I guess I don't experience as much big disappointment because I don't usually expect so much from games. For example, I know that a lot of die hard rpg fans keep for some reason hoping/expecting/demanding that upcoming rpgs are going to be stat-heavy, dice-rolling, turn-based, choice-and-consequence masterpieces. But I'm never quite sure where those hopes come from exactly. I love the character build affect on gameplay from FO2, but then again I never expected that a Bethesda FO3 would have that, so I wasn't that disappointed. In fact, I liked FO3, in spite of the fact that I hung out at No Mutants Allowed for the few years leading up to its release. The butthurt was amazing over there! But I played the game to see what it was like, and it was fun. I can critique plenty about it, but I generally enjoyed playing it. And modding it. I understand the people who say "If it wasn't called Fallout, it would be OK." But then again, that complaint isn't the same as saying I was disappointed by the game.
How could you still be disappointed by the time Inquisition came out? Hadn't two Bioware games that you didn't like taught you anything? What were you hoping for from Inquisition that you were disappointed?

Like bluebyte did with Settlers 3 and up.

The gameplay in itself...yeah, but they completely messed up strategic depth. The skill ceiling isn't nearly as high as it was in BW and it's one of the reasons the game "failed".

Blizzard isn't competent enough to release another RTS with either good gameplay and/or a good story. So you have to actively hope that they will never announce Warcraft IV. There is pre-WoW Blizzard and post-WoW Blizzard. The latter one has pretty much only released turds so far but due to the company's legacy, the games are being profitable (unfortunately).

Anyway, I never really got disappointed as I usually inform myself before I buy them. So I never ran into Empire Earth 2, Spellforce 2, Age of Empires 3, Red Alert 3, GTA IV, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 etc

The thing is, to me stat-based turn-based combat could be said to be synonymous with being an RPG, so when a game is advertised as an RPG (or is in a series of games that, up to that point, has contained only RPGs (and, of course, was non-empty prior to that game), but the game does not fit that description, it feels like false advertising. (The choice-and-consequence aspect isn't really necessary for RPGs, and might actually fit more in adventure games or visual (not kinetic!) novels.)

What we have here is a situation where the games in a series, up to a certain point, have been in one genre, and the next game is in a completely different genre, and that causes the next game to be a disappointment for long time fans of the series.

With this said, I can call Actraiser 2 to be a disappointment. The first game has sidescrolling action stages, but also has city building simulation segments between them; this genre combination made this game unique (and I think I enjoy the simulation more than the action). The second game threw out the simulation aspect entirely, making it a pure action game, and as a result was rather disappointing (also the fact that there was a jump in the first level that I could never get past).

Settlers 2 was nice. Roads were important. With S3 they started to make a move more and more in the direction of generic RTSs and for me at least the series lost its charm gradually.

Ah, I see. So it became less directly based on the lay of the land then.

I don't like the current over use of the term roguelike, but I have totally accepted the fact that just because a game calls itself roguelike doesn't mean that it will resemble Rogue at all. Similarly, I would say it's about time to get over old school definitions of rpg.
Now that situation makes perfect sense to me. Hence, being disappointed.

I understand a fan of Mass Effect being disappointed by ME2. I can even believe that same fan was disappointed by Dragon Age 2. I run out of sympathy when the same fan is again disappointed by DA:Inquisition.

Darkest Dungeon because i had heard good things about it but i thought the game was utter garbage.

It was extremely repetitive going through the same enemies, areas and have all characters using the small amount of skills set for each of the playable classes.

The game was also not as tactical as i would have liked because you are very limited in what you can do aside from the few skills and position swapping the game has going for it and on occasion prioritize certain enemies.

Random events was a good idea but they are few and usually not very interesting.

All Deus Ex games after the first, All Bethesda games after Morrowind, All BioWare games after Hordes of the Underdark expac, all Bioshock games because they where supposed to be sort of successors to the superior System Shock serie, All Rockstar games and yes i don't find them fun, All Wolfenstein games after Return of the Castle Wolfenstein, All Total War games after the Rome and the list goes on forever because i'm negative.

Funny how even a game considered as one of the best of its generation, Mass Effect 2, can be on many people's list. Everything is subjective.

Ikr... ME2 is one of my favorite games of all time! Though I understand some don't like the way it changed from the first game.

This reminds me I just recently played Wolfenstein: The New Order for the first time and was really disappointed by it. The shooting sections ranged from okay to annoying, the stealth never felt fleshed out or fun and the game had MASSIVE pacing issues because of the overwhelming story focus and here and there exploration focus. The whole thing just felt jumbled and unfocused to me. Weird to see it so praised.

I'll defend Raven's Wolfenstein 2009 game forever though. That's a really fun shooter IMO, and has a lot of great level design.

Yay, I'm not the only one! Yeah it had regenerating health which stinks but other than that loved the game.

I agree with that, the game felt like a half baked package filled with both modern and old school mechanics but they never managed to flesh them out to feel interesting or set them apart from any other FPS on the market and somehow Machine Games managed to make a even worse sequel with atrocious level design, cringe writing (sure wolfenstein has always been more or less over the top but certain scenes felt out of place), comic book villain etc.

I didn't like the 2009 version like you did though.

After the improvement that was Mass Effect 3 (gameplay-wise), I expected that Dragon Age would also improve. That was not the case, unfortunately and we basically got a single player MMO. Don't get me wrong, I still had fun with the main story missions but everything in between was just "BLEHH, wake me up when it's over".

One of the best of its generation on consoles maybe. It just screamed "console game" every second I played it. Consolists will not critique the gameplay as they are used to it. But the massive degradation from Mass Effect 1 was just painful the whole game. Just look at the skills screen and compare it to ME1....

I agree but Return to Castle Wolfenstein set the bar so high that it's not fair to the others. Only very few FPSes can even compete with it. If we forget that RtCW exists, the 2009 one was fun but I'm in no hurry to play it again.

New Order focuses too much on the story IMHO. Way too cutscene ridden that I didn't know if I'm watching a soap opera/drama movie or playing an FPS at times. Again, no desire to play it again.

New Colossus - didn't play it but from what I've seen/read, it is actually worse the New Order.