Terrible AAA games?
- Thread starter Kopikatsu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Most people do. It was the first thing that popped into my head too.kman123 said:
For me personally I also don't understand how so many critics gave No More Heroes a gold star. That was one of the most boring games I have ever played.
Mostly though, I think critics have to also start rating how completed a game is. Fallout NV was my biggest disappointment from this gen (next to gta4) and while I wouldn?t have liked it better than Fallout 2 or 3 regardless, I wouldn?t have hated it if it actually worked. That one should?ve gotten a big thumbs down for allowing it to be released in such a state.
Far Cry 2 and GTA 4. They weren't the open world games we where promised. GTA was a bunch of roads stuck together and FC 2 was a bunch of dirt roads stuck together. Also:
*Ring,Ring*
Niko: Hello?
Roman: Niko, my cousin! Do you want to go out drinking?
Niko: No not now.
*Hangs up*
Five minutes later
*Ring, Ring, Ring*
Niko: Hello?
Roman: Niko, my cousin! Do you want to go to a strip club?
Niko: Sorry, can't now.
*Hangs up*
Five minutes later
Niko: What now?
Roman: Niko, my cousin! Do you want to have sex?
*Hangs up*
*Ring,Ring*
Niko: Hello?
Roman: Niko, my cousin! Do you want to go out drinking?
Niko: No not now.
*Hangs up*
Five minutes later
*Ring, Ring, Ring*
Niko: Hello?
Roman: Niko, my cousin! Do you want to go to a strip club?
Niko: Sorry, can't now.
*Hangs up*
Five minutes later
Niko: What now?
Roman: Niko, my cousin! Do you want to have sex?
*Hangs up*
Im surprised no one jumped on this... but, I beg to differ... More and more AAA games are being released lackluster and horribly buggy, cause more AAA publishers ( usually not developers ) have realized that you'll pay for it regardless of quality.Delsana said:
Publishers don't determine what is AAA I go by quality.PerpetualGamer said:
Fallout 3 was double A broken steel was 2 and a half and should have been included from the start.
Mass Effect 2 was arguably 2 and a half to 3 A
The original Halo was triple A.
QUALITY over QUANTITY.
Well if you didn't play them in the first place we wouldn't have to read your incessant constant crying around here, dude. The video game world isn't centered around you or your crotchety opinions.Delsana said:No, just quality over quantity.tokae said:Delsana said:
Indie-gamer much?
You know, he asked for AAA games that got a good reception from critics but were shot down by the gaming community as a whole.
Sure there may be some merit to argue some of the titles you just listed, but... There are some of the most successful games ever on that list too..
But anyways..
On topic I'd like to state Dragon Age 2, which I personally have no problem with contrary to...well everyone it seems.. And Far Cry 2, shit sucks! I mean, sure it's common nowadays, but why the heck does every publisher rush out unfinished, broken games? Everything is terrible in Far Cry 2 and I'm not saying it would've been better if they held it for a couple of months, but.. at least the AI would be a bit above amoeba instead of below.
I understand the reluctance but the situation remains that those games received acclaim by the gaming community perhaps but if you focus on the fact I said sacrificing one thing over the other and not doing something well enough, then those games fall into that perfectly.
Stop throwing SP campaigns into MP games so I can stop buying them, make up your mind and put your attention to one thing. Or, just stop calling it the best game, but all those games had horrible multiplayer issues if it was a feature as well.
One of my favorite 360 games GTA IV I think was overrated. Sure it was fun but biggest downside was the best cheats were gone which was one of main reasons I still sometimes dust off my PS2 to play GTA III or GTA San Andreas. Game was focused too much on realism as well with no army at max stars or car surfing.
If you'd prefer shitty games with poor quality then just accept what you get and be happy.Cridhe said:Well if you didn't play them in the first place we wouldn't have to read your incessant constant crying around here, dude. The video game world isn't centered around you or your crotchety opinions.Delsana said:No, just quality over quantity.tokae said:Delsana said:
Indie-gamer much?
