games that should have NEVER EVER been made

[Inkidu]

Dude, don't be that guy. Because no matter how good my point is, you're not going to be swayed. Ten bucks says you've got half a reply formulated to whatever you think I'm going to say. Just let people *****.

Even if I don't agree, I might still find it an interesting argument. For now, I am just curious.

Fine. Ever since the original Diablo came out Blizzard peaked on that series at 2. Now in this day and age you'll inhabit a lifeless meaningless avatar to depopulate the world of it's cuddly hideous fauna over and over again in a game that feels more like an MMO than anything else. That was great for 2001. Now, they're going to render Diablo 3 in 3D add a few classes finally let people chose their sex (if I remember correctly) but underneath the tweak-like updates it'll still be Diablo and nothing will have changed... and they will make a fortune. It's a good business model, minimum work for maximum profit, but when I think about it I feel a little more hollow inside.

Oh, *that* business model. Simply put, it's a cash cow game. So, that would mean you are against all franchises that are actively recycling their games. Like Call of Duty, Need for Speed, all sport games from EA. I think Diablo scores pretty well compared to those recycled games.

EDIT: But yeah, point taken.

Not precisely. I'm against taking ten plus years to make a cash cow game and then it sell atrociously well because fans are fans. Shovelware is easy to spot and avoid and naturally gets removed by the more discerning gamer and when it doesn't make money it goes away. Blizzard get to do the same thing, sell it as new, and make oodles of money. It's like a scam. It's hard to fight the shovelware gag reflex when it's got ten years of hype behind it.

Blasphemous curr!jk I'd have to disagree mate almost to the point where I wish people made MORE diablo clones. There just hasn't been much like D2. Even if the game is a half-assed cash cow (which it really isn't in my opinion) I would much rather see that than yet ANOTHER first-person or third-person with spacemarines/Nazis/Russians. E3 bored me to death with those god-forsaken shooters, however pretty they look.

It's the same damn thing, the only saving grace is that EA pops out one every couple of years. So they're relatively easy to avoid, but Blizzard takes ten years and well, even if you're not a fan... it took ten years it has to be good! Sadly no. It's the same game different kind of ball, so to speak.

 

[Inkidu]

Dude, don't be that guy. Because no matter how good my point is, you're not going to be swayed. Ten bucks says you've got half a reply formulated to whatever you think I'm going to say. Just let people *****.

Even if I don't agree, I might still find it an interesting argument. For now, I am just curious.

Fine. Ever since the original Diablo came out Blizzard peaked on that series at 2. Now in this day and age you'll inhabit a lifeless meaningless avatar to depopulate the world of it's cuddly hideous fauna over and over again in a game that feels more like an MMO than anything else. That was great for 2001. Now, they're going to render Diablo 3 in 3D add a few classes finally let people chose their sex (if I remember correctly) but underneath the tweak-like updates it'll still be Diablo and nothing will have changed... and they will make a fortune. It's a good business model, minimum work for maximum profit, but when I think about it I feel a little more hollow inside.

whats so wrong with that?

its the continuation of a game series, why would you change the entire base mechanics of how it plays? that makes no sense. If they charged a subscription charge for it i would definitely frown but its a one time pay for the game which isn't even over priced so i don't see what the problem is exactly..the game is good at what it does?

There is changing the base mechanics and their is deepening the base mechanics. Blizzard does neither. They take ten years to make a game that would have been vogue in 2004; and people pay them for it.

 

[Inkidu]

Not precisely. I'm against taking ten plus years to make a cash cow game and then it sell atrociously well because fans are fans. Shovelware is easy to spot and avoid and naturally gets removed by the more discerning gamer and when it doesn't make money it goes away. Blizzard get to do the same thing, sell it as new, and make oodles of money. It's like a scam. It's hard to fight the shovelware gag reflex when it's got ten years of hype behind it.

Would you prefer if they released a Diablo every year then? Since people are still buying CoD...

Why not? They're doing it, it just takes ten years. Every year or every ten years from where I'm looking it's the same.

 

[Inkidu]

Dude, don't be that guy. Because no matter how good my point is, you're not going to be swayed. Ten bucks says you've got half a reply formulated to whatever you think I'm going to say. Just let people *****.

Even if I don't agree, I might still find it an interesting argument. For now, I am just curious.

Fine. Ever since the original Diablo came out Blizzard peaked on that series at 2. Now in this day and age you'll inhabit a lifeless meaningless avatar to depopulate the world of it's cuddly hideous fauna over and over again in a game that feels more like an MMO than anything else. That was great for 2001. Now, they're going to render Diablo 3 in 3D add a few classes finally let people chose their sex (if I remember correctly) but underneath the tweak-like updates it'll still be Diablo and nothing will have changed... and they will make a fortune. It's a good business model, minimum work for maximum profit, but when I think about it I feel a little more hollow inside.

I've played Diablo II almost every day for the last 10 years and loved every second of it. I WANT more Diablo...and they've put alot of work into DIII.

Now, if you applied that argument to WoW...I'd cheerfully agree. But as is...I must take your skull for Khorne.

