Hi Dakka!

So I was wondering, have any of you good folks ever got totally hyped by a new game, waited patiently for days/weeks/months to play it and then been completely shattered by the end result? I'm thinking Duke Nukem (2011), Homeland, Call Of Jaurez etc.
I myself was totally wrecked by the eventual release of Daikatana. Here was a game that had all the hallmarks of greatness. John Romero at the helm, 25th century Samuris and ultra violence in spades. This is what it delivered:

-Play through a level until you die. This will only take a few minutes.
-Remember where all of the enemies appeared in the level, because it is always exactly the same. This is good for you, too, because the game would be impossible if the enemies didn't always appear at exactly the same time and attack in exactly the same way.
-Run through the level again, using your knowledge of where all of the enemies are. You may succeed in advancing farther than you got the last time.
-Go a bit more, die, restart, and repeat.
Add to this the awful 3 gem save idea, the general toughness of the stupid bouncing frogs and the fact that the first gun you (eventually) pick up, ends up killing you more than your enemies and it's a total disaster.

So come on Dakkanauts let's have a list of the biggest let downs in gaming!

Halo:ODST, agree with Duke Nukem, Dragon Age 2, and The Force Unleashed games. I'm sure I will be able to add to this list Star Wars: Old Republic. I have really low expectations for this one, even though Bioware is making it.

Halo 3 sucked too, it maybe heresy to say that but compared to the first one, and especially the second one, it was poor beyond belief!


Edit: I meant 'Homefront' not Homeland

I had high hopes for Brink.

Halo 3, fighting brutes is poor sport after you got used to elites for 2 games.

Fallout 3. Cause I was a huge fallout fan before it.

Nerivant wrote:I had high hopes for Brink.

Seriously?

I took one look at a preview video of that game and thought "Well, this is going to be a turd."

Mine was Civ V. While the game itself didn't suck, I don't think I've ever seen a game THAT BROKEN come from a major developer (Or at least, one that wasn't a GTA title). Hell, 5 (?) patches later and it still has some game-ending bugs that have been there since day one. Explore the whole world? Game crash. Want to play with any mods or even the dev scenarios? Game crash. Want to load a game you previously played? Game crash.

Seriously, I'd love to take my copy of Civ 5 and backhand everyone on that dev team with it for sucking.

Yeah Fallout was great at number 2, then number 3 just lost a lot of that dark humor that made it so fun. Also, Halo would be ok if it wasn't the same game just farted out with a new pistol or something. I don't blame bungie for this, I blame the 12 year old who can't move on to a game that requires thought.

Pokemon Black/white. Lets bash the general story with the features people liked from the previous game, tape it all together and throw in the top 150 Pokemon from the rejected ideas bin.

You mean like they have with every other pokemon game since red/blue?

The Foot wrote:You mean like they have with every other pokemon game since red/blue?

Pretty much.

At least some of them were more tolerable than the others, mostly g/s/c, ss/hg and perhaps d/p/p.

But white/black was a kind of big step back to me, hg/ss introduced a lot of nice features that were just stripped away.

Dragon Age 2
Halo 3/ODST
Homefront

Fable is probably one of the most hyped game series in existance. It's a poor knock off combination of a dozen other games that pretends to be a epic do whatever you want adventure that is in reality a very linear game series with simple RPG elements.

Red Orchestra 2 got a lot of hype from small elements of the PC community and has been found to be a reskin of a Battlefield Clone from the early 2000's.

Fable.. oh yeah... such crap games, so much hype. I bought into the first, after completing the dumb thing like 4 hours, I kinda felt like killing peter snobhead.

I think we are forgetting a big one here;Final Fantasy 14. That game was pretty hyped as far as MMOs go and what happened? They released a beta version of the game and said, "oops, my bad." I think it is still free to play.

Yeah. Pete is a horrible person with an ego that makes mine humble in its awesome presence There's sadly quite a few personalities like his in the VG Development community. I got the first two, but they both failed miserably and I just didn't bother with the third (from what I hear I missed nothing).

Rift was fairly over hyped as well. For a game that promised an new MMO experience, all it amounted to was a reskin of all of the mechanics WoW pioneered with a crappy end game and downright horrible class balance. I got my money's worth out of it, nut I certainly didn't play anywhere near the 6 months I paid for.

Though most will probably disagree, I think the Gears of War series is also fairly over hyped. Much like Killzone, the community seems to like to entertain this illusion of greatness around a game that's really only unique in its genre for being more successful than other TPS games. I can give a game its due, but some games get a lot more credit than they've earned.

Gears is just good for it's story and horde mode IMO.

Well the title of the thread says it has to fail too, so while Gears is very over hyped it doesn't quite qualify. What about Army of Two? They were super over hyped, but did they fail?

Fable. I read reviews on that game for a couple months before release, it looked/sounded so good. Then I got it......and it was an ok game...but that was it. I havnt touched Fable since, Ive heard the games that followed were even worse everytime

Though the opening post implies that it is in your opinion as to what was disappointing.

The Foot wrote:Well the title of the thread says it has to fail too, so while Gears is very over hyped it doesn't quite qualify. What about Army of Two? They were super over hyped, but did they fail?

Army of Two never really went anywhere, but I honestly don't think the game was hyped that much. It delivered what the developers said it would. I just wasn't very good.

metallifan wrote:Mine was Civ V.

They made Civilization games after Civ. III? Why?

(Actually, I got Civ. IV and it didn't compare to Civ. III)

My contribution would be a lot of the Star Wars and Final Fantasy games. Both franchises delight in making an awesome game and then following up with a terrible game. But the existence of the good games (KOTOR series, FF XII (I think this was one of the good ones)) keeps you coming back hoping that it will be a fantastic game.

Yeah, it is all about personal opinions. Though Gears was a huge seller (I loved the first two), some people just didn't like them. What I'm after are games that were hyped up but let you down personally.....

To add to my first choice, 'Homefront' has to be up there. All the gameplay videos I saw looked awesome, the online multi-player looked sweet as well. But the game? Broken beyond repair, buggy as hell, slow and clunky it was the antithesis of what a good FPS (Halflife) should be.

Halo games, Gears of War series and Fable games.

Too Human. You've think a game that was in development hell for 7 years would at least have had some well thought out characters and storyline but damn was that game disappointing.

Still played the hell out of it

LordofHats wrote:Too Human. You've think a game that was in development hell for 7 years would at least have had some well thought out characters and storyline but damn was that game disappointing.

Still played the hell out of it

Yup, I was pretty much like that with the last Duke Nukem release. Unfortunately they seemed to have stopped developing it in 2001..... Cos visually it was no better than an early xbox release, it played badly and was incredibly un-PC in a bad way. The original games were so good and to see that travesty with the same name just hurts dude....
To reply to an earlier post, I liked the Army of Two games. As long as you had a mate to play the game with, either online or in person that is. The AI was pretty poor though!

Hell, most jrpgs in the past 10 years. I kinda gave up on them a while ago, just waiting for someone to make a good one.

Dragon Age 2, Soldner, Duke Nukem Forever, Fire Warrior, Red Alert 3, Modern Warfare 2 and Too Human.

So I'm confused, do you mean a sales failure, or a failure in your own eyes?

Because a lot of the games in here are most certainly not failures in terms of sales, however your personal opinion regarding their quality has no connection to that.

Perhaps a title change...

How the hell has Black Ops not been mentioned yet?

It at least has a zombie mode. But if we're mentioning CoD, then I nominate the entire franchise. I have little to no faith that MW3 won't suck to high hell.

metallifan wrote:It at least has a zombie mode. But if we're mentioning CoD, then I nominate the entire franchise. I have little to no faith that MW3 won't suck to high hell.

I find the COD games addictive even though I suck at them, they're like a drug for me I don't own any COD games but I can't stop playing them when I play it at a buddies place.

daedalus-templarius wrote:So I'm confused, do you mean a sales failure, or a failure in your own eyes?

Because a lot of the games in here are most certainly not failures in terms of sales, however your personal opinion regarding their quality has no connection to that.

Perhaps a title change...

I really don't like when people link earned money with how good game (movie, whatever) is. Those two are often totally separate and not connected. I mean most blockbusters are just painful but they are hyped up. Pay first, see if it is good later.

Halo generally. It was simply another FPS. It had nothing particularly new or innovative yet for some its the best thing since sliced bread!

Forge and Theater were quite new...

Rift is up there on the list, Fable is there (though admittedly I didn't actually buy it at release, I just heard amazing things leading up to its release and didn't get it till long after). StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is there solely for the multiplayer - the campaign was awesome, the game itself was a lot of fun, but when I went to play some good old Use Map Settings games, I got into the reason that I quit playing UMS in the first place: people bitching about people who didn't understand how maps worked, or making fun of people who were losing.

For me, personally, I have to count City of Heroes. All of my friends who played the game told me it was this amazing, innovative MMO with all kinds of character options, an incredible character builder, and a great world to play in. And I agree, it would have been, seven years ago when it came out. Now the graphics look like , the interface is awful, and the controls are amazingly awkward. After 7 months away from WoW (brought on by total lethargy towards MMOs in general), City of Heroes was what made me realize how much I used to love WoW, and I reactivated my account.

That aside, I'm surprised nobody mentioned Advent Rising. All kinds of hype for the game, it was planned to be the first in an epic trilogy written by Orson Scott Card, and...the game was just alright. I personally loved the story, but the gameplay wasn't anything groundbreaking, and the graphics were fairly meh.

Phototoxin wrote:Halo generally. It was simply another FPS. It had nothing particularly new or innovative yet for some its the best thing since sliced bread!

It did when they first announced it. Then Microsoft bought Bungie and fethed it all up.

The open-ended nature of levels and drivable vehicles were supposed to be novel elements in Halo. Unfortunately the late release left them in the middle of a pack of copycats.

Duke Nukem was beyond bad, truly dreadful, but thankfully I played a mates copy. More money than sense.

LA Noire bored me to tears too.

And Infinity Ward over Treyarch everytime.

Macok wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:So I'm confused, do you mean a sales failure, or a failure in your own eyes?

Because a lot of the games in here are most certainly not failures in terms of sales, however your personal opinion regarding their quality has no connection to that.

Perhaps a title change...

I really don't like when people link earned money with how good game (movie, whatever) is. Those two are often totally separate and not connected. I mean most blockbusters are just painful but they are hyped up. Pay first, see if it is good later.

Ok so what is the basis of this discussion then?

If a game doesn't financially fail, does not critically fail, and does not fail to several people other than yourself; this is just an opinion about a game.

The title of this thread may as well be 'games you thought were going to be good, but then you didn't like them'

If there is no metric for failure, then its just an opinion.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Macok wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:So I'm confused, do you mean a sales failure, or a failure in your own eyes?

Because a lot of the games in here are most certainly not failures in terms of sales, however your personal opinion regarding their quality has no connection to that.

Perhaps a title change...

I really don't like when people link earned money with how good game (movie, whatever) is. Those two are often totally separate and not connected. I mean most blockbusters are just painful but they are hyped up. Pay first, see if it is good later.

Ok so what is the basis of this discussion then?

If a game doesn't financially fail, does not critically fail, and does not fail to several people other than yourself; this is just an opinion about a game.

The title of this thread may as well be 'games you thought were going to be good, but then you didn't like them'

If there is no metric for failure, then its just an opinion.

I think that's kind of the point.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Ok so what is the basis of this discussion then?

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:So I was wondering, have any of you good folks ever got totally hyped by a new game, waited patiently for days/weeks/months to play it and then been completely shattered by the end result?

You could have just read OP and knew what this discussion is about. And money is not connected to ratings. Pay first, play/see later means that sales are more connected to hype, not quality of the product.

metallifan wrote: But if we're mentioning CoD, then I nominate the entire franchise.

1, 2, and 4 were all superbly good games.

Every FPS made in the last 5 years or game that has downloadable content which should have been included by default.

Oh where do I start:

Fable 2 and 3 (I really enjoyed the first)
FF 13
Fallout 3
COD:WAW(The others have been enjoyable imo)

The funny thing is that I play games for the story, the above games had rather boring stories(or at least the ones iv completed), however a game with 0 story has kept me playing the game(albeit not as often now) and coming back to the franchise, its rather odd.

Mass effect 1, was following it eagerly until release, turned out to be a complete turd of a game. Some of the dialogue was okay but the plot was pretty meh (besides some interesting beats involving Saren and Anderson, 2 is the superior story). The hideous menu gazing gameplay (and ridiculously easy) and the jumping space jeep.. 2 improved alot of 1's problems, i even played through that twice, but introduced a couple new ones.

Tbh the whole Mass effect franchise is a dissapointment, it's just 'Kotor HD'. Infact it has even smaller hubs and more tellingly even less interaction.

Its not even about gameplay mechanic complexity, GTA 4 is a great next gen take on GTA. It manages to remove most of the features trialed in SA but still retain this amzing depth by focusing on creating a Living, breathing, city: a thing that was not possible on previous hardware. Another good example is the 'radiant AI' system implemented in Oblivion. It was Daft as anything and rarely added anything but when it did it was very striking. The last ten yearsof gaming have been defined by 'immergence' bioware still insists on making these movie set funneled experiences. For example half life 2 and recently deus ex: HR have been very linear experiences but allow incredible freedom while they funnel you through the story.

