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.

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!