Games that have been ruined by their Fans

[TheTakenOne]

Legend of Zelda has been trapped in some sort of Ocarina of Time alternate reality since 1998. They released a rare direct sequel in Majora's Mask, which was by far the most distinct game they've released since. Then they came out with the Wind Waker, which was basically Ocarina of Time on a boat with a baton thing, but the basic story structure was the same. Then they released Twilight Princess, which contradicted a lot of what Wind Waker said and could have been a good standalone game in the series. But no, Nintendo had to relate it back to Ocarina of Time in very vague, weak ways that seemed really tacked on. They can't wait to throw Ganondorf into every single story.

lol repetition is in almost every video game ever. I mean that's why these games are in a SERIES. All of the Halo games are basically the same thing (run through levels and shoot anything that isn't human). Bioshock was basically System Shock 2. Zelda is simply following a formula that works. Ganondorf ties the games together in a series. Is Master Chief not in every Halo game?

Yes but there's a difference between repitition and unoriginality. For instance, the Master Chief in Halo 2 is the same as Master Chief from Halo 1, it is a continuation of the same story. He's not a completely different soldier in the future who happens to be fighting the same enemies in the same costume, as Zelda insists.

In Zelda, there's a Link in Ocarina of Time. Then there's a Link 100 years later in the Great Ocean of Wind Waker that's the continuation. Then there's this other Link in Twilight Princess who is in a completely different world with completely different problems. I'll even accept that the Tri-Force needs to be there. However, Ganondorf's role in the game contradicts everything else they've told us about him. But rather than drown you in an essay, I'll leave it with this. Ganondorf had no reason to be in Twilight Princess other than to be included in Twilight Princess. There was no continuity leading up to it. He wasn't needed as a central villain. He was tacked on.

As for BioShock and System Shock 2, at least BioShock took place in an underwater dystopia which took some explaining. They didn't recycle the Citadel and change the layout around and give you the same villain with the exact same name and motivation.

Heck, Majora's Mask, despite being a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time, had the least to do with Ocarina of Time. No Tri-Force, no Ganondorf tacked on, virtually no Zelda.

As much of a fan as I am of the Legend of Zelda series, I could not agree with you more. While I've enjoyed every Legend of Zelda game since A Link To the Past(minus the portable ones), I haven't enjoyed the story of any game in the series since Majora's Mask, and it was the fans that pretty much killed any chance for another game like that since they all complained about it. I personally found the plot in Majora's Mask to be even more intriguing than in Ocarina of Time, and I have no idea why anyone felt the need to whine to Nintendo about it. So I seriously hope Nintendo has intentions of pulling this series out of this time loop, because to me, a story isn't just the thing that guides the game, not anymore.

Pokémon is even more frustrating than this. After four generations of games you'd think they would try to mix up the story a little, but I'm not so sure this is the fans' fault, so I'm getting off track.

EDIT: Accidentally reported myself. D'oh.

 

[REvolve]

To be honest, almost all games with a competitive fanbase (even the backwater ones), have players with bad attitudes that ruin the gaming experience. It just so happens that the more popular a game is, the more problem people are attracted to it to show the world how "1337" they are.

 

[TheTakenOne]

There's no doubt that Bioshock is an excellent game, but so are the other titles that you called "little fuckers". You're kinda proving the point of this thread; you're ranting is ruining Bioshock for me. Just because you're game didn't sweep the GOTY awards doesn't mean that the other games suck. Man up and deal with it.

I never said that they suck. As I just wrote in my Portal post, some games' massive hype overshadows other games. As I already said I haven't played SMG but after spending some time playing CoD4, this game by no means deserve 10/10 scores,some weird freaks gave them(Game Informer,OXM,OPM UK).A I'm not exactly sure why it CoD4 got GOTY as well as "Best Xbox 360 game","Best Graphics","Best Shooter" and "Best Trailer".Especially when we're talking about the game that makes Halo look innovative(If you want a full list comparing both,go ahead and ask me).

