Terminus
If I was a wizard this wouldn't be happening to me
Twilight Princess "HD"s reveal. I never realized my hype for a game could evaporate as quickly as it did.
Biggest Letdowns in Gaming
- Thread starter Dio
- Start date
Linkmaster30000
Aim for the knee
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Location
- Minnesota, USA
Paper Mario: Sticker Star
I love the first two Paper Mario games. The original is amazing, and Thousand-Year Door somehow improved upon it. Even Super Paper Mario, despite being very different overall, was a lot of fun in its own right.
Then Sticker Star came out. It started with promise, and then you couldn't attack without stickers. Not even a basic attack. What the heck. I would've been at least willing to trudge through it if the stickers were simply more powerful attacks, like items or something, but no, EVERYTHING MUST BE STICKERS. The gameplay turned me off so much that even after trying to play it 3 times, I couldn't get into it enough to continue.
I pray to everything that Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam will not disappoint.
Honorable mention to Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII for being a terrible follow-up to what is arguably one of the greatest games in history. I don't think I have to explain what a let-down it was.
I love the first two Paper Mario games. The original is amazing, and Thousand-Year Door somehow improved upon it. Even Super Paper Mario, despite being very different overall, was a lot of fun in its own right.
Then Sticker Star came out. It started with promise, and then you couldn't attack without stickers. Not even a basic attack. What the heck. I would've been at least willing to trudge through it if the stickers were simply more powerful attacks, like items or something, but no, EVERYTHING MUST BE STICKERS. The gameplay turned me off so much that even after trying to play it 3 times, I couldn't get into it enough to continue.
I pray to everything that Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam will not disappoint.
Honorable mention to Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII for being a terrible follow-up to what is arguably one of the greatest games in history. I don't think I have to explain what a let-down it was.
Rage!
That game made me rage. For the praise it got, it was boring as hell. Similar to fallout but with much less freedom and similar to borderlands without the humour and weapon variety.
Its graphics were really great but that was the only good quality the game had. That one went back to the shop before completion as I could bear it no longer.
That game made me rage. For the praise it got, it was boring as hell. Similar to fallout but with much less freedom and similar to borderlands without the humour and weapon variety.
Its graphics were really great but that was the only good quality the game had. That one went back to the shop before completion as I could bear it no longer.
Skyward Sword is without a doubt one of the most disappointing games I've ever played. I really expected better from the 3D games coming off of Twilight Princess.
Metroid Other M isn't the 0/10, F- game people like to pretend it is, but it still wasn't great following the Prime series.
Sonic Lost World decided to ditch the one thing that 3D Sonic had finally found to use as solid ground in favor of more stupid experimentation. This one just frustrated me more than disappointed me though.
Mega Man X5 was such a fall after X4 that it's hard not to be upset over it.
Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII was something I lied to myself about for years until I just accepted that it's truly the only blemish on the FFVII Compilation.
Finally, special shout-out to Final Fantasy VIII for being the only thing to beat out SS when it comes to direct follow-ups that made me question the illustrious legacy of a game franchise. I actually like FFII more than VIII; that should show you how bad I think it is.
Metroid Other M isn't the 0/10, F- game people like to pretend it is, but it still wasn't great following the Prime series.
Sonic Lost World decided to ditch the one thing that 3D Sonic had finally found to use as solid ground in favor of more stupid experimentation. This one just frustrated me more than disappointed me though.
Mega Man X5 was such a fall after X4 that it's hard not to be upset over it.
Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII was something I lied to myself about for years until I just accepted that it's truly the only blemish on the FFVII Compilation.
Finally, special shout-out to Final Fantasy VIII for being the only thing to beat out SS when it comes to direct follow-ups that made me question the illustrious legacy of a game franchise. I actually like FFII more than VIII; that should show you how bad I think it is.
I remember liking DoC FF7 but no new game plus kinda killed it a bit for me. Luckily Crisis Core was great.
Time for my Tri Force heroes post.
I was never excited for Triforce Heroes, not owning a 3DS and not intending to get one. If I want to play 3DS my friend has one and borrowing his is cheaper than buying a console I will hardly play.
