one of the few series that has NOT done this, which is why I love it so much.

Series that left me: The Elder Scrolls. Daggerfall and Morrowind were fantastic, deep, thinking games with nuanced storylines. Oblivion and by all looks of it, Skyrim seem to have made the unfortunate decision to take the median marketing bullseye of the console market and made that the primary design philosophy with linear story, autocompass pointers, and a lack of world depth or complexity.

[Skullheadhq]

I can't stand people who say Morrowind was 1000x times better than Oblivion. I played both of them, and yes, Morrowind had some more depth here and there but more bugs as well. Oblivion had fun quests (Sheogorath, Dark Brotherhood), great graphics and the scenery was very plausible (unlike Morrowind). Most of the people that say Morrowind was far better just say that to look wise and old, I can't stand that.

Anyway, the Crash Bandicoot series was GREAT on PSX, but since Naughty Dog doesn't make it anymore they made it childish, easy and ditched the warprooms, the one that came up with all this should be hanged IMHO. Anyway, if someone has a PS3 with some spare PSN points, I suggest downloading Crash 2 and 3, some of the very best games ever in my opinion. Or maybe I say that because Crash 2 was my first game ever.

[johnhughthom]

I can't stand people who say Morrowind was 1000x times better than Oblivion.

Yeah? Well I hate you too!

Oblivion had better graphics and... that's it better graphics. Dark Brotherhood was a good questline, but you still had your hand held the whole way, some of the Morag Tong quests had me searching the map for ages trying to find the target. Of course that's a bad thing with todays quick fix, don't want to do it myself generation.

[Koga No Goshi]

I can't stand people who say Morrowind was 1000x times better than Oblivion. I played both of them, and yes, Morrowind had some more depth here and there but more bugs as well. Oblivion had fun quests (Sheogorath, Dark Brotherhood), great graphics and the scenery was very plausible (unlike Morrowind). Most of the people that say Morrowind was far better just say that to look wise and old, I can't stand that.

Or could it be because we legitimately felt it was a deeper, more immersive game with a lot more complexity to it? I'm over 30, I hardly need to go out of my way to sound older.

I mean seriously, NPC's got boiled down to 2-3 dialogue choices and you never had to figure anything out in Oblivion because even if you were required to read a book or a clue, a text prompt would pop up over the top of it telling you exactly what to do next.

I'd humbly submit that people who needed features like that were probably in the wrong game, and I don't know why they put it in. It turned it into sort of a hack and slash action game with no real RPG to it. That's of course not even getting into the things like levelled mobs, levelled loot, the game having like 8 voice actors you had to hear all the time, and really just no complexity to the world at all. The races don't even act like they notice other races and there's no real factional or political development at all. It's just good guys vs. omg crazy psychopathic cult worshippers and necromancers.

That's why I felt it went off a cliff in terms of the audience it was aiming for.

[Skullheadhq]

Does this mean that you will not buy Skyrim? I will, but fear that they further simplified and shallowed it down, but one can never be sure. And even if it is, it will probably be the best game of 2011 anyway. But they said Skyrim will be halfway between Morrowind and Oblivion, and be without generated landscapes and with 8 (!) people instead of one working on the dungeons.

[Koga No Goshi]

Does this mean that you will not buy Skyrim? I will, but fear that they further simplified and shallowed it down, but one can never be sure.

Correct.

[naut]

Fallout.

Diablo.

Total War.

Others I can't think of at the moment.

[Koga No Goshi]

Fallout.

Diablo.

Total War.

Others I can't think of at the moment.

Just out of curiosity (I have a very good idea about why you say Diablo) what turned you off with Total War and Fallout?

Also, I know Fallout III (incidentally made by Bethesda right after Oblivion) was widely considered disappointing by the Fallout fans and a dumb-down, but how did you feel about New Vegas? No redemption?

[naut]

Just out of curiosity (I have a very good idea about why you say Diablo) what turned you off with Total War and Fallout?

Also, I know Fallout III (incidentally made by Bethesda right after Oblivion) was widely considered disappointing by the Fallout fans and a dumb-down, but how did you feel about New Vegas? No redemption?

