Have you played Origins Blackgate?
More often than not, it's usually a case of some random developer getting a shot with a nice IP. We saw a lot of this in the initial mobile phone game rush.
Comment has been collapsed.
Metal Gear pachinko machine was a foreshadow to Konami's treatment of the franchise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Metal Gear: Tower Defence
Metal Gear: Shoot'em up
Metal Gear: Whac-A-Mole
Or, wait, MG:Survive is a real thing?
Comment has been collapsed.
Was Metal Gear Rising also hated so damn much?
Or is this just revenge-hate for how Kojima was treated by Konami?
Which brings question, would this be praised as best Kojima's idea ever if Konami wouldn't go crazy?
Comment has been collapsed.
I've beaten both the original Blackgate on 3DS and the HD version on PC. I enjoyed it. :D
To be fair, I was measuring it on its own merits, not comparing it to the rest of a series it would compare poorly to.
I'm of the opinion that Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (PS2 / XBox) was a rather lacking game, which is damning from me. Regular Fallout fans hate it with a passion.
Guilty Gear Isuka was ****ing trash, yet isn't even the worst in the series (that honour goes to the DS release).
Some of the Mortal Kombat spinoffs have a well deserved place in this topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is Blackgate really worth it? Is the only one I don't have (besides the VR one cos why bother if I lack the hardware) but I didn't even consider buying it after reading mostly negative opinions about the game. I still have to play Knight and that's definitely the one I'll be playing next but I could pick Blackgate up in the next sale if it's not as awful as people say.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is simply a more Asylum style adventure with 2D levels and gameplay. Like a simplified Metroidvania.
Only you can decide if that sounds interesting to you. There is always the refund option.
Comment has been collapsed.
Watch some gameplay of Blackgate and decide for yourself. After you watch 15 minutes of gameplay you'll know exactly what you're getting yourself into.
Comment has been collapsed.
deus ex: the fall
deus ex: breach
gwent
half-life: blue shift
yes, i didn't even bother with blackgate after watching a let's play.
Comment has been collapsed.
The mod Azure Sheep was a better blue shift than Blue shift was.
Comment has been collapsed.
-hits you for your opinion on Blue-Shift-
The Fall wasn't too bad either, too short and too easy, but I've played far worse
Comment has been collapsed.
not sure about blue shift, but
deus ex: the fall
deus ex: breach
gwent
not spinoffs
also, the fall is not bad - its jsut too short and you need to read icarus effect to understand the storyline there;
breach has nothing to do w/ mankind divided or DE universe at all, this is just old scholl shooter in high end textured world =]
gwent doesnt have story at all, its a card game lul
Comment has been collapsed.
the event of the fall/icarus effect doesnt touch human revolution story at all
i am pretty sure "in more detail" means "gives you more story/lore details", both breach/gwent doesnt have lore in it..
Comment has been collapsed.
Was going to post Deus Ex: The Fall as soon as I saw this topic - but you beat me to it...
Comment has been collapsed.
These are supposed to be obvious terrible games, even subjectively it would be hard to call Gwent terrible. Not that I play it because I don't have time to do so but it's at the absolute least ok.
Comment has been collapsed.
as i said, it's terrible for me. nothing like the minigame in witcher 3.
i see more people posted what they think are bad games in this thread, and i'm not gonna reply to each one of them telling how wrong their opinions are. ┐(´ー｀)┌
Comment has been collapsed.
Neither will I, just noticed that one and said to myself lolwut.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fallout 3 and 4
All Elder Scrolls games after Morrowind (yes even Skyrim)
Comment has been collapsed.
None of those are spin offs. They are all in the game series.
Comment has been collapsed.
Since the OP is comparing Batman Arkham Origins Blackgate to the previous Batman games (which are all in the same series), I assumed he meant sequels. I would say that Fallout 3 and 4 are spinoffs because they pretty much throw out the lore of the original games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fallout 3 and 4 are most definitely direct sequels while Blackgate was more of a sidestep. A game that's different from the main ones, usually developed by someone else and doesn't directly continue the main story. At least that's what it looks like to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
For fans of the originals it feels like a spinoff.
For comparison see Bureau: xcom declassified compared to xcom;
From a turn-based over the head game to a third person shooter.