However I am disappointed that such an entry would be released at this period in time and even more so that it is considered canon that the great hero link traveled to a kingdom to wear princess dresses.
As a whole, the average quality of the Zelda series is in decline due to the inclusion of mediocre entries into the canon. (There are those who dismiss the canon and say to take each game as a standalone but I have cared for the lore and canon for years. If I stop now I may as well just quit the damn series) There are a few great titles in Zelda and in the beginning it was overall a great series. However as time has gone by there have been more and more entries that failed to keep up to the high standards set by earlier games.
As a Zelda fan you like to have some pride in the series you follow. At least I do and I cant really have such pride anymore with certain entries tarnishing the name of Zelda. The last great entry in the series was in 2006 with Twilight Princess, which was 9 years ago. Everything since then has been remakes and mediocrity.
What I feel Zelda needs is a strong main series. Consisting of regular entries of consistent high quality. That would mean a satisfied fanbase and when spinoffs and remakes are released they can either be taken or left with the average fan safe in the knowledge that a new main entry is going to be on its way and it is going to deliver.
Tri force heroes and the Four swords games are spinoffs. Packaged as main entries in the series to attempt to tide over fans. Not because Zelda fans are particularly impatient but because the Zelda team are too slow at putting out main series content. The actual quality no longer justifies the long wait when other companies are making great games in half the time.
I was never excited for Triforce Heroes, not owning a 3DS and not intending to get one. If I want to play 3DS my friend has one and borrowing his is cheaper than buying a console I will hardly play.
However I am disappointed that such an entry would be released at this period in time and even more so that it is considered canon that the great hero link traveled to a kingdom to wear princess dresses.
As a whole, the average quality of the Zelda series is in decline due to the inclusion of mediocre entries into the canon. (There are those who dismiss the canon and say to take each game as a standalone but I have cared for the lore and canon for years. If I stop now I may as well just quit the damn series) There are a few great titles in Zelda and in the beginning it was overall a great series. However as time has gone by there have been more and more entries that failed to keep up to the high standards set by earlier games.
As a Zelda fan you like to have some pride in the series you follow. At least I do and I cant really have such pride anymore with certain entries tarnishing the name of Zelda. The last great entry in the series was in 2006 with Twilight Princess, which was 9 years ago. Everything since then has been remakes and mediocrity.
What I feel Zelda needs is a strong main series. Consisting of regular entries of consistent high quality. That would mean a satisfied fanbase and when spinoffs and remakes are released they can either be taken or left with the average fan safe in the knowledge that a new main entry is going to be on its way and it is going to deliver.
Tri force heroes and the Four swords games are spinoffs. Packaged as main entries in the series to attempt to tide over fans. Not because Zelda fans are particularly impatient but because the Zelda team are too slow at putting out main series content. The actual quality no longer justifies the long wait when other companies are making great games in half the time.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2015
Twilight Princess was even mediocre as well to be fair. However, I disagree that ALBW was a mediocre game, it was a good game at worst.
Viral Maze
Verb the adjective noun
Diablo 3 during release, Halo 5's story, Halo 4's multiplayer, Dead Space 3's lack of truly frightening atmosphere, Skyrim's story and factions being undercooked, Fable transitioning from action-RPG to straight up action-adventure game, everything about Rome 2: Total War, Dragon Age 2's meandering story and copy-pasta dungeons, DA: Inquisition's lack of impact, and weak antagonist (minus DLC stuff).
That's all I got for now.
That's all I got for now.
I forgot about these 2. Rage I thought had a a tonnnn of potential but it was so short, with awful story, making it a huge let down like you said. I thought the shooting/ai/setting was great. Now that I think about it Rage and D3 were my biggest disappointments. I even ran the official Rage thread on overclock.net. No SLI support for RAGE either, textures were junk, pop in, etc.