While Fallout III had its moments they were few and far between, and not worth the effort of the trudging through it's un-atmospheric wasteland. Additionally that was about the same time that I discovered S.T.A.L.K.E.R., a game that blew me away and a series that I now love, and Fallout III paled in comparison. New Vegas is better, enjoyable, fun, but still not has exciting or riveting as those first two games were for me.

Total War. I played the hell out of MTW I. I casually enjoyed RTW. But when I tried MTW II the campaign crashed after 1 turn due to bugs and the battles were winnable by simply charging with anything. I stopped playing after that, I just no longer enjoyed it. I've played a little STW II, while I think it is a solid game I don't think the genre is for me any more.

[Koga No Goshi]

While Fallout III had its moments they were few and far between, and not worth the effort of the trudging through it's un-atmospheric wasteland. Additionally that was about the same time that I discovered S.T.A.L.K.E.R., a game that blew me away and a series that I now love, and Fallout III paled in comparison. New Vegas is better, enjoyable, fun, but still not has exciting or riveting as those first two games were for me.

Total War. I played the hell out of MTW I. I casually enjoyed RTW. But when I tried MTW II the campaign crashed after 1 turn due to bugs and the battles were winnable by simply charging with anything. I stopped playing after that, I just no longer enjoyed it. I've played a little STW II, while I think it is a solid game I don't think the genre is for me any more.

As a Shogun 1 player, I definitely miss the days of what definitely felt like more calculated, careful engagements where even the AI would stand back and harass with missile fire. Ever since Rome it does feel that all the AI does is blind charge and there isn't all that much room for tactics unless you just outnumber him and can outflank. I also think cavalry are a bit sketchy ever since Rome; it's nice to have the more realistic charging and running mechanics, but cavalry simply get slaughtered in fights yet are so heavily over-valued in auto-resolves that you wind up having to fight a lot of trash AI armies just because the threw light cavalry or 2 generals in. I can see what you mean about the battle system advancing but not quite being the same.

Thanks for your thoughts on Fallout, Fallout is a series I've heard about for years and years but always skirted on the outside, and I hear so many controversial things about 3 that I was curious.

[Drunk Clown]

Or could it be because we legitimately felt it was a deeper, more immersive game with a lot more complexity to it? I'm over 30, I hardly need to go out of my way to sound older.

I mean seriously, NPC's got boiled down to 2-3 dialogue choices and you never had to figure anything out in Oblivion because even if you were required to read a book or a clue, a text prompt would pop up over the top of it telling you exactly what to do next.

I'd humbly submit that people who needed features like that were probably in the wrong game, and I don't know why they put it in. It turned it into sort of a hack and slash action game with no real RPG to it. That's of course not even getting into the things like levelled mobs, levelled loot, the game having like 8 voice actors you had to hear all the time, and really just no complexity to the world at all. The races don't even act like they notice other races and there's no real factional or political development at all. It's just good guys vs. omg crazy psychopathic cult worshippers and necromancers.

That's why I felt it went off a cliff in terms of the audience it was aiming for.

Are you serious? Are those the reasons? Sorry, but your arguments are laughable.

About the NPC's, are you really bothered by the fact that they have 2-3 dialogue options? Did you always read them in Morrowing, because in Morrowind they werealso always the same, no mather who you talked to. Heck just as commoners were useless in Oblivion they were in Morrowind. You are annoyed by the fact that Oblivion has 8 voice actors, well do you prefer Morrowind's choice? No voices, just reading it? AFAIK that's an improvement even if it's a little.

Morrowind also has the feature that a text would pop up without actually reading the book.

Morrowind is not Cyrodiil, so of course there are differences in how the people behave. And I did not really feel the presence of the politics.

And yeah sure, the followers of Dagoth Ur were no crazy psychopathic cult worshippers.

Sure there were cons, but also pros in comparison with Morrowind. I was also annoyed by the Bandits in glass armor. A pro for me was the combat system, it still isn't perfect but at least better than the Morrowind BS.

