Biggest gaming disappointment in 2011??

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

3DS... hands down...
Yet to prove it's worth... and somehow I don't think that will happen before 2013 if Nintendo isn't bankrupt by then because of two failed console starts

I have a 3ds and love it, but I can understand people being skeptical of getting one. But with a price drop and the games coming out it looks to be great. But what did you mean by "bankrupt by then because of two failed console starts". The only time Nintendo had a failed start before this really was the virtual boy, and I have a feeling they recovered over that fail. And I agree the 3DS had a slow launch, but not enough for Nintendo to go bankrupt.


Hands down La Noire. I had so high hopes, but the game just wasn't fun. The story was bad with meh characters. The gameplay was repetitive, though I am glad they tried something new with the game.

 

[robert01]

Alice: Madness returns.

So much more could have been done with that game...

so much...

I am with you on this one. The opening and the first level had me enthralled, and then the second level came, and then the boredom. I never finished it.
That game had massive amounts of fucking potential to be a great game, and they focused to much on multi-jumps and invisible platforms.

 

[witheringsanity]

Catherine. it was a painful slog through tedious puzzles just to get to the story parts, which were mostly repetitive and uninteresting. i love Altus (Disgaea 4 is currently on it's way to me) but this game just wasn't good in any aspect.

 

[TJC]

3DS... hands down...
Yet to prove it's worth... and somehow I don't think that will happen before 2013 if Nintendo isn't bankrupt by then because of two failed console starts

Nintendo bankrupt? ha...haha...hahahahahha. You do realise the Wii is still the strongest selling console right? you do realise that the 3DS, after the price drop granted, has been at the top of the charts for about 3 weeks now right? and if by "failed console starts" your including the WiiU. It isnt really fair to say that about a console that isnt even out yet is it? and besides, i know alot of people that are getting the WiiU. Nintendo wont be bankrupt by 2013. By that year, they will still have more money than microsoft and sony combined.

and by "a lot" you mean enough people for Nintendo to make an impact on the market.. I'm impressed that you know over 10k people. Impressive friendslist you must have over at fb.

Seriously, though, even with Nintendo's strong market position now, the console market has become pretty much a sink or swim hellhole. Screw up a console start and you'll find yourself in quite a bad situation. A second one and you're in serious shit. It happenend before and I can see it happening again. Sadly, Nintendo is the only pure-gaming competitor on the market. Sony and Microsoft both have other divisions to hide their losses but Nintendo doesn't. And they can't live on the pure love of fanboys. They're a business that needs money and if you checked their stock in the past 6 months you'll notice that I'm not the only one with serious doubts.

I love Nintendo, I honestly do and the fact that I was one of the idiots who bought the 3DS in the first month after release testifies to that. However, they can't rely on the nostalgia-blinded fanbase forever for profits and whether the casual crowd is going to stick with Nintendo through a new full-priced console is debateable. To believe that every wii owner is going to run out to get a WiiU is naive to say the least. Sure, ignorance is bliss but it doesn't sell consoles.

So yeah, maybe it's unfair to judge a book before its cover is printed but so far, everything, from crappy business strategies to weird consoles focusing on gimmicks rather than games (wait, so we can't have more than one controller per console because of the ability to flick virtual shuriken?) points downwards.

 

[Vindictus]

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Keyword here is disappointment, people can be disappointed with a game regardless of its "rating". Let's not talk out our butt holes because people don't happen to like a game that they have every right to feel was not as good as it should have been.

As for the OT: Brink.

So it's ok people are that disappointed (keeping in mind, we're comparing this 'disappointment' to Duke Nukem and other baddies of 2011) by a 7/10? That's just mindless hate.

Dude, review scores don't mean shit. Never once have I played a game that I really liked, then found out it was a 5/10 and thought "Oh, well I guess I hate it after all". Same goes in reverse.

No, that has never happened. However, I have played a game/watched a movie, then found the rating is about what I'd give the item. I rarely, if ever, changed my opinion based on reviews.

Again, short of getting into an argument over the merits of a 7/10 DA2, I don't believe the game should get anywhere near the level of disappointment that Duke Nukem brought.

 

[nokori3byo]

Probably DA2, though I did enjoy the game enough to do two complete playthroughs. It wasn't quite what it should've been. Funny, but going into 2011 I fully expected it to be a landmark year in gaming. It's not been bad so far and I think it has the potential to be one of the best years in gaming depending on the quality of some high profile fall releases.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Keyword here is disappointment, people can be disappointed with a game regardless of its "rating". Let's not talk out our butt holes because people don't happen to like a game that they have every right to feel was not as good as it should have been.

As for the OT: Brink.

So it's ok people are that disappointed (keeping in mind, we're comparing this 'disappointment' to Duke Nukem and other baddies of 2011) by a 7/10? That's just mindless hate.