It seems like reviewers are getting less and less critical nowadays and we need to adapt a 1-12 scale for most game they review.In fact anything that's half-decent can get a 10/10, providing it was over-hyped enough.

Here's something I don't, nor will I ever understand: why anyone would get their panties in a bunch over a poor game review of a game they like. Do you go look up game reviews to get a critical assessment of a game you're considering buying, or do you just look for someone to agree with you? If you enjoy a game, enjoy it and stop wasting time and energy worrying about how other people enjoy it. If a game reviewer didn't like a game that you did like, it doesn't make the game bad. Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn was my personal GOTY for 2007, but I never got all up in arms over Gamespot's 6.0 score(I think it was Gamespot). So the game's not for everyone, that's fine. You didn't enjoy a game I did enjoy, or you enjoyed a game I didn't. It's a matter of taste.

 

[JakubK666]

Halo. How can a game NOT be ruined by such rabid fanboys?

Kid: "Halo is the best game ever."
Me: "No it isn't. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is much better."
Kid: "I don't even know what S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is, but Halo's better than it."

True story. Now, you may think Halo is better than S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but you can't judge without at least knowing a TAD bit about both games.

Well Stalker has PS1 graphics which mark it down a bit, personnally id pick halo3 out of the two becase if you mute half the people playing (really easy to do) then it just becomes about the game, which is fun.

I'm hoping you're sarcastic...

 

[DkSeraph]

World of Warcraft

I played it for 5 minutes. I love the undead so I decieded to make an undead necromancer kinda guy. Looked a little bit cool. So I ventured out into the world. A friend taught me the confusing mission questing thingy. I thought it was kinda stupid but the quest I got was to go out and kill some kind of undead creature. I fought them for a little bit. Got bored sickly. Turned off the game. The fans didn't ruin the game, it ruined itself. The fans are the only ones who enjoy it. I like games like FPS's where I get full desisions and control in my attacks, not right click on them. That was pretty pointless. Everything in that game felt so off.

i respect that you disliked the game, but if you only played it for 5 minutes, then you're not really qualified to pass an objective criticism of the game. that's like seeing the first 5 minutes of a movie and saying it sucked. How much could you really experienced in those 5 minutes. A level one character is -by their very nature- limited in scope. Once you level, more options are available to you. At level 70, you have a vast array of abilities to fight with, moeso than any FPS (with rare exceptions: System Shock 2, BioSchock, Deus Ex .. see a pattern?).

Regardless, this is true of any game: you start Half-life and get a crowbar, play Command & Conquer and get a handful of buildings and 4 units. all games are based upon progressively enlarging abilities..

The same could be said for simplicity. Only truly innovative games break any molds. FPS games basically involve walking down a halfway, shooting monsters and picking up upgrades. RTS games involve building bases, raising armies and conquering territory. Nothing is truly new or innovative in either of those genres, mechanics wise. What makes games fun are the storylines, graphic innovations or the occasional leap in gameplay.

That all being said:

World of Warcraft, clearly ruined by the same mechanism that made it so damned popular: it's simplicity. We have a great storyline with some truly moving characters. We have a gameplay mechanic that is not nearly as unforgiving and far more balanced than EQ ever was (and it was brutal). Yet any monkey with a mutated opposable thumb can play this game, so the flood gates of cash and annoying, annoying juvenile delinquents were open. In previous games, you could be fairly certain that a specific level of commitment equated to a similarity of lifestyle. Not so in WoW. You have working adults and slacker collegiates and ass-breathing teens all together in one giant orgy of annoyance.

It's like every annoying stereotype from every multiplayer game in existence all wrapped up into one condensed demographic.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Yeah but the point is that you never hear about Portal as a part of TOB. It's always Portal this,Portal that.I'm 100% certain that Portal got more awards (Feeling risky; will go as far as twice) than The Orange Box. Imo as fun as it was, it was extremely overhyped and just not as good as Episode Two(Overall) or Team Fortress(Overall + Replayability).