By the way, have you ever thought about that when you get older, you don't like the series anymore? At least for me a perfect example for that is Pokemon. Crystal stays the best for, as it was my first. Still Black and White are so much better, but I didn't enjoyed them as much as Crystal. And no Pokemon is not for children alone.

I think that everyone has the feeling: It was better in the past. Even though they aren't but that's how you experience it. Another example: The Windwaker is the zelda game I enjoyed the most, even though it has the tedious sailing. It was my first experience with the zelda game.

Oh, and I'm amazed you don't understand why someone would be disappointed in Fallout 3, Fallout 1 and 2 were complete different games, it's not even similar (if you look at the gameplay).

LOL you probably also think that gameplay is the only thing what matters and graphics are not important.

[Husar]

Just a friendly reminder to discuss the games here and not other peoples' tastes.
Keep it nice or warnings will be handed out!

[Greyblades]

Dragon age. I kinda liked 2 but it didnt have the replayability of origins and I hated the plot, Nothing you did ever felt like it changed anything, god help you if you want to save anyone, in the first one you could even save the primary villian if you so chose and you influence who gains the thrones of two kingdoms. The second one you couldn't even save your mother and the main villian tries to kill you even if you do your utmost to side with her, railroad much?

Command and conquer. C&C4 was awful, a huge change of game style from the previous games and as much as I love kain when I found out his route was the one where you save the main character's sneering wife I jumped on the GDI path in an instant, then I found out the game was actually a korean game that had the C&C lable slapped on to increase sales and I dropped the turd quicker than paris hilton's appeal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

To be honest, I feel like the best Fallout game would be one on the same game engine as Skyrim provided that:

A. The map is actually very small, but concentrated with things to do. Or maybe it is a large area but it isn't so varied, in a way that makes sense given the setting.
B. The number of voice actors went up
C. The number of dialogue choices went up by a large margin.

In my head what I imagine is a Fallout game in the same style as 3 and New Vegas, but the entire game takes place in one vault. The vault is falling apart due to various reasons and you can end up saving the vault, exploiting the problems to become the new leader of the vault, killing everyone in the vault, perhaps being able to communicate with outsiders who you sell the vault and its inhabitants to, or even forcing the leader to make the decision to open the vault and let everyone out.

The vault would be huge but without the problems you get from having a big flat piece of land and having to fill it all up with different NPCs who are not connected to other parts of the map. The same NPCs could be used for multiple or even dozens of side quests that require you to help out vault residents in various ways, which means you get more mileage per character and thus the total number of NPCs goes down reducing that feeling of "oh this voice actor again" because lets be honest, I was getting sick of New Vegas having almost every black character voiced by the same guy.

This isn't the thread for this, but idk some posts in here got me thinking and I just wanted to type all this down as it started flowing. What do you guys think?

EDIT: In response to the OP, ummm the Total War series.

[johnhughthom]

I was getting sick of New Vegas having almost every black character voiced by the same guy.

This bugged me with Fallout 3 and New Vegas, very jarring hearing the same voices again and again. I've been playing LA Noire and looking through the manual it has 4 pages of voice actors. Now I know Bethesda probably don't have Rockstar's budget, but it makes a huge difference to the immersion not hearing the same voice for different NPCs.

As for your main point, I agree, I've never understood why characters are rarely used for more than one mission in RPGs.

[Koga No Goshi]

Are you serious? Are those the reasons? Sorry, but your arguments are laughable.

About the NPC's, are you really bothered by the fact that they have 2-3 dialogue options? Did you always read them in Morrowing, because in Morrowind they werealso always the same, no mather who you talked to. Heck just as commoners were useless in Oblivion they were in Morrowind. You are annoyed by the fact that Oblivion has 8 voice actors, well do you prefer Morrowind's choice? No voices, just reading it? AFAIK that's an improvement even if it's a little.

Morrowind also has the feature that a text would pop up without actually reading the book.

Morrowind is not Cyrodiil, so of course there are differences in how the people behave. And I did not really feel the presence of the politics.

And yeah sure, the followers of Dagoth Ur were no crazy psychopathic cult worshippers.

