games that should have NEVER EVER been made

[BlueberryMUNCH]

I'm still having nightmares about the 360 version of Bayonetta... the ps3 version was a masterpiece, but the 360 version? Shite.

NGH, tried so hard not to get involved with this thread xD.
I'm just curious; why?
I had the 360 version aaand...it's one of my top 5 games of all time.
From what everyone else was saying, it was the PS3 version that was lacking.

As far as contributing to this goes, I must say the Call of Duty franchise. Lost a lot of my life to those games.

 

[liquidsolid]

Assasin's Creed Brotherhood:

I have been a fan of the franchise since the original. The fact that I expected each installment to be in a new setting with a new character treading on unfamiliar territory (like the Grand Theft Auto franchise) led to my disappointment when I learned of Assassin's Creed Brotherhood starring the same protagonist, in the same time period, in a city that was featured in the last game. When it launched, I read reviews that said it was basically the same game as II and has only one plot twist at the end. I haven't bought it yet, and I hesitate to do so. After all, I can save myself time and money by just looking up the plot twist on the wiki.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

Sonic in any 3d setting
That damn star fox where your on foot
dantes inferno
max payne

I'm sorry sir, I could have sworn you said "Max Payne"

I did good sir, I believe Max Payne and his bullet time was and is a blight upon the industry.
That and his story was woefully under par compared to what others say.

 

[Captain Bork]

I just love all the hate for games like halo and CoD. Seriously, why? I understand that the games are now just bland tasteless cash grabs, but you have to think about all the good these games did for the industry. Dont blame the games, blame the whoremongers that their publishers have become. Now if you genuinely hate the games, then by all means go right ahead and expess that. Just give a valid reason for your dislike twords it. Without it, you seem like the douchebag hipster troll who only rips on these games to make it seem like he/she isnt part of the fabled 12 year old trash talking hive mind that has infested these games. Its not hard to type a small paragraph stating your reason for disliking, or downright hating these games. Just saying, it helps clear things up.

As for my choice it would have to be the last two God of Wars. I loved the gameplay, but the story was so far up its own a** that it was a downright disgrace to the original. Basicly just running around in circles, reapeating events, doing the same thing over, and over, and over again... I swear to god if i have to go to hades one more time.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Mirror's Edge. Though it did have some interesting ideas, here's one idea that didn't make it: Parkour... in first-person. 'Nuff said.

Resident Evil 5. Mistakes that RE: 5 Made - Continue original (and just generally shit) plot, Make most of the shooting take-place in a bunch of linear corridors, Completely abandon horror by having you able to run up and uppercut a monster and then stamp on its face (Which RE 4 did, but RE 4 wasn't trying to be horror - it was trying to be action), And have almost every level have some sort of weird feeling about that every some-how feels racist.

 

[Cosplay Horatio]

DJ Boy
Flying Warriors
Yo Noid!
Rolling Thunder 2
The Adventures of Lolo
Bayou Billy
Silver Surfer
Shaq Fu

Any game based on a movie, ever.

Mostly because 95% of the games have the same ending as the movie only in still pictures or text...boooooooo. My two movie based game exceptions are Batman and Batman 2 because Batman actually kills the Joker..HE ACTUALLY KILLS HIM...and Penguin and Cat Woman's bodies are hurled from a roof then eaten by a swarm of cats...awesome endings.

The 1% or "straight outta the toilet" list consists only of the horrible video game movies that are in turn made into video games a.k.a. Gameception.

Capthca: depending lexpro.....

 

[Atmos Duality]

Gamespot (PC): 4.6 / 10 [http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/daikatana/review.html]
Gamespot (N64): 3.7 / 10 [http://www.gamespot.com/n64/action/daikatana/review.html]
IGN (PC): 5.8 / 10 [http://pc.ign.com/articles/153/153095p1.html]
Eurogamer (PC): 5 / 10 [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/daikatana]

Those don't look like good reviews. Your probably thinking of a different game.

You misunderstand. When the game first came out, it was rightfully trashed.
The fact that Gamespot gave that gave a score higher than 2 casts quite a bit of doubt on their credibility.

That's not to say that I disagree solely with their opinion: Daikatana was UNPLAYABLE out of the box, with game ending bugs, glitches, and crashes. It was a technical disaster; and even once you got the bloody thing working, it was still a horrid game.

Besides, if Daikatana didn't exist, we wouldn't have had the hilarious Lets Play for it.
http://lparchive.org/Daikatana/ (probably NSFW)

 

[Solo-Wing]

Any game based on a movie, ever.

This. (Except Goldeneye.)

And Sonic Unleashed. That game made my angry. Very. Very. Angry.

 

[Pehmu]

Metal Gear Solid 4. It's pretty much the same thing as Phantom Menace.

 

[ExileNZ]

World of Warcraft, think of all the lives its destroyed

this.

Vampire Rain. And, from what I've head and read, ET the game should never have been made

this

Too Human: Such a waste of a premise.

this
annnd
for my own answer
CoD,Halo and battlefield
i enjoy these 3 game series but the internet would be better off without the flamewars they spawn >_>

and the Sonic game for the 360
... 3 words
It.f&^king.sucks
and another 3
It's.f&^jking.HARD!

Sorry, I can't get behind this one. AAA games may be an outlet for bigotted retards but you can't blame the games for that. Haters gotta hate somewhere.

 

[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.