Dude, review scores don't mean shit. Never once have I played a game that I really liked, then found out it was a 5/10 and thought "Oh, well I guess I hate it after all". Same goes in reverse.

No, that has never happened. However, I have played a game/watched a movie, then found the rating is about what I'd give the item. I rarely, if ever, changed my opinion based on reviews.

Again, short of getting into an argument over the merits of a 7/10 DA2, I don't believe the game should get anywhere near the level of disappointment that Duke Nukem brought.

That logic still makes no sense. It got middish reviews, so people who dislike it more are wrong?

You feel the reviews are accurate. Fine for you. Other people disagree. Why is that unreasonable?

 

[Stoike]

Tie between dragon age 2 and mass effect 2
Me playing mass effect 2- "All that hype for nothing"
Me playing dragon age 2- "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

BLASPHEMY!! Except the part about Dragon Age 2... that was shit

 

[Vindictus]

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Keyword here is disappointment, people can be disappointed with a game regardless of its "rating". Let's not talk out our butt holes because people don't happen to like a game that they have every right to feel was not as good as it should have been.

As for the OT: Brink.

So it's ok people are that disappointed (keeping in mind, we're comparing this 'disappointment' to Duke Nukem and other baddies of 2011) by a 7/10? That's just mindless hate.

Dude, review scores don't mean shit. Never once have I played a game that I really liked, then found out it was a 5/10 and thought "Oh, well I guess I hate it after all". Same goes in reverse.

No, that has never happened. However, I have played a game/watched a movie, then found the rating is about what I'd give the item. I rarely, if ever, changed my opinion based on reviews.

Again, short of getting into an argument over the merits of a 7/10 DA2, I don't believe the game should get anywhere near the level of disappointment that Duke Nukem brought.

That logic still makes no sense. It got middish reviews, so people who dislike it more are wrong?

You feel the reviews are accurate. Fine for you. Other people disagree. Why is that unreasonable?

It's unreasonable because Duke Nukem was in production, on and off, for 10 years, and turned out to be an awful linear FPS. Dragon Age 2 was in production for barely a year, and turned out to be an arguably worse game than Dragon Age; an RPG celebrated as one of the best ever created. If people claim Dragon Age 2 is a bigger disappointment, then forgive me for having the gall to call them unreasonable.

Duke Nukem takes the title without effort.

 

[Ninjat_126]

One word: Brink. Splash Damage had the opportunity to create something wonderful. It had a solid concept but was broken beyond belief which ruined the entire game.

Sad to say so, but yes.

 

[gostlyfantom]

Brink, I still liked it but damnit it had the potential to be GREAT.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Let's do some simple math here, shall we?

First, take these three statements:

Dragon Age 1 = 9/10

Good Sequel > or = Original Game Quality

Expectations for Dragon Age 2 = Good Sequel

By the transitive property, we can now say:

Good Sequel to Dragon 1 > or = 9/10.

If we plug 7/10 into the equation, the statement is false. If the statement is false, then Dragon Age 2 does not equal a Good Sequel

Since Dragon Age 2 was not a good sequel by the above definition, then Expectations for Dragon Age 2 > Actual Quality of Dragon Age 2, thus disappointment was created.

If you accept the original three statements as fact (which you should), then disappointment for Dragon Age 2 has now been mathmatically proven.

 

[PeePantz]

Why the hate for LA Noire?

I thought it was brilliant, not perfect, but still a great game.

OT: Duke Nukem Forever, just a terrible, terrible game. That hive level was a new low in video games.

I agree with others that LA Noire was the biggest disappointment of the year. Keep in mind that I really, really enjoyed it though. It just wasn't what I expected. The game was borderline rigid and for the "sandbox" it promoted, it wasn't at all. The game was very linear and way too easy with your hand being held throughout the game (with the rare exception with the clue the game is looking for makes almost zero sense, while another is much more fitting). I expected more, especially with the development time being put into it.

The game would have been much better with more side quests revolving around case solving and a more linear story line. Sprinkle in a tad more action (or just better), and a smaller map that was rewarding to explore and this could have been one of the best games ever made.

Also, the leveling system was shit and served no purpose. Overall, the details seemed way too rushed and didn't tie the grand scheme of the game together.

 

[Vindictus]

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Let's do some simple math here, shall we?

First, take these three statements:

Dragon Age 1 = 9/10

Good Sequel > or = Original Game Quality

Expectations for Dragon Age 2 = Good Sequel

By the transitive property, we can now say:

Good Sequel to Dragon 1 > or = 9/10.

If we plug 7/10 into the equation, the statement is false. If the statement is false, then Dragon Age 2 does not equal a Good Sequel

Since Dragon Age 2 was not a good sequel by the above definition, then Expectations for Dragon Age 2 > Actual Quality of Dragon Age 2, thus disappointment was created.

If you accept the original three statements as fact (which you should), then disappointment for Dragon Age 2 has now been mathmatically proven.

