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.

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.