So here's my problem with Portal. It was good but not great,yet it overshadowed far better games that came with it.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, Portal was easily the best part of the Orange Box. TF2 has great art design and looks interesting, but I'm not really much for online multiplayer games so I really haven't gotten much value out of it. HL2 and its sequels are also far from bad but had parts that irked me. Whereas I've played Portal multiple times (probably longer than HL2+eps1&2 combined) and am still enchanted by its mix of story, setting, and gameplay.

You're entitled to your opinion, and tastes definitely vary, but dumping all over folks for recognising one Valve product over the one(s) you prefer is less an issue of bad reviewers and more one of differing tastes.

-- Steve

 

[Newto]

I'm gonna go back a bit to a game I actually thought was excellent for the time between I got it from a friend, and the time my parents finally got a decent Internet connection. I'm talking about Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast. I had loads of fun with it, cool effects and abilities, single player was interesting etc. Then I get online...and this is where it starts going downhill. I play a few games and they were great, and then I hit a free for all server.

so, I see a line of people standing at the edge of the map and decide to slaughter them all, shortly thereafter they call me multiple rude things and try to kick me for killing the while they were "chatting". Alright, I figure I'll let them have that and try to avoid people with the little box that indicates typing above their head. I then decide to start fighting someone on this round platform which is a deadly drop from most sides. Fight starts, lightsabers swinging, cool effects and such, then he jumps in the air and I force push him off the edge and he dies, and then I get called a lamer for using a force power to kill him. shortly there after I quit cause it gets boring.

This starts happening more and more, and eventually I start getting kicked because I continuously push, pull, and strangle people off the edge, and shortly after that I set the game down.

A year or two later I decide to try again, and much to my surprise, it seemed to have fixed itself, until I realized there were bugs and remembered I needed to patch it, and I literally could not find a single server in which I could fight someone by cutting them from behind or pushing them over the edge.

THAT is a game ruined by fans. For god sake...it's starwars, force powers are the ONLY thing that set it apart from everything else, why can't I kill you with them.

EDIT: Just remembered something else, it was almost impossible to find a server with weapons, and when you did find one, you'd get called the same rude things because you didn't have the skill to use the lightsaber. Mostly because they hadn't put any points into the dodge and block skill, because only idiots use weapons

 

[irishdelinquent]

Legend of Zelda has been trapped in some sort of Ocarina of Time alternate reality since 1998. They released a rare direct sequel in Majora's Mask, which was by far the most distinct game they've released since. Then they came out with the Wind Waker, which was basically Ocarina of Time on a boat with a baton thing, but the basic story structure was the same. Then they released Twilight Princess, which contradicted a lot of what Wind Waker said and could have been a good standalone game in the series. But no, Nintendo had to relate it back to Ocarina of Time in very vague, weak ways that seemed really tacked on. They can't wait to throw Ganondorf into every single story.

lol repetition is in almost every video game ever. I mean that's why these games are in a SERIES. All of the Halo games are basically the same thing (run through levels and shoot anything that isn't human). Bioshock was basically System Shock 2. Zelda is simply following a formula that works. Ganondorf ties the games together in a series. Is Master Chief not in every Halo game?

Yes but there's a difference between repitition and unoriginality. For instance, the Master Chief in Halo 2 is the same as Master Chief from Halo 1, it is a continuation of the same story. He's not a completely different soldier in the future who happens to be fighting the same enemies in the same costume, as Zelda insists.

In Zelda, there's a Link in Ocarina of Time. Then there's a Link 100 years later in the Great Ocean of Wind Waker that's the continuation. Then there's this other Link in Twilight Princess who is in a completely different world with completely different problems. I'll even accept that the Tri-Force needs to be there. However, Ganondorf's role in the game contradicts everything else they've told us about him. But rather than drown you in an essay, I'll leave it with this. Ganondorf had no reason to be in Twilight Princess other than to be included in Twilight Princess. There was no continuity leading up to it. He wasn't needed as a central villain. He was tacked on.

