Games that should have been the next Halo, Super Mario, or Ocarina of Time, but weren't.

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

The community decides what deserves it.

Generally everyone here agrees it deserved it. It was Ubisofts fault it failed.

Thankfully they've realised their huge mistake and are re-releasing it... maybe this time it'll truly get the attention it deserves.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

Ok, maybe one of you can help explain to me what the big appeal of Metro was. I bought it, played it twice for both endings, enjoyed it, and sold it all in the span of a week. It wasn't a bad game by any means, but I'm reading your comment and a million others I've seen like it, and I just apparently missed the big point of the game.

I thought the story was great (I loved the book, by the way), but very poorly told. The gameplay didn't really stand out. Really, I think the only thing it did well (and it did it very well, I'll admit) is atmosphere.

Again, I did enjoy the game. It certainly made my wait time for Fable 3 go by a lot quicker, but it isn't going to be a game I remember a few years down the road.

It was a large combination of things really... honestly reading the book has actually made me enjoy the game more but I read the book after I first played the game so that's beside the point.

Metro had an amazing story, with just enough information to get by and it touched upon Sci Fi/Supernatural/Religion/Segregation/Political turmoil... now maybe I was reading too much into it, but all of that in this amazing setting with near perfect atmosphere... it just made the game insanely enjoyable.

It's not for everyone, and I'm not saying everyone should enjoy it and the story, but a lot of people agree it has a great story, and I've lost myself in the vast ocean of trying to explain Metro... I'm going to stop with, if you like books then you should buy the Metro book, it might help your enjoyment of the game, and if not it's a damn good read anyway.

As I said in my post, I read the book. Loved the book. But what the issue may be is that I read the book before playing the game. Maybe I had my expectations to high or something, but I just felt like the game missed the chance to tell a great story. Thank you for what explanation you had though. I haven't had too many proper responses on the subject.

 

[VladimirSirin]

If they deserved it, they'd have gotten it.

Beyond Good and Evil... that game so deserved it.

The community decides what deserves it.

They gave out copies of the PC version of Beyond Good and Evil in packages of string cheese.

It was a confusing promotion, and ultimately not terrifically successful. But I got 20 copies of the game for free! HA HA!!

 

[sayingmahalo]

To this day, I STILL cannot believe that everyone considers Red Alert 2 to be a masterpiece, but doesn't even remember Total Annihilation!

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Everyone here =/= the gaming community.

People vote with their wallets and the people decided it wasn't a good enough game.

True, true.

If only it was that simple. I assume you haven't played the game? Correct me if you have.

Ubisoft pushed the marketing for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and made no effort to market BGE. This was back before Call of Duty scared off a fair share of games to the other side of christmas, so there was a huge crunch of games all in one month. BGE slipped under with minimal recognition.

It also has across the board positive reviews. It's a sad case of marketing and publishers making bad decisions...

As I said in my post, I read the book. Loved the book. But what the issue may be is that I read the book before playing the game. Maybe I had my expectations to high or something, but I just felt like the game missed the chance to tell a great story. Thank you for what explanation you had though. I haven't had too many proper responses on the subject.

My bad... I'm still sleepy from being at a late concert last night and being ill.

I do see the difference between the book and the game, but I suppose I forgive the differences, the book was amazing, but in itself it could not have translated well into a game. Also through the whole development of Metro 2033 they were in constant contact with the author and had him advise them on directions to take the story. It doesn't tell it as well as the book, but it gives it a damn good shot.

 

[thahat]

In other words, games that deserved mass appeal, fans, and deserved to be remembered for years later on...

But weren't.

For me, I'd say Borderlands and Spore.

Spore was one of the most abitmous and interesting games ever, and it hardly gets any attention. it has the best customization and creation tools for a game, no contest, has an ENTIRE, FULLY EXPLORABLE GALAXY, and (had, as of the last time I checked before I lost my saves and played the game *sad*) near endless user base.

Borderlands has over a trillion weapons, literally. It's freaking Fallout X Diablo X Halo!

borderlands was awsome, too bad about no character customisation, ( shoop die whoop, collors! :/ )

but spore, big no. it trips over itsself because of bad coding unfortunatelly. it crashes on most graphics cards/chipsets w/e becuase they get too hot because of the game somehow.

 

[ABLb0y]

vampire the masquerade: bloodlines has practically faded into obscurity, when its about ten times better than Halo.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

As I said in my post, I read the book. Loved the book. But what the issue may be is that I read the book before playing the game. Maybe I had my expectations to high or something, but I just felt like the game missed the chance to tell a great story. Thank you for what explanation you had though. I haven't had too many proper responses on the subject.

My bad... I'm still sleepy from being at a late concert last night and being ill.