Well, this might have a few I can ramble.
Halo Wars, Halo 3, Red Alert 3, Command and Conquer 4, COD after 4 [Seems to have befallen the Madden rehash syndrome] Earth 2160, the Latest Wolfenstein release,Last Remnant, Quake 4, Jericho, Age of Conan. If I recall all got hyped, and fizzled horribly and I second To Human ... couple major flaws and poorly thought out story killed it ... fun for a dungeon crawler, I mess with it now and again

Duke Nukeum, Brink, Dragon Age 2, Halo Reach (SO DAMN SHORT!), Fear 2 and Fear 3.

LordofHats wrote:

metallifan wrote: But if we're mentioning CoD, then I nominate the entire franchise.

1, 2, and 4 were all superbly good games.

1 and 2 were released when MoH was the definitive WWII FPS. They were considered MoH clones. I still consider them to be overshadowed by the MoH titles of their time. I felt that they were really nothing new for how much they were promoted.

4 I only played a bit of. It wasn't overhyped, but it was not really any different.

metallifan wrote:1 and 2 were released when MoH was the definitive WWII FPS. They were considered MoH clones. I still consider them to be overshadowed by the MoH titles of their time. I felt that they were really nothing new for how much they were promoted.

CoD killed the MoH franchise (quite literally and with no exaggeration). CoD was pushing new game play mechanics that are currently the normal for a shooter in the post Halo era, while MoH (up until European Assault) was still using mechanics originally seen in 007 Golden Eye.

EDIT: People call the CoD series and MoH clone simply because they both happen to be WWII shooters. There are some similarities in the structure of the games (not surprising the design team for CoD came from the studio that made MoH), but when you play the two games they play very differently. CoD is MoH inspired, not cloned.

CoD 4 introduced the modern structure of the shooter. Perks, insta-kill knives, kit based multiplayer, CoD4 popularized all these things. YOu can't talk about the evolution of the shooter genre without talking about CoD4. 1 and 2 and important two but they weren't particularly ground breaking, this is true. They just popularized a trend that began in Halo into the mainstream genre.

Metroid: Other M in my opinion, but I'm sure there are many people who would disagree with me.

metallifan wrote:kit based multiplayer

I could've sworn BF 1942 was released a year earlier....

Soladrin wrote:I could've sworn BF 1942 was released a year earlier....

BF 1942 had a class based system, not a kit based system. One idea however likely led to the other. I'm sure we know which led to which

Failed as in financially? Or as is not living up to the hype? Cause I got more of the latter since games like Psyconauts are AMAZING but barely did well

Halo 2 (and everything after that although ODST was neat and reach was funish)

Anything by beth after morrowind (their RPGS are FUN, just not as good as they're hyped)

Anything FF related after 7 (I still have nightmares about 13 and all those KH spinoffs)

Anything made by EA/Maxis after Sim City 4, and published to an extent

Hmm pretty much anything popular amongst young gamers imo are overhyped

THEN AGAIN, this is the man who bought MvC3 Collectors Edition and is going to get UMvC3

kenshin620 wrote:
THEN AGAIN, this is the man who bought MvC3 Collectors Edition and is going to get UMvC3

Oh dear oh dear.

I wonder if tomorrow someone will post "GoW 3"

Enter the Matrix was pretty hyped when it was coming out, but then people actually played it and well.. it was crap.

MrDwhitey wrote:Enter the Matrix was pretty hyped when it was coming out, but then people actually played it and well.. it was crap.

And this... Suprised you? To even the slightest extent?

Movie-to-game adaptations (And vice versa), as a rule, tend to suck so hard that even Wii games are like "Damn, that game sucks!"

metallifan wrote:Movie-to-game adaptations (And vice versa), as a rule, tend to suck so hard that even golf games are like "Damn, that game sucks!"

This. I can't think of any movie adaptations that were good off the top of my head. I know I've played one or two, but that's one or two out of hundreds

Never go into a movie game and expect good things

metallifan wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Enter the Matrix was pretty hyped when it was coming out, but then people actually played it and well.. it was crap.

And this... Suprised you? To even the slightest extent?

Movie-to-game adaptations (And vice versa), as a rule, tend to suck so hard that even Wii games are like "Damn, that game sucks!"

There's some good Wii games such as Mario Galaxies or Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

Cheesecat wrote:Mario brand games and lonely, bored old people are the only thing keeping Nintendo above water for the time being.

Fix'd

metallifan wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Mario brand games and lonely, bored old people are the only thing keeping Nintendo above water for the time being.

Fix'd

That and Zelda, DK and Metroid games.

metallifan wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Mario brand games and lonely, bored old people are the only thing keeping Nintendo above water for the time being.

Fix'd

LordofHats wrote:

metallifan wrote:Movie-to-game adaptations (And vice versa), as a rule, tend to suck so hard that even golf games are like "Damn, that game sucks!"

This. I can't think of any movie adaptations that were good off the top of my head. I know I've played one or two, but that's one or two out of hundreds

Never go into a movie game and expect good things

Goldeneye being the exception. However, if that game didn't have invincibilty, paintball mode, dual RPGs, and sticky mines (And the combination thereof), it wouldn't have stood a chance even back then.

It didn't suprise me, didn't stop it being hyped though.

I think one of the only ones to suprise me was a FPS I can't even remember the name of. I do remember PCGamer and various mags having a go, getting fed tidbits etc and they were all thinking "This game will revolutionise FPS".

Then the company released a demo just before the game came out. I paraphrase as I don't recall the exact quote but one Magazine said:

"It was as if they took everything good, took it out back, and shot it. Then released this demo."

I'm actually curious about what game it was now, it was so very long ago.

Edit: And Goldeneye aged like wine. It turned to vinegar. Great game back then though.

MrDwhitey wrote:It didn't suprise me, didn't stop it being hyped though.

I think one of the only ones to suprise me was a FPS I can't even remember the name of. I do remember PCGamer and various mags having a go, getting fed tidbits etc and they were all thinking "This game will revolutionise FPS".

Then the company released a demo just before the game came out. I paraphrase as I don't recall the exact quote but one Magazine said:

"It was as if they took everything good, took it out back, and shot it. Then released this demo."

I'm actually curious about what game it was now, it was so very long ago.

Edit: And Goldeneye aged like wine. It turned to vinegar. Great game back then though.

Really I find Goldneye still an enjoyable experience unless you're talking about the graphics and N64 controller.

I liked the controller back then. Still not sure why.

And no, it's not the graphics, I just find the game unplayable now.

metallifan wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Mario brand games and lonely, bored old people are the only thing keeping Nintendo above water for the time being.

Fix'd

EDIT: And I agree.

metallifan wrote:Goldeneye being the exception. However, if that game didn't have invincibilty, paintball mode, dual RPGs, and sticky mines (And the combination thereof), it wouldn't have stood a chance even back then.

Golden Eye had the benefit of being a groundbreaking game that was genuinely awesome Surprised I hadn't thought of it. Only movie game I know that actually pioneered new game mechanics.

Yea... Goldeneye. Back when you could cover your buddy in remote mines and send him running into a group of AIs, then detonate him. And it was totally okay, because it wasn't an issue of "political correctness" back then.

Good times...

So, some of the biggest selling games are seen by most of you as poor games.... That's interesting, just goes to show that the majority of people buy into the hype surrounding the 'next big thing', regardless of how bad the game actually is

Nice to see so many of you have good taste though!

Fallout 3 was a bit of a disappointment to me. Fallout 1 and 2 were such great games and Fallout 3 felt more like a generic SciFi shooter than a true Fallout game. Also ridiculous amount of bugs were an unpleasant experience (especially the XBox players who experienced the RRoD bug )

Well, I'd say I found Duke Nukem to be a tremendous disappointment but frankly I had little in the way of expectations for that.

I was a little disappointed by Dragon Age 2. I found the mechanics to be sort of dumbed-down. The whole game in general was a little too easy, compared with Dragon Age 1. On the other hand, I liked the companions significantly more, so it's not that I disliked the game, just I had higher hopes for it. I was also dismayed by the large population of game-breaking bugs and quests that fired in the wrong order. To be frank, that game made me wonder more then once why Bioware has such a fine reputation as a developer, when so many of their AAA games are so bug riddled; I can't count the times I was playing Mass Effect or ME2 and suddenly, say, fell through the floor or something.

I was very excited by the though of Dungeon Siege 3, and sadly disappointed to see that the decrease in quality that Dungeon Siege 2 delivered has continued, nay, accelerated.

I was also fairly let down by Supreme Commander 2. I liked the first one a great deal, but the second one, while having more polished mechanics, went in kinda a weird graphical direction. Everything looked too clean and shiny.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:So, some of the biggest selling games are seen by most of you as poor games.... That's interesting, just goes to show that the majority of people buy into the hype surrounding the 'next big thing', regardless of how bad the game actually is

Nice to see so many of you have good taste though!

Its not a trope technically.....but!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle6cd1cskka05i

I liked Fallout and Xcom before it went mainstream

metallifan wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Enter the Matrix was pretty hyped when it was coming out, but then people actually played it and well.. it was crap.

And this... Suprised you? To even the slightest extent?

Movie-to-game adaptations (And vice versa), as a rule, tend to suck so hard that even Wii games are like "Damn, that game sucks!"

I can think of one.
Spiderman 2
Literally had the best web swinging mechanics ever made, had some cool bosses and well.... nothing else really.
But those swing mechanics were amazing, seriously I used to just swing throughout the city diving as low as I can, nearly hitting the pavement and then swinging up with a furious burst of speed.

The ones in the latest Spiderman games suck to put it lightly.
Other than that, no, there are no good movie games at all

Brink and Call of Juarez:The Cartel :(

Viersche wrote:Brink and Call of Juarez:The Cartel :(

Brink definately. Can't believe I almost bought that over Crysis 2. Thank you demos!

Checkmate gentlemen.

Necroshea wrote:

Checkmate gentlemen.

How dare you mock the greatest flying through rings simulator ever made!

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:So, some of the biggest selling games are seen by most of you as poor games.... That's interesting, just goes to show that the majority of people buy into the hype surrounding the 'next big thing', regardless of how bad the game actually is

Nice to see so many of you have good taste though!

Is it odd that most of these biggest selling games happen to be some of the most played and critically acclaimed? Halo 3 for example? All the hated Call of Duty titles? In fact, all of these 'biggest selling games' proved to very popular.

Master of Orion 3?

The most disappointed I have ever been was after playing through Spore. I had that game on pre-order for almost 2 years only to have them rip out most of the content and deliver a game that was just poor in the extreme.

Halo ODST was really let down by lack of multiplayer support.

Brink also looked awesome and was pretty much the first game I got really excited about since Spore. Felt very let down with what was delivered.

I guess I'll mention Duke Nukem too. Then again I didn't expect it to be good with the lifeless games the industry is churning out these days. Man I hope they don't remake blood, I've got nothing but good memories of that game and I don't want them sullied.

iproxtaco wrote:Is it odd that most of these biggest selling games happen to be some of the most played and critically acclaimed? Halo 3 for example? All the hated Call of Duty titles? In fact, all of these 'biggest selling games' proved to very popular.

Not really that odd. Game reviewers have to give fairly favourable reviews to major titles, or developers will cut their sponsorship. It's why I use sites like Metacritic, that gather the three best written independant reviews from site users and post them along side the 'official' reviews from site staff.

A lot of mainstream developers know that dimwitted fanboys of their major franchise titles will buy into any old turd that they put out if it's advertised and hyped enough. Not only that, but most companies know that after buying the game and discovering it actually stinks like week-old soiled ginch, fans will still buy the next title in the series based entirely on blind loyalty and a hope that "The next one will be better!" Prime, and probably the most obvious, examples being Halo and -MOST- of the CoD franchise. I say 'most' because LordOfHats is right, 1 and 2 weren't -bad-, and were still solid WWII shooters. They just didn't feel all that groundbreaking to me. However, they're only two titles out of a very, very long list of titles, most of which I would take off someone's hands for free.

Locclo wrote:

For me, personally, I have to count City of Heroes. All of my friends who played the game told me it was this amazing, innovative MMO with all kinds of character options, an incredible character builder, and a great world to play in. And I agree, it would have been, seven years ago when it came out. Now the graphics look like , the interface is awful, and the controls are amazingly awkward. After 7 months away from WoW (brought on by total lethargy towards MMOs in general), City of Heroes was what made me realize how much I used to love WoW, and I reactivated my account.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you should know that your opinion is completely wrong.








I would say quite a lot of MMORPGs post-WoW meet the critera of "Hyped games that failed", especially Vanguard and Warhammer Online.


Also, how has no one mentioned this yet? Because it's basically the original Duke Nukem Forever:




I mean, /thread, right here. We can all go home now.

RatBot wrote:Also, how has no one mentioned this yet? Because it's basically the original Duke Nukem Forever:




I mean, /thread, right here. We can all go home now.

The first post of this thread mentioned it.