Sure there were cons, but also pros in comparison with Morrowind. I was also annoyed by the Bandits in glass armor. A pro for me was the combat system, it still isn't perfect but at least better than the Morrowind BS.

By the way, have you ever thought about that when you get older, you don't like the series anymore? At least for me a perfect example for that is Pokemon. Crystal stays the best for, as it was my first. Still Black and White are so much better, but I didn't enjoyed them as much as Crystal. And no Pokemon is not for children alone.

I think that everyone has the feeling: It was better in the past. Even though they aren't but that's how you experience it. Another example: The Windwaker is the zelda game I enjoyed the most, even though it has the tedious sailing. It was my first experience with the zelda game.

Oh, and I'm amazed you don't understand why someone would be disappointed in Fallout 3, Fallout 1 and 2 were complete different games, it's not even similar (if you look at the gameplay).

LOL you probably also think that gameplay is the only thing what matters and graphics are not important.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think gameplay is more important and trump graphics in importance for a game, especially an immersive sandbox RPG.

I think you'll find that the summary I gave on why Morrowind -> Oblivion was a jump off a cliff is not at all rare among the people who actually played both games in order, a quick visit to the Bethesda forums or any site that discusses RPG games will yield you plenty of people who feel exactly the same way.

From what I can tell in your post, especially the fact that you "LOL" at the idea of someone holding gameplay over graphics, you are the type of gamer Oblivion was made for. It was made to look pretty and be graphically impressive and.... that's it. And it attracted a lot of people who didn't touch Elder Scrolls before with that emphasis. That doesn't mean it was a good thing or that Oblivion was true to the series it came from.

[Koga No Goshi]

This bugged me with Fallout 3 and New Vegas, very jarring hearing the same voices again and again. I've been playing LA Noire and looking through the manual it has 4 pages of voice actors. Now I know Bethesda probably don't have Rockstar's budget, but it makes a huge difference to the immersion not hearing the same voice for different NPCs.

As for your main point, I agree, I've never understood why characters are rarely used for more than one mission in RPGs.

It seems that a common thread between both Oblivion and Fallout 3 (both made by Bethesda) is incredibly limited voiceacting.

I agree that if they're going to bother putting it in as full voiceover, they should at least bother to vary the voices enough that you don't feel like you're talking to the same 6-8 NPC's for the entire game.

[Koga No Goshi]

To be honest, I feel like the best Fallout game would be one on the same game engine as Skyrim provided that:

A. The map is actually very small, but concentrated with things to do. Or maybe it is a large area but it isn't so varied, in a way that makes sense given the setting.
B. The number of voice actors went up
C. The number of dialogue choices went up by a large margin.

In my head what I imagine is a Fallout game in the same style as 3 and New Vegas, but the entire game takes place in one vault. The vault is falling apart due to various reasons and you can end up saving the vault, exploiting the problems to become the new leader of the vault, killing everyone in the vault, perhaps being able to communicate with outsiders who you sell the vault and its inhabitants to, or even forcing the leader to make the decision to open the vault and let everyone out.

The vault would be huge but without the problems you get from having a big flat piece of land and having to fill it all up with different NPCs who are not connected to other parts of the map. The same NPCs could be used for multiple or even dozens of side quests that require you to help out vault residents in various ways, which means you get more mileage per character and thus the total number of NPCs goes down reducing that feeling of "oh this voice actor again" because lets be honest, I was getting sick of New Vegas having almost every black character voiced by the same guy.

This isn't the thread for this, but idk some posts in here got me thinking and I just wanted to type all this down as it started flowing. What do you guys think?

EDIT: In response to the OP, ummm the Total War series.

And how come Total War left ya? :) Same answer as the first guy?

[a completely inoffensive name]

And how come Total War left ya? :) Same answer as the first guy?

It was the diplomatic AI and the units to be honest. MTW seemed so simple in the selection of units, it was easy to construct balanced armies. RTW and M2TW kicked up the selection a lot but it wasn't balanced. Archers became useless to the very high level knights and the AI spammed armies of one type of unit. It really should have been simplified because the AI was never going to be at the level needed for it to understand whether archers or crossbows were more useful in a certain situation.

