Games everyone seems to love, but you just couldn't get into.

[Wolf-Snipe]

Call of Duty. Literally any of them. I can stand it once I just start and need to get used to the guns, but once i get the right settings and I find a gun I like, I end up getting insane K: D:As every game and I get bored. I don't see the appeal of those games. maybe it's the power fantasy behind them

Cod are generaly known as "quake for dummies". All kills is just a matter of reaction than anything, so when you're turn back to your opponent....you're pretty much dead. Maps are just random buildings, streets and whatever put there without thought or i guess even any beta-testing. All leveling up aspect can be good, but how they fucked this up, by making some of weapons, perks just oddly OP.

 

[Pipistrele]

Undertale.

I just can't get into it. It got over-hyped and made out to be something far greater then it actually was/is.

Undertale is one of those games that were eventually ruined by huge amount of hype - I know many people who fell in love with this game back when it was only released/in demo state, and I also know a lot of folks who disliked the game long after it got all the awards and gathered a toxic fanbase. When you play something like that for the first time, without knowing everything or being even remotely spoiled by memes/references, it's a truly magic and unique experience; but when you get into it after all the silly fanarts and Sans/Papyrus memes, many of its elements feel trite by default, not to mention you're expecting something special due to all the hype, so disappointment is inevitable. That's why I prefer to play games like Undertale or Cuphead either as soon as possible, or long after the hype train has left the town - that's probably the only way to get a proper first experience from something like this.

 

[KimberVaile]

Shooters are popular because of making for the most dynamic-yet-complex PVP experience - they're perfect for multiplayer gaming, and, well, multiplayer gaming is thriving nowadays

Minecraft is popular because of its universal appeal - kids can play it because there's no sex or violence, adults can enjoy it because it's complex; slow-paced players can dig into building and farming, fast-paced players can explore dungeons and smack everything with a sword; casual players can get deep into exploration, hardcore players can try and make all sorts of crazy stuff (like computers or space shuttles); etc, etc. There's just something for everyone, and that broad range makes it so popular. The only thing that baffled me at first is how it's popular around children, but that makes sense too in context - again, no blood and gore, and aside of Oregon Trail, it's probably the closest to make you learn stuff (especially when it comes to redstone - some heavy logic involved) while actually being entertaining. I'm kinda happy so many kids prefer stuff like Minecraft and Terraria, rather than CoD and GTA (like it was a decade ago).

There is more strategy and depth and variability in a standard MMORPG, ironically. Shooters stick the same tired movement and gameplay as ever other modern military shooter before it. Every shooter these days wants to stick to believability and realism, and almost every shooters apes COD's movement and gunplay with the exception of Destiny, which just apes what Halo did without any of the innovation. If you played a COD game, you've experienced half the 'unique' experience of other shooters. What little innovation there is is minor and not utilized much.

 

[FluffyShutterbug]

COD is Activision's cash cow. Quantity over quality....

 

[Pipistrele]

There is more strategy and depth and variability in a standard MMORPG, ironically. Shooters stick the same tired movement and gameplay as ever other modern military shooter before it. Every shooter these days wants to stick to believability and realism, and almost every shooters apes COD's movement and gunplay with the exception of Destiny, which just apes what Halo did without any of the innovation. If you played a COD game, you've experienced half the 'unique' experience of other shooters. What little innovation there is is minor and not utilized much.

Eeeh, I don't think I'll agree. Maybe true for casual shooters, but again, there's not that many of them - like, CoD series, maybe current-day Battlefield, and that's it, I guess. Stuff like CS:GO and ARMA3 still offer a huge amount of strategy, and that's not even going into more "niche" territory (Red Orchestra 2, Insurgency). I also don't really understand the grudge some people have against Overwatch and TF2 - in both games, "team" element actually works pretty well (you can't win if your team is disorganized, and you can easily drag your team down by not being competent or cooperative), and there's still enough skill-based movement for hardcore players to fly around.

 

[KimberVaile]

Eeeh, I don't think I'll agree. Maybe true for casual shooters, but again, there's not that many of them - like, CoD series, maybe current-day Battlefield, and that's it, I guess. Stuff like CS:GO and ARMA3 still offer a huge amount of strategy, and that's not even going into more "niche" territory (Red Orchestra 2, Insurgency). I also don't really understand the grudge some people have against Overwatch and TF2 - in both games, "team" element actually works pretty well (you can't win if your team is disorganized, and you can easily drag your team down by not being competent or cooperative), and there's still enough skill-based movement for hardcore players to fly around.

CS:GO still falls victim to the ultra realistic mechanics garbage, same drab modern military setting, I'll concede it's better made and encourages team composition more than COD, and your movements are more freeform but it's a far cry from Unreal Tournament or Quake. ARMA 3 just doubles down on the modern military shooter formula and goes for the ultra realistic shooter. Again, I'll concede there is more strategic and tactical elements, but the actual mechanics of the game are very samey. Same automatic weapons, same sniper type weapon, same ability to toss a grenade, the variation in meachanics that I'll find in a shooter are painfully predictable. What those games do have is more thoughtful level design, but at the end of the day, your guns all serve a predictable and expected role in battle with little variation, your movement is still very average and plodding to simulate realism. Same mechanics, slightly different spin. Also, I enjoyed Team Fortress 2 because it took inspiration from games like Quake rather than COD. What I dislike about Overwatch is that it's TF2 done worse, in my opinion. I like the bigger emphasis on Teamplay but I just felt like I've seen it all before. It might be because I clocked over a 1000 hours in TF2, hence I am biased but, it just didn't do much for me.

 

[silveredgreen]

Can i say Mystic Messenger despite having never actually played it myself? I don't really do dating sims or games where you just communicate with characters. I know what types of games i like and Mystic Messenger is not the type of game i like.

Another is Tap Tap Fish or whatever else it was called. The fish aquarium game with the sentient rock that you tap on. This one i actually have tried and i ended up uninstalling it a week later. Only played it for 2 days out of that week and i was already bored out of my mind with it.

 

[Deleted member 82554]

Pokemon.

 

[Storm38]

Fire Emblem. I tried Awakening and got bored pretty fast since all it was was reading and fighting.