Unless you count constantly crashing (on my Xbox) as a limitation. I did like it better than 3 and New Vegas, though.
Wow, I liked Fallout 4, but found it to be the worst of the 3D Fallout games. I liked Fallout 3 and New Vegas quite a bit more.
Having said that, they did not pull a “Cyberpunk 2077” level of failure where the game is massively disappointing. I still enjoyed Fallout 4 and just found it to be somewhat of a misfire.
Fallout 4 has a much more simplified dialogue tree then Fallout New Vegas and a much more boring/robotic/formulaic companion relation system. Hell even the story was more boring in Fallout 4 (to my eyes). But Fallout NV was much much much more buggy game.
I still give the win to Fallout NV.
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
The first two games were okay, but were more or less linear, and involved a large amount of trial-and-error. The third game took off the reins. They give you the mission, drop you off, and you’re basically on your own (with audio intel support) to just figure it out. It was awesome.
Was Chaos Theory the first one they gave you a knife to use? I really enjoyed all the Splinter Cell games, well, until Conviction, but the original games were excellent and Chaos Theory was great!
The last Steam sale I looked into Splinter Cell. I remember liking the first game. Perhaps might even have played the second. I remember enjoying them and forgot about the series.
Is this the pinnacle of the series? I’m considering buying in again. I remember liking the old split legged stealthathon.
Yes, it’s widely considered the best game in the series. This game was fantastic, and a major leap forward for the series; all of the subsequent titles were just incremental refinements on it. I own all of the series, but this is the one I regularly come back to.
@Odesio, yes, I believe Chaos Theory is the first one you got the knife.
Interesting, Super Mario 2 was always my favorite of the bunch. Perhaps I just didn’t like the normal Mario formula.
Technically it’s not even a Mario game. The Japanese version of the game was called Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic:
The original game was about a dream world within a storybook that was turned into a nightmare, and 3 brothers (2 twins and one non-twin) and the non-twin’s girlfriend use the antagonist’s weakness to vegetables against him.
The characters were changed to people from the Mario franchise for the western release of the game, where it was rebranded as a Mario game, because the Japanese sequel to Super Mario Bros. was considered too challenging for the market outside of Japan. They eventually released the Japanese sequel as Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels bundled with Super Mario All-Stars for the SNES outside of Japan.
So you probably just don’t like the Mario games, as that technically wasn’t one of them.
Yes, I didn’t like the others very much at all and I’d heard it was a different franchise in Japan.
The reason why the actual sequel was skipped is surprising to me though. Americans tend to think Japanese people like very difficult video games but it’s usually the opposite. Japanese game manufacturers normally have to increase the difficulty for audiences outside of Japan.
It isn’t because Japanese people are worse at video games but rather because they don’t like seeing the hero ‘die.’
But for Final Fantasy IV, they did reduce the difficulty when released in the US(as FF2), right? Many years ago, I played the bootleg rom of Final Fantasy IV, translated into English. My understanding at the time reading comparisons is that it was quite a bit harder than the US version.
Correct.
FFII in the U.S. was the “EasyType” version of FFIV in Japan.
They would later release an official port to Playstation of FFIV and FFV called Final Fantasy Anthology.
They used the actual FFIV from what I understand.
This is a bit of an overgeneralization and not true.
There are several games the Japanese do design for more hardcore gamers. For a long time, it was actually their stereotype of Americans - that they needed to make games easier for us. The hard mode on the original American release of Megaman 2 was literally the Japanese version. And Final Fantasy IV (2 in the US) was made easier on purpose.
They are now somewhat more cognizant of the fact that gamers outside Japan are, on occasion, serious about gaming and will basically do the equivalent of director’s cuts of games with increased difficulties for international release (and eventually make their way back in to Japan).
I never played Saints Row 1, but I did watch a full playthrough of it on youtube cause I was curious. I also agree that 2 was a massive improvement in both story and gameplay.
For me, SR2 hit the sweet spot between silly and serious; I loved the serious story that still really made good fun of itself, and I also think the character customization in SR2 was better than the rest of the series. The gender slider, as mentioned, was great (and way ahead of its time; more games should have that sort of thing).
I find it hard to consider 3 a pure improvement over 2, it’s good in different ways, definitely plays smoother and all, but it has enough things that it went backwards on that I consider it more of a sidegrade instead of an upgrade.
One I’m surprised I didn’t see mentioned is the jump from Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall to Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. Morrowind is also where they firmed up a lot of the interesting/unique lore of the Elder Scrolls universe where it’s not just ‘generic fantasy setting’.
This one is interesting to me and I don’t think I can agree. I can totally see the argument - Diablo II is a stone classic and indeed has many improvements over the original. However I think Diablo had a great, creepy atmosphere that its successors have not matched. Diablo III in particular is downright cartoony by comparison.
I think all three are very good games in their own ways ( I still fire up DIII once in awhile) and while D2 is probably the best, I can’t say it was an unalloyed improvement in every way.
I do think the biggest leap in quality in Saint’s Row series is from 1 to 2. I wouldn’t say SR3 was a huge leap over 2, but I felt the game was better, especially at being more than a GTA clone. SR2 definitely was the first step and it was pretty bold to make it as silly as it was, but 3 just seemed to embrace that it was over-the-top silly. But I do feel similar in SR3 to SR4, in that it was just a sidegrade and the story fell flat for me.
I mentioned it near the beginning of the thread (only in passing, so it was probably easy to miss).
I’m not stating it’s always that way but rather most of the time the American versions are harder with some exceptions. I’ve seen both Japanese and American game makers claim this to be true. Where are you getting your information from? Why don’t we trade cites?
Mike Prinke: There is not and never has been a consistent trend of making American versions of Japanese games easier. There are isolated cases of Japanese games that got easier when being ported overseas, like the infamous US version of Final Fantasy IV, but these didn’t occur very often…Otherwise it more often went the other way around, with US versions of games being harder than the Japanese counterpart. As a handful of examples, Super Double Dragon’s American version removed the difficulty settings, and its one and only difficulty mode was harder than the hardest mode in the Japanese version…
Shinji Mikami: …The title of the game is Bio Hazard in Japan and Resident Evil in the U.S. The U.S. title was created by the staff of Capcom USA after they reviewed the contents of the game.
The U.S. version is more difficult than the Japanese version, so much that even the R&D staff couldn’t make it to the end of the game unless they played very carefully…