D3, wow I can't believe Blizzard released it as is, someone should have been fired and whoever is their game tester team also needs to be canned. No way it should have released like it was, a completely unpolished unfinished game. I remember yellow and blue items were better than Legendaries, and all legendaries were useless even with their bonuses. What a frickin joke of a launch. In it's defense, it became a great game with all the patches and ad-ons, but there is no excuse for how sh!t it was at launch.
Djinn
and Tonic
Everything Halo 4 was just plain awful. After waiting a long time for it and all the hype, everything looked amazing and I really wanted to play it. And it turned out to be a 5-ish hour at best boring game with only a couple enemies and the weapons were flashy laser clones of all the typical UNSC gear I had been using. The multiplayer sucked, and the story depended on the player reading a 3 book series to grasp what was going on. The game sucked.
Halo 5 did not let me down as much because I went in knowing it was going to be terrible for almost two years. Nothing lost there.
Halo 5 did not let me down as much because I went in knowing it was going to be terrible for almost two years. Nothing lost there.
Terminus
If I was a wizard this wouldn't be happening to me
When I went back to play the first Witcher. Hoo boy was that a disappointment. The game mechanics were so different and I barely managed to eke out two hours before I gave up.
Same.
Lozjam
A Cool, Cool Mountain
- Joined
- May 24, 2015
This definitely goes to Spyro in general.
Spyro's games were absolutely amazing. You got to be an awesome dragon, doing amazing collectathon stuff(Year of the Dragonfly really does beat Mario 64 imo). You got to explore, meet really quirky characters! The PS1 Spyro's were nothing but masterpieces.
Then the PS2 came along.
I do not hate Enter the Dragonfly as much as some, however, it was pretty average.
Then Heroes Tail came out, and it is very underrated. It was really great, and had a nice huge world to explore for the time, and it was fantastic.
Then the series shifted focus.... Which was alright I guess......
We then had the Spyro Trilogy.
It was a beat'em up. Mediocre at best. I bought all of them, and I enjoyed them. But they just weren't great
Then Spyro died. He has fallen to the utter crap that is Skylanders, to be never seen again.... I hate that so much.
Spyro's games were absolutely amazing. You got to be an awesome dragon, doing amazing collectathon stuff(Year of the Dragonfly really does beat Mario 64 imo). You got to explore, meet really quirky characters! The PS1 Spyro's were nothing but masterpieces.
Then the PS2 came along.
I do not hate Enter the Dragonfly as much as some, however, it was pretty average.
Then Heroes Tail came out, and it is very underrated. It was really great, and had a nice huge world to explore for the time, and it was fantastic.
Then the series shifted focus.... Which was alright I guess......
We then had the Spyro Trilogy.
It was a beat'em up. Mediocre at best. I bought all of them, and I enjoyed them. But they just weren't great
Then Spyro died. He has fallen to the utter crap that is Skylanders, to be never seen again.... I hate that so much.
Halo 5.
I loved halo 4 and the direction it went in with the story. I dont care about competitive multiplayer or any of that. Its all about the the campaign and of course Spartan ops which is co-operative story based multiplayer with its own cinematic cutscenes.
We had a cool new villain who was mentioned in Halo 3 take centre stage in the game. The Didact. The terminals went into the forerunner lore showing us the Didacts motives and how he was not a bad guy originally, he just wanted to save his people and preserve their position as guardians of the galaxy. There was Spartan Ops which introduced fanatical covenant leader Jul 'mdama and got me interested in seeing more of him.
Halo 5 contains no forerunners. The Didact who survived halo 4 was apparently composed in a comic book which anyone who hadn't read it wouldn't know about.
Jul'mdama dies in the first ****ing mission! What an anticlimactic end to someone we wanted to know more about.
Instead of another forerunner villain such as the Master Builder, the genocidal leader of the Forerunner who was introduced in Halo 4, who would fire halo rings just to quell rebellion against his regime. No we dont get someone like that, instead Halo 5's villain is now Cortana who really should have stayed dead in Halo 4. They made a really good emotional exit for her and that is how it should have been left. A misguided AI is really not an interesting antagonist for me, also she would never harm the Master Chief so there is no worry there.