I do see the difference between the book and the game, but I suppose I forgive the differences, the book was amazing, but in itself it could not have translated well into a game. Also through the whole development of Metro 2033 they were in constant contact with the author and had him advise them on directions to take the story. It doesn't tell it as well as the book, but it gives it a damn good shot.

Its all good. I agree it gave it a good shot. And I forgive the differences they made from book to game because, as you said, it wouldn't have translated well otherwise, but it just didn't strike me like it did everyone else. Maybe I'm being a purist and arguing that it wasn't a suitable adaptation in my opinion (which would piss me off, because I hate those people!). I don't know. I definitely got my $30 worth out of it, so no true complaints.

Also, if you're ill, get better soon.

 

[RYjet911]

I elect two games for this thread

MDK: This third person shooter from 1997 basically introduced the variable scope sniper rifle to video games, but more than that it could shoot various types of ammunition, has three screens which display where bullets hit and can zoom in up to 100x! Along with some very varied landscapes contained on top of city-sized tanks, some great platforming level design and incredible subtle and in your face humour, this is one of my favourite ever games. My only issue with it is that it only had five levels and pretty much didn't have an ending. You kill the final boss, the camera swivels around it blowing up, then you return to the title screen. Not even any credits unless you select the option yourself. And MDK2... Was alright I guess. Just not nearly as funny or innovative as the first, although playing as three different characters with three rather unique playstyles was a very interesting addition.

And for my second nomination...

Future Cop: L.A.P.D. - At least if Wikipedia was to be believed, this was originally meant to be a sequel to the AMAZING Desert Strike and Jungle Strike games, where you flew around in a helicopter across an isometric level searching for objectives thanks to incredibly limited HUD. Then 'Future Strike' as it was going to be called got an overhaul and was made as a PS1 game about a mech running around/a hovercraft floating around levels shooting hundreds of badguys with three different types of ammunition which you could find unlocks for the further you progressed into the game.

While I didn't care so much for the campaign, one of the reasons I imagine it fell pretty flat since this was the era before a game could be held up by multiplayer content, thanks CoD, Halo, TF2, L4D etc. but this game had a surprisingly good multiplayer, based in five different maps of varied themes with only a single assault based gametype. Capture neutral turrets around the level to gain points, destroy enemy turrets to gain points, use points to generate offensive tanks and defensive helicopters, and the objective is to get one of your tanks into the enemy base. Sound simple? I DON'T THINK SO! as the game literally tells you in the training video for the multiplayer with a very over-enthusiastic voiceover.

Once again, I loved the humour in this game, with some incredibly silly visual gags which oddly seemed aimed at a younger audience despite the game featuring quite high levels of violence. Then again I was playing this game when I was seven so I found all the jokes incredibly funny. But gameplay wise it's still fun to boot up occasionally today.

It's a shame really, there was a remake of the game called Project: Resurrection which was intended to recreate the multiplayer portion of the game, along with extra game modes, level editor etc. but the site for it seems to have gone down, and has been down for quite a long time.

Also, Timesplitters, but everyone else has already said that.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Its all good. I agree it gave it a good shot. And I forgive the differences they made from book to game because, as you said, it wouldn't have translated well otherwise, but it just didn't strike me like it did everyone else. Maybe I'm being a purist and arguing that it wasn't a suitable adaptation in my opinion (which would piss me off, because I hate those people!). I don't know. I definitely got my $30 worth out of it, so no true complaints.

Also, if you're ill, get better soon.

Yeah I'll be fine ;D I took a day off college! Not like we do anything interesting on Wednesdays anyway...

All this Metro talk makes me want to go back and finish it on Ranger Hardcore... may have to do that now. I've read the book 4 times now. I do really love it.

 

[Slash Dementia]

I think that the Thief series doesn't get as much recognition as it deserves. A few of the levels are just haunting and, to me, the gameplay and story are near flawless.

Thief 1 saves got deleted... I need to get back to it.

 

[Signa]

Came here to post Okami, because that game had everything it needed to be a Zelda: OoT killer. Hell, I played it after Zelda:TP, which means that Nintendo had the opportunity to improve the series above what OoT offered, and still failed to beat Okami.

Another game that the Starcraft rant reminded me of was Total Annihilation and its spiritual successor Supreme Commander. Both are amazing RTS games that just got swept under the rug.


@Pirate Kitty
What the hell? Since when does sales equal game quality? Proof, or empirical evidence please, because I don't believe you.

EDIT:

I think that the Thief series doesn't get as much recognition as it deserves. A few of the levels are just haunting and, to me, the gameplay and story are near flawless.

Thief 1 saves got deleted... I need to get back to it.

Damn, I forgot about Thief. I still haven't played a stealth game that I thought was better than Thief. Yet we get repeated titles of Splinter Cell, and I'm like "Nooo! I can't play that! What's the fun if everyone has guns!" and then I don't play it.

