Uberunit

Early on it can be. Once they introduce new enemy types and captains/warchiefs with multiple resistances it starts to get fairly difficult. Also, it's extremely easy to get overwhelmed by dozens of enemies, at any point of the game.

I loved the first Borderlands a lot, and was kinda disappointed by Borderlands 2. I'm very much done with Borderlands for a while. At least until the inevitable current-gen Borderlands game eventually gets announced.

The fact that Destiny's story is lacking or simply poor is a disappointment, but that's only because people were expecting the story to be at least decent. People don't expect the story of CoD to be highlight of the game, and when it isn't people factor that into their review of the game.

The loot in Destiny isn't "different" from Diablo/Borderlands, it just drops way less frequently, and is way less important than Bungie were making it out to be.

The quests in MMOs are repetitive for sure. But they are infinitely more interesting than the ones in Destiny. Even if it's just because you're fighting different enemies in a new area, that's still more interesting than what Destiny did.

I don't think people's expectations for Destiny were unfair, it's just a disappointing game in a number of areas.

That's certainly an interesting idea. I don't know how accurate it is, though.

The Monster Hunter games are certainly far more popular in Japan, but I don't think it's fair to say that they're hated in the West. The last few games were actually recieved pretty well over here. The idea that "loot-grindy" games aren't liked by a Western audience is definitely not true because of the immense popularity of games like Diablo and Borderlands.

Also, the idea that reviewers somehow assess games on different criteria than regular gamers seems a bit ridiculous. People seem to forget that reviewers ARE gamers. that's why they review games.

Destiny was recieved somewhat middlingly because it's a littls thin and the repetitiveness comes from the mission design and environment design rather than from the actual raw gameplay, which is where the repetitiveness is more accepted.

@truthtellah: Yeah, it sounds like the Twin Snakes version is not considered to be the "pure" version, but might be the best.

@fennefoss: I don't know if I'm in the minority for really not liking Dark Souls 2. After Dark Souls 1, DS 2 just felt extremely shallow and an oddly by-the-numbers sequel to such a unique game. I almost feel like the ability to fast travel ruined it for me.

@milkman: I really enjoyed the South Park game. The gameplay was extremely rudimentary but still pretty fun. I think your enjoyment of that game depends entirely on your appreciation/tolerance for South Park's brand of humor, which I happen to enjoy (or used to, at least).

I'm actually kind of surprised how little people talked about that game after it came out, though. A lot of really insane shit happened in that game, but I guess that's par for the course for South Park.

@hailinel: That stuff definitely makes the early Splinter Cell games kind of a nightmare to go back to, but I think they play quite a lot better than MGS and have much better camera control

@truthtellah: Super Mario 64 has aged really well, I think, and is still a super fun game to play even now.

OoT is a little tougher to go back to, but it's easy to see why it deserves to be considered one of the best games of all time.

@screwdan: As someone who did not play games like Doom and Half-life (and various other games considered to be classics) when they were new, I didn't have much problem going back to them and still appreciating them as I did with MGS. I guess some games do just age better than others.