You know, he asked for AAA games that got a good reception from critics but were shot down by the gaming community as a whole.
Sure there may be some merit to argue some of the titles you just listed, but... There are some of the most successful games ever on that list too..
But anyways..
On topic I'd like to state Dragon Age 2, which I personally have no problem with contrary to...well everyone it seems.. And Far Cry 2, shit sucks! I mean, sure it's common nowadays, but why the heck does every publisher rush out unfinished, broken games? Everything is terrible in Far Cry 2 and I'm not saying it would've been better if they held it for a couple of months, but.. at least the AI would be a bit above amoeba instead of below.
I understand the reluctance but the situation remains that those games received acclaim by the gaming community perhaps but if you focus on the fact I said sacrificing one thing over the other and not doing something well enough, then those games fall into that perfectly.
Stop throwing SP campaigns into MP games so I can stop buying them, make up your mind and put your attention to one thing. Or, just stop calling it the best game, but all those games had horrible multiplayer issues if it was a feature as well.
You trolling bro?Delsana said:
Or just looking to start a flame-war?
Anyway, i've higlighted the ones in which you're wrong about (in my opinion, i'll explain why)
Resistance- I've only played the first one (the 2nd might be terrible) and i have to say i had a real good time with the singleplayer (didn't try out multiplayer).
Killzone 2- I can sort of understand this, but i thought it had some of the best fire-fights i had ever been in, plus i played it to the end(i don't do that with many games)
Uncharted 1 and 2- Pffffft, really, really good games there, great experience and that is shown by the community.
inFamous- HEATHEN! HEATHEN IN OUR MIDSTS!
No but really, inFamous was bloody brilliant (same with the second) really good gameplay and even Yahtzee thinks of it highly.MGS4- Yeah... this is a sort of marmite game, and the cutscenes are unbearably long, but still really enjoyable experience, i've always been a fan of stealth games.
Oblivion- I really liked it, and so did a lot of other people, but the escapist seems to be a den of TES hate so i'll just move along.
(I've sunk well over 100 hours into that game, and enjoyed every second)
Team Fortress 2- You ARE trolling, you know that you'll be ripped apart for that right?
I mean, i loved the game and i only had it on console!
As for the others i left out... never played them, but i respect your opinion, even if it does seem a little trollish.
Sizzle Montyjing said:You trolling bro?Delsana said:
Or just looking to start a flame-war?
Anyway, i've higlighted the ones in which you're wrong about (in my opinion, i'll explain why)
Resistance- I've only played the first one (the 2nd might be terrible) and i have to say i had a real good time with the singleplayer (didn't try out multiplayer).
[HORRIBLE GAME, with horrible singleplayer story with plot holes, a difficulty imbalance that is on par with Killzone's horrible difficulty balancing. Here's a hint, in Game Design school you learn not to make a game where DYING becomes a part of the expectation and thus immersion breaking but that game lines you up (just like Resistance 2) to die NUMEROUS TIMES with little guidance on what to do for most enemies, it is ridiculous and while I was good at it the dying even came to me out of no where, that is a design feature that falls. You'll notice though that any game with SP and MP will be on my list if the SP and MP differ at all (unlike an RTS) because when you HAVE BOTH rapidly different scenarios in a game you will have to sacrifice on one or the other, and it's obvious where they made the sacrifices]
Killzone 2- I can sort of understand this, but i thought it had some of the best fire-fights i had ever been in, plus i played it to the end(i don't do that with many games)
[HORRIBLE DIFFICULTY BALANCING, HORRIBLE GAME-PLAY IMPLEMENTATION, and literally a HORRIBLY BACKWARDS PLOT WITH HOLES ALL OVER]
Uncharted 1 and 2- Pffffft, really, really good games there, great experience and that is shown by the community.
[POOR BALANCING, POOR IMPLEMENTATION, and while the plot is good the system is designed to make the puzzles the secondary while the shooting which SUCKS is the primary and that literally kills the game]
inFamous- HEATHEN! HEATHEN IN OUR MIDSTS!
