I think I can write a book (ok, I am exaggerating) about all the things D&D do wrong. In the 2nd edition the main points were:

-far too many characteristics values were useless; (by memory) the most extreme was Constitution with no difference between 7 to 15. For all characteristics the advantages become exponential toward the end. Of course there were some random extra rules.. you wanted to be a fighter? Throw until you get at least 18/90.
-incredibly counter intuitive multi-class system. Depending on the race you can mix classes in a different way; humans in particular with a rule (that made no sense) only for them. Incredible small print, multi class character take limits on the weapons for all classes, but advantages for armors. In fact a Druid/Fighter could use a metal armor, but no metallic weapons (a part of the scimitar, just to have an extra exception).
-depending on the context you needed big or small dice rolls.
-as all the D&D (at least 1st to 3th) a part of the very first levels caster are totally better than all classes as spells replace all abilities and Druids rule. In the game also Monks were quite powerful though, but they were not in the original pen and paper game.

In my opinion Mass Effect has an interesting story but the rest is just a bad shooter and a mediocre rpg.

Unfortunately life went on and I almost do not play anymore :|, but I am more in ultra-minimalist set of rules like or [url=http://livingfree.wikidot.com/altars-archetypes]Altar and Archetypes.

I agree when it comes to Brutal Legend, the RTS system in that game was unnecessary and not implemented smoothly enough. I always forgot the RTS controls because these events were too infrequent, I also forgot 'which unit did what', so I had to re-learn everything in every battle, which made things harder than they should have been.
Its the one single reason I don't want to replay the game even though I really liked everything else.

It was creepy at first, but in the end I felt let down by the plot. Probably because, like you imply, you are more or less just an intruder going though a stranger's house. Also, there was no reason for me to replay the experience. I thought Dear Esther did it better; you got a Lovecraftian or Gothic open-world to explore with a rather cryptic plot. I have replayed the experience twice now, in large part because of the atmosphere but also because of the explorative aspect.

I'd argue you made a point on why all 3 Diablo are so disappointing. You now can have a controller and wish you were playing golden axe instead and they even tried to up the action in the console releases of Diablo 3.

Open world games.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the freedom they allow the player. However, the more I play them the more I see how little thought actually goes into making them... or more importantly, WHY they're created in the first place. With the release of GTA or fantasy RPGs back in the day, it was like every single dev out there said, 'hey, let's put an open world in our game too!' without thinking of the limitations, the costs, and the sheer dev time needed to build the game world.

So in GTA, Sleeping Dogs, Saint's Row, Uncharted, Elder Scrolls, etc, they all feature a somewhat confined but free roaming world to play around in. But to do what? Watch cock fights, play darts, get drunk and buy armor/clothes. Is that the limit of human imagination? In GTA you can buy businesses, but in none of the games can you actually run or control them. They're simple placeholders to increase player income. For all the promises of open world games, they're usually pretty static and limited in their potential.

Not saying that I prefer controlled corridor games that push you from point A to point B, but at least there's more room in those games for satisfying stories and accomplishment. Sometimes you just feel like an idiot driving for miles in GTA just to go buy a new polo shirt at the local shop... or traveling for miles on foot in some medieval RPG game just to uncover a cheap potion. The 'how's' of game design have been solved long ago. The 'why's' are still up in the air.

The technical problems is what did it for me. After one of the patches the game crashed everytime I entered water, which was ironic since I was playing an Argonian. And I couldn't even finish the last mission, and thus the game, because of a bug. 100 + hours invested and I can't even complete the thing.

To me it is absolutely bonkers that this game got such high reviews and praise, all it takes to impress people is pretty graphics and an open-world. Bethesda seems to be the darling of everyone in the gaming media, probably because their games capture such a large viewer count. Its unethical and unscrupulous nonetheless. Games should be judged with an equal level of scrutiny.

I'm split on this. In games like GTA 5 and Sleeping Dogs I've always enjoyed just driving around in the open world doing nothing in particular. On the other hand I definitely agree that more interactive gameplay elements, like micro-managing you businesses, would elevate the experience considerably. It doesn't have to be overly complicated either, just look at Omerta or some of the later Assassin's Creed games.
Funny, for me it was the exact opposite; I liked the gameplay, but did not like the rest.
Agree. I liked the game because the concept and experience was very unique. However the technical issues made it unnecessarily frustrating at times. I still recommend it to people though, because of its uniqueness.

I think, Deadly Premonition showed a way to handle open world. Free roaming, sidequesting, silly minigames - but everything is overshadowd by a relevant plot, that drives the story foreward and keeps you emotionally attached. Gothic did it similar, back in the days. I really hope this is the way, they go with Witcher 3.

I see, you've dived way deeper into the rule set than I have^^

Constitution beyond 7 is useless??? That renders 3 of my Icewind Dale character builds useless. And what do these 18/?? mean?

I'll agree with this. I had high hopes going into it but got extremely little enjoyment out of it (and yet I played to the final boss battle). It seemed like it was built just to show off its water engine (which was fairly impressive to be fair) with little thought going into anything else. To me it would've been better as a "manipulate the water to escape a giant sinking ship" instead of the awkward Tomb Raider-ish game that it became. It would've shown off the engine better too, in my opinion. Still like you I'd love to see a sequel or even a remake.

I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for this, but I'm feeling brave.

I wanted to like Neverwinter Nights 2. I really did. Aside from the updated graphics, everything NWN2 did , I felt NWN1 did better. I found that the editor was more entertaining than the initial game.

My bad, what I meant is that all the values between 7 to 14 (not 15 probably) have the same (lack of) effect. So it means that a character with 7 or 14 of constitution is pretty much the same. Of course in Ice Wind Dale it means: Constitution must be 16 for all characters (+2 PF/level), 18 for Fighters (+4 PF/level). Once again, a special rule for someone...

Seriously, in this games I use editors to fix the values to make them meaningful.


Fighters classes have a special second value for Strength if they have 18: a number between 1 to 100, and the bonus tyouhey have with 91-99 or 100 is so powerful that makes any other possibility pretty much a bad idea. It is written like 18/91 or 19/00.