I somehow read every post in the thread except the first one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still, it bears repeating, I think it's safe to say Daikatana is one of the worst games of all time, especially considering the hype surrounding it.

RatBot wrote:I somehow read every post in the thread except the first one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still, it bears repeating, I think it's safe to say Daikatana is one of the worst games of all time, especially considering the hype surrounding it.

I played it, and while It wasn't the greatest game in the world, I could still get pretty far into the game before I gave up in frustration. I couldn't even get past the first 30 minutes of superman 64. I think the worst games of all time would either be superman 64 or E.T. for atari.

I've never had the, uh, pleasure of playing Superman 64 or ET, but I've seen videos. They're definitely worse then Daikatana, though I still think Daikatana ranks pretty highly.

From what I can gather, I don't see how they could've thought ET would be would've been any fun at all. I mean, I know they released it to make a quick buck off the movie, but it's like they didn't even pretend to try.

SilverMK2 wrote:The most disappointed I have ever been was after playing through Spore. I had that game on pre-order for almost 2 years only to have them rip out most of the content and deliver a game that was just poor in the extreme.

Very true. And I don't think Spore sold that well after the initial reviews.

Necroshea wrote:I think the worst games of all time would either be superman 64 or E.T. for atari.

Obviously a man who has never played Custer's Revenge.

biccat wrote:Obviously a man who has never played Custer's Revenge.

...Isn't that the game where the whole point was to rape a native girl tied to a post while dodging arrows?

I would LOVE to see a video of the brainstorming session that led to that idea

biccat wrote:Obviously a man who has never played Custer's Revenge.

You best be jestin'. At least custards revenge had a clear...erm...goal to it.

Custer's Revenge. Lol saw that on AVGN............. Just like you did

Perkustin wrote:Custer's Revenge. Lol saw that on AVGN............. Just like you did

Au contraire. I actually played this game it on my original (unfortunately now long-departed) Atari.

edit: and I wasn't aware of AVGN...although now I am, so thanks

I had to google Custer's Revenge.... I have no words. Just... lolwut.

kenshin620 wrote:I liked Fallout and Xcom before it went mainstream

Fallout always was mainstream... winning RPG of the year and high ratings across the board...

That said, new fallouts aren't fallout, but they are fun.

Spore was a huge letdown.

Hellgate: London was AWESOME (sans a few small things) before the live servers were shut down. Don't you just love paying $50 for an online game just to see its online support go POOF in under a year?

nectarprime wrote:Spore was a huge letdown.

QFT. Though at least there are a number of mods out there that fill in some of the gaps in content.

Metroid: Other M.

Forget the drama over the storyline, it still played like crap and felt nothing like Metroid. On more objective grounds, it was slammed by the critics (In the only way critics can slam a critically hyped game that's not beyond Godawful, gently), had relatively poor sales even for a Metroid game, and there was an easily found game-breaking glitch in the second-most linear Metroid game ever.

Fear 3 for me

They gave that game so much hype and promise but they completely ruined the story, their wasn't an ounce of horror like the first and the expansions had. With the addition of paxton fettels ghost being super OP the campaign wasn't fun the least bit. The only good thing about that game was the multiplayer which i believe was their main goal instead of the campaign.

I was hot for Tabula Rasa ... then Litigation happened D8

I like how tame I am with games

I suppose for me its Red Faction: Armageddon. After playing Guerrilla and enjoying it I was interested in the new game to see what it was like. Not full-blown hype but enough to peak my interest. Reading reviews and general comments of how bad it is, I let it go.

So far the only game I've been stoked up for was Space Marine, and for all its problems it's pretty good I would think.

Warhammer Online.

Dragon Age Origins

Wasn't really hyped for it, but a year after it came out I heard nothing but absolute greatness from this game, so I bought it for $60 on Steam... a YEAR after it came out... moving on:

First thing I noticed is none of my tactics worked because my teammates are inherently stupid. Suicidal in fact.
The amount of micro managing is absolutely insane. Why should I have to specify when exactly to use potions? Hey gak, if you're dying fething heal yourself.
The gameover screens taunted me by saying "Be more tactical!!"
Hey Bioware, I gotta response for ya: MAKE A BETTER fething GAME.

Seriously, did the donkey-caves programming this pile of dog gak play Star Ocean 2? THAT had a tactic system FAR SUPERIOR to this game that was made nearly 15 years later.

Managing your team's tactics is cool, but there's a difference between tactics AND HOLDING THEIR fething HANDS!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Molten Butter wrote:Metroid: Other M.

Forget the drama over the storyline, it still played like crap and felt nothing like Metroid. On more objective grounds, it was slammed by the critics (In the only way critics can slam a critically hyped game that's not beyond Godawful, gently), had relatively poor sales even for a Metroid game, and there was an easily found game-breaking glitch in the second-most linear Metroid game ever.

Yes, ESPECIALLY since this game was developed by TEAM fething NINJA!! You'd expect a fun and engaging challenge but what you get is a game that holds your hand the whole way through.
The game insults my intelligence as well as Samus's.

They really dropped the fething ball with this rancid game.
Don't even get me started with Adam. So much potential.... such a weak, WEAK delivery. Good fething job.

Half Life 2: Episode 3.

Because it's going to fail. There's absolutely no way they can justify the obscene delays and still release an episode length game. It's become "Half Life 3 is being developed or bust" for me.

Yes, I'm bitter.

DickBandit wrote:Don't even get me started with Adam. So much potential.... such a weak, WEAK delivery. Good fething job.

I liked Adam more when he was a glorified Hal 9000. At least then he had a reason for having the personality of a toaster.

Polvilhovoador wrote:Warhammer Online.

Well imo 90% off MMOs arent that good as they're hyped

Cant wait to see DMO tank

And plus Warhammer Fantasy Video Games in recent times also arent that good. Mark of Chaos is just ugh, the Total War mod is more engaging!

Polvilhovoador wrote:Warhammer Online.

How did Warhammer Online fail? It's been going on for 3 years? If you're comparing it to WoW, that' stupid. WoW dominates the western market. WHO is a good game. It's just not popular.

New Vegas still boggles me as to how people don't think it's Fallout 3: This Time It's in a Different City but Still the Same Game.
Brink was absolutely terrible and died within days of release.
APB was hyped as the true GTA MMO, and it wasn't.
Star Trek and WAR looked awesome, and then weren't.
Fable 2 and FFXIII also come to mind, now that I think about it.
Medal of Honor was a poor excuse for a game, at least in the fact that it's almost exactly like BFBC2 in every way.
Bioshock 2 was a letdown. The Big Daddy suit never really comes into play and it's essential Bioshock 1 but YOU CAN USE PLASMIDS AND GUNS AT ONCE OMAIGOD.
Black Ops had a good campaign but its multiplayer is just as unbalanced as any of them. And yes, CoD4 is unbalanced.

Amaya wrote: It's just not popular.

And not particularly successful. Don't take it too hard. Most MMO's aren't.

Amaya wrote:

Polvilhovoador wrote:Warhammer Online.

How did Warhammer Online fail? It's been going on for 3 years? If you're comparing it to WoW, that' stupid. WoW dominates the western market. WHO is a good game. It's just not popular.

Just because an MMO is still there, doesnt mean its good (hell I bet star wars galaxies is still running, why you ruin us SOE?)

kenshin620 wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Polvilhovoador wrote:Warhammer Online.

How did Warhammer Online fail? It's been going on for 3 years? If you're comparing it to WoW, that' stupid. WoW dominates the western market. WHO is a good game. It's just not popular.

Just because an MMO is still there, doesnt mean its good (hell I bet star wars galaxies is still running, why you ruin us SOE?)

Actually SW: Galaxies is closing. And yes, Warhammer is one of the better MMOs out there. The only reason I don't play it is because all MMOs take too much of an investment and I'm not repeating WoW.

Warhammer, Age of Conan, and LotR Online are all good MMOs. Together they probably have half (if that) of WoW's subscription base. They're still successful. WoW is just a phenomenon. No one could have predicted that it blow up the genre the way it did.

kenshin620 wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Polvilhovoador wrote:Warhammer Online.

How did Warhammer Online fail? It's been going on for 3 years? If you're comparing it to WoW, that' stupid. WoW dominates the western market. WHO is a good game. It's just not popular.

Just because an MMO is still there, doesnt mean its good (hell I bet star wars galaxies is still running, why you ruin us SOE?)

I'd say SOE saw success. Sure it was really a reskin of of Everquest but but Galaxies must be what, nearly a decade old now? And its only ending because of the upcoming release of TOR. I'd say Galaxies has done well for itself.

Age of Conan and LotR obviously weren't good enough for a Pay-2-play model and were forced to go F2P. That's not really a sign of success.

LordofHats wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Polvilhovoador wrote:Warhammer Online.

How did Warhammer Online fail? It's been going on for 3 years? If you're comparing it to WoW, that' stupid. WoW dominates the western market. WHO is a good game. It's just not popular.

Just because an MMO is still there, doesnt mean its good (hell I bet star wars galaxies is still running, why you ruin us SOE?)

I'd say SOE saw success. Sure it was really a reskin of of Everquest but but Galaxies must be what, nearly a decade old now? And its only ending because of the upcoming release of TOR. I'd say Galaxies has done well for itself.

Age of Conan and LotR obviously weren't good enough for a Pay-2-play model and were forced to go F2P. That's not really a sign of success.

I love half truths. You know WoW went F2P as well?

Yes, Age of Conan has F2P material and you can only access about 1/100th of the game world. It's basically the same as WoW's trial (now F2P) accounts that can only level up to 20.

LotR is different. I haven't touched it since 2008, so I am by no means up to date with current game. Apparently it uses a tier system now and limits your access to content based on that. Free gets some stuff, Premium gets more, ViP gets to eat the bloody cake.

Amaya wrote:I love half truths. You know WoW went F2P as well?

Really? Me too!

WoW went pseudo-F2P to retain its user base because its just getting old. Conan did it because it never made it far from launch. Neither did LotR. Tabula Rasa and APB are extreme cases of dead on arrival. Warhammer Online started suffering within a year of release. WoW is not an anomaly. Usually 1 MMO comes out to dominate the field. Ultima Online (EDIT: tbh they kind of had it easy), Everquest, WoW. That, and the MMORPG is just a tough genre. Most games that enter it fail.

WoW f2p? A free trial is not f2p....

nectarprime wrote:WoW f2p? A free trial is not f2p....

You can play free until level 20. That's not a trial. You can play as much as you want, creating as many characters as you want, for free, up until level 20, where you can't go any further.

Do any of you remember Sin? Heh heh.



Anyway, I have a funny story about Daikatana. Friend of mine walked into an EB and found a copy of the official strategy guide for Daikatana. Don't know if it was a Prima book, but whatever, there it was, sitting on the shelf. Keep in mind that this is years after Daikatana's release, so we're talking major old stock here.

Anyway, he picks it up and checks the back. Huge tear across the back cover - the thing's almost torn in two - and a price tag of, no joke, $1.

So he takes it to the counter and the guy is kinda confused by the purchase. My friend asks if it's $1 because of the tear, the guy says he didn't know the tear was even there, and that no it's not $1 because of the damage, it's $1 because it's a strategy guide for Daikatana.

Yes, he bought it. It was too funny not to.

How about Ninja Gaiden II? I loved the first one, but man the second one was a stinker.

Also if you buy into the hype, the game will always fail in your eyes. I see a lot of hate for Fable, but if you didn't read up on the game and what it was supposed to be, you might have liked it better. I wasn't keeping up with upcomming games back when Fable was released. When I got the game and played it, I loved it.


Also, I will say this: Final Fantasy XIII was a failure for me. It could have been so much better.

Lord Scythican wrote:I see a lot of hate for Fable, but if you didn't read up on the game and what it was supposed to be, you might have liked it better.

It's a lesson in not promising features you never intended to deliver.

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:I see a lot of hate for Fable, but if you didn't read up on the game and what it was supposed to be, you might have liked it better.

It's a lesson in not promising features you never intended to deliver.

Lol, Peter Molyneux. If you read up on the game to see what it's supposed to be you will be tremendously let down. Take everything about future Fable games with a mountain of salt.

Amaya wrote:

Polvilhovoador wrote:Warhammer Online.

How did Warhammer Online fail? It's been going on for 3 years? If you're comparing it to WoW, that' stupid. WoW dominates the western market. WHO is a good game. It's just not popular.

Not comparing to WoW at all!
IMO the game just failed to deliver. They promised large scale pvp but whenever more than 40 people gathered the game lagged to hell and sometimes even crashed!
Not to mention other issues such as Bright Wizards, scenario grinding, boooring pve, useless healers and from what I heard, nowadays there a huge problem with high end gear, where people with full set can kill an entire warband if he has minimum support.

Fable 3 promised way too much then left out a real campaign (i finished it in 3 or 4 hours and i was playing slowly)

Killzone 1 (bad, but I still like it)

Rogue Squadron III

MAG

Fire Warrior (also liked, but terrible)

oh, and Ico...I'm sorry, but that was soooooo boring

mega_bassist wrote:Rogue Squadron III

There ain't not Rogue Squadron like the first Rogue Squadron. One of two games I literally played to death (The cartridge stopped working). I managed to get all the gold medals in the game save one

Wedge just wouldn't let me save him fast enough

Rogue Squadron 2 had only like what, ten missions and nowhere near the variety, and then III had those silly foot missions. I liked the walker missions though.