Also the emphasis on a new engine seemed annoying to me. This is a game about massive armies and they want to max out the details on every single foot soldier. I really did not care for the transition to the empire/napoleon engine. I felt that the M2TW engine was just fine in it's graphics and could be improved upon in more iterations to be more than adequate for today's market. Look at EB's units in their subforum, very beautiful.

They had a really good opportunity to keep the RTW/M2TW engine, improve the graphics a bit but more importantly concentrate on making a solid AI. Instead they took the extra time given for empire by making a brand new engine that couldn't run on 60% of people's computers.

It just overall seemed obvious they were going in a bad direction. Empire was my last TW game, only played it for 6 hours.

[Drunk Clown]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think gameplay is more important and trump graphics in importance for a game, especially an immersive sandbox RPG.

I think you'll find that the summary I gave on why Morrowind -> Oblivion was a jump off a cliff is not at all rare among the people who actually played both games in order, a quick visit to the Bethesda forums or any site that discusses RPG games will yield you plenty of people who feel exactly the same way.

From what I can tell in your post, especially the fact that you "LOL" at the idea of someone holding gameplay over graphics, you are the type of gamer Oblivion was made for. It was made to look pretty and be graphically impressive and.... that's it. And it attracted a lot of people who didn't touch Elder Scrolls before with that emphasis. That doesn't mean it was a good thing or that Oblivion was true to the series it came from.

As a matter of fact, I also think Morrowind was better than Oblivion. That said, I still think Oblivion is a great game.
But today, I couldn't go back to Morrowind, it feels outdated and the combat system makes it hard for me to enjoy. When I played it for the first time I wasn't bothered by it.

I don't get it why you find Oblivion so much easier, I played Morrowind a lot, but never found myself wondering what to do with this one quest. I guess it felt the same for me as Oblivion; it was clear for me what to do.

So in conclusion, don't get me wrong. I too think Morrowind was better, but my reasons are the fact that Oblivion was shorter, had less skills and the bandits in glass armor. The annoyances in Morrowind which I notice now do not matter, as I compare the first experience with Morrowind with the first experience with Oblivion. If I would do that, it wouldn't be fair as Morrowind is older and thus has an outdated fighting system and it's exploitable in a lot of ways.

Oblivion does the same as Morrowind, too bad Oblivion was shorter and had some problems. A game series leaves me when they decide to make an entirely new way of playing the game; this was not the case for Oblivion and there is no reason you shouldn't try Skyrim as the series has yet to leave his gameplay.

Yes, I LOL every time a gamer says that the graphics aren't important and gameplay is the only thing that matters, because let's say for example this.
You see a new screenshot of a new game, it's the first impression. Will you be impressed if it looks butt ugly in comparison to today's standard? No.
If it was ugly, you probably wouldn't even look at the game again, as it seems inferior to what other producers (with nice graphics) have to offer.

Pretty cut and dry, right? Dissenters will try to cite the success of low-budget indie titles in the face of this argument, but there's a distinct difference between creating an artistic style to suit your means and simply failing to produce triple-A graphics. High-visibility developers no longer have the luxury of creating anything less than stunning visuals, and stylized titles from their studios are generally diversionary releases at best.
When a company's looking for "the best sense of immersion you can get," they can't set the hook without a gift-wrapped presentation. So we sure as hell know that Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim will be nothing short of breathtaking.

[Graphic]

I can't stand people who say Morrowind was 1000x times better than Oblivion. I played both of them, and yes, Morrowind had some more depth here and there but more bugs as well. Oblivion had fun quests (Sheogorath, Dark Brotherhood), great graphics and the scenery was very plausible (unlike Morrowind). Most of the people that say Morrowind was far better just say that to look wise and old, I can't stand that.

I slightly prefer Oblivion too, but I don't see how "plausible" scenery is a plus in a fantasy game. Thats one area where Morrowind definitely outclasses Oblivion; the world was actually fantastical as opposed to Oblivion's generic "medieval Earth Europe but with monsters and fireballs" that every single other fantasy game does.