It was going to be called XCOM.
A new prequel in the timeline+reboot.
The title changed because of all the backlash from fans,also other stuff changed to frame it more as a spinoff.
Fallout 3 is the same: another company, set in another region, went for a completely different gameplay (also fps to third person shooter are pretty close).
Aaaaand fans complained.
But it was bethesda full of bethesda fans so many got hyped.
It deviates from core lore from the originals and keeps adding on changes on 4.
Fallout tactics, a game that was a squadr based real-time with active pause (and turn based mode) in another region was considered by both devs and fans a spinoff - because of how it deviated from what made a fallout Fallout.
And that was miles closer to Fallouts then Fallout 3.
Sure bethesda doesn't frame it as spinoff. But how official tag lines matter, trully?
Okay, lets put it another way:
Imagine Michael Bay...
Allright, lets take this easier. Say Nicolas Winding Refn (director of drive, only god forgives and neon demon- a good and unique director, like him or not) gets the helm of a new project:
2002: A New Space Odyssey
or idn The Shining 2
Would anyone consider it a true sequel? Official?
Now... it could. Perhaps it became so great and he inspired from so well from the source that fans would consider it a true to the source spiritual sequel. At best. But hardly sequel.
I went hard with a artistic masterpiece very authoral and with games its easier so we have things like Deus Ex: human revolution that get acclaimed as proper sequels.
But Deus Ex followed precisely all the footsteps and gameplay from the source. It only added oomph, new skills, fancier graphics and of course a new plot-line...
...Exactly what anyone would expect and want from a sequel
Fallout3/foward wasn't what any Fallout fan expected from a sequel.
It was another game in the fallout universe, not unlike fallout tactics. Whether it was good or not (i liked it) doesn't matter- it isn't a Fallout 2 improved upon, bigger and better.
Heck... its closer to a deus ex kinda of rpg in the fallout universe with a number wrongly attached to it.
Not even the amazing devs of deus ex dared to add a number 3 or 4 to human revolution...
...not even to the newer one.
And they do follow the gameplay! Food for tought.
It doesn't matter wich rich people/company bought an ip and what these men in suits decided to officially call something.
Should it matter for us?
Theres cases of spinoffs called sequels even when gameplay tries to follow the source.
Changing gameplay is by definition a different game.
It could have been a platformer, adventure or even match-3 game with dialogue trees in the fallout universe, at the core that would have been the same level of deviation.
I guess those who say otherwise are fans of Fallout 3-4 and weren't exactly fans of Fallout 1 and 2 prior to bethesda.
To put it into a proper frame:
Imagine Fallout Shelter was called 4, and instead of just errands it had some for of main quest.
Would you consider it fallout '4' afther Fallout 3 and New Vegas?
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, Bureau: XCOM Declassified has literally nothing to do with XCOM other than being in the XCOM universe. It being originally called XCOM just shows that it was going to be a remake. That's nothing to do with spin-offs. Spin-offs happen in an active series.
Fallout 3 was a revival of a dead series as well. That genre wasn't selling well, so they spruced it up.
While at the same time Fallout Shelter was made as a hype piece for Fallout 4. (Not to mention that officially the spin-off games are Fallout Shelter, Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel)
Your logic of "it has to be the same company or exactly the same gameplay style" would render the Call of Duty series not a series. 3 developers make a game in the series for 3 years and at the same time.
"Changing gameplay is by definition a different game." - I wouldn't say so. I'd say that changing genre just does that. Changes the genre. Assassin's Creed has had tower defense elements and ship combat. Yet Brotherhood and Black Flag aren't spin-offs? They aren't, by the way. Also, consider how almost every game had a different style to the real-life sequences. At first it was a third person point and click, then it was a third person platformer, then it was a first person puzzler and then it became a first person walking simulator. Are all of those games spin-offs now?
Also, when do you consider a game to be a spin-off? Is GTA IV a spin-off because literally everything was changed other than the genre itself? The driving was different, the physics were as well. The missions weren't as insane and more grounded. Literally everything changed other than the idea that it's third person and that it's an open-world shooter. (In GTA V that actually changed though). Does the inclusion of GTA Online make GTA V a spin-off too? Because it's pretty much got an MMO aspect now. That's completely different.
