FF12..spore..assassins creed..for pretty much all the same reasons listed above. Still good games i suppose but a let down nonetheless.
The game you had highest expectations for that let you down
- Thread starter Antinash
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I thought the main gripe with Crysis was the lack of game content.Khell_Sennet post=9.72096.748488 said:
The game is extremely short for being a spiritual successor to Far Cry, extremely cliché and it follows the stupid despicable gaming trend that all games have to end in a cliffhanger (Assassins Creed, Mass Effect, Ratchet & Clank etc.) thus spawning at least a trilogy.
For being a game released 4 years later than its predecessor, the game lacks length. Far Cry had nearly 30 horus of gameplay befire beating it, while Crysis had a lackluster 6-8 hours.
Don't even get me fucking started how 6-8 hours is NOT an acceptable game length specially concidering how hyped Crysis was. ALso, the levels wheren't anywhere near as vast and open like the ones in Far Cry.
As for the suit powers, that didn't bother me at all, I mean for christ sake, compared to how the guy from Far Cry is ill-equipped compared to Nomad... I think that only being able to cloak yourself for only 10 seconds is the least of your worries. You can beat the entire game quite easily even without using any suit powers at all.
It seems like most of us are throwing around games from the past year or so...
What about older games? Did anyone here buy Black & White only to discover that the initial fun of playing with your creature was totally thrown out the window by the crappy "RTS" (quotations intentional) style of gameplay that the second half of the game was REALLY about.
So how about it? Everyone knows Haze was stupid and Spore wasn't created when God lightly touched Will Wright's finger. I'm sure there's something you bought as a kid that just pissed you off when you bought it because you saved up months of allowance only to buy a piece of shit game unworthy for apes.
What about older games? Did anyone here buy Black & White only to discover that the initial fun of playing with your creature was totally thrown out the window by the crappy "RTS" (quotations intentional) style of gameplay that the second half of the game was REALLY about.
So how about it? Everyone knows Haze was stupid and Spore wasn't created when God lightly touched Will Wright's finger. I'm sure there's something you bought as a kid that just pissed you off when you bought it because you saved up months of allowance only to buy a piece of shit game unworthy for apes.
The suit power was good enough as it was. It made sense, it made you think wisely about how to use each power, all with their advantages and trade offs. Your options are OK ideas but once again there is nothing wrong with its current set up. Only using one power at a time keeps you from being over powered. You character is in a way, over powered and under powered at the same time making things balanced and tactical. Yea I know you can just cloak or gun your way through, but that's only 1 of a few options you can take.
I agree completely about both those games, I also followed Oblivion pretty extensivly only to be let down. Graphics were amazing it is a shame the game lost its soul for them though.Khell_Sennet post=9.72096.747490 said:
Best advise I can give is just don't watch hours of hype trailers and read all about a game. That way you can't be disapointed with something you don't have high expections for and when you do find a great game it's a pleasant suprise.
Do I hafto pick just one?
Star Wars Force Unleashed (great graphics, terrible gameplay)
Spore (Linier, repetitive, and compleatly devoid of gameplay)
Mass Effect (less text in reading a book and atleast you wont hafto fight the games inventory and combat systems to get to the action with a book)
Assassin's Creed (game makes GTAs missions seem diverse, its literaly 3 missions over and over with a combat system that makes you invincible if your capable at all at countering)
Alone in the Dark (just terrible, is Atari bankrupt yet? Good ideas with zero polish and terrible implementation)
Army of 2 (EA again, some of the worst AI ever programed and story ever made)
Helgate London (A game that got its excitement from trying to copy D2 only to make a hollow lifeless shell...no suprise it was bought out by EA the next week)
Devil May Cry 4 (Short and repetitive, the game actualy gave up on new gameplay 4 hours in and made you replay the whole thing as dante)
Ninja Gaiden 2 (I should have seen it comming I guess, fail on my part)
There are ofcourse a slew of others mostly realated to the Wii or EA in some way, but I long ago stopped expecting any of those to be good.
Long story short, I don't get excited about games anymore, I wait for the reviews and just expect everything to fail.