I mean seriously, has any one considered that running and hiding from guards isn't nearly as awesome once everyone has guns? Bang Bang, they're dead, Bang Bang, you're dead.

 

[Angerwing]

Just Cause 2 was the most detailed world I've played in. It wasn't as popular as it should've been.

 

[repeating integers]

You know what? Fuck you, Starcraft. Fuck you for ruining what should have been Homeworld's heyday, for overshadowing it and making everyone else forget about it. Fuck you for creating the standard RTS formula and making everyone completely ignore Homeworld's many innovations in favour of your standard gameplay.

Homeworld should have been Relic's flagship series. It should have been held up as a paragon of the RTS genre and remembered by all as a classic. Instead, it and its vast stock of pure brilliance were left in the dust, and now are only known to a few people.

That's just bloody tragic.

You see, that's just plain unfair. You're making StarCraft out to be a bad game when it isn't. While StarCraft may not have been super innovative for the time, its pitch perfect execution is what keeps it on people's good books.

Was I making it out as a bad game? *rereads own post* It appears, in my rage, I was... I apologise.

I've never played Starcraft, and you know, I'm sure it's a perfectly good game for what it is. I just can't ever forgive it for what it did to Homeworld (if that's the right way of phrasing it), because Homeworld was - and still is - absolutely magical. If that's shallow, then so be it. I suppose Relic is also slightly to blame for making one sequel then abandoning it with the reasoning "It's too complex for most people!"

 

[mParadox]

Metro 2033...it was a beautiful game.

 

[The Hot Sauce Thief]

Star Wars:Knights of the old republic, i know this game is still remembered by alot of people, but they only made two games, even though with the story they had, they could have made another 2-3 games...
i know Bioware are making Star wars: the old republic, which is like an online version of it, but i would rather have another knights of the old republic game, not a new star wars game, with reference to the old one.

 

[MrJoyless]

STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl . . . . this game set the stage / tested the waters for fallout 3 as a first person shooter, seriously check the game out

open world
radiation (hilariously cured with vodka)
weapon degradation
creepy ass underground / tunnel missions
ammo with weight!! (hardcore)

the only things they added to this game were a leveling/experience system, VATS, and a hell of a better story....oh wait

a story where you are hunting down someone who tried to kill you (new vegas)

dont get me wrong i LOVE the fallout games but i remember waaaaay before fallout 3 game out i played this little game that was AMAZING . . . . that never really got big.

 

[Yossarian1507]

there have been LOTS of other games that make you care about the charachters, and heavy rain was definetly not the first to do it, I don't know what games you were playing before then

Half life 2 don't tell me alot of people cried when..well you know
Fallout 3 (yes even fallout) I definietly cared a great deal about Dad and dogmeat
Mass effect 1 and 2? need I say more?

mbaye the difference is being able to quicksave ect but I'm pretty sure lots of games make you care for the charachters

That's not the point, and that's not what I'm talking about. With the notable exception of Mass Effect 2 and the suicide mission (although, for something called 'Suicide Mission' it's surprisingly easy to keep your entire team alive. Also - quickload), your examples are missing my point.

In all those examples, it's not your fault that your beloved character died. It's completely scripted by the game. It's a tearjerker created by the devs. In Heavy Rain, if one of your chars dies - that's YOUR fault, because you always could find a way out of the situation, or click those buttons faster. And that's a powerful psychological effect, your examples lack.

Actually, excluding the already mentioned HR and ME2, the closest thing to my ideal, would be the Fire Emblem games, and old-school RPGs like Baldurs Gate, where your companions really died for good after hitting 0 hp (Yeah, F3 applies here as well). Too bad, it's all diminished by either lack of proper emotional power of their deaths, or quickload, or both.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I vote for Team Fortress 2. I don't care how much fun your having with Counterstrike, It's better Dammit.

Team Fortress 2 was simply a continuation of the Team Fortress franchise which is storied enough.

Team Fortress (The original mod for quake) was far more popular than any other online FPS of the time. Between Team Fortress and Team Fortress Mega (mega being a mod of Team fortress and generally being the preferred version) you had more players and servers than all the other mods and game types combined.

Team Fortress Lived on in Quake 2 as Weapons Factory (different developers but the core concepts were identical). It also lived on in the form of TFC for Half-Life. Then we got TF2 and it's associated changes and developments. The game's history already spans 13 years and at any given time it has been one of the most popular games on the PC at the moment.

True, since around 2000 it isn't the most popular (Tribes took the crown in 1999 and CS sometime later), but it still consistently draws an enormous player base. Hell, you can still play the original team fortress as there are still a few dedicated servers running for it. Hell, I've considered (more than once) starting one myself as the operating costs would be quite low.