Top 3 Biggest game disappointments

[Wilian]

Then the question should really be "What games do you think are bad?"

The only objective way to determine success in a business is financially.

There are many ways one can objectively view the quality of the product beyond sales figures. Easier on sequels of games because then you have direct comparisation.

[Djuntas]

This thread has been quit fun to read. Lately Ive looked up why mentioned games maybe failed. Ended up subscribing to Angry joe show, gut some channels off youtube can steal you're time!

I will just add, while personally havent played it cause erhm...I dont play any fps games, Duke Nukem. Seing it being rated by said mentioned youtuber, makes me cry. How the HELL could they release the game inn that state...just wow.

[insmek]

I could name a dozen, but I'll stick to just one primarily because it stands out the most vivid in my mind: Guild Wars 2. Now, that's not to say that GW2 is a bad game. It's not, by any stretch, but it is an enormous disappointment from a PVP perspective. Here was the game that was supposed to be the be-all and end-all for MMORPG PVP. But it just wasn't. Somewhere in the development cycle, something went seriously wrong and turned what was supposed to be a very large focus for the game into something hideous and undesirable.

Two more to keep with the thread: Golden Sun: Dark Dawn and Super Smash Bros Brawl.

EDIT: I went with "Games I was most disappointed in" because that seems to be more on-topic for the thread.

[Edc]

I see alot of people listing games that actually sold well and are still actively played by a lot of people. How can you call that a failure? It might be a disappointment for you personally, but that does not flag it as bad or failed.

[Emrendil]

For me it was only Tera. Questing and "endgame" was just bad.

[insmek]

I see alot of people listing games that actually sold well and are still actively played by a lot of people. How can you call that a failure? It might be a disappointment for you personally, but that does not flag it as bad or failed.

Well, I think the problem is that when "failure" is taken to mean "low sales", it's not really that interesting of a discussion. It's just numbers at that point, and there really isn't anything that anyone can argue about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_video_gaming

[Valeron]

I see alot of people listing games that actually sold well and are still actively played by a lot of people. How can you call that a failure? It might be a disappointment for you personally, but that does not flag it as bad or failed.

the thread turned into a personal disappointment list since the first page, the title is inaccurate as far as what the topic actually is

[vindicatorx]

Hah, I knew SWTOR would be on this list. So many people butthurt over that game.

Still subscribed, still playing, still loving the hell out of it. AKA: Not a failure.

just cause you still play it and like it does not mean it's not a failure which explains why it went f2p

[Northern Goblin]

just cause you still play it and like it does not mean it's not a failure which explains why it went f2p

Nor is that an indication of failure. See my post on the previous page about the shift in market.

[Digglett]

Nor is that an indication of failure. See my post on the previous page about the shift in market.

When it's the most expensive MMO ever made, and in only a year it's free to play (you can hit level cap without spending money), that's a pretty big failure.

Especially since we're talking about EA here, can't get more money grubbing than that, you know times were desperate when EA makes their most expensive MMO free.

[Profyrion]

Except that is no longer an indicator of failure.

Please try to keep up...

[Topornic]

1: WoW: Cataclysm
2: SW:TOR
3: Diablo 3

Pretty much standard ones

[Northern Goblin]

When it's the most expensive MMO ever made, and in only a year it's free to play (you can hit level cap without spending money), that's a pretty big failure.

It stays above the required number of subs to break even, and the F2P is highly restricted with microtransactions allowing you to enhance your gameplay without committing to a subscription.

That's not failure, that's adapting to the shift in the market. F2P no longer constitutes failure, hell, look at LoL.

[Migey]

Fengore, sorry, but you are more or less as objectively wrong as you can get.

F2P is a very viable buisiness model for many games, and companies like Valve and Riot have benefited hugely from making many popular games with this model. Sucessful MMOs can also be free to play.

But do consider that SWTOR is estimated as the single most expensive game ever made, at over 300 million estimated spent on the game alone, and more on advertising. Going F2P so early for a game designed for the subscription model, from a company well known for wringing every cent or penny out of whatever they can, is pretty telling that the game did not do as well as they wanted it to. F2P no longer has to constitute failure, but in this case, it is a pretty good indicator. If going F2P was simply the game trying to adapt to the market, then why havn't all the other large MMOs done so recently? Because in most cases in which a game was not designed to be F2P, converting from subscription to F2P is generally an awkward process, and a last ditch effort to get something extra out of a game. In SWTOR this is particularly evident when you look at the state of the F2P itself in SWTOR; it is so ridiculously restricting (reduced exp, limited ui, limited loot rolls in instances, limited instance/warzone runs per week...) that it is clearly not designed in any sense to be properly played without paying. It seems more like a way to get attention to the game, to attempt to hook people in and force them to sub. Is this the action of an MMO which is a thriving success? No.