As for BioShock and System Shock 2, at least BioShock took place in an underwater dystopia which took some explaining. They didn't recycle the Citadel and change the layout around and give you the same villain with the exact same name and motivation.

Heck, Majora's Mask, despite being a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time, had the least to do with Ocarina of Time. No Tri-Force, no Ganondorf tacked on, virtually no Zelda.

Okay, I'll grant you the fact that Ganondorf didn't 'need' to be in Twilight Princess. His inclusion at the very end of the game felt rather unnecessary. But the fact of the matter is that it's what Zelda fans have come to expect. Majora's Mask is a perfect example of this. It had no Zelda, no Ganondorf, no tri-force. It was an excellent game. The game was completely unique and innovative...and Zelda fans generally shunned it. It seems that all the fans have come to expect that Link will slay Ganondorf and save Zelda, and any deviation from this theory upsets the balance. Although I absolutely love Twilight Princess, I do agree that the Zelda series doesn't always need to come down to the same conclusion. As for the displaced timeline (i.e. Link's existing in different eras), it was explained in Zelda II.

 

[irishdelinquent]

There's no doubt that Bioshock is an excellent game, but so are the other titles that you called "little fuckers". You're kinda proving the point of this thread; you're ranting is ruining Bioshock for me. Just because you're game didn't sweep the GOTY awards doesn't mean that the other games suck. Man up and deal with it.

I never said that they suck. As I just wrote in my Portal post, some games' massive hype overshadows other games. As I already said I haven't played SMG but after spending some time playing CoD4, this game by no means deserve 10/10 scores,some weird freaks gave them(Game Informer,OXM,OPM UK).A I'm not exactly sure why it CoD4 got GOTY as well as "Best Xbox 360 game","Best Graphics","Best Shooter" and "Best Trailer".Especially when we're talking about the game that makes Halo look innovative(If you want a full list comparing both,go ahead and ask me).

It seems like reviewers are getting less and less critical nowadays and we need to adapt a 1-12 scale for most game they review.In fact anything that's half-decent can get a 10/10, providing it was over-hyped enough.

Here's something I don't, nor will I ever understand: why anyone would get their panties in a bunch over a poor game review of a game they like. Do you go look up game reviews to get a critical assessment of a game you're considering buying, or do you just look for someone to agree with you? If you enjoy a game, enjoy it and stop wasting time and energy worrying about how other people enjoy it. If a game reviewer didn't like a game that you did like, it doesn't make the game bad. Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn was my personal GOTY for 2007, but I never got all up in arms over Gamespot's 6.0 score(I think it was Gamespot). So the game's not for everyone, that's fine. You didn't enjoy a game I did enjoy, or you enjoyed a game I didn't. It's a matter of taste.

Amen to that! I say ignore what everyone says and play the games you love.

 

[Necrohydra]

There's no doubt that Bioshock is an excellent game, but so are the other titles that you called "little fuckers". You're kinda proving the point of this thread; you're ranting is ruining Bioshock for me. Just because you're game didn't sweep the GOTY awards doesn't mean that the other games suck. Man up and deal with it.

I never said that they suck. As I just wrote in my Portal post, some games' massive hype overshadows other games. As I already said I haven't played SMG but after spending some time playing CoD4, this game by no means deserve 10/10 scores,some weird freaks gave them(Game Informer,OXM,OPM UK).A I'm not exactly sure why it CoD4 got GOTY as well as "Best Xbox 360 game","Best Graphics","Best Shooter" and "Best Trailer".Especially when we're talking about the game that makes Halo look innovative(If you want a full list comparing both,go ahead and ask me).

It seems like reviewers are getting less and less critical nowadays and we need to adapt a 1-12 scale for most game they review.In fact anything that's half-decent can get a 10/10, providing it was over-hyped enough.