Polvilhovoador wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Polvilhovoador wrote:Warhammer Online.

How did Warhammer Online fail? It's been going on for 3 years? If you're comparing it to WoW, that' stupid. WoW dominates the western market. WHO is a good game. It's just not popular.

Not comparing to WoW at all!
IMO the game just failed to deliver. They promised large scale pvp but whenever more than 40 people gathered the game lagged to hell and sometimes even crashed!
Not to mention other issues such as Bright Wizards, scenario grinding, boooring pve, useless healers and from what I heard, nowadays there a huge problem with high end gear, where people with full set can kill an entire warband if he has minimum support.

Also their predicted subs prior to release, and the fall off rate due to the massive issues it had at launch, not just minor things, game breaking stuff, helped to kill all the hype it had amassed. Of course I should have realised it was going to 'not be as expected' when the admitted they needed to cut classes and cities.

Also its spent two and a bit of those three years on life support. I seriously fear for its future if The Old Republic proves popular, EA will drop it like a stone.

mega_bassist wrote:

Rogue Squadron III

The single player was boring with those walking missions but the coop was awesome! Nintendo could learn from them and make co-op Star Fox someday

A lot of the games people are picking are games that were hyped but actually got good reviews from review websites and actually did well(except for the people who picked Duke Nukem), I know each is in titled to their opinions of an over hyped game. BUT....

My definition of an over hyped games: A game that is publicized excessively to the point where people think it is going to be the best thing since Halo: Combat evolved, than turns out to suck so much and doesn't live up to anything it was supposed to.

perfect example Haze for the PS3. I was so excited for that game, it was supposed to finally be the Halo killer that ps3 needed......than it sucked so bad when it was released.

Yup, Haze is a perfect example. I can't believe people picked out Killzone 3 though. Yes it was a short campaign ( I finished it in 4 hours!) but it was an absolute blast! And co-op was awesome too...

4 hours is a fail for a full retail game no matter how you look at it.

Even though I bought Killzone 3 for the multiplayer (which was damn fun while it lasted), the 4 hour campaign was just... silly.

Still, best last words go to Stahl.

Anybody else want to vote for Skyrim failing?? Lol

johnscott10 wrote:Anybody else want to vote for Skyrim failing?? Lol

Doubt it. It's hard (Not impossible, but hard) for open world and sandbox games to be considered a "fail", because there's always a lot of extra content and side missions, even if the main story is short. Open world games will do well as long as they meet the basic requirements of a big living world, plenty of customization, and the ability to play the game a number of different ways. There's also a huge replayability element that increases with the amount of content and the size of the game world.

iproxtaco wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:I see a lot of hate for Fable, but if you didn't read up on the game and what it was supposed to be, you might have liked it better.

It's a lesson in not promising features you never intended to deliver.

Lol, Peter Molyneux. If you read up on the game to see what it's supposed to be you will be tremendously let down. Take everything about future Fable games with a mountain of salt.

That's pretty much what I was saying. I actually enjoyed the game because I never read what was supposed to be in it. I didn't have an internet connection at the time or a game informer subscription. I liked the game quite a bit, but I doubt I would have if I would have read some previews.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Yup, Haze is a perfect example. I can't believe people picked out Killzone 3 though. Yes it was a short campaign ( I finished it in 4 hours!) but it was an absolute blast! And co-op was awesome too...

Yeah Killzone 3 was awesome, if not better overall from killzone 2. Killzone 2's story was a lot better, but at least Killzone 3 mixed up the environments that levels take place. And by far, Multiplayer was so so so much more fun in Killzone 3. Short campaign but it did what it had to, and overall it was still fun.

And just to go along with a majority of people(contradicting my previous definition of an over hyped game) Halo and CoD are by far way to over hyped(more like overrated) its the same gak repackaged. Halo: Combat evolved was innovative, than every halo game after that was a cut and paste, same with CoD(since MW1)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

COD and Halo are some of the best seling games of all time. 1 year after it's release, Halo still has 1,000,000 people on it daily. And MW2 is considered to be one of the benchmark shooters for the FPS genre.

So yeah, I fething hate people who go "Oh, well, Halo hasn't changed." That's because they made the game right the first damned time. If they didn't, it wouldn't be a huge hit like it is right now.

Over hyped really isn't the best definition to give Halo and CoD, Over rated is a better term. Don't get me wrong Halo and CoD are good games. But people get way to big of a boner when a Halo or CoD game is announced...we all know its just gonna be another generic shooter, but for some reason since it Halo/CoD people start to have a huge orgasm over something they already have.

And than not to mention IGN and Gamespot criticize games for not being innovative and give them low scores because they say "oh it already been done" than when they rate CoD or Halo they are all like "OMG its CoD/Halo its the same game as before but its CoD/Halo!!! 10/10" its like everyone who rates games has the biggest boner for repackaged games if it has the title Halo or CoD.

Kazerkinelite wrote:Over hyped really isn't the best definition to give Halo and CoD, Over rated is a better term. Don't get me wrong Halo and CoD are good games. But people get way to big of a boner when a Halo or CoD game is announced...we all know its just gonna be another generic shooter, but for some reason since it Halo/CoD people start to have a huge orgasm over something they already have.

And than not to mention IGN and Gamespot criticize games for not being innovative and give them low scores because they say "oh it already been done" than when they rate CoD or Halo they are all like "OMG its CoD/Halo its the same game as before but its CoD/Halo!!! 10/10"

It's generic because everyone else tried to copy it. I have played every Halo Game and every Call of Duty, and I can tell you, it's not all cut and paste jobs. There are massive differences between games.

Halo isn't as bad as CoD is with rehashing. But please do elaborate on the "massive" changes from CoD MW1-Blops. I bought all those games and there fun but I haven't noticed any MAJOR differences between them.

johnscott10 wrote:Anybody else want to vote for Skyrim failing?? Lol

Don't worry, modders will pick up the slack for bethesda. We always do.

Kazerkinelite wrote:Halo isn't as bad as CoD is with rehashing. But please do elaborate on the "massive" changes from CoD MW1-Blops. I bought all those games and there fun but I haven't noticed any MAJOR differences between them.

It may not have been with the gameplay and controllers, but the mechanics, graphics, UI, weapons, and ways to get weapons has changed dramatically.\

Also, Nazi Zombies.

Nazi zombies

Yeah I forgot about Nazi Zombies, but thats really the only innovative thing they have done, and it was done by the "Other" people who make CoD games.

It's still there and it's still awesome!

Kazerkinelite wrote: But people get way to big of a boner when a Halo or CoD game is announced...we all know its just gonna be another generic shooter

They both have the benefit of groundbreaking and innovative games in their line up. Halo CE created the modern shooter, and Halo 2 created modern P2P matchmaking and the rise of console multiplayer (some may consider this to have had bad long term consequences). CoD4 was the last innovative shooter that came out, you know, until the next one inevitably comes along.

but for some reason since it Halo/CoD people start to have a huge orgasm over something they already have.

Because they changed gaming forever a lot of people know it. It counts for something.

Just saying Some folk take stuff way too seriously, but I prefer games like Halo and CoD (even though one is really bad these days) get a lot of hype because they've earned it over games like Killzone and Gears of War which didn't really innovate anything (not to suggest outright that they're bad games but both get more credit than they've earned).

metallifan wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:Anybody else want to vote for Skyrim failing?? Lol

Doubt it. It's hard (Not impossible, but hard) for open world and sandbox games to be considered a "fail", because there's always a lot of extra content and side missions, even if the main story is short. Open world games will do well as long as they meet the basic requirements of a big living world, plenty of customization, and the ability to play the game a number of different ways. There's also a huge replayability element that increases with the amount of content and the size of the game world.

I do agree that the sheer amount of content may help to avoid the game being a fail, however if the basic mechanics arnt good(which actually look pretty damn sweet) then it counts as a fail for me as I wouldnt want to play it.

Necroshea wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:Anybody else want to vote for Skyrim failing?? Lol

Don't worry, modders will pick up the slack for bethesda. We always do.

Yea I noticed with Oblivion that the mods made a whole lot of difference, especially with the leveling.

If Oblivion(vanilla) was anything to go by then I doubt Skyrim will be a fail imo as I loved Oblivion to death haha.

LordofHats wrote:

Kazerkinelite wrote: But people get way to big of a boner when a Halo or CoD game is announced...we all know its just gonna be another generic shooter

They both have the benefit of groundbreaking and innovative games in their line up. Halo CE created the modern shooter, and Halo 2 created modern P2P matchmaking and the rise of console multiplayer (some may consider this to have had bad long term consequences). CoD4 was the last innovative shooter that came out, you know, until the next one inevitably comes along.

but for some reason since it Halo/CoD people start to have a huge orgasm over something they already have.

Because they changed gaming forever a lot of people know it. It counts for something.

Just saying Some folk take stuff way too seriously, but I prefer games like Halo and CoD (even though one is really bad these days) get a lot of hype because they've earned it over games like Killzone and Gears of War which didn't really innovate anything (not to suggest outright that they're bad games but both get more credit than they've earned).

Killzone and gears are not bad games, gears has actually defined the TPS and Killzone became a benchmark for amazing graphics not to mention its the PS3 premier shooter(and it has never been overhyped) And you must not have read my earlier posts I gave credit to Halo: Combat Evolved and MW1 for being great innovative games, and i dont take it seriously, i play both and i enjoy them, but people get way to big of a boner over these games.

Kazer, your video gaming world is just full of erections isn't it?

Yes everybody has a boner about at least one game....but many boners are happening over the ones ive stated

Kazerkinelite wrote:Killzone and gears are not bad games,

I didn't say they weren't. I said they weren't innovative. My contention is that Halo and CoD aren't that overrated (well, CoD is now that its hit rock bottom). There's a lot to be excited about with each new Halo game. Only Halo 3 didn't quite live up to its hype, and ODST people expected too much from (but in their defense the game should have cost $30-$40 not full price). Halo 4 of course has the potential the crash the series. We will see at release.

gears has actually defined the TPS

All of its game mechanics came from a game called Kill Switch copy paste. Epic just through in some Unreal flair to give it their own particular flavor (I'm biased, I sort of hate the Gears games).

and Killzone became a benchmark for amazing graphics

Graphics aren't innovative unless we're talking the switch from 2D to 3D... or 4D

(and it has never been overhyped)

When Killzone first came out, the Playstation fans were howling the praises of the greatest shooter ever released. A gift from god to the Playstation 2 the likes of which no one had ever seen. Halo was for nubs and Killzone was beast. Then the game came out and everyone realized it was just okay. Killzone didn't come into its own until Killzone 2, which still wasn't particularly innovative. The series however gets absurd praise from certain camps that it doesn't deserve. Its just a high quality title, but there's nothing really special about it beyond its quality (not that that's a bad thing, most games are like that).

Honestly I just get annoyed at the way the word 'generic' gets thrown around. Usually its used to describe games that people don't like or that they don't comprehend the quality of, not games that actually are generic. CoD has become the flagship of genericness, but Halo, Gears, and Killzone all manage very well to maintain themselves in the tide over the years. I say that and I hate gears

Well stated. And I misread your statement "not to suggest that they are outright bad games"

as for Killzone 2's graphics though, it showed what the PS3 could do and it by far had the best graphics on a console at the time.

johnscott10 wrote:

Necroshea wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:Anybody else want to vote for Skyrim failing?? Lol

Don't worry, modders will pick up the slack for bethesda. We always do.

Yea I noticed with Oblivion that the mods made a whole lot of difference, especially with the leveling.

If Oblivion(vanilla) was anything to go by then I doubt Skyrim will be a fail imo as I loved Oblivion to death haha.

1st rule of Beth RPGs, the game itself will be bland but the custom content will be amazing

Although that promotes dev laziness!

Necroshea wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:Anybody else want to vote for Skyrim failing?? Lol

Don't worry, modders will pick up the slack for bethesda. We always do.

Yea, at least until Bethesda steals all the community content and patches, rebrands them as their own work, and then threatens to sue anyone that tries to argue

That's okay. Crash-prone and bug filled as their games are, they're usually big and open enough to provide endless hours of enjoyable exploration and side-content tomfoolery

Kazerkinelite wrote:as for Killzone 2's graphics though, it showed what the PS3 could do and it by far had the best graphics on a console at the time.

I'd honestly consider it less a victory for Killzone and more a victory for the Playstation and Blu-ray technology over the 360 and its HD-DVD. Microsoft bet on the wrong pony in that one

Kazerkinelite wrote: Yes everybody has a boner about at least one game....but many boners are happening over the ones ive stated

I recently started playing Kingdom Under Fire on the original xbox, and my boner lasted longer than 4 hours. what do?