The series that left me was Call of Duty. The first one (along with its expansion United Offensive) is my favorite multiplayer FPS of all-time. It was as hardcore as Counter-Strike but with better graphics and an overall better "feel." Very high recoil, no hit markers, no one shows up on your radar, no unlocks, no killstreak rewards, no claymores. None of that junk. You pick a weapon, and you shoot people with it. Thats the only way you got kills.

Since then what they've done is consciously make it the most noob friendly game series in existence. They've done this for business reasons and it was a brilliant decision from that standpoint. They took the "everybody's a winner!" concept from the self esteem movement and transplanted it video games. A game that puts in so many helping hands to give even the slowest-reflexed, slow-witted players a chance to go 30-2 without ever moving the entire game is naturally going to sell like hot cakes.

[Fragony]

My favorite series are the Thief games. Thief is the best game ever, and I wasn't exactly pleased with Thief 2 because it wasn't as scary. It grew on me, and I even actually started apreciating it, which took me years to come to terms with. I had to admit Thief 2 was good in it's own way and certainly not the crime against humanity I initially took it for. I Thief fans would shame the Fallout-community when it comes to rigidness. But than came Thief 3 and I will never be able to not hate that utter pile of crap. How could they do that to me, why would they do that to me, what did I do wrong?

I'm not even excited that Thief 4 is in development

[johnhughthom]

It seems that a common thread between both Oblivion and Fallout 3 (both made by Bethesda) is incredibly limited voiceacting.

I agree that if they're going to bother putting it in as full voiceover, they should at least bother to vary the voices enough that you don't feel like you're talking to the same 6-8 NPC's for the entire game.

I think the reason why for both is clear, Oblivion had Sean Bean and the Star Trek guy, Fallout 3 had Liam Neeson. That was probably 90% of their voice over budget spent before they had really begun.

My actual game series would be Total War, my reasons similar to ACIN. I bought Shogun 2 and tried the series again, then set it down when I realised elevation doesn't give archers extended range, yet another simplification while prettiness is improved. It probably seems like a small reason to stop playing a game, but it was more like the straw that broke the camels back after pathetic AI game after game. I'm told the AI is better in Shogun, I don't care, the small detail of archer's range shows CA still focus on little other than graphics. It was a last chance purchase for me, Napoleon was the only Total War game I didn't buy, Shogun 2 will be the last I do.

[Greyblades]

My favorite series are the Thief games. Thief is the best game ever, and I wasn't exactly pleased with Thief 2 because it wasn't as scary. It grew on me, and I even actually started apreciating it, which took me years to come to terms with. I had to admit Thief 2 was good in it's own way and certainly not the crime against humanity I initially took it for. I Thief fans would shame the Fallout-community when it comes to rigidness. But than came Thief 3 and I will never be able to not hate that utter pile of crap. How could they do that to me, why would they do that to me, what did I do wrong?

I'm not even excited that Thief 4 is in development

To each his own, but I would recomend going back to it so you can play a level called "the cradle", some websites claim it's one of the scariest levels in gaming history but al I know is it was one of the games that freaked me out enough to stop playing for a while. I think it might be worth suffering through the game to get to that level.

[Monk]

Dragon age. I kinda liked 2 but it didnt have the replayability of origins and I hated the plot, Nothing you did ever felt like it changed anything, god help you if you want to save anyone, in the first one you could even save the primary villian if you so chose and you influence who gains the thrones of two kingdoms. The second one you couldn't even save your mother and the main villian tries to kill you even if you do your utmost to side with her, railroad much?

It's actually worse than you're making it sound.

I liked 2 in a number of ways. Combat was fun (minus magical enemy spawning) and the skill/talent system was really cool to experiment with. 2 really started to falter in the later half of the second act, where things began to literally just fall apart. The plot starts to feel incredibly disjointed, two huge out of the blue boss fights (ones you cannot avoid no matter how you play) later and BOOM end of game. Dragon age 2 feels like a game that ran out of time in development. This wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't abandoned all the important ties it had with Origins and gone out of their way to make the experience feel completely different. The ugly as sin environments didn't help either.

