If you played the last mission group for Spec Ops: Stealth Patrol(on the PS1) you might. It takes you back to the Vietnam war(everything else is 90's era modern counter-terror, counter-insurgency, etc.). There are jungle roads almost literally paved with landmines. And Charlie keeps taking shots at you through the tree "walls", although as semi-true to the real thing that was because of "radarsniperghost" AI.
The game was still pretty bad, though, although most PS1 FPSes probably were.
I just want a Vietnam FPS with:
1- Open levels, not tree corridors. I know it's very, very demanding graphically, but god damnit. Use textures and objects from 2002, cut down on the high resolution, combine that with today's horse power and give me a open level with lots of plants, trees and bushes.
2-Good scripting. Holy fuck. Every Vietnam game I've played has the same pathetic scripting and AI, completely driven by the map design (which blows already, so the scripting blows.) Call of Duty was a revolution in terms of enemy placement; guys popping out of believable spawn points. This never really got applied to the Vietnam FPS, they just kept using the same candy ass ambushes that you can sense, as a player, from a mile away.
3- Epic scale. Playing these games, you'd think Charlie only existed in small localized areas. Give me a less mission driven format, a battle map, changing possession of the countryside. Give me some open worldness, with lots of Charlie to populate it.
Oblivion
Credit where it's due, there are some fun quests.
Most of the Guild quests.
Assassin's Guild quest.
Mythic Dawn? or whatever quest. (Main storyline)
Lovecraft Shadows of Innsmouth homage quest.
Many of the quests given at the God statues.
Some of the totally random, isolated quests.
I played a lot of Oblivion, modded and vanilla.
For an open ended rpg its poorly designed. If you want example of well done open ended rpg just take a look at Fallout.
Better, still not great. There are some lessons Bethesda learned from Oblivion, and some they didn't.
They learned that cities shouldn't have overwhelming amounts of stuff to see and do. Being tighter and focused, you didn't have to work your ass off just to find the interesting stuff.
They learned that travel just for realism's sake isn't that interesting, and spaced out content a lot better.
They learned that only having 6 voice actors for all the non-important people was a bad idea.
They (mostly) learned that dungeons need to be interesting and varied. (The metro stations though...man those got old fast. The metro underground is like 50% of the game's dungeons, and is as redundant as all get out.)
However, they still made a lot of mistakes.
Mechanically, Fallout undercuts it's own premise. Post-apocalypse is supposed to be tough to survive. No real food/water dynamic, tame radiation mechanics, super quick healing, all that jazz....basically killed the post apocalyptic theme for me from the outset. Oblivion's mechanics did the same thing to it. You maxed out early and ceased to care from that point on about your character. In Oblivion, it was the rate at which your primary skills increased that screwed things up, relative to the progress you made on secondary skills. In Fallout 3, it was the massive amounts of XP they let you get with the right perks. Hell, hacking computers and picking locks alone can get you maxed out, forget the hordes of bandits.
They also used groups of bandits defending junk in the middle of nowhere as content. Bandits above ground are to Fallout what dungeons were to Oblivion; something to break up travel.
Fallout was better open-world than Oblivion...but still not great. Bethesda has a formula for how they design overworld content, and they have yet to do it in a way where you don't see the sausage getting made as you play it.
Author
Topic: Worst Games You've Ever Played? (Read 49423 times)