The most disappointing game I've played was Achron. The concept was nothing short of awesome: An RTS game in which you could go back in time and re-issue commands in order to change the outcome. You could even send units backwards or forwards in time. These changes would propagate their way into the present, allowing you to perform many time travel tricks.
The implementation was nothing short of awful. Though the time-travel shenanigans were done well, and it's no surprise that they were confusing, the basic RTS game that they were tacked onto was severely deficient. The pathfinding was the worst I've seen in an RTS game in the past decade or so. The more units you were commanding at once, the less of a chance there was that they'd actually arrive at the spot you told them to. They'd all just get in each other's way and stop moving. I gave up when I had to do a timed mission but kept failing because I couldn't get my units to move despite telling them to. It was infinitely frustrating.
I also found Cities XL to be disappointing. Like basically everyone else who bought the game, I wanted SimCity. I didn't get SimCity. I didn't get anything like it. Instead of having to subtly suggest the wealth or jobs/industry distribution of your city by influencing various factors such as transportation, pollution and land value, you directly dictate them. City building is turned into a mathematical balancing act rather than an art. There is no simulation to speak of, as each piece of your city adds to the demand/supply/population in very simple ways that are all laid bare for you to see and easy for you to influence. The simulation is also static. It won't move unless you directly act upon it, and each action you take has a limited and localized effect.
Contrast this with SimCity. As I said before, you have to subtly suggest which sorts of buildings get created in your city. You directly control only the genera and the density. The rest is determined by a variety of factors, each of which you can only influence indirectly. Changes you make in your city don't stay localized, and any single action can cause ripples that spread throughout the simulation and never really settle down. For example, if you upgrade your transportation system, the traffic routes change. This changes the traffic densities throughout the city, which changes the pollution, the noise, the commute times, the attractiveness of roads to commercial buildings, the length of commutes, and the income from public transport. This changes the sorts of buildings that might appear in different areas, which further changes the traffic structure, the crime structure, etc. etc. etc. And this can ripple back and forth almost indefinitely, never really falling into a state of equilibrium.
Cities XL lacked that depth, lacked that beauty and subtlety of the gameplay and simulation.
Dishonored tops my disappointment list. I loved that game right up to the plot twist, and then it fell apart at the seams. Also, why were their alien vagina asparagus demon things? Show me exactly how they made any kind of sense in the game. The spring-loaded turrets were fine.
I can honestly say Skyrim let me down a little, too. I did enjoy it, don't get me wrong, but the combat always felt kind of awkward for me. I guess I went in with an expectation of polished first person melee combat and it didn't measure up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch me mine for crafts, craft mines, fall down shafts and do a bunch of other things that may or may not involve blocks.
Would Oblivion be good for a new comer (me) and who doesn't really look for something truly amazing
I played Oblivion a lot. I never did the main story, it dind't intruige me very well. But I liked the side quests. Potion making, spell making, and enchanting is a lot cooler also. Skyrim was way too dumbed down but I still liked it.
New Super Mario Bros. It looked awesome from all the trailers, but when I got the game it was horrendously easy and they took out a bunch of good features from the Beta version, especially the co-op multiplayer. Instead we get this stupid "collect the most stars" thing across five bland levels with uninteresting themes.
If you're a fan of RPGs, sure. It's not as, uh... "hardcore" as a lot of older RPGs (like Morrowind, Daggerfall, the old Fallout games, etc.)
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I personally really like the challenge in Morrowind, but I can definitely see how it would turn some people off. If I remember correctly, Morrowind goes off of a "roll" system to determine hits and misses.
I actually found Oblivion to be a lot harder than Morrowind. When I play any game I always play on the hardest difficulty. It's been awhile since I played Morrowind and I love all TES, but I remember steamrolling through any mob, NPC, or even guards in Morrowind. In Oblivion I would get 1 and 2 shotted by mountain lions. I had 100 in almost every skill and 100 in every stat(besides luck) without any extra buffs. I was actually around 140 str with buffs and over 100 in the others.