In conclusion: Different companies buy up franchise all the time, so that can't be an issue.
Different series take place in shared universes and they also have nothing other to do with the original series.
Different gameplay genres and styles have been introduced on different games yet they're still considered to be a direct sequel.
Comment has been collapsed.
FO3 and FO4 are most definitely spinoffs. The setting, gameplay, and even a lot of the lore are completely different from the previous games. Fallout Tactics was also a spinoff but at least the gameplay and general feel of the BoS was similar. New Vegas was a spinoff too, but it was a spinoff done well unlike 3 and 4 and could actually be called a spiritual successor. The gameplay was changed, but the setting and lore followed what was already established.
Just because it's made by the current owner of the IP does not mean it isn't a spinoff.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fallout New Vegas is a true sequel to Fallout 2. It was made by the original developers of the first two games and what would have been the real Fallout 3 before Interplay went bankrupt. Some of the planned content from the canceled Fallout 3 made its way into Fallout New Vegas.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you think Fallout 3 and 4 are direct sequels to Fallout and Fallout 2, you must not have played the first two Fallout games. Fallout 3 and 4 could have been released as a new IP and the only similarities to Fallout people would make are both being in post-apocalyptic settings. Because they did call it Fallout 3, and having played the originals, that weighed heavily on my assessment and enjoyment of it.
I actually liked Fallout 3 at first, but as I played the game and experienced the boneheaded, linear story and horrible setting, that feeling wore off. It didn't feel like Fallout to me. It felt like someone's poor attempt at creating a Fallout ripoff. I did push on and finish it though. If they had not called it Fallout, and instead called it something like "Post Apocalyptic Daddy Issues," and I played it not comparing it to Fallout, then it wouldn't have been as bad.
Fallout 3 is not only a bad Fallout game, it is a just a bad game. I could write a short novel on what I don't like about Fallout 3, and I have in other discussions here and elsewhere. I can save myself the time and just post a couple of links. In another discussion where I typed out a long post on what I didn't like about Fallout 3, someone accused me of copying from this article and/or this video, but I had never seen those until they linked to them. You can just watch (the summary at 1:18:24 through 1:19:50, but I highly recommend watching the whole thing.
Fallout 4 moves even farther away from the originals. It's hardly even an RPG anymore and is just a first person shooter with dialog that doesn't even matter what you chose because it always ends the same way.
Fallout New Vegas is a direct sequel to the first two games. It was made by Obsidian Entertainment, which is founded by and employs a lot of the developers of the original Fallout games. A lot of the story of Fallout New Vegas was influenced by what would have been the real Fallout 3 before it was canceled when Interplay went bankrupt.
I have only managed to finish Fallout 3 once, that first game was it. I even bought it again when the GOTY edition was released and started playing it again, but I couldn't finish it. I have played Fallout New Vegas twice, once at release, once when all the DLC was finished, and I'm currently playing it again for a third time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've watched the whole video actually. Twice (I got bored :D). Very good stuff.
But all I'm saying is that GTA 4 is very different from San Andreas yet everyone considers that GTA 4 is a sequel to the GTA games. Although it changed:
1) Physics
2) Moral Standings
3) Combat systems
4) World design and the overall style of building up a city
5) Driving
6) Mission structures
If that isn't enough changes then neither are there enough changes in Fallout 3.
Fallout 3 changed a lot. I agree. But it, in the end, is a sequel. Bethesda bought the franchise and they made a sequel. They decide what a sequel is. You might have the feeling that it's not (so do I in most part), but that doesn't really matter. The official spin-offs are Fallout Shelter, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel.
I would say (what people have said for Fallout 4) that it's a fine game, it's just a very bad Fallout game.
Comment has been collapsed.
GTA is a franchise, like Call of Duty and many others. I don't consider each game a sequel to the previous one, it is just the next iteration of the series. There is no lore or story shared between them. Each game is a self contained story on its own.
Comment has been collapsed.
Literally the same goes with Fallout though. Since when have you continued to play the same person in any of the games? Time moves on, locations change. All that is the same are some certain things: The Great War, FEV, radiation, and similar enemies. So goes for GTA. Time moves on, locations change. The same things are existence of certain TV shows and companies, existence of certain characters like Candy Suxx, Rosenberg and other such people, similar weapons and the existence of different areas and the same
Fallout might be more in-depth, but that just shows that they cared more for the story. And it also shows that you don't actually just care for the story/lore of GTA. That's not the game's fault though, it's not anyones. It's just that saying that GTA doesn't have those things. Read this and tell me that there isn't lore in this game.