Seriously though, I can't wait for the next one...which now that I think about it seems to have disappeared...hmmm

Just gotta say this: Innovation is overrated. It's necessary for the medium as a whole, but a game doesn't need innovation to be likeable. Halo CE wasn't really innovative, but it did what many other games fail to do; it took tons of mechanics already explored in other titles and crammed them together on the console to make its own mix. Add in some nice cinematics, a fun local multiplayer, good graphics, and some pretty decent AI, and suddenly, Halo was a pretty awesome game.

I find it funny how the AI actually regressed in Halo 3, at least with the shift from Elites to Brutes as the main enemies. The only fun Brutes to fight were the hammer guys.

Our liquidated dairy friend has it right, innovation is good but isn't needed to make a good game.

Worst gaming fail of all time? Daikitana....

I always thought all Halo games sucked, and do all other FPS games on consoles. Only shooter I can stand on a console is third person.

I don't know if I can trust the opinion of someone who is both churned and burned. Call me dairist

I never said innovation was a requirement to be good (I pointed out Killzone was). Often times the games at actually innovate suck, or get little attention, and its a game like Halo that gets the credit for pulling it off successfully. Few exceptions. Wolfenstein was fun, the first true FPS, and good

corpsesarefun wrote:Our liquidated dairy friend has it right, innovation is good but isn't needed to make a good game.

Absolutely, but it's needed to make a good game great, especially ones like CoD and Halo that have had multiple titles under the same brand and name. Innovation is what drives the industry forward. The Wii was innovative, hence why it pushed forward the casual market and motion control technology. Halo CE was innovative (Yes, it was, it did not just mash some mechanics together), hence why it drove the FPS on console market forward. The Elder Scrolls made RPG's the place to make truly great games. Currently, the industry has stagnated. FPS's are the money makers now, or games that have their own money selling brand. Would Halo and Mass Effect do so well financially if they were released alongside CoD? I'm betting they wouldn't.

Mass Effect isn't an FPS. Comparing it's success to a game from another genre is just plain silly. RPGs and FPS cater to different markets and tastes. The vast success of an FPS doesn't really hamper an RPG, because you've got half the camp that prefers one genre over the other, and thus will only want one of the two titles anyway, and then you've got the other half that will A) Buy both games at once, or B) Buy one game, then the other when they have the cash.

What's generally accepted as 'innovation' changes by genre. Definition is the same, but for FPS franchises, adding a couple tweaks to a long standing cover system is considered innovation. In an RPG saga, it might be a change to the way a levelling system works, while an RTS series could have adverse weather conditions affect gameplay. So on and so forth. Each genre has it's own pulls, and claiming that the release of a game in one genre could seriously hurt sales in a completely different genre is silly, unless we're talking market saturation of a particular genre.

In any case, 'innovation' seems to carry a much weaker meaning in the gaming world these days. Some games are still branding their series' new addition of things that have been in the industry for years now as 'innovation'. It's almost getting as sorely overused as "Hero"

iproxtaco wrote:Halo CE was innovative (Yes, it was, it did not just mash some mechanics together),

How? What was innovative about Halo?

My personal perspective is that Halo influenced the industry because of its console release. Before Halo, FPS games for consoles were pretty niche outside of the odd Goldeneye; after Halo's massive success, a huge number of developers began putting effort into console FPS releases. It helped that Halo got a very large amount of hype before its release (For good reason).

LordofHats wrote:I don't know if I can trust the opinion of someone who is both churned and burned. Call me dairist

I don't mind. Butter stains can be difficult to get out of hats.

"Niche"? I couldn't fething find half the games I wanted because of the horrendous amount of WWII FPS games.

Molten Butter wrote:How? What was innovative about Halo?

Many things. Wolfenstein, Doom, and Goldeneye all built the genre. Halo perfected it.

Innovations it made itself:

Control scheme. Halo created the modern FPS control scheme which is now standard in all games since.
Console Multiplayer
Regenerating health
Weapon Melee
Innovative AI programming

Innovations it popularized/perfected:

Vehicles in multiplayer
Carrying two weapons
Rebirth of the console lan party

Also the game that invented tea bagging. I suppose everything has a downside.

Chowderhead wrote:"Niche"? I couldn't fething find half the games I wanted because of the horrendous amount of WWII FPS games.

Which ones? I remember Medal of Honor, but barely anything else.

Chowderhead wrote:"Niche"? I couldn't fething find half the games I wanted because of the horrendous amount of WWII FPS games.

Which ones? I remember Medal of Honor, but barely anything else.

LordofHats wrote:

Molten Butter wrote:How? What was innovative about Halo?

Many things. Wolfenstein, Doom, and Goldeneye all built the genre. Halo perfected it. I love Halo CE, but most PC players would disagree with that assumption. Many regard mouse and keyboard above any console controls.

Innovations it made itself:

Control scheme. Halo created the modern FPS control scheme which is now standard in all games since. I will give you that Halo's control scheme became the default console control scheme. The separate grenade button was the main difference there, since the rest isn't really innovation, but tweaking..
Console Multiplayer Not created by Halo. You already mentioned Goldeneye.
Regenerating health Also not created by Halo. It's been in games since 1992.
Weapon Melee Perfect Dark had it first.
Innovative AI programming Its AI was great, but it wasn't beyond everything. Best thing I can think of was that the enemy AI could take unmanned vehicles.

Innovations it popularized/perfected:That's the entire point I was bringing up. You admit Halo didn't invent these things, but instead made them popular and improved them.

Vehicles in multiplayer
Carrying two weapons
Rebirth of the console lan party

Also the game that invented tea bagging. I suppose everything has a downside.

Responses in bold.

I'm amazed that no one has mentioned it, so I will. AvP2010.
Let me say that again. ****ing goddamn AvP2010.

It was absolutely pants in every possible way (apart from graphics, obviously.). After nearly a year of hype and anticipation, sega gave us that steaming pile of gak. AvPg is one of the most faithful franchise games ever, AvP2 has such good multiplayer that I STILL play it on project saviour, but then, came AvP2010, which both sucks and blows.

/rant.

Molten Butter wrote:Many things. Wolfenstein, Doom, and Goldeneye all built the genre. Halo perfected it. I love Halo CE, but most PC players would disagree with that assumption. Many regard mouse and keyboard above any console controls.

PC player opinion means nothing in the development of the consoles (but I should have specified).

Console Multiplayer Not created by Halo. You already mentioned Goldeneye.

Halo is the origin of the console's online multiplayer. Without Halo it wouldn't have happened. Specifically Halo 2 more than Halo: CE. Plenty had tried but Halo 2 created the system that worked so well all other systems became abandoned (Primarily because they just didn't work). A lot of the features of Halo 2's matchmaker have even found their way onto the PC.

Regenerating health Also not created by Halo. It's been in games since 1992.

I suppose I don't really know. Honestly I'd still give credit to Halo. If someone else did it a decade earlier and it didn't take, something wasn't working right

Weapon Melee Perfect Dark had it first.

As button that could be pressed at any time? I don't think it did. Perfect Dark was a copy paste of Goldeneye into a much better story line

Innovative AI programming Its AI was great, but it wasn't beyond everything. Best thing I can think of was that the enemy AI could take unmanned vehicles.

A lot of people take it for granted today. Halo:CE was the first game that saw AI that behaved with a semblance of intelligence.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Quoted. For. Justice.

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

I prefer keyboard and mouse for RTS games, but not FPS games.

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Wow, that's a sweeping comment dude..

I myself didn't really get into PC gaming until 1995ish. Before that it was console all the way. I've been a console nut since 1990 when my parents bought me a Japanese realease Mega-Drive for Christmas. Because of this I am just more comfortable with a controller than with mouse and keyboard.
Granted, the keyboard and mouse combo works a lot better for things like RTS games, but for me personally the controller is a more comfortable option. Hell, I use one for most FPS PC games and for third person games too, like 'DeathSpank' etc. As long as they allow controller mapping obviously!

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Which doesn't matter when consoles don't use a mouse and keyboard. It's completely irrelevant to the consoles and any discussion about Halo's contributions to FPS gaming on console systems.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Wow, that's a sweeping comment dude..

I myself didn't really get into PC gaming until 1995ish. Before that it was console all the way. I've been a console nut since 1990 when my parents bought me a Japanese realease Mega-Drive for Christmas. Because of this I am just more comfortable with a controller than with mouse and keyboard.
Granted, the keyboard and mouse combo works a lot better for things like RTS games, but for me personally the controller is a more comfortable option. Hell, I use one for most FPS PC games and for third person games too, like 'DeathSpank' etc. As long as they allow controller mapping obviously!

You're just more used to a controller, the fact is it's just a given that the K&M is superior to a controller. K&M offers greater accuracy and control. Not to mention consul games have auto aim to compensate and the speed of consul shooters is slowed down compared to PC shooters. That's not to say the people who use controllers are doomed vs a K&M players though.

I'm not trying to start a PC vs consul thing, just proving my point.

Yup, fair play there. I can see the point, I just prefer the controller, it's more comfortable for me. But it's horses for courses dude!
I may well come round at some point, having started playing Doom 3 ( now I have a PC that can run it!) and playing Morrowind (I know, I'm about 5 years behind...) But for me, ATM, it's controller all the way

LordofHats wrote:

Console Multiplayer Not created by Halo. You already mentioned Goldeneye.

Halo is the origin of the console's online multiplayer. Without Halo it wouldn't have happened. Specifically Halo 2 more than Halo: CE. Plenty had tried but Halo 2 created the system that worked so well all other systems became abandoned (Primarily because they just didn't work). A lot of the features of Halo 2's matchmaker have even found their way onto the PC.

So, rather than Console Multiplayer, you actually mean console online multiplayer.

Goliath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Console Multiplayer Not created by Halo. You already mentioned Goldeneye.

Halo is the origin of the console's online multiplayer. Without Halo it wouldn't have happened. Specifically Halo 2 more than Halo: CE. Plenty had tried but Halo 2 created the system that worked so well all other systems became abandoned (Primarily because they just didn't work). A lot of the features of Halo 2's matchmaker have even found their way onto the PC.

So, rather than Console Multiplayer, you actually mean console online multiplayer.

I suppose. I don't really consider split screen all that important when it was just on one console. Big whoop

I'm not going to bother listing all the over hyped games that have disappointed me over the years as that would be a stupidly long list.

I can however think of a few that really really pissed me off.

Firstly anything made by Bethesda after Morrowind. It seems to me that after the modest success of that game Bethesda descided to turn excellent RPG games into hollow souless action games with RPG elements and crap plots. Oblivion was just about rescued by the modding community but not what it should have been. Then I was stupid enough to try Fallout 3 and that was just as bad with an even more boring landscape (for post apocalypic landscapes done right look at the Stalker series).

Mafia 2, basically a prettier Mafia 1 with a worse plot and a token open world system. Shame really as if they'd improved the story and implemented a proper open world they'd have produced a masterpiece.

Colin McRae Dirt 2, ok for codemasters to keep the Colin's name on the game in the UK was a nice tribute to one of the true motorsport legends but the game itself just didn't feel like a rally game which given the name it bloody well should do. I guess I really should have spotted the warning signs when they had Ken Block promoting it.

Gears of War. I'm sorry if I offend anyone here but how is this a good game. It's just a bunch of steroid abusing knuckle dragging morons hiding behind greyish brown walls waiting for their health to magically regenreate or shooting ugly greyish brown alien things. The fact that it's a popular series worries me.

I could go on for hours....

On topic: Epic Mickey. The hype for that game was much larger than the final sales. Part of the hype came from Warren Spector's previous success, part of it came from the idea, but the bad controls and camera simply made the game not fun to play for most who got it. I rented it and still regard that as a waste of my money.

Lord of Hats wrote:PC player opinion means nothing in the development of the consoles (but I should have specified).
Regardless, Halo's "perfection" of the FPS genre did nothing to affect PC FPS games, except those that were designed for consoles anyway.

Halo is the origin of the console's online multiplayer. Without Halo it wouldn't have happened. Specifically Halo 2 more than Halo: CE. Plenty had tried but Halo 2 created the system that worked so well all other systems became abandoned (Primarily because they just didn't work). A lot of the features of Halo 2's matchmaker have even found their way onto the PC.
That's Halo 2. We're talking about Halo CE.

I suppose I don't really know. Honestly I'd still give credit to Halo. If someone else did it a decade earlier and it didn't take, something wasn't working right
Like I said, Halo was great because it combined many good aspects from other games into one and often improved them. Nobody remembers the shooters with regenerating health before Halo because those shooters weren't very popular or good on average.

As button that could be pressed at any time? I don't think it did. Perfect Dark was a copy paste of Goldeneye into a much better story line
That's an issue of controls, much like Halo's separate grenade button. Perfect Dark still did pistol-whipping long before Halo did it.

A lot of people take it for granted today. Halo:CE was the first game that saw AI that behaved with a semblance of intelligence.
People also said that about Half Life, which was released in '99. Again, how is Halo's AI innovative?

If it looks like I'm trying to disrespect Halo, I'm not. I just think its success proves that innovation is not always needed for a great game.

Too Human really, really dropped the ball. Seven years in deveopment , abd planned for three different consols? Dear lord the gaameplay is horrid, the storie is acctualy quite intresting but the sheer amount of fail made sure this game never reached its potensiale

mine is Call of Duty Black ops. the game look awesome, was awesome but after 2 - 3 weeks after buying it, it had lost all its charm. the campaign I called not bring myself to play again unlike MW2. The multiplayer... was the only highlight of Black Ops.

