Interesting. GTA:SA has a "meh" story and the dialogue feels laughable at times (like pseudo-gangsta culture or whatever). Thanks for the $7.50 tip! That's pretty cool.

Can't say I agree with you. I picked it up on sale here a few weeks ago, and it's felt like a grind - press a button, run around in circles trying to figure out where, exactly, the /right/ way is, etc. I can see why it's overshadowed by other fps of the time.

I like the fluidity, but for me it's too hard to fight (I guess I'm more of a hack n' slash guy). I kept dying early on, after the first few levels, so I gave up on the game. I wish it had cheats, so then I could at least /finish/ the game.

GTA:IV Ballad of Gay Tony is the least aggravating one in the whole series.
(And I've played through everything except Vice City Stories.)

Finally they've done away with the "long drive followed by insanely difficult bit" -missions,
and it's not too dark and "serious" all the time. Bit of a throwback to GTA III versions.

I preferred Lost & the Damned to be honest.... I liked the Biker thing a lot more than the night club stuff.

I can see why you don't "get" Big U - it's a problematic next step, from straight-forward mayhem of Quake into more story-oriented shooters. But try something like this: download the unofficial 227 patch, install it, fiddle around the settings (especially try the game speed variable - years ago I was playing at 120%), crank up the music volume, and give it another try. The gameplay isn't that far from oldschool shooters, it's just served a bit different way.

Also, I miss Blupi games :)

Okay, I'll try it out soon. Yeah, I /knew/ the game had a story, but the lack of cutscenes and the fact that at the beginning of each level had the designer info right there in front of you really took away from the flow, I think. And I'm playing on easy, so having to walk all the way down a certain path just to find a secret is rather annoying. Huzzah! :) I still have Speedy Eggbert/Blupi 1 and 2. As silly as it is, I'm hoping GoG may put up at least /1/ here, since Epsitec apparently doesn't sell the original on their site anymore, and everyone should be able to buy it. :P The second one had better options for /creating/ levels, but the first had better pre-made levels.

I'll kick off with two console games. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker is the worst Zelda ever made. It's not just the graphics; the "instrument" was unsatisfactory (seriously, what was wrong with an ocarina?) and the game in general was too easy. Twilight Princess failed to live up to my expectations as well, which is probably attributable to the fools who claim it's the best Zelda ever. Unlike The Wind Waker, however, it wasn't disgusting and hateful.

Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30. My friend praised this one, but I think it's annoying as hell. There are plenty of checkpoints early on and almost none towards the end. The mere presence of a machine gun makes an enemy almost impossible to kill, and while the developers decided it would be realistic to simulate suppressive fire, they failed to realise that five Panzerfausts should be enough to take down a Panzer IV even it they are fired at the glacis.

Beyond Good & Evil. Loved by almost everyone on a forum I frequent, but I can't see why. I'm terrible at sneaking, which might have something to do with it. I only paid 2€ for it and it's in such a good condition that I'll probably get a fiver for it, so no harm done there.

Quake 4 is one of the dullest FPS games around. Thoroughly forgettable, except for the vehicle bits which were so terrible that their memory shall encompany me to the crematorium one day.

Gears of War. Get behind cover where you recover health, fire gun at ridiculously durable enemies until they bleed you to within inch of your life, repeat for eight hours, watch end credits. Seriously, how can a game this bad be so popular? The only reason the sequel lived up to my expectations was because I expected it to be exactly the same, and it was.

Mass Effect 2 really winds me up. I admit that there are merits, which are much the same as those of the first one, such as good voice acting. I also appreciate enemies reacting to being hit. Unfortunately, there are numerous problems as well. First of all, there really isn't much plot - you're just going around gathering people and talking to them. Second, the battles are similar to those in Gears of War, an extreme letdown for me but probably just what teenagers want. Thirdly, the AI is terrible at best and clinically retarded at worst. Fourth, while I find Mako-ing rather repetitive, the planet-scanning business is so tedious that I would never play ME2 without importing a proper save, and if none was available, I would play ME1 until it did. Fifth, the map system is ruined. Sixth, while I didn't really appreciate the hacking system in the first game, the replacement is disappointing as hell. Seventh, the level-up system was over-simplified. The worst of all, however, is the user interface, because its faults savagely attack you all the time. The first Mass Effect did have a pretty rubbish inventory system, yes, but at least it also featured separate keys for the Journal, Squad and Codex menus - Mass Effect 2 doesn't even acknowledge the basic convenience of the double-click, something that must have been with us for twenty years. Selecting an object and confirming the selection using a button that's on the other side of the screen is not just inconvenient, it's shit.

EDIT: Typo.

Funnily I don't agree with you at all there. I thought that both were great games (in terms of single player), but if I were to pick one now, it would definitely be 2. I've played through the original + BW maybe about twice since getting it at release, but I've already played through Starcraft 2 about 3 times since release.

the singleplayer itself is not bad,its good.different missions,different planets etc..hyperion ship bridge,armory..interesting stuff...but the STORY is..is..crap,its unconvincing.