>applies math to a subjective issue

lol

 

[Avatar Roku]

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Keyword here is disappointment, people can be disappointed with a game regardless of its "rating". Let's not talk out our butt holes because people don't happen to like a game that they have every right to feel was not as good as it should have been.

As for the OT: Brink.

So it's ok people are that disappointed (keeping in mind, we're comparing this 'disappointment' to Duke Nukem and other baddies of 2011) by a 7/10? That's just mindless hate.

Dude, review scores don't mean shit. Never once have I played a game that I really liked, then found out it was a 5/10 and thought "Oh, well I guess I hate it after all". Same goes in reverse.

No, that has never happened. However, I have played a game/watched a movie, then found the rating is about what I'd give the item. I rarely, if ever, changed my opinion based on reviews.

Again, short of getting into an argument over the merits of a 7/10 DA2, I don't believe the game should get anywhere near the level of disappointment that Duke Nukem brought.

That logic still makes no sense. It got middish reviews, so people who dislike it more are wrong?

You feel the reviews are accurate. Fine for you. Other people disagree. Why is that unreasonable?

It's unreasonable because Duke Nukem was in production, on and off, for 10 years, and turned out to be an awful linear FPS. Dragon Age 2 was in production for barely a year, and turned out to be an arguably worse game than Dragon Age; an RPG celebrated as one of the best ever created. If people claim Dragon Age 2 is a bigger disappointment, then forgive me for having the gall to call them unreasonable.

Duke Nukem takes the title without effort.

That argument is more reasonable. Still subjective, but reasonable. Citing review scores is not.

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Let's do some simple math here, shall we?

First, take these three statements:

Dragon Age 1 = 9/10

Good Sequel > or = Original Game Quality

Expectations for Dragon Age 2 = Good Sequel

By the transitive property, we can now say:

Good Sequel to Dragon 1 > or = 9/10.

If we plug 7/10 into the equation, the statement is false. If the statement is false, then Dragon Age 2 does not equal a Good Sequel

Since Dragon Age 2 was not a good sequel by the above definition, then Expectations for Dragon Age 2 > Actual Quality of Dragon Age 2, thus disappointment was created.

If you accept the original three statements as fact (which you should), then disappointment for Dragon Age 2 has now been mathmatically proven.

>applies math to a subjective issue

lol

Well, isn't this ironic?

 

[Vindictus]

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Keyword here is disappointment, people can be disappointed with a game regardless of its "rating". Let's not talk out our butt holes because people don't happen to like a game that they have every right to feel was not as good as it should have been.

As for the OT: Brink.

So it's ok people are that disappointed (keeping in mind, we're comparing this 'disappointment' to Duke Nukem and other baddies of 2011) by a 7/10? That's just mindless hate.

Dude, review scores don't mean shit. Never once have I played a game that I really liked, then found out it was a 5/10 and thought "Oh, well I guess I hate it after all". Same goes in reverse.

No, that has never happened. However, I have played a game/watched a movie, then found the rating is about what I'd give the item. I rarely, if ever, changed my opinion based on reviews.

Again, short of getting into an argument over the merits of a 7/10 DA2, I don't believe the game should get anywhere near the level of disappointment that Duke Nukem brought.

That logic still makes no sense. It got middish reviews, so people who dislike it more are wrong?

You feel the reviews are accurate. Fine for you. Other people disagree. Why is that unreasonable?

It's unreasonable because Duke Nukem was in production, on and off, for 10 years, and turned out to be an awful linear FPS. Dragon Age 2 was in production for barely a year, and turned out to be an arguably worse game than Dragon Age; an RPG celebrated as one of the best ever created. If people claim Dragon Age 2 is a bigger disappointment, then forgive me for having the gall to call them unreasonable.

Duke Nukem takes the title without effort.

That argument is more reasonable. Still subjective, but reasonable. Citing review scores is not.

Inb4 Dragon age 2 being terrible even though it's 7/10.

Oh wait, the idiots are already here.

Let's do some simple math here, shall we?

First, take these three statements:

Dragon Age 1 = 9/10

Good Sequel > or = Original Game Quality

Expectations for Dragon Age 2 = Good Sequel

By the transitive property, we can now say:

Good Sequel to Dragon 1 > or = 9/10.

If we plug 7/10 into the equation, the statement is false. If the statement is false, then Dragon Age 2 does not equal a Good Sequel

Since Dragon Age 2 was not a good sequel by the above definition, then Expectations for Dragon Age 2 > Actual Quality of Dragon Age 2, thus disappointment was created.

If you accept the original three statements as fact (which you should), then disappointment for Dragon Age 2 has now been mathmatically proven.

>applies math to a subjective issue

lol

Well, isn't this ironic?

Citing Metacritic is unreasonable? And no, it's not ironic. I never claimed complete objectivity. I refuted the sentiment of Dragon Age 2 being the most disappointing game of the year, which has become more of a bandwagon mentality than anything resembling reason.