I agree with this. It could have been a good game if they had put more work into it. I'm thinking the same thing about XCOM Declassified . I liked the stuff they showed before they scrapped everything and made it into the game that they released. Finding tech on the battlefield and researching it, resource management inside and outside of combat missions, tactical combat. It could have been really good. I also don't think most people would flame a shooter spin-off if it was really good. I love the old XCOM titles but I found the idea of making a shooter in that universe quite interesting.
But I guess the game (at least for me) with the largest amount of wasted potential in recent times was Skyrim. The dark brotherhood missions were really well done, but then they suddenly end with you sitting in a cold ugly cave doing randomly generated missions and nothing has changed in the slightest.
You killed the emperor! I mean someone should realize that their emperor is dead, right? But everyone just goes on with their stuff.
The civil war is the same. The initial battle for Whiterun is really cool with catapults shooting at the walls, archers everywhere etc. . The final battle against Solitude? You storm the fortified city with 3 soldiers destroy maybe 3 barricades and kill 5 soldiers or something like that on your way to the enemy leader. Then you kill him and...nothing. No one cares. All NPCs are standing around looking blankly at you until you leave. The whole game feels completely unfinished.
Also they should have learned more from the world design of Fallout. They did some nice random quests and some of the ruins etc. had some interesting back story. But most of the time you plunder generic cave A oder generic grave B.
Damn it. And here I thought I had a game in mind nobody had said already. Well, since you only said one sentence I guess I can add to that and put my own opinion into this discussion. That works.
I haven't played the game to be fair, but I have seen A LOT of it and as I mention in this discussion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.842302-Poll-Knowing-how-youll-feel-about-a-game-without-playing-it-first] (I find it kind of funny the discussion I'm linking to further links to another discussion, even if just for a reference point) when I've seen enough of a game, even without playing it, I am almost 100% right on how I'll feel especially when I go against my judgment, for whatever reason, and play the game anyway.
The messages from the head developers just ensured it wouldn't live up to the potential it had. When questioned why Batman had all his gadgets in a PREQUEL looking just as good if not even more advanced than previous games, one head developer in a Reddit AMA made a lame excuse that Batman carries what he needs with him for the time. So, at some points he might have everything or airdrop everything as he did in Arkham City a couple times and at other points he'll not have everything for reasons like too many gadgets weighing him down outweighing any benefits. The excuse came off just so ridiculously lazy and could easily be debunked. Good thing this guy didn't have to defend the look of the GUI, the suits, some environment shinyness upgrade because that definitely can't be defended. The game looks like it should be in the future. His comment on how it's a mystery why James Bond doesn't carry everything over to the next movie was kind of a funny comparison though, I will admit.
To be fair, he also said they didn't want to sacrifice gameplay or continuity but gameplay was a priority, to which I wish I could have redirected him to this [http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/16/batman-arkham-origins-a-dissonance-between-gameplay-and-narrative/] and this [http://kotaku.com/here-s-what-s-bothering-me-about-batman-arkham-origins-509775263], early looks at the game explaining a prequel can feel like a prequel and still have just as fun gameplay. I wouldn't be surprised if this particular head developer just redirected to me to the PR comment on how fans should have high expectations and be cynical, but WILL change their minds when they play the game. That's the other thing that bothered me: Even their good comments were presented in an offensive way. Unlike the Titanfall people saying if it doesn't hold up don't buy it period, Mr. Eric Holmes of Warner Bros Montreal here had to do it kind of arrogantly and say there's little chance the game couldn't persuade them. Considering where the head honchos of Respawn are coming from (formally being under EA's leash and all) it is ironic that Warner Bros. Montreal would do a worse job in preventing premature criticism. It could have been something different, interesting, and quite the accomplishment considering how many prequel games fail to come off as a prequel.