The gameplay is improved in 5 at least if you dont play on solo that is. If you do solo and play on normal difficulty (heroic) you will find the AI squad members are pretty ********, abandoning the fight to revive you at inopportune moments so they actually get killed in the process, walking into walls and being unable to revive you when you are down, and also they die all the time. These are not the super soldiers they are supposed to be. And the team mechanic makes chief feel less of a badass who should be able to do most of this alone without any aid.
Graphics are ****ing atrocious. Looks like a high end 360 game. Not a lot better than Halo 4. Very lazy effort there from a Microsoft team. They had a huge budget and this is an exclusive. Witcher 3 looked better and that was made by a 3rd party developer.
I loved halo 4 and the direction it went in with the story. I dont care about competitive multiplayer or any of that. Its all about the the campaign and of course Spartan ops which is co-operative story based multiplayer with its own cinematic cutscenes.
We had a cool new villain who was mentioned in Halo 3 take centre stage in the game. The Didact. The terminals went into the forerunner lore showing us the Didacts motives and how he was not a bad guy originally, he just wanted to save his people and preserve their position as guardians of the galaxy. There was Spartan Ops which introduced fanatical covenant leader Jul 'mdama and got me interested in seeing more of him.
Halo 5 contains no forerunners. The Didact who survived halo 4 was apparently composed in a comic book which anyone who hadn't read it wouldn't know about.
Jul'mdama dies in the first ****ing mission! What an anticlimactic end to someone we wanted to know more about.
Instead of another forerunner villain such as the Master Builder, the genocidal leader of the Forerunner who was introduced in Halo 4, who would fire halo rings just to quell rebellion against his regime. No we dont get someone like that, instead Halo 5's villain is now Cortana who really should have stayed dead in Halo 4. They made a really good emotional exit for her and that is how it should have been left. A misguided AI is really not an interesting antagonist for me, also she would never harm the Master Chief so there is no worry there.
The gameplay is improved in 5 at least if you dont play on solo that is. If you do solo and play on normal difficulty (heroic) you will find the AI squad members are pretty ********, abandoning the fight to revive you at inopportune moments so they actually get killed in the process, walking into walls and being unable to revive you when you are down, and also they die all the time. These are not the super soldiers they are supposed to be. And the team mechanic makes chief feel less of a badass who should be able to do most of this alone without any aid.
Graphics are ****ing atrocious. Looks like a high end 360 game. Not a lot better than Halo 4. Very lazy effort there from a Microsoft team. They had a huge budget and this is an exclusive. Witcher 3 looked better and that was made by a 3rd party developer.
Goldeneye: Rogue Agent for Gamecube was incredibly disappointing for me. I played one of the previous GC James Bond games, Nightfire, for hundreds of hours due to the highly customizable multiplayer with lots of AI options as well. Goldeneye: Rogue Agent bucked the trend of the including AI in multiplayer so I was left to only play occasionally one on one with a friend. What makes it so much worse is that I loved the maps in the game which were based on several different locations from the movies. If EA had simply not removed features found in previous games in the series, I would have loved the game (sounds eerily similar to complaints about Battlefront that I've heard).
Hitman: Absolution was not as bad of a disappointment, but I was certainly disappointed with the direction the game designers took. For those of you unfamiliar with the series, Hitman: Blood Money was a well-received stealth game that featured extremely open-ended levels. I always complain about linearity in Zelda games, but linearity in Hitman games is much worse. Hitman: Absolution contained some nonlinearity, but the game felt fundamentally different from the previous game because nonlinear missions were sprinkled throughout the game rather than every level being a large open environment.
Hitman: Absolution was not as bad of a disappointment, but I was certainly disappointed with the direction the game designers took. For those of you unfamiliar with the series, Hitman: Blood Money was a well-received stealth game that featured extremely open-ended levels. I always complain about linearity in Zelda games, but linearity in Hitman games is much worse. Hitman: Absolution contained some nonlinearity, but the game felt fundamentally different from the previous game because nonlinear missions were sprinkled throughout the game rather than every level being a large open environment.