A brief note on crysis, I didn't think the game failed, but then again I didn't have huge expectations for anything but it looking pretty...which I think it acomplished. I thought the suit was balanced but could have used a bit more energy and a quicker way of switching between suit powers (suit shortcuts only worked so well). The shooting mechanics were unfortunatly as strange as FarCrys were, where the entire time it feels like your gun is shooting ping pong balls that move slowly through the air and are buffeted left and right needlessly.
Star Wars Force Unleashed (great graphics, terrible gameplay)
Spore (Linier, repetitive, and compleatly devoid of gameplay)
Mass Effect (less text in reading a book and atleast you wont hafto fight the games inventory and combat systems to get to the action with a book)
Assassin's Creed (game makes GTAs missions seem diverse, its literaly 3 missions over and over with a combat system that makes you invincible if your capable at all at countering)
Alone in the Dark (just terrible, is Atari bankrupt yet? Good ideas with zero polish and terrible implementation)
Army of 2 (EA again, some of the worst AI ever programed and story ever made)
Helgate London (A game that got its excitement from trying to copy D2 only to make a hollow lifeless shell...no suprise it was bought out by EA the next week)
Devil May Cry 4 (Short and repetitive, the game actualy gave up on new gameplay 4 hours in and made you replay the whole thing as dante)
Ninja Gaiden 2 (I should have seen it comming I guess, fail on my part)
There are ofcourse a slew of others mostly realated to the Wii or EA in some way, but I long ago stopped expecting any of those to be good.
Long story short, I don't get excited about games anymore, I wait for the reviews and just expect everything to fail.
A brief note on crysis, I didn't think the game failed, but then again I didn't have huge expectations for anything but it looking pretty...which I think it acomplished. I thought the suit was balanced but could have used a bit more energy and a quicker way of switching between suit powers (suit shortcuts only worked so well). The shooting mechanics were unfortunatly as strange as FarCrys were, where the entire time it feels like your gun is shooting ping pong balls that move slowly through the air and are buffeted left and right needlessly.
Crysis just deserves an dishonorable mention simply because the game was way over-hyped.
I spent $300 on a videocard simply so that I could be prepared when that game came out.
The game was just way too short and fell short of expectations.
I recall the Crysis Demo being hyped to hell, only being released on very exclusive sites where people had to pay premium access to even have access to the Crysis demo. It was *THAT* hyped. You ever heard of a game demo being accessed first hand only to users who pay money? It's virtually like paying money for a DEMO.
The demo obviously got released on the warez-scene which was the only way for people to actually play the demo until CryTek/EA made the demo go public.
The preformance on the demo was terrible. I spent $300 on a videocard and I could barely play the demo on High Settings? What the ass? On top of that there were some additional Graphics Content on the Crysis demo to be found only in DirectX10 mode.
Yerli Cevat - CEO and main producer of the game promised that the game would run way better on "optimized hardware" such as quad-core CPUs [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CD-mJMB7Lw]. I remember the game being majorly announced and advertised as THE game requiring a Quad-Core CPU and of course Intel jumped on the advertisement bandwagon and so did their soaring Quad Core fans. Also CryTek promised to optimize the code so that the terrible game preformance could be fixed.
The fun part came when the full version of the game came out.
No optimization what so ever [http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_full/] (still terrible preformance)
The game did not use Quad Cores. [http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=468] You'll get the same preformance out of a Dual-Core CPU.
Yerli Cevat tried to defend that statement by digging some "facts [http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=559]" straight out of his ass - like:
-The game does use quad-core but you won't see the benefit without a good GPU.
Bullshit, bullshit and triple bullshit.
Also to even add further insult to injury was the DirectX10 debacle the game was shrouded with - the fact that some graphical content was only exclusive to DirectX-10, a great way for Micro$hit to further advertise for Vista, but in reality all the DirectX10 content was there even for Windows XP users, you just had to hack the game to unlock it.
The game was hyped to hell, the hardware that was supposedly required to run the game smoothly was all a lie and even the software - the OS which was promoted to have access to some extra graphical content thanks to the wonders of DirectX 10 added up to the big pile of stinking, smelly, prime-time, high-end premium bullshit.