The only feasible tactic I had in oblivion was stealth with a bow and run when i'm detected while I conjure daedroths that would also die within seconds.
I do agree with disliking the fact that most games are ditching their complex leveling systems and pen and paper elements that made older games so great. For more simplified mechanics, streamlined level systems and perk trees to try and bring in the mainstream audience.
New Super Mario Bros. It looked awesome from all the trailers, but when I got the game it was horrendously easy and they took out a bunch of good features from the Beta version, especially the co-op multiplayer. Instead we get this stupid "collect the most stars" thing across five bland levels with uninteresting themes.
Which one
DS and Wii were alright
3DS was a waste of time
Wii U was fine
Roller Coaster Tycoon 3;
Worst waste of 20 Bucks ever. I went from 1 and played one for 5 years, these five years i was ages 3-8, than bought two and played the living snot out of it on my old 1997 compaq xD with a whopping 64Megs of RAM. From there i bought my Macbook Pro and with it i got Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, And was so far beyond disappointed.. so disappointed i payed 200 Bucks just so i could play 2 on my Macbook pro... How dedicated is that!
Favorite Game; Still and always will be Minecraft, but not Vanilla FTB or tekkit to be exact.. But RC1 is a close second.. very close...
Or if they released the dev kit so the community could use it.
For this year I would say Dishonored was the most disappointing game this year... By the time I was getting into it the game just ended not exactly with a bang either...
The most disappointing game ever for me would either be Legend of Zelda Wind Waker or Battlefield 3. LoZWW Japanese art style is awful in my opinion and is a downgrade over the older N64 graphics in general. Game was open but half your time would be on a boat with uneventful trips unless you hunt for treasure which was entirely pointless in the end.
Battlefield 3 is just a misleading Bad Company 3 upgrade. Removed all of the aspects that made Battlefield 2142 and down what they were and why they were enjoyed and instead strives to be more like their top competitor and the other franchise EA owns already which has lost the war between the two games for several years.
Wind Waker? Really? ......
Dishonored was an awesome game. Finding your own ways to murder people with unlimited possibilities was fun.
Duke Nukem Forever. This is kind of required in a "dissapointing games" thread.
Assassin's Creed 3. Ok so you have awesome naval combat that I want an entire RPG based around and homestead missions which are interesting. Now where's the stabbing and epic series conclusion than has been built up from the end of the first game?
Answer: Stabbing and stealth is gone and the build up culminates in a rushed ending with a terrible twist and a 2 second cut-scene showing the Earth simply being not on fire. Nothing like previous endings where you'd be excited for the next game due to an acceptable cliff-hanger.
The final scene with the last guy you kill is a nice one though.
Duke Nukem Forever...Agreed.
AC3 however...let me put it in this way.
Mass Effect 3's Ending was...Bad. Really Bad. But, that does destroy the fact that it is one of the greatest games ever still.
Even if the ending was bad...the gameplay was still good and a solid good game.
While I know this will be an unpopular opinion, please hear me out here, and understand that this is just a divergent thought. No need to cricticize it. I was disappointed in Dishonored.
I actually sort of like the game as a whole but I never found it to be as great as everybody made it out to be, or to live up to the hype. But since this is about disappointing games, and not bad games (which Dishonored certainly isn't) I'll list what made me feel like it wasn't that good to my view.
Story. This game has the world nailed down, but when it comes to main story line it just stumbles. Things are happening way too fast.
You escape and immediately kill everyone that had wronged you in the next 3 or 4 missions. Then completely predictable plot twist! The cast also has no depth what so ever. At the end of the game I really didn't care for any of the characters I was suppose to kill/help because they have no depth. Neither for the protagonist. For a comparison, Deus Ex (which is a similar genre) didn't have any character that stands out too well, but the moral debate of the whole story line was well thought out and well supported by small things in the environment like emails and news.
I dislike moral choices in games that punishes you for playing a certain way, and few actual options.