Bioware looks like they are going down the drain honestly. Hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling ME3 is going to be their last hurrah.

bought Shogun 2 and tried the series again, then set it down when I realised elevation doesn't give archers extended range, yet another simplification while prettiness is improved

To be honest I don't believe that was done for the purposes of simplification. Shogun 2 runs on a modified ETW/NTW engine, which was designed for a much different kind of game. It seems more like limitation in that regard than anything else.

[johnhughthom]

To be honest I don't believe that was done for the purposes of simplification. Shogun 2 runs on a modified ETW/NTW engine, which was designed for a much different kind of game. It seems more like limitation in that regard than anything else.

The reason why isn't really that important, it's still a pretty major tactical advantage made impossible. CA made the engine then decided to use it for a game with a totally different type of warfare.

[Drunk Clown]

Total war has never been a star in tactics IMO. I wish it would, though.

[Fragony]

To each his own, but I would recomend going back to it so you can play a level called "the cradle", some websites claim it's one of the scariest levels in gaming history but al I know is it was one of the games that freaked me out enough to stop playing for a while. I think it might be worth suffering through the game to get to that level.

That level is awesome.The rest isn't. In terms of sheer terror it has nothing on the notorious 'Return to the Cathedral' from the first Thief, abandoned the game for months, tried a few times but I just couldn't go there. You know something is wrong when a building let's out a sigh when you open the door. 'The Inverted Manse' is a fanmission that is almost as bad but never feels like you are in a truly evil place.

[Major Robert Dump]

Freedom Force

The original was fun and the character sidekick editor was totally sweet and the soundtrack was epic, but Freedom Force vs The Third Reich was just oo unbelievable. I mean, racially-insulting super heroes who can fly and throw cars and be invisible is believable, but bringing Nazi supervillains into it is just not factual at all.

I would discuss more, but there are too many gamer snobs here and I don't want to get teh trollz

[Abokasee]

C&C - Here are my reactions to each game:
Tiberian Dawn: WOAH, WOW THIS IS ODD... OH GOD I'M NOT USED TO TRAINING ONE GUY AT A TIME.
Red Alert: Still one guy at a time? Well at least it doesnt feel quite as clunky OH****IMGETTINGTANKRUSHEASEASHDAHSAHFAAHFSDFFGFGHH
Tiberian Sun: (First one I played) ... ... ... Oh... ... my... god... this is... just wow...
Firestorm: I approve of these new units! Especially you Juggernaught!
Emperor Battle for Dune: This Track Sums up everything - until I went onto online play, or rather couldnt get onto online play...
Red Arlert 2: Wow this is great! (Play online): Am I the only soviet player here?... OH GOD THATS ALOT OF IFV'S AND ROCKETEERS
Yuri's Revenge: Sweet a new faction! Plays pretty weird though... yeah snipers just destroyed my economy again. (Play online): Ok lets join as Yur... I just got kicked from the game... I guess Gatling Turrets are "Imba" against Rocketeer and IFV spam.
C&C Generals: Meh. Not good, not bad, just fine... where's my sidebar? Wait I'm playing WC3 now? OK...
Zero Hour: Sweet Jesus this is great! Its not C&C but its great!
Zero Hour... with mods: HONOURABRE DISPRAY
C&C 3: Ok this is pretty neat. Can't help but feel most of this could be acommplished by a high-end Zero-Hour modder... where the **** are my Titan Walkers and Wolverines! No Cyborgs? Oh okay they actually listened to the original plot on that part. Why does my multi-trillion dollar cult have to use Militia? I want my cool ass armoured dudes back.
Kanes Wrath: OK my Titans and Wolverines are back and so are my Cyborgs this is pretty cool. Oh and the armour is too... they still suck though. Oh whats this RA3 Beta test.
RA3 Beta: Ok this aint actually to bad... very goofy but pretty dam fun... wait they couldn't even be bothered to re-do unit voices?
(SKIP A FEW)
C&C4 Previews: No base building? Extremely goofy units? SHAMFUR DISPRAY.