[This game even got poor reviews from some reviewers, it is repetitive, has little that drives you through it, has a moral system that is literally corrupt and illogical, and the gameplay was poorly implemented]
MGS4- Yeah... this is a sort of marmite game, and the cutscenes are unbearably long, but still really enjoyable experience, i've always been a fan of stealth games.
[The only issue is the poor difficulty balancing and implementation of features with little guidance or knowledge on what to do]
Oblivion- I really liked it, and so did a lot of other people, but the escapist seems to be a den of TES hate so i'll just move along.
(I've sunk well over 100 hours into that game, and enjoyed every second)
[Game-breaking bugs, lack of direction, easily boring if caught unaware or unprepared... in fact SO MANY GAME BREAKING BUGS that it is the ONLY GAME that STILL freezes on my 360.]
Team Fortress 2- You ARE trolling, you know that you'll be ripped apart for that right?
I mean, i loved the game and i only had it on console!
[All it was was a reboot and that in itself is why I dislike it, if they added something new to the concept sure but it was just character changes and constant multiplayer, but kudos for it being a multi-only game without a campaign to make sacrifices on, unfortunately it has become shop-a-holic and is corrupt.]
As for the others i left out... never played them, but i respect your opinion, even if it does seem a little trollish.
My input is the later Guitar Hero/Rock Band games.
Also the Madden games. I don't think I've ever seen someone defend the Madden franchise on this forum.
Also the Madden games. I don't think I've ever seen someone defend the Madden franchise on this forum.
I can understand hate for Resistance (although i did enjoy it, it's not a favourite, plus i haven't played the second)Delsana said:
Oblivion- Yeah... did have a lot of bugs, i had to reset my level 30 character once, and ended up losing items on another, but still a very enjoyable experience (i haven't even completed the main quest and i'ts my most played game)
inFamous- I hear a lot of people complain about the Karma choices, but they didn't really bother me so much, i does get repetitive, but i think it stays fresh enough for most of the time.
Plus lightning storm is AMAZING!
Killzone 2- Yet again with the implementation! And the balancing... i found those things to be fine and not an issue.
Maybe you're talking about the multiplayer, in which case i can agree with you on that (tried it once, since i only just started i had a pistol AND ONLY A PISTOL while the higher levels were running around with Assualt Rifles.
The Uncharted series- *rolls eyes* You have a thing for implementation and balancing don't you?
I found both of those titles to be great games with a nice balance of different gameplays, like the puzzles and the climbing, plus i found the shooting to be good.
Team Fortress 2- As a person who never played the original thing in which TF2 spawned from, or a person who has played online with the updated version, i cannot comment.
Not sure if my post got through or the escapist ate it...
Just post-checking (sometimes it appears when you post)
EDIT: Thought so, feel free to delete this post.
Just post-checking (sometimes it appears when you post)
EDIT: Thought so, feel free to delete this post.
I'm not one for Triple A games so much to begin with, but games like Too Human and Duke Nuke-'Em: Forever are both fairly widely considered failures while working under the title of a "Triple A" game. The Triple A game isn't necessarily well received, it's generally a term for a big-budget, high-profile game that's expected to sell well regardless of ratings.
That is a LOT of games, what games DO you like. You've covered pretty much every genre there! Now, I want you to give me a reason for your hate, on EVERY game on the list individually. I also want you to tell me if you have even played half of the games on that list.Delsana said:
OT: I would say, that NO AAA games are good, nor terrible. Some ones I hate, but that is in my eyes. Some ones everyone hates, but that still doesn't mean there terrible because someone will always like a game.
I think he posted in the wrong thread, of the games there that can be considered AAA none got "spectacular" reviews and the rest are average non AAA titles.Delsana said:
I'm going to go ahead and bold all of the non AAA titles for reference.
Although there are a few outliers there that are well received AAA titles with good reviews.