Them being new developers does not mean they can't hold up; I find that defense silly too especially considering they said they'd do their best to hold up and that fans should hold them up as if they were Rocksteady. My favorite Crash Bandicoot game, Crash Twinsanity isn't even made by Naughty Dog, so it's not as though it's not been done before. Though I really never played the original 3 outside of very small snippets to be fair, just the gameboy one, in which you team up with Spyro, Crash Team Racing, Crash Nitro Kart, and Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex. In other words, I've only really played one Naughty Dog Crash game, at least it's the only one I managed to finish over just playing a little bit of, so maybe not the best example. But I'm getting off track....Bottom line is I came up with ways to make this game work when I first heard about it before release. If I can come up with new gameplay mechanics, indeed a new enough but familiar enough combat system, for a prequel in this series, I think professional developers can.
Origins definitely fails in this regard; I don't even need to play to know for sure. I'm not even sure it fits in the Arkham lineup the way the story is setup. Universe, sure, but lineup? It's not about being a locked off area nor is it about a threat of established villains with a history and their danger when grouped together. The only story similarities I can think of at the moment are that Origins does take place in one night like the others and one major villain steals the show and controls the overall situation. The thing is everything is organized by one guy with a single goal directed almost entirely to Batman and that group is small (8? most deadly assassins versus the entirety of a high security Asylum and then a walled off part of a city acting as a pseudo prison) while in the other games the one guy or arguably 2 or 3 main guys controlling the situation have a larger goal in mind than just Batman even if they do focus a large part of their effort on him. This new game is all about origins, these villains aren't yet established within continuity of the series. It's more of a Year One deal. It can be in the universe, but having the Arkham name doesn't sit right with me. I mean, yeah, (knowing pretty much the entire plot at this point)
the end of the game sees Arkham Asylum being reopened and setting up the setting for the next two games
, but that alone does not make it feel enough like an Arkham game to have the name. Staying in continuity and keeping part of a title aren't necessarily intertwined.
I will say this about Origins, the marketing was pretty "Wow". For the most part, it's pretty damn good and not necessarily just in a flashy way either. They often have this charm or cool factor about them in a good way. Black Mask's presentation in marketing definitely had a businessman/gang member charm to it that looked like it would work well with such a character. It was great to watch. And if this isn't one of the most well done under 50 seconds teasers I've ever seen I don't know what is. Yeah, it's flashy, doesn't say much, and it's short, but the inclusion of "Auld Lang Syne" is perfect and not something you'd see in a less substantial teaser. It says enough. A teaser doesn't need to have the same kind of oomph as a full on trailer anyway...not that DLC really needs a full blown trailer.
The civil war is the same. The initial battle for Whiterun is really cool with catapults shooting at the walls, archers everywhere etc. . The final battle against Solitude? You storm the fortified city with 3 soldiers destroy maybe 3 barricades and kill 5 soldiers or something like that on your way to the enemy leader. Then you kill him and...nothing. No one cares. All NPCs are standing around looking blankly at you until you leave. The whole game feels completely unfinished.
Also they should have learned more from the world design of Fallout. They did some nice random quests and some of the ruins etc. had some interesting back story. But most of the time you plunder generic cave A oder generic grave B.
There's a mod for that! [http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/37216/?] (Yeah, that is basically the catch-phrase for every single issue with Skyrim...)
Yeah, apparently the Civil War in Skyrim was originally completely dynamic, with settlements changing hands depending on who you help (or don't help, as the two sides attack each other whether you are there or not) and your side can actually lose the war if you mess around too much with those skinny draugh girls and boys in their damp holes instead of helping the war effort. This particular mod restores most of that.
You could call that wasted potential, I call it realized potential, as we wouldn1t have it even now if Bethesda wasn't swell enough to hand over the dev-kit to the fans as usual.
There's a mod for that! [http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/37216/?] (Yeah, that is basically the catch-phrase for every single issue with Skyrim...)
You could call that wasted potential, I call it realized potential, as we wouldn1t have it even now if Bethesda wasn't swell enough to hand over the dev-kit to the fans as usual.