Halo 3 I loved the single-player and Multiplayer, but then my friend gave me his copy of Halo 2 for PC cause he did not have Vista, (I had 7 haha...) and after beating that then. Playing Halo 3 campaign... I was sad... because it sucked. Thou I take halo 3 multiplayer over Halo reach ANY day. My friend only plays Reach with me now cause I beat him all the time at Halo 3... and I don't even own an Xbox, I beat him on his own terf.

Brink and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit. The later I was so excited by but after spending a number of hours with it I was left so disappointed.While it was a stunning game I really didn't like what Criterion did with it.

Nick Ellingworth wrote:
Gears of War. I'm sorry if I offend anyone here but how is this a good game. It's just a bunch of steroid abusing knuckle dragging morons hiding behind greyish brown walls waiting for their health to magically regenreate or shooting ugly greyish brown alien things. The fact that it's a popular series worries me.

Great story line, the best cover system in the business, fun enemies. Most of your arguments seem to be based on the looks, not so much the gameplay. And they pretty much invented the whole brown thing (or at least made it popular) so at the time, it wasn't copied everywhere yet.

Can't help that you don't like it, but it's a great game mate.

I'm confused as to why people keep saying games that they didn't like "failed".

Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, <insert generic mainstream game that sells millions of copies>...they didn't fail.

They might be hyped and not deliver on something, but that doesn't mean they "failed".
A good example of a hyped game that failed is Too Human.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm confused as to why people keep saying games that they didn't like "failed".

Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, <insert generic mainstream game that sells millions of copies>...they didn't fail.

They might be hyped and not deliver on something, but that doesn't mean they "failed".
A good example of a hyped game that failed is Too Human.

"Failure in my eyes"=Failed

Basically we're like language arts teachers instead of math teachers

In other words, your wrong.

Personal dislike of a game does not equal failed. I don't know why people keep insisting the opposite of that in this thread. It may not be your cup of tea, but games that sell millions of copies are far from failures.

Personally I can't stand a lot of the new point and shoot games like CoD. However even if I do not like these games, they are not failures. The problem is, I am not part of the target audience.

Now maybe if you are Yahtzee, I might let your personal opinion sway me some.

Lord Scythican wrote:Now maybe if you are Yahtzee, I might let your personal opinion sway me some.

Oh Yahtzee. Your reviews may well be funniest ever made. Maybe a little overblown, but oh so very funny

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Now maybe if you are Yahtzee, I might let your personal opinion sway me some.

Oh Yahtzee. Your reviews may well be funniest ever made. Maybe a little overblown, but oh so very funny

Requesting link to said reviews

nectarprime wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Now maybe if you are Yahtzee, I might let your personal opinion sway me some.

Oh Yahtzee. Your reviews may well be funniest ever made. Maybe a little overblown, but oh so very funny

Requesting link to said reviews

Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw, Zero Punctuation.

Warning: Do not take Yahtzee seriously. Almost all of his reviews come off negative, but he noted in one video years ago that "no one seems to care when I give a game a good review" and really hasn't ever since. His reviews range from "this game sucks" to "this game sucks but its fun."

Actaully, he's not a reviewer, he's a critic, it's his job to find all the bad stuff.

Soladrin wrote:Actaully, he's not a reviewer, he's a critic, it's his job to find all the bad stuff.

Reviews can be and are often produced by critics. Indeed, any examination of something entails criticism (in its natural means not the negative connotation that it has accumulated).

LordofHats wrote:Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw, Zero Punctuation.

Slightly off topic...I'd never actually seen any of these reviews before I picked up Mogworld. A good read, even if you don't know who Yahtzee is or appreciate his humor.

biccat wrote:

LordofHats wrote:="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation"]Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw, Zero Punctuation.

Slightly off topic...I'd never actually seen any of these reviews before I picked up [http://www.amazon.com/Mogworld-Yahtzee-Croshaw/dp/1595825290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317059673&sr=8-1]Mogworld[/url]. A good read, even if you don't know who Yahtzee is or appreciate his humor.

Brilliant book that is

Does no one here but me remember Daikitana?

I refuse to remember that abomination.

Crom wrote:Does no one here but me remember Daikitana?

Its been mentioned several times.

LordofHats wrote:

Crom wrote:Does no one here but me remember Daikitana?

Its been mentioned several times.

Gotcha, must have not read that post...

Crom wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Crom wrote:Does no one here but me remember Daikitana?

Its been mentioned several times.

Gotcha, must have not read that post...

Honestly I doubt anyone can forget Daikatana Only a few games are so horribly bad that they're remembered for being so bad.

Ahh yes Yahtzee. Found his video on Minecraft to be hilarious with bits of truth in it

I guess a lot of us have a little bit of Yahtzee/AVGN in us, wishing only to see companies we hate fail into a burning wreckage. I feel sorry for them, their fans are too demanding (AVGN IIRC had a little side project he would have loved to pursue but too many people said "WHERES THE NEXT ANGRY REVIEW?")

Anyways on topic, I suppose I cam off a bit rudish in my post. I was making a generalization on what many of us see as personal failures. In fact in my original post on this topic I mention I listed personal disappointments, and not financial failures.

Otherwise I would have mentioned any recentish Marvel game not Marvel Ultimate Alliance/MVC3!

Fable 3: Not an RPG like they made it seem like, very linear only real difference was whether you wanted to be good or evil.

Gears: Hordes great and im getting the new one just for that, otherwise, seems like the same game just with more OP guns and carmine doesn't die....

Every COD game since Mw: Only thing bearable was zombies in 5 just because it was something really new and neat.

Has anyone said Mindjack?

Try Warhammer Online, it was going to be the WOW killer, ha.

mondo80 wrote:Try Warhammer Online, it was going to be the WOW killer, ha.

The only thing that can kill WoW, is WoW itself

Commisar Von Humps wrote:

Gears: Hordes great and im getting the new one just for that, otherwise, seems like the same game just with more OP guns and carmine doesn't die....

Yea thanks for the spoiler.... I wanted to find that out while playin the game....

I agree with most of whats been said, except I'd like to defend one game that keeps cropping up. I am referring to, of course, our good friend Dragon Age 2. Now, I'm a massive Dragon Age fan, so maybe I'm biased, but here's my opinion on it.

First of all, it was rushed, that's painfully obvious and very sad that a good dev like bioware had to resort to reusing environments wholesale and leaving one companion kind of unfinished. However the combat system is improved in my opinion, the DnD style dice behind the screen was ok but got a little bland after a while. I also enjoyed the dialogue mechanic and the overall story idea. However DA2 suffers from one major problem.

Its not going to live up to its predecessor, ever. DA:O was a very good game, really good, five years in the making, well polished, gripping etc. DA2 is a good game but suffers from having to follow Origins. Anyway, my 2 cents on the matter.

Anyone recommend any good Strategy RPG games? Like Final Fantasy Tactics? I loved those games, but have beat them all. I tried a few others but none of them are that good in my mind.

Crom wrote:Anyone recommend any good Strategy RPG games? Like Final Fantasy Tactics? I loved those games, but have beat them all. I tried a few others but none of them are that good in my mind.

No Strategy RPG will ever equal Final Fantasy Tactics again; that is literally the pinnacle of the genre. However, there are a few games out there that might be what you're looking for.

First, you need to check out the Ogre Battle Series (Ogre Battle, Tactics Ogre, etc.). It's an SRPG series made by the same exact team as Final Fantasy Tactics, and you'll be able to see where FFT got some of it's great ideas from. You may even enjoy it nearly as much. They just remade the original for the PSP, so it shouldn't be that hard to find. Also check out the Front Mission series (excluding Front Mission Evolved). It's another SRPG series made by Squaresoft that's reasonably complex and highly addictive, though it functions much differently than FFT does. Front Mission 3 is the best in the series, IMO, though it's doubtful you'll be able to find it anymore.

Disgaea is another decent SRPG series. The battle and leveling system isn't quite as awesome as FFT, and it definitely doesn't take itself quite so seriously, but the unique mechanic for upgrading your weapons and the unlimited leveling will make for a nice diversion.

There are a few others, but those are among the best I've been able to find. It's kind of a dying genre, unfortunately.

johnscott10 wrote:

Commisar Von Humps wrote:

Gears: Hordes great and im getting the new one just for that, otherwise, seems like the same game just with more OP guns and carmine doesn't die....

Yea thanks for the spoiler.... I wanted to find that out while playin the game....

Not a problem, always glad to help, oh yeah, CENSORED - MT11 dies too .

He's misleading you. CENSORED survives, but there's a lot about him and CENSORED.

Guys, there is no need to spoil the game for others for no other reason than to spoil it for others...do the polite thing and be considerate!

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Crom wrote:Anyone recommend any good Strategy RPG games? Like Final Fantasy Tactics? I loved those games, but have beat them all. I tried a few others but none of them are that good in my mind.

No Strategy RPG will ever equal Final Fantasy Tactics again; that is literally the pinnacle of the genre. However, there are a few games out there that might be what you're looking for.

First, you need to check out the Ogre Battle Series (Ogre Battle, Tactics Ogre, etc.). It's an SRPG series made by the same exact team as Final Fantasy Tactics, and you'll be able to see where FFT got some of it's great ideas from. You may even enjoy it nearly as much. They just remade the original for the PSP, so it shouldn't be that hard to find. Also check out the Front Mission series (excluding Front Mission Evolved). It's another SRPG series made by Squaresoft that's reasonably complex and highly addictive, though it functions much differently than FFT does. Front Mission 3 is the best in the series, IMO, though it's doubtful you'll be able to find it anymore.

Disgaea is another decent SRPG series. The battle and leveling system isn't quite as awesome as FFT, and it definitely doesn't take itself quite so seriously, but the unique mechanic for upgrading your weapons and the unlimited leveling will make for a nice diversion.

There are a few others, but those are among the best I've been able to find. It's kind of a dying genre, unfortunately.

I know of Ogre Tactics and Disgaea but have never played either. I did not know about Front Mission. Thanks for the advice time to go search the bargain bins at Gamestop. I see you are in Lawrence, I am in KC, so we are neighbors!

I was being very considerate! One of those was an actual spoiler, I simply threw him off, so he didn't know which one was which and things weren't actually spoiled.

God, I hate to say it....

Space Marine.

The Multiplayer is such a bummer (Laggy as hell, boring class builds), the campaign is great, but some parts feel lacking. It's as if Relic rushed the release to get it on shelves.

It's hardly been like 2 weeks and I'm already bored, and playing Gears. Waiting for Exterminatus though.

Cryonicleech wrote:God, I hate to say it....

Space Marine.

The Multiplayer is such a bummer (Laggy as hell, boring class builds), the campaign is great, but some parts feel lacking. It's as if Relic rushed the release to get it on shelves.

It's hardly been like 2 weeks and I'm already bored, and playing Gears. Waiting for Exterminatus though.

HERESY!!!!!!!!
But in all seriousness, I agree with you in the way that it does feel rushed, and that it could have turned out so much better
But i still do like the game alot, just waiting for Exterminatus

Space Marine, just a Dynasty warriors re skin. Hate all you want, see how much I care.

Toastedandy wrote:Space Marine, just a Dynasty warriors re skin. Hate all you want, see how much I care.

Tbh I not gonna hate as I did get that feeling a bit, but only when using the sword or axe. Its not a 100% reskin.

EmilCrane wrote:I agree with most of whats been said, except I'd like to defend one game that keeps cropping up. I am referring to, of course, our good friend Dragon Age 2. Now, I'm a massive Dragon Age fan, so maybe I'm biased, but here's my opinion on it.

First of all, it was rushed, that's painfully obvious and very sad that a good dev like bioware had to resort to reusing environments wholesale and leaving one companion kind of unfinished. However the combat system is improved in my opinion, the DnD style dice behind the screen was ok but got a little bland after a while. I also enjoyed the dialogue mechanic and the overall story idea. However DA2 suffers from one major problem.

Its not going to live up to its predecessor, ever. DA:O was a very good game, really good, five years in the making, well polished, gripping etc. DA2 is a good game but suffers from having to follow Origins. Anyway, my 2 cents on the matter.

To be honest I think that it being so rushed was the only problem. DA2, even rushed as it was, had a lot going for it, if given as much time as Origins, I have little to no doubt it would of been superior. Bioware has proven with Mass Effect in particular they can do better than Origins, IMHO.

Now, on-topic...

This thread seems to be asking for one's own personal opinion, rather than a more objective answer (Based on sales). So I will answer based on opinion.

Uncharted comes to mind, though I have only played 2. The gameplay was all right, nothing I have not seen before, but decent enough. But... I really don't understand the praise for the story. The reason for this being... I despise Nathan Drake. Nathan Drake is exceptional in that he's such a massive douchebag all day every day, I really couldn't finish. Rare is the character who is so offensive with his douchebaggery that I must cease playing the game. I felt like every cutscene, every time he opened his douchebag mouth, he was assaulting me with it. This destroyed my enjoyment of the game.