I spent $300 on a videocard simply so that I could be prepared when that game came out.
The game was just way too short and fell short of expectations.
I recall the Crysis Demo being hyped to hell, only being released on very exclusive sites where people had to pay premium access to even have access to the Crysis demo. It was *THAT* hyped. You ever heard of a game demo being accessed first hand only to users who pay money? It's virtually like paying money for a DEMO.
The demo obviously got released on the warez-scene which was the only way for people to actually play the demo until CryTek/EA made the demo go public.
The preformance on the demo was terrible. I spent $300 on a videocard and I could barely play the demo on High Settings? What the ass? On top of that there were some additional Graphics Content on the Crysis demo to be found only in DirectX10 mode.
Yerli Cevat - CEO and main producer of the game promised that the game would run way better on "optimized hardware" such as quad-core CPUs [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CD-mJMB7Lw]. I remember the game being majorly announced and advertised as THE game requiring a Quad-Core CPU and of course Intel jumped on the advertisement bandwagon and so did their soaring Quad Core fans. Also CryTek promised to optimize the code so that the terrible game preformance could be fixed.
The fun part came when the full version of the game came out.
No optimization what so ever [http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_full/] (still terrible preformance)
The game did not use Quad Cores. [http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=468] You'll get the same preformance out of a Dual-Core CPU.
Yerli Cevat tried to defend that statement by digging some "facts [http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=559]" straight out of his ass - like:
-The game does use quad-core but you won't see the benefit without a good GPU.
Bullshit, bullshit and triple bullshit.
Also to even add further insult to injury was the DirectX10 debacle the game was shrouded with - the fact that some graphical content was only exclusive to DirectX-10, a great way for Micro$hit to further advertise for Vista, but in reality all the DirectX10 content was there even for Windows XP users, you just had to hack the game to unlock it.
The game was hyped to hell, the hardware that was supposedly required to run the game smoothly was all a lie and even the software - the OS which was promoted to have access to some extra graphical content thanks to the wonders of DirectX 10 added up to the big pile of stinking, smelly, prime-time, high-end premium bullshit.
F.E.A.R.
Everyone I know personally friggin' hyped the shit out of this game, saying it was 'intense!' 'Scariest shit ever!' 'The AI alone will scare you let alone the mind trips'
What i got was a typical one-man army shooter with repetitive firefights that were further simplified with the bullet time. Sure, some of the mind trip parts were cool, but you knew when they were coming! the entire game follows a vicious cycle of 'shooty part, now attempted horror, back to shooting'. And the AI? Well if tossing a grenade at you because you're being cover is now considered 'amazing AI' i'm very disappointed.....And no, I don't play games on easy, this was on Hard.
Everyone I know personally friggin' hyped the shit out of this game, saying it was 'intense!' 'Scariest shit ever!' 'The AI alone will scare you let alone the mind trips'
What i got was a typical one-man army shooter with repetitive firefights that were further simplified with the bullet time. Sure, some of the mind trip parts were cool, but you knew when they were coming! the entire game follows a vicious cycle of 'shooty part, now attempted horror, back to shooting'. And the AI? Well if tossing a grenade at you because you're being cover is now considered 'amazing AI' i'm very disappointed.....And no, I don't play games on easy, this was on Hard.
Calling him Tittly is also fun.OverlordSteve post=9.72096.747433 said:
But Halo 3!! It was too short & Too easy.
I wanted a game that would take me days on end to finish, racking up my electricity bill because the console needed so much power to run it!!
Online it is a fun-ass game, but the rest of it is very bleh.
Final Fantasy 12. Not a bad game by any means, but after playing it for 100 hours I went to the Bahamut ship expecting a big finale. Instead, you have to basically race through and avoid enemies, and then there's the final boss who isn't that hard. Again, not a bad game but just a little underwhelming.
swtfu, soldier offortune 2, mercs2 , two worlds,tales of vesparia,assassins creed in the matrix,
The force unleashed, that star destroyer scene ruined the whole damn thing to the point im debating Trading it in