Comment has been collapsed.
A timeline is not the same thing as lore, but didn't say there was no lore at all. I said there was no lore or story shared between them, unless you want to nit pick and include car brands and such. The first GTA took place in Liberty City, San Andreas and Vice City. GTA 3 and IV took place Liberty City. GTA Vice City took place in Vice City. GTA: San Andreas and GTA V take place in San Andreas. Each game's version of the city is different and doesn't reference events from the previous game's except for a few joke references here and there.
In Fallout 2 you play as a direct descendant of the character in the first Fallout. You can revisit some of the original locations and the events first Fallout are still part of the world during the second game. It continues the story after the first game, making it a sequel.
Fallout has plenty of documented and established lore detailing the events before and during the first game, and what took place between the first two games, during and after the second game. There was plenty to work with when Bethesda took over, but they decided instead to ignore all of that start over by having their games take place on the east cost. That makes them a spinoff and direct sequels of the first two games.
The first Fallout takes place 84 years after The Great War. Civilization is already rebuilding. Settlements have been established and are trading resources. Fallout 2 takes place 80 years after the first and new governments have formed and things are moving forward. Fallout 3 takes place 36 years after Fallout 2 on the east coast, but it looks like things went backwards. People are still living in the rubble of pre-war buildings and scavenging 200 year old food from supermarkets. The setting of Fallout 3 would have made more sense if it took place 20 years after The Great Ward instead of 200, but it wouldn't have made the story any less stupid (lets all fight over who gets to turn on a water purifier that nobody needs).
New Vegas is a sequel of the first two games in that it sticks to the lore of the first two games, even referencing events of the past two games. One of the companions (Cass) in New Vegas is the daughter of one of the companions from Fallout 2.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, car brands are a huge deal. Or is RobCo and the overall existence of a Pip-Boy suddenly pointless and meaningless? You can't have it both ways in that regard. Same goes with enemies. Characters from GTA 3 pop up in San Andreas while at the same time characters from Fallout 3 pop up in Fallout 4. Fallout doesn't really reference previous events much either.
So, I checked out the Fallout Bible... you have read it, right? It's just an FAQ with a timeline. True, the timeline's more in detail, but that's to be expected because it's an RPG. Questions are also expected because, well, again, it's an RPG. It also describes some locations, but that can be easily done with GTA as well. Characters also have a backstory. Take this prostitute as an example. She has only one appearance and she's gone later. If that's not "lore enough" then I do kind of give up. You shouldn't expect as much story and lore in an action game. It's like comparing a Boeing 747 to the Cessna 172. Just because one's a light aircraft and the other's a jet airliner, doesn't mean that one of them's not a plane.
So... the issue in the end is that they moved locations? Is that a joke or something? Does Crysis just have spin-offs all of a sudden? Going from Lingshan Islands (near Korea) to New York makes it no longer a sequel?
Well, I get your point that Fallout 3 is the opposite of the term "immersive". Just because a game's not as believable as the others, doesn't mean that it's no longer a sequel. Plus, many would make an argument that even though Bethesda went too far with the rubble, the chances that East Coast would be less developed is extremely likely. Human civilization, in history, has always evolved at a very uneven pace. This seems to be the same case. Again, they went too far with it, but the logic behind "not everyone evolves as quick as the others" is very sound. East Coast is the Japan of the 19th/20th century. Also, the water purifier plotline is stolen from Fallout 1. Or is it not similar enough because it's not just a chip but a whole new invention? People did need it. The whole point was that radiated water was not good for you and people needed clean water. Simple as that. He who controls the water supply controls the people. It's simple and pretty dumb when you think about it, but so is Fallout 1 because they've had to inbreed with no issues (the genepool will definitely mix after around 4 generations) and they've also sent only one person out to save literally the whole vault. Iff that's not dumb/unrealistic, then I don't know what is.