I will not deny that I was dissapointed by SWTOR, and I knew very little about it until 2 months before release, so I had little time to buy into any hype, but that did not stop me enjoying it for what it was. I am not a jaded fanboy desperate for it to fail because I feel betrayed by EA, but I personally do not see how it can be viewed as anything other then a fail in an objective light.

[Deleted]

I won't call D3 a failure though, at least Blizzard patched away most of the godawful gameplay problems pretty swiftly with 1.04.

The closest thing IMO would be Oblivion, everything was so lazy and sloppily done.

You must be mental Oblivion and Morowind were revolutionary

[Northern Goblin]

Fengore, sorry, but you are more or less as objectively wrong as you can get.

The game is over the break even point for subscribers to where it turns a profit, how am I wrong? Before it even reaches out to the F2P/Microtransaction market, it's making money.

It extends itself to the non commital market by offering a F2P microtransaction option. Why is it considered a failure to branch out your business options?

If they were losing money on subscribers alone and requiring F2P to balance the books to stay afloat, you'd have a point. But if it's financially justifying it's costs and then offering a F2P/Pay as you Go alternative to an untapped market you were otherwise never going to get no matter how good your game is, that's not a failure, that's smart business.

An F2P which allows you to play in your own time, and if you suddenly get a few days free, spend a small amount of money to enhance the gameplay of your free time, without the costs of a subscription, is a completely different market to the people who pay to subscribe. Yes it also will hook people in to subscribe, but a large consumer base will use it for what it is, a play in your own time - no strings attached - alternative to subscription gameplay.

I am not a jaded fanboy desperate for it to fail because I feel betrayed by EA, but I personally do not see how it can be viewed as anything other then a fail in an objective light.

It's making a profit, I still stand by my point that WoW will take up this model in the days to come, just because you're making a profit doesn't mean you shouldn't look to make more of a profit, why restrict yourself?

---------- Post added 2012-11-23 at 11:10 PM ----------

You must be mental Oblivion and Morowind were revolutionary

I'll give you Morrowind, but Oblivion? What was revolutionary about essentially a rushed sandbox that requires player support to be good?

[Profyrion]

Fengore, sorry, but you are more or less as objectively wrong as you can get.

F2P is a very viable buisiness model for many games, and companies like Valve and Riot have benefited hugely from making many popular games with this model. Sucessful MMOs can also be free to play.

But do consider that SWTOR is estimated as the single most expensive game ever made, at over 300 million estimated spent on the game alone, and more on advertising. Going F2P so early for a game designed for the subscription model, from a company well known for wringing every cent or penny out of whatever they can, is pretty telling that the game did not do as well as they wanted it to. F2P no longer has to constitute failure, but in this case, it is a pretty good indicator. If going F2P was simply the game trying to adapt to the market, then why havn't all the other large MMOs done so recently? Because in most cases in which a game was not designed to be F2P, converting from subscription to F2P is generally an awkward process, and a last ditch effort to get something extra out of a game. In SWTOR this is particularly evident when you look at the state of the F2P itself in SWTOR; it is so ridiculously restricting (reduced exp, limited ui, limited loot rolls in instances, limited instance/warzone runs per week...) that it is clearly not designed in any sense to be properly played without paying. It seems more like a way to get attention to the game, to attempt to hook people in and force them to sub. Is this the action of an MMO which is a thriving success? No.

I will not deny that I was dissapointed by SWTOR, and I knew very little about it until 2 months before release, so I had little time to buy into any hype, but that did not stop me enjoying it for what it was. I am not a jaded fanboy desperate for it to fail because I feel betrayed by EA, but I personally do not see how it can be viewed as anything other then a fail in an objective light.

Your measurement for failure is obsolete, and I suspect driven by a pinch of schadenfreude.

The game is alive and well, with a vibrant if not conspicuously "WoW-killing" player community. If it had shut its doors 8 months in then you could call it a failure without any honest objection. But it hasn't. It soldiers on -- maybe not in the direction you'd like, but soldiers on all the same. That is the exact opposite of failure.

Please pull your head out of your backside.

