Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.