Do you really not realise why the original game wasn't referenced in Fallout 3? Okay, please tell me a detailed event in the other side of the US around 80 years ago. One specific event. You can't, can you? I mean, you might remember one, but more than that, I highly doubt it. Fallout: New Vegas would obviously have more info on past events because they're in a neighboring state. Of course there would be ancestors that traveled roughly 400km in at least 40 years.
But yeah, The Elder Scrolls doesn't have sequels either from your logic.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're getting way off the subject by nitpicking over what's considered a sequel and a spinoff. Your arguments are inconsistent and you're contradicting yourself. Your original post said:
Fallout 3 and 4 are most definitely direct sequels while Blackgate was more of a sidestep. A game that's different from the main ones, usually developed by someone else and doesn't directly continue the main story. At least that's what it looks like to me.
You just said Batman Arkham Origins Blackgate is not a sequel to the other Batman Arkham games because it was "developed by someone else and doesn't directly continue the main story." At the same time you say Fallout 3 and 4 are direct sequels to the first two Fallout games, even though Fallout 3 and 4 are developed by a different company and don't directly continue the main story of the first two games.
If you want to call it a sequel, go ahead. They are a sequel in numbering only, but the story is a spinoff from the original games.
Just for S&G, I'll entertain some of your other questions:
So, I checked out the Fallout Bible... you have read it, right? It's just an FAQ with a timeline.
Yes, I have read it. Apparently you haven't though because it's more than just a FAQ with a time line. It contains original design documents from the first two games and and other behind the scenes information. It was written by Chris Avellone, a designer on Fallout 2 and lead designer of the original Fallout 3 (the canceled one). It's purpose was to "serve as a total guide to Fallout: the history of the setting, the elements that compose it, the things that define it and the rules that guide it. It would also serve to tie off loose ends left by the games and to generally do some clearing up of things. It was certainly a good idea, especially as the prospect of someone who wasn't Black Isle making Fallout games grew ever more real. However, it really didn't work out that way."
Also, the water purifier plotline is stolen from Fallout 1. Or is it not similar enough because it's not just a chip but a whole new invention? People did need it. The whole point was that radiated water was not good for you and people needed clean water.
You obviously haven't played the first two Fallout games. The plot of Fallout 3 was basically a misunderstood mishmash of the first two games, borrowing the idea of a water purifier from the first game and the GECK from the second game.
In the first Fallout, you're sent out to look for a replacement water chip to fix your vault's water purifier. You are not the only person sent out to look for one. As soon as you start the game, you find the body of another dead Vault 13 inhabitant, presumably sent out on the same mission and didn't make it out of the cave. There are other locations where you find dead bodies in Vault 13 uniforms, and you can meet another person from your vault that gives you a lead on where to find the water chip.
In Fallout 2, you are sent out to find a GECK to help your village. The GECK is essentially a terraforming device. It is described as a device that can create thriving communities out of the post-apocalyptic wasteland. You learn in Fallout 2, that Shady Sands (the first town you come across in the first Fallout and is the capitol of the NCR in Fallout 2) was started by the inhabitants of Vault 15 using the GECK from their vault.
A GECK seems like pretty powerful device to waste on making a water purifier, when water purifiers are already common in the world of Fallout. They already exist in Vaults and other cities. Even Megaton, the first town you come across in Fallout 3 during the main quest to find your dad, has a water purifier. The Mr. Gutsy in your player home can make purified water for you. There must be other water purifiers out there because everywhere you go you find bottles of purified water, so why does your idiot dad need a GECK to make something so common? Everywhere you go in Fallout 3, no one is complaining about water (besides the 3 water beggars that only exist as karma dispensers).
Do you really not realise why the original game wasn't referenced in Fallout 3?
Yes I do, and I've already told you. Fallout 3 is not a direct sequel to the original games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Alan Wake's American Nightmare — Take the worst aspect of a popular game—the clunky combat that had little place in the original suspense horror in the first place—and build an entire game around it, with a quirky, purposefully dumb storyline.
Serious Sam: The Random Encounter — Put an old-school arena-based hoard shooter into a game with randomised enemy spawns and with zero player control over the played character's shooting.
Umbrella Corps — Umbrella Corps.
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel — In a sense, it is good this game exists, because it showed that the console kiddies were simply too dumb to play a turn-based cRPG with complex sociological undertones and a large dose of black political satire, so they got what they managed to comprehend: a repetitive, linear top-down dungeon-crawler.
