Re: It's Hard To Blame Them...

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:07:23 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
wrote:

Oops I think I missed a bunch of games on that list,  Oh well.  I've got
all the Mass Effects, but didn't really enjoy #3 and didn't buy the
DLCs. 

The problem with "Mass Effect 3" was that so much of its content was
ripped out to be resold as separate DLC. The combined package actually
is a much more enjoyable game; the base title was too combat focused,
and the combat itself was a pretty watered-down take on the
multiplayer game. But the DLC added all the exploration, side-quests
and character interactions that made the previous games worth playing.

If you ever get a chance, try "Mass Effect 3" with all the DLC. If you
happen to have the "Legendary Edition" (which was a freebie at one
point, so you may) it has all the DLC.

Also GTA 1, 3, VC(the best), 4 and 5.  2 is apparently not
available at least on PC.
>

Grand Theft Auto 2 was available for PC. It added better support for
3D acceleration but otherwise was pretty much the same as the
original. I recall lots of lens flare. ;-)

For a while it was available on Steam and GOG, and then there was a
period when Rockstar was giving it away for free, but now it seems
unavailable for legal acquisition.

Blood Dragon's great, but it took a 2nd attempt to get into it.  I don't
know why but I found it insanely hard in the beginning the first time
and gave up.  Maybe after playing some more AC & FC games I got the hang
of it.  Primal was great and very different.  I tried one of the other
'normal' FCs (I think it was given away) but quit about halfway through
out of not caring and it started to feel like a slog, so haven't bought
any of the others.

I always found "Blood Dragon" too one-note for me to really get into.
Oh, ha-ha, its riffing off 80s action-movies and cartoons, neat, cool.
But that theme grew pretty tiresome as the game dragged on. Even
amongst Ubisot games, it was a pretty shallow experience.

I enjoyed "Primal" more, if only because the visuals were more lush
and green. The gameplay itself wasn't that exciting -its biggest add
to the franchise was the controllable animal friends- but at least it
had more variety than "Blood Dragon".

But all the "Far Cry" games are a slog, to one degree or another. They
all confuse quantity with quality. Giant maps don't instantly make for
a good game; you need to fill those maps with interesting content. And
Ubisoft just doesn't have the writers / game developers to do that.
It's the biggest difference between them and Rockstar.