WoW and Diablo are at their core the same game. Blizzard just traded settings and races. I know you can make that argument about a lot of games, but you know what? It doesn't apply to me. I've only ever owned one CoD game, and I work to pick out the stuff that really tries to be good, and not in that mind numbing way of "good" that people attribute to holding down the right mouse button for hours or until the land is devoid of fauna.

 

[Urh]

Wow. Eight pages in and no mention of Madden. I'm simply going to assume the silence to be unanimous agreement that Madden (and by extension, EA Sports) simply shouldn't exist...

 

[Terramax]

You tricked me! This is a 'I want to rant and hate X popular franchise' in disguise.

Anyway, seriously, Spirit of Speed for the Dreamcast. Slow, ugly, terrible loading times, and only 1 player.

 

[zehydra]

Dynasty Warriors Gundam.


That is all.

Don't even go there, that game (and it's 2 sequels) are awesome. I will be picking up the 3rd on the 28th when it comes out.

OT: Shovelware. Anything sold for $15 or less at the Wal-Mart bargain bin. You know what I'm talking about.

There's a correct answer to this question:

Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

It's good once you turn off the game breaker weapon.

Which weapon is that? Cause the Smash Balls were a load of fun. Could single-handedly change a match, which is cool IMO.

The smash ball was a game breaker because anyone, regardless of skill could win pretty much due to luck.

 

[mik1]

Every Call of duty after the 4th one.

Unfortunately it going to take them making 3 god awful games in a row before people stop buying them religiously.

 

[internetzealot1]

No, my primary weapon was the mark/tag system that let me instakill everyone in the room. Hiding on a ledge then jumping down and spraying everything with bullets isn't stealth. That's just waiting a little bit before you start shooting.

You only get marks for stealth kills, and you could only get into a location where many targets could be felled using stealth.
If you made the choice to use the "gun-ho avoid stealth as much as I can" method, to make the game both harder and less intresting, then thats not the games fault.

Listen, If anyone tried to play the game stealthily, it was me. But the whole game generally worked out in 3 ways.

1) You melee'd the guy that existed only to give you marks, then executed the guys that existed only to get killed by your execution. (The game does this constantly, and its boring as hell)

2) You used your marks to early, or you shot the guy who you were supposed to melee (because why not when there's no penalty for using silent weapon) and you're faced with a situation that requires you to use marks to proceed silently. Faced with this, you have no choice but to start shooting everybody.

3) Its late in the game, and you come across a group of enemies that cannot all be killed with marks, and cannot be avoided. So you are forced to kill as many as you can, then engage in a gunfight with the others.

BTW, making it so that you had to get melee kills to mark/execute was an incredibly artificial design choice.

 

[Alucard788]

This is going to make me very unpopular but I have to say it..

Soul Reaver

I could just...ever accept that 'this' was the story, and art direction after Blood Omen.

It just got so convoluted, and wrong in my eyes.

 

[Monty McDougal]

I love halo. But when i saw the trailer for halo 4. i lost a little of the innocence left in me. My two problems are the title and the that is pretty much goes the utmost lazies path for a new sequel. Everyone's thoughts after Halo 3: "Halo 4 will probably be master chief waking up. But i don't think that they'd do that. It's too stupid" But that's what they did.

 

[Monty McDougal]

Wow. Eight pages in and no mention of Madden. I'm simply going to assume the silence to be unanimous agreement that Madden (and by extension, EA Sports) simply shouldn't exist...

I think that most gamers don't even think about those as games. Kinda like how we treat the wii. ha ha

 

[zehydra]

Dynasty Warriors Gundam.


That is all.

Don't even go there, that game (and it's 2 sequels) are awesome. I will be picking up the 3rd on the 28th when it comes out.

OT: Shovelware. Anything sold for $15 or less at the Wal-Mart bargain bin. You know what I'm talking about.

There's a correct answer to this question:

Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

It's good once you turn off the game breaker weapon.

Which weapon is that? Cause the Smash Balls were a load of fun. Could single-handedly change a match, which is cool IMO.

The smash ball was a game breaker because anyone, regardless of skill could win pretty much due to luck.

30% luck. 70% when to use it, or how to avoid it. It forces you to focus more on the "who" rather than that "what" of the match, so you can counter it, or even using the ball to force your opponents into bad situations by luring them to the ball without going after it yourself. I've had games where when the Smash Ball appeared, everyone stood still and waited for the first person unlucky enough to jump after it.

What? Why?? I've never had a match where the person who got the smash ball didn't benefit to a great degree.

That is, why would you ever avoid it?

 

[djw175]

See the problem with threads like this is that it's really just a place to list games that people don't like.

 

[Genixma]

Might sound like a broken record but...

DMC2
Metroid: Other M
Resident Evil 5
Superman 64

 

[Greatjusticeman]

The Sims.

I never thought a game about real-life would actually be popular.

 

[LaMer]

Duke Nukem Forever.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

How about AVGN's favorite game to rag on: Jeckell and Hyde?

Looks like some one else did mention it.
But in my book I still win because I described "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" and I spelled it correctly.

Nope, it's such a bad came it doesn't deserve correct spelling! lol