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance — The same, but for a character-centric fantasy cRPG forming the base instead of a post-apocalyptic one.
Mortal Kombat: Special Forces — An incredibly boring dungeon crawler with the most psychedelic lightning the Zeus engine ever allowed on PSX.
Comment has been collapsed.
Brotherhood was decent gameplay, but shit all over the Fallout story. I'm a fan of the Snowblind engine used for it though, so I admit some bias. Probably the worst PS2 release using the engine though (played 5 / 6, the last unreleased for PAL regions, a WW2 one).
Dark Alliance, though, that was awesome. Not as great as DA2, but it was an awesome start for the engine.
Special Forces, yeah, **** that shit. I gave my copy away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Definitely second you on BG:DA. It wasn't worthy of the BG or, indeed, the Forgotten Realms setting.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pretty sure the devs said it was a spinoff and if they made a second game, the entire ending and story would be rewritten over American Nightmare
Comment has been collapsed.
Since Remedy didn't get greenlight to make Alan Wake 2 in any close future, they made quick arcade game that would end the story for now but would be considered not-canon if Remedy ever could make AW2.
So... it's not-a-spin-off until real sequel is made :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Was reading your comment while watching UFC and a fighter entered with MK music. It fuck'd up my mind BIG TIME :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I hated Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance. I thought it was extremely bland and dull more than anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as ratings go, it's the best received Heroes game on Steam, 91% isn't exactly terrible :D
Comment has been collapsed.
And I raise you Legends of Might and Magic.
A CS-style FPS that was more or less dead on arrival.
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically any M&M game that isn't HOMM or the actual MM rpg series should not exist ;)
Well, Dark Messiah was actually decent so maybe it's the exception that proves the rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a fantastic PvP match 3 game. It doesn't really have anything to do with M&M though, but that's just Ubi marketing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got it for free after i purchased Arkham Knight. I didnt even played one hour and uninstalled it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main problem I have with Arkham Origins Blackgate is that it takes ages to get around the game world. Past that, it's an OK but not stellar game.
A far worse spin-off:
Final Fantasy All The Bravest
Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game
Comment has been collapsed.
They should make a movie about Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game, called Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game: The Movie. It'd have good potential to have a video game based on that movie as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
What? FFAtB isn't even a spinoff, it's nothing but a blatant cash grab to milk a popular franchise. Calling it a dumpster fire would be an understatement.
Comment has been collapsed.
Imagine if they made a Resident Evil: The Movie: The game, where you have to fist fight with Nemesis.
Comment has been collapsed.
Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game wasn't THAT bad in my opinion (at least Sega Saturn version).
Comment has been collapsed.
Franchise-wise, Warhammer, Street Fighter and Pokémon have some pretty terrible entries IMO, as well as Resident Evil. And I remember playing some ridiculous Pac Man adventure back in the day... it's mostly the same with good movies and their respective video game spin-offs too: it's a much more easy cashgrab to slap a well known IP on an otherwise pretty mediocre to terrible product than marketing the garbage for what it really is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yepp, that's it. I remember it being nauseatingly intriguing, resulting in me playing it for approximately breathtaking 15 to 30 minutes before ripping the cart out of my SNES while cursing the reviewers of notable gaming magazines for making me borrow that abomination from a friend and for wasting my time, sullying the picture of Pac-Man I've had in the process. Good times ;>.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ridge Racer Unbounded pretty much killed the franchise.
and that was from BUGBEAR who have made some good racing games
Comment has been collapsed.
The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
Jagged Alliance Online: Reloaded
Jagged Alliance - Back in Action
Shadowrun Chronicles - Boston Lockdown
Sid Meier's Civilization®: Beyond Earth
UMBRELLA CORPS
Comment has been collapsed.
The Bureau, Shadowrun Chronicles and Beyond Earth weren't terrible, but they were all disappointing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Black Mirror 2&3. Technically these are sequels, but in reality they are new games with new characters developed by totally different people. They are not actually terrible on their own, just your ordinary forgettable post-Syberia point-and-click, but they've awfully perverted the original story.