Low chaos is boring because there isn't much in each level to explore and there isn't as much relevant power/weapon for non lethal. You are stuck with the sleeping dart, which is hard to find and expensive. High chaos is much more fun but gives you the crap ending. How is Emily suppose to know I've killed/not killed? Wasn't she locked in rooms for most of the game? Besides the part where I rescue her, she was never part of Corvo's mission. Deus Ex, boss battles aside, provide you with quite a few useful stealth upgrades. And I wish more developers would do what Infamous does for moral choices, clear and different powers for different moral paths that helps that particular path. New Vegas was even better with its faction reputation.
Don't want to be too negative here. I do like the art style, the world is quite interesting and for the most part gameplay is solid. But at the end of the day after two playthroughs (low chaos/high chaos) I feel no desire to step in Corvo's shoes again. Despite a bland story, and the moral system which was my biggest beef (It's like if you were playing D&D and the only choices were Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good), it is a good game. So in one word, disappointing, but in many more, worth playing.
Battlefield 3 because it just wasn't Battlefield. I've been a Battlefield fan for a long time, but I cannot defend Battlefield 3. Terrible map design, nonsensical class-cutting and merging, 4-man squads, useless vehicles, insanely quick deaths, lack of Commander mode, and a terrible blue filter over everything. Bad Company 2 would have been more worthy of being a numbered sequel, to be honest.
Skyrim because it took away what made The Elder Scrolls such a good series (in my eyes.) Morrowind was a fantastic blend of hardcore RPG and first-person action gameplay. Skyrim is a fairly good first-person action game, just a terribly simple RPG. Removing skill points and classes in favor of proficiencies and perks was a hugely disappointing move. The quests were also boring, especially the main quest. Graphics were terrible, animations are still stiff, voice acting is mostly embarrassing, and everything feels kind of lifeless. They spent a lot of time building such a beautiful landscape, but skimped on everything inhabiting it.
Fallout 3 because of it just being downright bad. Fallout is my favorite series of all time, but I wasn't affected by the sudden change in gameplay style. The problem is, they pretty much screwed everything up.
Stats aren't as important as any other RPG (it's easy to kill someone with a pistol without much small guns skill, and it's INSANELY easy to kill them with decent small guns skill), VATS is much easier than actually aiming, writing was pathetic, characters are largely 2-dimensional, graphics and voice acting are abysmal, horrible green filter, the wasteland was painfully boring (there was little benefit to actually exploring), the game was much too goofy in some areas (a gun that launches miniature nukes), the Brotherhood was completely changed into cookie-cutter good guys (who have a robot that throws nuclear bombs like footballs), the main quest does not pick up until the last minutes of the game (and even then, it's not good), and it overall felt much too detached from the series, in more ways than the gameplay.
Skyrim finally added something to the Elder Scrolls. Dragons. It's got diverse gameplay like GTA IV and is fun.
DayZ - awful controls, serverside lag, inconsistent AI. God this game could have been so good.
Half-Life 1/2 - After all the hype I heard about them on the internet, they really didn't live up to it.
Fallout 3 - maybe it's because I played New Vegas first, but the environments, story, and characters all seemed really dull.
Far Cry 2 - The game engine was bloody fantastic, but the gameplay mechanics and characters were really disinteresting (and honestly quite irritating after a while).
There making a DayZ standalone. Just you wait.
Half Life 1/2: I don't even know you.
Fallout 3 and Skyrim. Maybe my expectations were too high for both but they just seemed to promise far more than they delivered.
Skyrim is beautiful and with the treehouse mod I actually like to just sit on the balcony and watch the world go by, but the actual gameplay just didn't resonate with me.
Ok lets get something straight. If you do not like Skyrim. Do not get Far Cry 3. It's basically Skyrim with Guns.
Assassin's Creed 3.
The game itself was tons of fun, what made it a total flop was the ending, And the way the main villain dies.
You do all that work, All that tense build up over the last 4 games, To see Vidic die in such a mediocre way, It angered me, As if that wasn't enough, The freaking ending, Just no. Desmond dies so damn quickly, It wasn't climatic enough for it's dramatic scene, And it was stupid, It feels as though Ubisoft just quickly decided to finish the series.