And probably one of the games you would never expect to be brought up, is... Portal. Don't get me wrong, as short as it was, it was a fun game, I enjoyed it, and the writing was solid. GLaDOS is also a really cool character. But... Well, I only played it over a year after it came out, and considering all the massive hype it got all the time, I honestly expected not just a "pretty good game," but I expected it based on the hype to be one of the single best games I have ever played... And IMO it really wasn't. The mechanics, while new and interesting, weren't really great, and the game has very little replay value for me.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Speaking objectively, Fable dominates this. I personally like the series. But Molyneux really needs to chill the feth out when hyping his games.

LordofHats wrote:
Warning: Do not take Yahtzee seriously. Almost all of his reviews come off negative, but he noted in one video years ago that "no one seems to care when I give a game a good review" and really hasn't ever since. His reviews range from "this game sucks" to "this game sucks but its fun."

When he likes a game, he generally says something to the effect of "X is a good game." during the review, which is how most high-end critics approach their work. Generally fawning is less interesting than explaining what is done poorly.

From a personal viewpoint, I'm going to have to go with Portal 2. Everyone says it's great, friends say it's great, but honestly it felt...average to me. It must have been decent because I finished it (a rare thing these days), but I was hardly blown away by any of it. If anything I got the feeling it was lazily put together. Chell had no personality, the story was rather simple and could have been expanded a lot, wheatley's voice got annoying VERY quickly, and among other minor things, I gotta say the ending is what simply killed the game for me



It felt like playing half life two, except without the action and story, and replacing all that with puzzles.

Necroshea wrote:Chell had no personality

I think thats the point

Valve single player games pretty much require the main character to be mute and have to have the surrounding characters define them

Contrasting to Team Fortress 2 in which theres a barely put together story and no real serious point and yet all the classes have well defined personalities

I didnt think Portal 2 was going to be amazing, thats why I bought it at $15 instead of $50

The original portal wasnt $50, neither should its sequel

kenshin620 wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Chell had no personality

I think thats the point

Valve single player games pretty much require the main character to be mute and have to have the surrounding characters define them

Contrasting to Team Fortress 2 in which theres a barely put together story and no real serious point and yet all the classes have well defined personalities

I didnt think Portal 2 was going to be amazing, thats why I bought it at $15 instead of $50

The original portal wasnt $50, neither should its sequel

In general I think they should be done away with. Mute characters are a memory of old school gaming, I think it's about time companies get with the times. For example dead space. I loved both games, but I liked Isaac more in the second one because he had a voice. He was a character in a story that I was watching, and he acted like a character in a story. Unless I'm playing an RPG like neverwinter nights, or fallout/oblivion, I never feel like I'm a character unless I can make them from the ground up. RAGE did the mute character approach (I guess it's an ID thing too), and it was really weird when people would talk to me and we would have one way conversations. I also really disliked when they try to make mute characters part of a story. For example half life 2, or episode one, whichever, you hear the phrase "you don't talk much do you". As if the actual person is going through all these insane events and doesn't care enough to speak.

So yeah, I guess in short I don't like mute characters. It takes away the appeal of playing as someone in a story. In an rpg, they can just let you pick from different sound packs and that should remedy the problem.

Edit - Also yeah, I believe Valve makes a point to have silent characters. To me it just comes across as lazy. I imagine gordon can be silent and get away with it because he came from a time in gaming where being silent wasn't so odd.

I didn't care too much for Portal 2 as well. I was expecting this huge game that was worth $60.00. Basically a full fleged version of the first one. Honestly I think the first one was way better and it was pretty much a freebie in the Orange Box.

Portal 2 just didn't have the same feel. Maybe I missed all the flavour somehow that the first one had.

I couldn't get into Portal at all. Had the Orange Box for 18 months now. All the other games still have much love, only played Portal three times....

If the alternative to silent protagonist is Samus from other M can we keep silent protagonists. People can be defined by actions and their impact on others not by a phoned in voice actor repeating a set of god awful lines that didnt match the established backstory... AT ALL.

Black ops for its god damn awful online multi-player (its a good job for treyarch) mw2 came out before otherwise you can guarantee the hype would have been nowhere near half of what it was) and assassins creed really does not float my boat at all.........

And then theres ninjabreadman

Lord Scythican wrote:I didn't care too much for Portal 2 as well. I was expecting this huge game that was worth $60.00. Basically a full fleged version of the first one. Honestly I think the first one was way better and it was pretty much a freebie in the Orange Box.

Portal 2 just didn't have the same feel. Maybe I missed all the flavour somehow that the first one had.

I'll agree with this. I really enjoyed Portal 2, but it didn't feel the same...despite the first had less content, it seems like I liked it more...

Similar to Smash Bros. Melee and Brawl...Yeah, Brawl has more people/game modes/looks nicer, but I still liked Melee more

Brink. Looked like a decent game in trailers, preview and such. Absolute crap.

Oh and Bloodbowl for console. May not have been as hyped as other more mainstream games but ah well. Very disappointed. 8 races. Stupid AI, game ruining glitches. Oh and did I mention that if you wanted extra teams you paid for them? Bleh. Rubbish.

Duke Nukem Forever

I really wanted it to turn out good.
What I got was a crappy halo clone.

In my eyes?
Gears of War and its sequels.
Final Fantasy after 8 (although 10 wasn't terrible)
Grand Theft Auto 3+
Warhammer: Online
StarCraft 2
Left 4 Dead: 2
EverQuest 2
Shadowbane

Honorable mentions:
Fable series - they didn't come anywhere close to living up to the hype, however I still enjoyed the games
Call of Duty series - same thing as Fable

I'm sure there's others that I'm just not thinking of at the moment.

I don't why everyone hates SC 2. Its not a terrible game. I actually kinda liked it.

Well, ok the fact you can only play 1 campaign kinda sucks, but it is a pretty good one IMO.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I don't why everyone hates SC 2. Its not a terrible game. I actually kinda liked it.

Well, ok the fact you can only play 1 campaign kinda sucks, but it is a pretty good one IMO.

SC2 is bad, in my opinion, for a couple of reasons:
1) Its game play is not that divergent from SC1, which I've played for 10+ years... it's a bit stale.
NOTE: By this I don't mean the standard RTS game play, as that is what is expected, but the overall game play. Units are too similar to their same units in SC1, just reskinned and sometimes renamed.
2) It's going to be ~ $180 to buy the complete game

Shrike325 wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I don't why everyone hates SC 2. Its not a terrible game. I actually kinda liked it.

Well, ok the fact you can only play 1 campaign kinda sucks, but it is a pretty good one IMO.

SC2 is bad, in my opinion, for a couple of reasons:
1) Its game play is not that divergent from SC1, which I've played for 10+ years... it's a bit stale.
NOTE: By this I don't mean the standard RTS game play, as that is what is expected, but the overall game play. Units are too similar to their same units in SC1, just reskinned and sometimes renamed.
2) It's going to be ~ $180 to buy the complete game

Yeah ok good points there. I personally don't mind the old style game play, but the fact that the whole game will have a triple digit price does irk me a bit.

VikingScott wrote:Brink. Looked like a decent game in trailers, preview and such. Absolute crap.

May I ask why?

I understand that reviews have tanked the game, but I feel that it deserves way more credit than it got. It's a shame that I won't be seeing a sequel, as it's easily my favorite team-based multiplayer shooter (I've put about 150 hours into it and am still learning little nuances).

If you were looking for a clone of another type of FPS game, then I can (kind of) understand your disappointment, but Brink has it's own identity and feel.

I don't know why I didn't think of this until now: Final Fantasy 14. That cost Square/Enix an obscene amount of money and was a huge failure. It was such a buggy and horribly designed game that they have spent the last year apologizing for it and not charging a sub fee as a new team was brought to rebuild it from the ground up. In December Final Fantasy XIV 2.0 goes into effect and will apparently have the subscription fee reinstated. The PS3 version is going into beta a year after the initial release date and S/E has announced that it will most likely also be released for the 360 and possibly Vita as well. I have to give them credit for sticking with it all this time, but boy was that a flop of epic proportions.

Homefront was probably the worst FPS game released in recent years and it was hyped over the moon. I would have rather thrown my money into the ocean than bought that game in hindsight.

Gears of war has always been a horrid game. Point your gun in a general direction and shoot. The story is the only thing that kept it going and even taht couldnt get a fluff addict like me to play through the game.

Fallout 3... That game recieved so much hype and still does, I think its garbage. Its got nothing on for example Mass effect or the Elderscrolls series. It doesnt pull you in at all. Another waste of money on my behalf.

Dead Island.

It was advertized as being packed with emotion and scary as hell.

What we got was a Left for Dead/Borderlands clone, with crappy save systems and clunky gameplay.

The new Duke Nukem game. Need I say more.

Theblitzkrieg wrote:The new Duke Nukem game. Need I say more.

Yeah. That game made me sad

I WANTED TO BE BADASS DAMMIT!

Shrike325 wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I don't why everyone hates SC 2. Its not a terrible game. I actually kinda liked it.

Well, ok the fact you can only play 1 campaign kinda sucks, but it is a pretty good one IMO.

SC2 is bad, in my opinion, for a couple of reasons:
1) Its game play is not that divergent from SC1, which I've played for 10+ years... it's a bit stale.
NOTE: By this I don't mean the standard RTS game play, as that is what is expected, but the overall game play. Units are too similar to their same units in SC1, just reskinned and sometimes renamed.
2) It's going to be ~ $180 to buy the complete game

1) the game play is constantly balanced by devs
2) battlenet is 100% free and is in fact an overhead for Blizzard
3) Online play is some of the best out of any RTS from ladder matches, to custom matches, to mods, etc
4) The dynamics of every video game haven't changed from the 90s really at all, except for re-skin, more polygons, better rendering, more frames per a second. The idea of stale game play can be applied to every game

Would you have them reinvent the wheel with SC2?

VikingScott wrote:

Oh and Bloodbowl for console. May not have been as hyped as other more mainstream games but ah well. Very disappointed. 8 races. Stupid AI, game ruining glitches. Oh and did I mention that if you wanted extra teams you paid for them? Bleh. Rubbish.

The bold is wrong, You have to by a whole new Blood Bowl game. Still not really worth it even when stream sold it for 8 bucks.

Crom wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I don't why everyone hates SC 2. Its not a terrible game. I actually kinda liked it.

Well, ok the fact you can only play 1 campaign kinda sucks, but it is a pretty good one IMO.

SC2 is bad, in my opinion, for a couple of reasons:
1) Its game play is not that divergent from SC1, which I've played for 10+ years... it's a bit stale.
NOTE: By this I don't mean the standard RTS game play, as that is what is expected, but the overall game play. Units are too similar to their same units in SC1, just reskinned and sometimes renamed.
2) It's going to be ~ $180 to buy the complete game

1) the game play is constantly balanced by devs
2) battlenet is 100% free and is in fact an overhead for Blizzard
3) Online play is some of the best out of any RTS from ladder matches, to custom matches, to mods, etc
4) The dynamics of every video game haven't changed from the 90s really at all, except for re-skin, more polygons, better rendering, more frames per a second. The idea of stale game play can be applied to every game

Would you have them reinvent the wheel with SC2?

1) K... it's a Blizzard game
2) It's still a Blizzard game
3) ...see 1 & 2 above
4) As I said, it's not the general RTS gameplay that I have a problem with, I expected that kind of gameplay. It's that it feels the exact same as SC1, and that's more of a problem for me.

To expand on 4 a bit more:
All RTS (well, almost all) are gather resources, build buildings, build units, fight to the death!
What I didn't expect was: gather the same resources in the same way, build the same buildings in the same way, build the same units with the same abilities at the same points in the tech tree, fight to the death!

The Foot wrote:Halo:ODST, agree with Duke Nukem, Dragon Age 2, and The Force Unleashed games. I'm sure I will be able to add to this list Star Wars: Old Republic. I have really low expectations for this one, even though Bioware is making it.

Really? ODST might be my favorite of the Halo series. I found it to be fantastic running around as one of the most bad ### of all UNSC personel. Guys who did Spartan jobs without Spartan abilities, the ODST. Really enjoyed ODST, and the first Halo game I can say I beat on Legendary entirely by myself with no co-op involved (beat most of Reach that way, and beat 1 and 2 on Legendary with co-op, but did all of ODST solo on Legendary)

I came to console gaming pretty recently. - When my mother bought an Xbox and Kinect for exercising of all things...

I didn't find ODST that bad at all, but then again, I bought it second hand for about err, the equivalent of 14 dollars?

It's short, yeah, but then again, I completed halo 3 over a weekend, and that was my first console fps!

Anyhows, I liked ODST, the story was fun and it was basically Firefly the Game, next best thing to err... firefly the game....

Shrike325 wrote:

Crom wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I don't why everyone hates SC 2. Its not a terrible game. I actually kinda liked it.

Well, ok the fact you can only play 1 campaign kinda sucks, but it is a pretty good one IMO.