Comment has been collapsed.
diablo 3 and guild wars 2
all COD games starting from the COD 3
Comment has been collapsed.
maybe my mistake xD tough he was talking about the "saga" of games.
Comment has been collapsed.
both diablo 3 and gw2 are not a spinoffs
also gw2 is a great game (playing gw1 since '07)
Comment has been collapsed.
GW2 is very different. If you were into GW 1 for its team based PvP, like Guild vs. Guild, then GW2 would be a huge disappointment, as it's a lot worse in that regard. But it's a game that's built to last a bit longer. The problem with GW1 was that if you were not doing PvP, you just ran out of stuff to do...
Comment has been collapsed.
I loved GW1 back in the day and i sank over 600hours into GW2 too . Both brilliant games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've played both a lot as well, and enjoy them. But they are so different that they're hard to compare.
Comment has been collapsed.
i am more into jq and fa, ra rarely, ca super rarely =]
ppl still playing jq and fa on sunday evening (eu time) if you like it
talking about gvg - i found it interesting to wvw lately (ignored it for about 2-3 years sicne i started to play gw2)
those 2 (gw1 and gw2) are different games and meanwhile that's the same game :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I actually looked up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_spin-offs before posting because I wanted to avoid that very thing:)
Comment has been collapsed.
you've come to the wrong place to ask about games ! this website is for people who collect games , iddle cards, increase the play time wothout playing the game and do giveways of shit games then get mad when people don't like the games they share ! it's no surprise 50% of those that voted "never heard of it" ! anway back to the topic : i didn't play blackgate only origins and same as you , i didn't like it as much as "Batman: Arkham City" and "Batman: Arkham Asylum" and i didn't even bother to test "Batman: Arkham Knight" wich is the perfect example to show that these companies don't actually test their products , sure they test them but i don't think they test them on machines that the general public (those that are going to play their games) possess or even play the actually final version of the game before it's release because it's easier and cheaper to let them test out the product them patch and fix it !
Comment has been collapsed.
Arkham Knight is actually my favorite of the Arkham games. I can't speak for the quality of the PC version since I played it on Xbox, but I've heard they fixed it, although that doesn't excuse its shitty release state.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well. He didn't put an option to haven't played it yet, so it's not comprehensive poll.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, Blackgate was pants. It's a bad metroidvania-style game, and the 3D effect, that probably looked impressive on the 3D, just ends up getting in the way.
Gothic 3: Forsaken Gods is really bad. It was in fact so broken that the publisher ended up paying the modding community to fix it for them.
The Guild 2: Venice was another terrible game by JoWood, for very similar reasons.
Fallout: Broterhood of Steel on the Xbox was also without any real redeeming qualities.
X-com enforcer. Now this is a game that must have been designed by a drunk chimp. It's without any redeeming qualities, and it's just so darn annoying!
Elder Scrolls: Battlespire: Buggy, broken and not fun to play. Why make a game that focuses on Daggerfall-style combat, when combat was one of the weaker parts of Daggerfall?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ooh, I remember Enforcer. A friend gifted me a copy cough around the time it was released and I hadn't heard of it before, leaving me puzzled how and why I coulda missed an entry in one of my favorite franchises.
Immediately after installing it dawned on me why ;>.
Comment has been collapsed.
what is that??
I used to play bomberman on my N64 all the time and that is NOT Bomberman :o
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one.
I'm absolutely not thanking you for the reminder. I'm sure you understand why.
Comment has been collapsed.
Insert "the horror, the horror" clip from Apocalypse Now here:P
Bomberman on SNES was better than GoldenEye. There, I said it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically, it's a remake and a retelling of the original Bomberman.
And it seems to be written by some of the original developers, which just comes to show studios should have some control over the projects.
Not the first time that happened, there was a modern space invaders like game on the Gamecube.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was inspired to make this thread because of Batman Arkham Origins Blackgate. I played 0.7 hours of it just a little bit ago and every bit of that game was shit. There was not a single good thing about it, which is surprising considering I love every other Batman Arkham game (Origins less than the other 3). This game made me question why companies make games like this in the first place? When they were making this game did they ever realize their game was complete shit? I know this game was originally made for the 3DS, but it doesn't excuse how bad the game is. If you guys have played any games like this (or this one), feel free to share your stories/frustration with them.
Comment has been collapsed.