Dishonored tops my disappointment list. I loved that game right up to the plot twist, and then it fell apart at the seams. Also, why were their alien vagina asparagus demon things? Show me exactly how they made any kind of sense in the game. The spring-loaded turrets were fine.
I can honestly say Skyrim let me down a little, too. I did enjoy it, don't get me wrong, but the combat always felt kind of awkward for me. I guess I went in with an expectation of polished first person melee combat and it didn't measure up.
Third person is better than first. Take Uncharted 3 as an example.
Ok lets get something straight. If you do not like Skyrim. Do not get Far Cry 3. It's basically Skyrim with Guns.
Skyrim feels completely different from Far Cry 3. In basic terms, it is Skyrim with guns (because of it's very basic RPG elements and open world), but that's where the similarities end.
Because it was pathetically easy and, for the most part, boring. There are a fair amount of unlocks, but they're not needed since your base abilities make the game easier already. Kind of like how you start out with the best weapon in the game at the start of Dead Space.
With all the due respect - there's no behavior I dislike more than people who label all constructive criticism as "hating". It's just a modern form of narcissism as people feel things are above reproach now, such as a video game. If you do debate a game's quality, it's best to take the time to form a viewpoint of your own and a valid argument first.
Cortex Command kind of disappointed me.
When I saw it on Steam, it seemed to be a really cool, fast paced game.
When I played it, however, the gameplay/controls turned out to be pretty clunky, and it wasn't all the action it seemed to be.
Brink- Promised so much, delivered very little. It also has the worst friendly AI I've ever seen and some of the cheapest enemy AI possible.
Diablo3- As a fan of the previous two this game was just insulting. Looks pretty but they got just about everything else wrong.
To the people disappointed with Civ5- the Gods and Kings expansion adds a bunch of content like religion and spies. I got it on sale recently and it really improves the game.
To the people disappointed with Civ5- the Gods and Kings expansion adds a bunch of content like religion and spies. I got it on sale recently and it really improves the game.
While I'm not *disappointed* with Civilization V, in fact I think it's a great game, I still think it's fundamentally flawed in ways that make it lesser than its predecessors as a whole, and Gods and Kings doesn't do much to fix that (espionage feels tackled on, religions are actually pretty nice).
For example, the AI is terrible and not capable of functioning at all with 1UPT, not to mention the diplomacy. Another thing is that there is no global warming. That was an element that made worlds so interesting. Now there's only fallout from nukes, which is something different entirely.
One of my biggest issues is government choices. I remember a story from Civ II, the one where the guy had been playing for 10 years, where the had to switch away from Democracy because the senate kept overruling him when he wanted to declare war...stuff like that isn't in Civ5. In fact, it doesn't have any mixed bonuses that I can remember (ie "you'll get A, B, C, but it will cost you X, Y, Z stuff). Game-extending complexities don't exist. It's too streamlined, everything is all linear and there is no choice for ruling.
For example, in Civ IV, your civilization progresses through many different forms of government as time passes, with each change causing a period of anarchy where your civ basically shuts down from the changes. These governments have both benefits and drawbacks, making it a case of "the right tool for the right job." In Civ V, you slowly unlock social policies as you gain culture. These policies never have drawbacks other than a few policies being mutually exclusive to others.
I could go on with other stuff, like how you can't view the whole world, or how economy sliders have been scrapped completely, but I don't want to sound negative. I actually really like Civilization V. But the truth is, it didn't receive as much love as it should have in development, as Firaxis decided not to develop Civ V and to focus on some lame Civilization World facebook game. That's also why Jon Shafer left the company.
Again, I still like the game a lot, and there are some sections that are genuine improvements from Civ IV - such as the combat, which is more tactical - positioning is extremely important, and planning is rewarded.
Colonial Marines, I wasn't really excited for it, but I thought it was at least going to be decent, the E3 "demo" got my hopes up, and the final product was nothing like what the showed.