Here's something I don't, nor will I ever understand: why anyone would get their panties in a bunch over a poor game review of a game they like. Do you go look up game reviews to get a critical assessment of a game you're considering buying, or do you just look for someone to agree with you? If you enjoy a game, enjoy it and stop wasting time and energy worrying about how other people enjoy it. If a game reviewer didn't like a game that you did like, it doesn't make the game bad. Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn was my personal GOTY for 2007, but I never got all up in arms over Gamespot's 6.0 score(I think it was Gamespot). So the game's not for everyone, that's fine. You didn't enjoy a game I did enjoy, or you enjoyed a game I didn't. It's a matter of taste.

Hooray...another FE fan! I salute you!

And I agree completely with what you say about people getting up in arms over poor reviews, except it seems those same people get up in arms if anyone disagrees with their point of view. If I mention I didn't particularly like something, they flip out and defend it as if I were calling it the worst piece of trash I had ever seen. Almost as if I had spat on their holy ground, and now I had to either convert or burn at the stake.

If we like the same games, great, it's something to talk about. If not, fine, agree that not everyone likes the same thing.

 

[[HD]Rob Inglis]

Every free MMO ever. And many of the not free ones.

 

[TheQFactor]

I hate jumping on the bandwagon, but I'd have to say Halo and Portal. I think Halo's just an average game itself (although playing with friends online makes it fun) but the fanboys just ruin it for me. As for Portal...

OK, it was a good game. Short, but funny, and entertaining. But, come ON! How many times has someone shouted "THE CAKE IS A LIE!" on the internets. And that stupid song... PC Gamer friggin' gave Portal "Best Soundtrack of 2007!" Just glad I canceled my subscription to that piece of crap.

 

[VKhaun]

Hellgate: London.

It's launch was truly horrendous, but I play it and believe it or not they have been steadily plugging away at the massive list of bugs and are simultaneously actually adding content. Despite their progress, activity and patience on their own forums, delivering on requests, great ideas, and future plans that have been described... it is still extremely cool to hate the game. Anywhere you go and bring it up, (Including here. I'm sure some of the responses to this will be interesting.) you get a huge mass of people trying so hard to make the game sound like crap you'd think they were being paid for it.

Again, I play HG:L actively, and have since beta.
The game is fun. The extras are novel. The devs are active.
It's a fine game all around, that had a rough launch.

The players have destroyed it's reputation though, and likely crippled it's multiplayer population for a good while.

 

[Conqueror Kenny]

the halo seres for a start almost any mmorpg gears zeelda mario and sonic metal gear solid they have all just been ruined buy their respective fanboys.

I forgot one very close to my heart because even yhatzee the great fel to its apparant charm yes im sure you know what im about to say CoD4. All i hear is oh CoD is the greatest why did you trade it in i must get that 3 times a day and im going go insane next time i hear it.

 

[SpiritMacardi]

Pretty much anything made by Squaresoft/Square-Enix. Nothing like seeing fangirls on devianTart claiming Sephiroth is telepathically their boyfriend to make you ashamed of having enjoyed the games.

Also Klonoa is on the list, since I'm tired of people treating him like a Sonic character.

 

[fffanatic06]

For me, it's Final Fantasy. Take Final Fantasy Tactics for the PSone. It was released shortly after FFVII and was a completely different style rpg, almost resembling Fire Emblem only with a 3-D environment. It also managed to stay clear of good versus evil for almost half the story and threw out any love subplots between the lead and some idealized version of a female. The real beauty of the game (for me at least) was the job class system. The 3-D environment really making you put some thought into what type of weapon and skills a small team would need.

But whenever I tried to praise these features in front of my friends they attacked Square for betraying the original formula and they attacked me for going along with it. I tried to get a peep in about how customizable all the job classes are and how great it was to have the emphasis moved from mindless stat building to actually building a character's skill set but they just went on and on about how terrible the grammar had been. Who cares? You were just going to end up skipping the dialog, anyway. These were the same complaints I heard when FFXII came out much later. God forbid people actually try and create NEW games and not just release the same one over and over again.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

OMG. i am so surpriised no one even mentioned a games like Tiger woods, or NFL football games. They were fun, but come the fuck on! Rehashing the same game never means the same lightning will strike twice!