[Digglett]

Your measurement for failure is obsolete, and I suspect driven by a pinch of schadenfreude.

The game is alive and well, with a vibrant if not conspicuously "WoW-killing" player community. If it had shut its doors 8 months in then you could call it a failure without any honest objection. But it hasn't. It soldiers on -- maybe not in the direction you'd like, but soldiers on all the same. That is the exact opposite of failure.

The fact that it's still alive, doesn't mean its not a failure.

[Deleted]

Blizzard destroyed Diablo 3. Decimated it. In multiple ways even. Lets just go through the garbage pile of the game:

Always Online DRM: Sorry Blizzard, this was a huge mistake. If my internet goes down, I can't play. I rarely, and I mean rarely, played with others, yet I can't play. It was obviously for the RMAH as well as a horrible, horrible form of DRM.

This alone made me disappointed in D3, Having DRM screws with the hardcore section of the game as you only got 1 go and could lose characters because of the server.

[Alhoon]

Always Online DRM: Sorry Blizzard, this was a huge mistake. If my internet goes down, I can't play. I rarely, and I mean rarely, played with others, yet I can't play. It was obviously for the RMAH as well as a horrible, horrible form of DRM.

A lot of people don't understand that if Blizzard stripped "always online" from Diablo 3, that doesn't mean you can just play your character when not connected. Diablo 2 had an offline mode, but it was entirely different from battle.net mode. If Diablo 2 style was what you personally wanted, then I'm sorry, but I have not seen many complain about that. It's mostly just "I want to play my toon when battle.net goes down", and if *that* was to be implemented, it would be an absolutely disastrous joke. I don't think I even need to explain why.

Weapon Enchant Attributes Cut: All but frost from weapons was removed. Yes, they have elemental damage still, but all the modifiers but frost were removed. Why? Who knows why it was removed, except that it was. There's no reason to go for enchants anymore except for extra damage.

This was already explained by Blizzard: they thought that even with added utility, the one that players end up picking is the one that does most damage. Now look at what happened to frost damage. Not a huge success.

Random Quests and Encounters: Back about 4, maybe 5 now, years ago we were promised with a great video that there would be random quests and random encounters. Those looked fantastically fun. Except they don't exist. At all. What random quests and encounters? Elite packs don't count, either.

Random quests? You mean like getting the merchant's stuff back before the jail event in act 1, or the timed dungeon event in act 2, or the one where you have to defeat the beast that a guard managed to lock in a room, or the ever-changing encounters with the ghosts of NPCs you've encountered in previous acts in act 4? Just to give an example from each act. There's tons of more. Also there are hundreds of named unique monsters in the game.

Randomized Dungeons: Haha... No. Man, if you've played the game enough, there's barely any tile pieces that are used that make the game any different. There's really not much to the "randomness" of the zones. The roads are always in the same place. The dungeon floor plans are rarely much different and generally have 3-5 floor plans. Random? Yeah, right.

I agree. But that's how it was in Diablo 2 as well. Roads always led to the next zone and the dungeons had patterns that when memorized, made navigating pretty easy. No idea what you're talking about with floor plans. Diablo 3 has no floor plans, it has "tiles" and game randomizes in what way they are arranged. This was exactly the same in Diablo 2.

PvP: Oh, what's that, it's been 6 months and this STILL isn't in the game? It was announced and playable in 2010? Weird, I played a very working version of it at Blizzcon. It was incredibly fun and you could set up some great, great plays. I must have gone through this line 10 times over with a few friends, yet it's STILL not in the game. Weird.

If you bought this game for PvP, then I'm truly sorry. No idea where your delusions of a great PvP came, but certainly not from Diablo 2, where PvP was more of a bad joke than anything.

On topic:
3. Bioshock. The game was not that bad, but since it was supposed to be a spiritual successor to System Shock, I may have set my bar too high. The game was far too simplified all the way from gameplay to story to map design. The worst is the praise it gets, while it's predecessor is something the new gaming community hasn't even heard of, despite it being one of the best games ever made. Kind of similar to Fallout 3 in that regard.

2. Diablo 3. Again, not all that bad game but seeing how great the last installment was, it's a big disappointment. My main gripe is the storytelling and dialogue, as well as couple of butchered characters.

1. Dragon Age 2. They totally butchered the tactical gameplay in favor of console hack'n'slash. That's like making a half assed fighting game and naming it Nascar '12, makes no sense whatsoever. Dialogue was god awful and the way conversation interaction was implemented has to be one of the worst game mechanics ever created.