Overstrike, first when they changed the title to Fuse and the art style to a more serious one but I still had hope for it, then it actually came out.
Were you playing Fable, or The Lost Chapters? If you only played Fable 1, then you are missing out on half of the entire game at least.
I thought the game had a lot of replayability, because of the moral choices. In my opinion, it has the most replayability out of all the games from its' time.
The implementation was nothing short of awful. Though the time-travel shenanigans were done well, and it's no surprise that they were confusing, the basic RTS game that they were tacked onto was severely deficient. The pathfinding was the worst I've seen in an RTS game in the past decade or so. The more units you were commanding at once, the less of a chance there was that they'd actually arrive at the spot you told them to. They'd all just get in each other's way and stop moving. I gave up when I had to do a timed mission but kept failing because I couldn't get my units to move despite telling them to. It was infinitely frustrating.
I also found Cities XL to be disappointing. Like basically everyone else who bought the game, I wanted SimCity. I didn't get SimCity. I didn't get anything like it. Instead of having to subtly suggest the wealth or jobs/industry distribution of your city by influencing various factors such as transportation, pollution and land value, you directly dictate them. City building is turned into a mathematical balancing act rather than an art. There is no simulation to speak of, as each piece of your city adds to the demand/supply/population in very simple ways that are all laid bare for you to see and easy for you to influence. The simulation is also static. It won't move unless you directly act upon it, and each action you take has a limited and localized effect.
Contrast this with SimCity. As I said before, you have to subtly suggest which sorts of buildings get created in your city. You directly control only the genera and the density. The rest is determined by a variety of factors, each of which you can only influence indirectly. Changes you make in your city don't stay localized, and any single action can cause ripples that spread throughout the simulation and never really settle down. For example, if you upgrade your transportation system, the traffic routes change. This changes the traffic densities throughout the city, which changes the pollution, the noise, the commute times, the attractiveness of roads to commercial buildings, the length of commutes, and the income from public transport. This changes the sorts of buildings that might appear in different areas, which further changes the traffic structure, the crime structure, etc. etc. etc. And this can ripple back and forth almost indefinitely, never really falling into a state of equilibrium.
Cities XL lacked that depth, lacked that beauty and subtlety of the gameplay and simulation.
I can honestly say Skyrim let me down a little, too. I did enjoy it, don't get me wrong, but the combat always felt kind of awkward for me. I guess I went in with an expectation of polished first person melee combat and it didn't measure up.
I played Oblivion a lot. I never did the main story, it dind't intruige me very well. But I liked the side quests. Potion making, spell making, and enchanting is a lot cooler also. Skyrim was way too dumbed down but I still liked it.
I actually found Oblivion to be a lot harder than Morrowind. When I play any game I always play on the hardest difficulty. It's been awhile since I played Morrowind and I love all TES, but I remember steamrolling through any mob, NPC, or even guards in Morrowind. In Oblivion I would get 1 and 2 shotted by mountain lions. I had 100 in almost every skill and 100 in every stat(besides luck) without any extra buffs. I was actually around 140 str with buffs and over 100 in the others.
The only feasible tactic I had in oblivion was stealth with a bow and run when i'm detected while I conjure daedroths that would also die within seconds.
I do agree with disliking the fact that most games are ditching their complex leveling systems and pen and paper elements that made older games so great. For more simplified mechanics, streamlined level systems and perk trees to try and bring in the mainstream audience.
Don't forget the DRM -__-
Which one
DS and Wii were alright
3DS was a waste of time
Wii U was fine
Hey everyone, I'm back!
Worst waste of 20 Bucks ever. I went from 1 and played one for 5 years, these five years i was ages 3-8, than bought two and played the living snot out of it on my old 1997 compaq xD with a whopping 64Megs of RAM. From there i bought my Macbook Pro and with it i got Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, And was so far beyond disappointed.. so disappointed i payed 200 Bucks just so i could play 2 on my Macbook pro... How dedicated is that!
Favorite Game; Still and always will be Minecraft, but not Vanilla FTB or tekkit to be exact.. But RC1 is a close second.. very close...