SC2 is bad, in my opinion, for a couple of reasons:
1) Its game play is not that divergent from SC1, which I've played for 10+ years... it's a bit stale.
NOTE: By this I don't mean the standard RTS game play, as that is what is expected, but the overall game play. Units are too similar to their same units in SC1, just reskinned and sometimes renamed.
2) It's going to be ~ $180 to buy the complete game

1) the game play is constantly balanced by devs
2) battlenet is 100% free and is in fact an overhead for Blizzard
3) Online play is some of the best out of any RTS from ladder matches, to custom matches, to mods, etc
4) The dynamics of every video game haven't changed from the 90s really at all, except for re-skin, more polygons, better rendering, more frames per a second. The idea of stale game play can be applied to every game

Would you have them reinvent the wheel with SC2?

1) K... it's a Blizzard game
2) It's still a Blizzard game
3) ...see 1 & 2 above
4) As I said, it's not the general RTS gameplay that I have a problem with, I expected that kind of gameplay. It's that it feels the exact same as SC1, and that's more of a problem for me.

To expand on 4 a bit more:
All RTS (well, almost all) are gather resources, build buildings, build units, fight to the death!
What I didn't expect was: gather the same resources in the same way, build the same buildings in the same way, build the same units with the same abilities at the same points in the tech tree, fight to the death!

I am not sure what you really expected, and almost all resource gather based RTS games follow this model. You really hate Blizzard huh?

Shrike325 wrote:

Crom wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I don't why everyone hates SC 2. Its not a terrible game. I actually kinda liked it.

Well, ok the fact you can only play 1 campaign kinda sucks, but it is a pretty good one IMO.

SC2 is bad, in my opinion, for a couple of reasons:
1) Its game play is not that divergent from SC1, which I've played for 10+ years... it's a bit stale.
NOTE: By this I don't mean the standard RTS game play, as that is what is expected, but the overall game play. Units are too similar to their same units in SC1, just reskinned and sometimes renamed.
2) It's going to be ~ $180 to buy the complete game

1) the game play is constantly balanced by devs
2) battlenet is 100% free and is in fact an overhead for Blizzard
3) Online play is some of the best out of any RTS from ladder matches, to custom matches, to mods, etc
4) The dynamics of every video game haven't changed from the 90s really at all, except for re-skin, more polygons, better rendering, more frames per a second. The idea of stale game play can be applied to every game

Would you have them reinvent the wheel with SC2?

1) K... it's a Blizzard game
2) It's still a Blizzard game
3) ...see 1 & 2 above
4) As I said, it's not the general RTS gameplay that I have a problem with, I expected that kind of gameplay. It's that it feels the exact same as SC1, and that's more of a problem for me.

To expand on 4 a bit more:
All RTS (well, almost all) are gather resources, build buildings, build units, fight to the death!
What I didn't expect was: gather the same resources in the same way, build the same buildings in the same way, build the same units with the same abilities at the same points in the tech tree, fight to the death!

5) The Map Editor is amazing! A Third Person shooter with high def graphics, then you can make your own stuff, then triggers.
6) The Community likes it alot, the game also is constantly updated.
7) its very fun gameplay.
8) Nothing has ever lived up to the original game the only Game that has will be irrevelant as they are so freaking rare its hilarious. (EX Half Life 2, Portal 2, and Diablo 2,t he only ones i can name off the top of my head)
9) Alot of people like it. I liked it because it was good to see it again and play it.
10) It didn't fail, It was very successful. It might of failed for you but that doesn't mean it failed everyone.

You guys know that HAlo ODST was originally going to be downloadable and be sold at 40$ but Microsoft said "Oh its a full game. it should be an individual game for 60$."
Its short but no disappointment.

The Force Unleashed is a fun game. Its story sucks yeah, but I only want it to be a jedi wielding two light sabers and cutting through swaves enemies. that is all anyone buys it for...

Dead Island was fantastic! I love that hybrid! its a great idea!


Now to my list

Also this thread is about the worst hyped games ever.
Like Duke Nukeum-most sexist game of all time!
Wolfenstein.
Fable III
All of the gears of wars games.
Call Of Duty
Metorid Prime the Other M- Dear god this was a sexist game.

F3AR
FEAR 3-OMG WHAT THE HELK! I am sorry but I have to rant about this game.... Well the hell! i rent it, I played it, I hated it!

The ending was horrible! I hate how they have to Kill your main character from FEAR 2, who actually talked and actually had a family, and was an American soldier! Unlike the Pointman who was a horrible character to begin with. I would of rather played the Black Guy from the original fear.

Or the Segerant from Fear Extraction point. Fettel is the only good character. Yet the group contradicted lore already put down.

Where the hell is his army of Repilica soldiers that he said was making in FEAR 2: Reborn? Where the helk is the surviving members of FEAR? Where is the commisioner? Where the helk is Armistead?

WHERE THE HELK IS MY HAMMER HEAD GUN?!?!?!?

Where is all the things i loved about the original Fear and FEAR 2 where is the highly intelligent AI that flanked me, and was able to gun me down and surprise the hell out of me?

Where are the creepy scenes? Where was the FEAR? Where was the story? What the hell is a pyschic link? Where is my stim? Where are my health packs? Where is my health bar?

Where is surivival horror game that I played before? How the helk do i figure out the story? The only good thing about it is the multiplayer which is sooo much better than FEAR 1s.... But doesn't live up to FEAR 2 PO.

The endless horde modes were fun, but those are the only redeeming qualities. Its graphics didn't live up to todays standards and the game didn't provide the scares it promised us.

Also its not made by the group that originally made FEAR. Monlith, no its made by Game Over Studios, the publishing group that published the game itself.

Point Man is silent and we don't know why he is moving everywhere in the game. Also why did they have to kill Michael Beckett? He wasn't broken in FEAR 2 it even says in the lore. "He has seen much, but even if alma throws the worst at him, he will recover, he is the best soldier we got, he might even rival Paxton Fettel."

Game Over Studios failed me, and a very large fanbased as they promised us it was going to be 4x better than before. We were saddened to see that the game did not provide. There are no screamish scenes. They are all expected, they don't scare anyone that has played a fear game before.

This game has none of the things you liked about the original fear game. It doesn't have the nice flowing story, no plot twists, no sudden game changers. No scary characters. Only 12 different enemies to fight against. The ending boss, really? This is a FPS, not a RPG, the ending 'boss' for all the other games has always been alma and the nightmares, which scare the gak out of me compared to the Creeper which just reminds me of a creature from Resident Evil 4.

That is my view on the game. Though pick up fear 2 then play fear 3. See the problem and shoot the game.

Don't even get me started on Resident Evil 5! What a disgrace!

What didn't you like about RE5? I thought it was fun.

Coolyo294 wrote:What didn't you like about RE5? I thought it was fun.

It was RE4.
Minus the Merchant. Minus the scaryness. It was the same game. Different environment. Thats it.
Also.... The Ai for your partner, she would rush off and kill herself . WAIT WHERE ARE YOU GOING :dies: Sasha has died. God Damn it!

The thing I hated most about RE5 was the fact you can't move and shoot at the same time.

There are a horde of zombies coming after you. Are you seriously going to stand there and fire away aimlessly?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:The thing I hated most about RE5 was the fact you can't move and shoot at the same time.

There are a horde of zombies coming after you. Are you seriously going to stand there and fire away aimlessly?

That's been in almost all Resident Evil Games.

Cheesecat wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:The thing I hated most about RE5 was the fact you can't move and shoot at the same time.

There are a horde of zombies coming after you. Are you seriously going to stand there and fire away aimlessly?

That's been in almost all Resident Evil Games.

And it needs to go

It's a stupid game mechanic used to inflate difficulty and nothing else. It worked in the 90's cause no one knew any better, but in this day and age, keeping it around is just antiquated.

LordofHats wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:The thing I hated most about RE5 was the fact you can't move and shoot at the same time.

There are a horde of zombies coming after you. Are you seriously going to stand there and fire away aimlessly?

That's been in almost all Resident Evil Games.

And it needs to go

It's a stupid game mechanic used to inflate difficulty and nothing else. It worked in the 90's cause no one knew any better, but in this day and age, keeping it around is just antiquated.

I find it feels fine in Resident Evil games certainly makes the action more intense than say Halo or something.

Asherian Command wrote:

Coolyo294 wrote:What didn't you like about RE5? I thought it was fun.

It was RE4.
Minus the Merchant. Minus the scaryness. It was the same game. Different environment. Thats it.
Also.... The Ai for your partner, she would rush off and kill herself . WAIT WHERE ARE YOU GOING :dies: Sasha has died. God Damn it!

Who the hell is Sasha? Her name is Sheva.

But I agree, I was pretty disappointed by RE5. RE4 scared the bejesus outta me, and they promised the same with RE5 (even saying that the daytime aspect wouldn't hinder the scariness at all). But not a single scare to be had. It was fun, certainly, my brother and I still play on occasion. It's a good action game. But that's not what Resident Evil games should be. Although, I was terrified by the first RE5 DLC. Scared the crap outta me.

I'm also not understanding all the hate for Fallout 3. I love the game. Still play it. I love all the characters, I love the gameplay, I love the story. Sure, the settings do get boring after a while (OH GOD NOT ANOTHER ABANDONED BUILDING), but I feel that way about basically any dungeon ever. Remember caves in Pokemon? Or caves in Final Fantasy games? Or caves/mines/tombs/forts in Oblivion? Same shizzle. It's the equivalent of a random encounter. And I hate random encounters.

Batman Begins: The Game. Basically, they promised the game to be everything Arkham Asylum would eventually be. And it wasn't. "Make your enemies terrified of you! They'll react to whatever you do!" What they didn't tell you was that you only ever had one choice when it came to scaring your enemies, and if you didn't do that, they'd kill you without question.

Dragon Age: Origins. When I first got the game I was in love. Never finished it because I let somebody borrow it. Then I went back a few weeks ago and tried to play it, couldn't. Ugly as hell, for one. And the gameplay is sooo boring. It's like Knights, but without the fun. And that sucks, because I genuinely like the story.

Force Unleashed 2. Force Unleashed 1 wasn't some fantastic game, it was incredibly short and had a ho-hum story. But it was fun as hell, throwing people off of ledges and basically just wrecking face. Force Unleashed 2 removed all of that, ramped up the difficulty and has an even worse story.

I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of any right now.

Blood Bowl. I swear the dice rolls in the PC version is rigged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:The thing I hated most about RE5 was the fact you can't move and shoot at the same time.

There are a horde of zombies coming after you. Are you seriously going to stand there and fire away aimlessly?

That's been in almost all Resident Evil Games.

And it needs to go

It's a stupid game mechanic used to inflate difficulty and nothing else. It worked in the 90's cause no one knew any better, but in this day and age, keeping it around is just antiquated.

I agree with that. I couldn't beat the first boss due to this error.

rockerbikie wrote:I agree with that. I couldn't beat the first boss due to this error.

Ouch. I personally only had trouble with the feature on the highest difficulty. I just think its a silly game feature. They should just accept that other games like Dead Space have taken what was done in RE4 and improved on it and move on. I know Capcom still lives in the late 90's as far as game mechanics go, but come on XD

I think Red Steel for the Wii was major fail.
People kept going on how it was a serious game on the Wii.
(When the Wii came out and all the games where kinda kid games).

I just thought it was unplayible.
The controlls were messy,it couldn't tell if I was moving up or pushing forwards.

The plot was bleh,just japanese mafia stuff.

And the sword fighting parts needed little to no skill.

BLOPS. EPIC fail.

Personally i think all "hyped" games tend to fail, most people just expect to much from them.

kamakazepanda wrote:Personally i think all "hyped" games tend to fail, most people just expect to much from them.

True true true. Some games do live up to the hype, though.

BF3.

Perhaps it just wasn't my thing but it came across was way too up itself for me to enjoy.

Nerivant wrote:I had high hopes for Brink.

Me too but in the end it turned out being bad. Didn't like it at all :(

Brutal Legend = way over-hyped because of Jack blacks involvement in it.

I was truly disapointed.

Nom XD

nomsheep wrote:Brutal Legend = way over-hyped because of Jack blacks involvement in it.

I was truly disapointed.

Nom XD

I thought it was a decent game sure the game play and level design left something to be desired, at least the atmosphere, graphics and story rocked.

Cheesecat wrote:

nomsheep wrote:Brutal Legend = way over-hyped because of Jack blacks involvement in it.

I was truly disapointed.

Nom XD

I thought it was a decent game sure the game play and level design left something to be desired, at least the atmosphere, graphics and story rocked.

THe only part that i enjoyed was murdering emo's whilst listeneing to cradle of filth. XD

It was just to predictable for my liking.

Nom XD

I did not Dawn of War 2 Retribution. It feel short of my expectations.

nomsheep wrote:Brutal Legend = way over-hyped because of Jack blacks involvement in it.

I was truly disapointed.

Nom XD

It was a game about Metal. It was damn cool and funny. Though, they did misss out on Varg Vikernes...

Supreme Commander 2. Took everything that was good about SC and threw it out the window.

Soladrin wrote:Halo 3, fighting brutes is poor sport after you got used to elites for 2 games.

Fallout 3. Cause I was a huge fallout fan before it.

Fallout 3 was my first, but I have played the others and like them better. New Vegas was a HUGE dissapointment for me.