Terraria is coming to consoles. How epic is that to see it on your Ps Vita? Also there adding new features
Wind Waker? Really? ......
Dishonored was an awesome game. Finding your own ways to murder people with unlimited possibilities was fun.
Duke Nukem Forever...Agreed.
AC3 however...let me put it in this way.
Mass Effect 3's Ending was...Bad. Really Bad. But, that does destroy the fact that it is one of the greatest games ever still.
Even if the ending was bad...the gameplay was still good and a solid good game.
There is always ways around things in dishonored.
Skyrim finally added something to the Elder Scrolls. Dragons. It's got diverse gameplay like GTA IV and is fun.
There making a DayZ standalone. Just you wait.
Half Life 1/2: I don't even know you.
Na. There making all the third installment of there games and releasing it under a game called "3"
Ok lets get something straight. If you do not like Skyrim. Do not get Far Cry 3. It's basically Skyrim with Guns.
My mass effect 3 statement....
Third person is better than first. Take Uncharted 3 as an example.
And why so much hate on Dishonored??? T.T
Wow, dragons. Cool. Just what the series needed.
It was a super dumbed-down boring mess. The dragons honestly aren't a big deal.
Skyrim feels completely different from Far Cry 3. In basic terms, it is Skyrim with guns (because of it's very basic RPG elements and open world), but that's where the similarities end.
Depends on the game.
Because it was pathetically easy and, for the most part, boring. There are a fair amount of unlocks, but they're not needed since your base abilities make the game easier already. Kind of like how you start out with the best weapon in the game at the start of Dead Space.
When I saw it on Steam, it seemed to be a really cool, fast paced game.
When I played it, however, the gameplay/controls turned out to be pretty clunky, and it wasn't all the action it seemed to be.
Diablo3- As a fan of the previous two this game was just insulting. Looks pretty but they got just about everything else wrong.
To the people disappointed with Civ5- the Gods and Kings expansion adds a bunch of content like religion and spies. I got it on sale recently and it really improves the game.
For example, the AI is terrible and not capable of functioning at all with 1UPT, not to mention the diplomacy. Another thing is that there is no global warming. That was an element that made worlds so interesting. Now there's only fallout from nukes, which is something different entirely.
One of my biggest issues is government choices. I remember a story from Civ II, the one where the guy had been playing for 10 years, where the had to switch away from Democracy because the senate kept overruling him when he wanted to declare war...stuff like that isn't in Civ5. In fact, it doesn't have any mixed bonuses that I can remember (ie "you'll get A, B, C, but it will cost you X, Y, Z stuff). Game-extending complexities don't exist. It's too streamlined, everything is all linear and there is no choice for ruling.
For example, in Civ IV, your civilization progresses through many different forms of government as time passes, with each change causing a period of anarchy where your civ basically shuts down from the changes. These governments have both benefits and drawbacks, making it a case of "the right tool for the right job." In Civ V, you slowly unlock social policies as you gain culture. These policies never have drawbacks other than a few policies being mutually exclusive to others.
I could go on with other stuff, like how you can't view the whole world, or how economy sliders have been scrapped completely, but I don't want to sound negative. I actually really like Civilization V. But the truth is, it didn't receive as much love as it should have in development, as Firaxis decided not to develop Civ V and to focus on some lame Civilization World facebook game. That's also why Jon Shafer left the company.
Again, I still like the game a lot, and there are some sections that are genuine improvements from Civ IV - such as the combat, which is more tactical - positioning is extremely important, and planning is rewarded.
and also medal of honor 1.
but medal of honor 2 is BEAST!!!!!
battlefeild 3 also because i made my account age under 18 so had to make another account >
Overstrike, first when they changed the title to Fuse and the art style to a more serious one but I still had hope for it, then it actually came out.
Currently I can't think of anything else.
I hate when sites do that etc.
I wanted to check out the Quake website and I had to enter my age
Hey everyone, I'm back!
I'm thinking it was just Fable.