My main problem with this is that Bethesda is too reliant on their fans to fix their stuff (*looks at the 64hz bug*). They did quite a lot of stuff right for Skyrim especially compared to Oblivion but stopped halfway through all of their new ideas and that's the main reason I would call it wasted potential. The civil war was a great idea but they only did the first part of it filled the rest with some kind of placeholder battles and left it to modders to pick up the pieces. It could have been a really great feature, especially if they implemented it the way they said in interviews before release. Maybe it now is a great feature, but I wouldn't give credit to Bethesda for that. I think Skyrim could have become a great game even without extensive modding with some more work applied here and there. With which I don't want to say that I dislike modding! I only think that the basic game should work pretty well without modding and that modding should be used for changing the game or adding to it in varying ways. Obviously there are fix mods for many games (old infinity engine for example) but I think no other game company relies on their modding community to this extent.
Champions Online and Metroid: Other M are at the top of my list. Champions suffered from neglect and Jack Emmett's heavy handed approach to balance (ie, nerf anything that works without buffing anything) while Metroid: Other M has plenty of good and workable ideas but horrendous execution.
Tera.
Innovative combat THAT ACTUALLY WORKS but rest of the game is kinda meh. I blame EU distributor tho. Tera is allegedly pretty good in Korea. Sadly it "had to be" westernized for EU (by which i don't mean translation). And sadly they screwed all aspects of the game including the micro-transactions store. So much waste in so promising game.
Unless you are a big fan of Gauntlet, which is what it plays out to be. This game was not what I was expecting, and it feels like a step or 3 backwards from Diablo 2. And I am still pissed about always having to be connected online (which I'm not) and that should have been a deal-breaker for me. Oh well, last game I'll ever pre-order. It's a solid game, in that the mechanics work. But looking at it now, it's so obvious they weakened much of Diablo 2's strong points for the sake of DRM and the Auction Houses. They may already have my money, but they're not getting any more.
Darkest of Days- Such a refreshing shooter, this could have easily been a great RPG, or driven story FPS that would have shine without multiplayer... which would have been fun too- time traveling meant endless ways to improve it.
ME3- Pea shooter guns, horrible, and bland multiplayer with a crap store system, wasted space combat, wasted allot by not letting as in many planets, The ending was NOT just the only reason... the game was just so lacking. It could have been a great game easily if they just put in the work, and not rushed it. Had very few RPG elements, and even fewer missions compare to ME1.
Deus Ex- There should be more bullets, and better controls.
X Rebirth- Release it on consoles jerks. Also lag, and glitches everywhere.
Have you played Last Light? Because if there's ever a game that picked up on the missed potential of its predecessor, it's that. I thought 2033 was mediocre as well, but Last Light's easily one of my favourite games.
I feel like I want to say The Old Republic, but it's too tough to peg exactly what it could have been since it's an MMO pretending to be several sequels in the Knights of the Old Republic series. It's predecessors were fantastic and okay in that order, but I can't help feeling as though it was really more of a sales pitch than an honest assessment of their game.
Since I really can't say with that one, I will go with Alone in the Dark (2008). Never before did a game of this genre really demonstrate so many really great ideas that were just badly executed, unpolished, or just plain incomplete. I played it several times, I actually saw moments of potential greatness in it every time, every time it hinted glimmers of brilliance, but fell horribly flat. I never wanted to love the game, I was only really partially curious when I rented it, but I was really impressed with what it could have been in more capable hands.
Seriously, if you like survival horror, check out some reviews and consider trying this out. It's passable, but could have been so damned good. A perfect candidate for a reboot, a prime example of why games should be allowed to incubate and come in their own rather than at the behest of a holiday deadline.
But I mean, my other choices would be like... Sonic Generations because Sega decided not to support it with extra levels after release and appear to have moved away from that amazing style of gameplay presently.
That is the only part of Sonic Generations that was disappointing. They could've made so much money off of it. I know we don't want them to act like leeches but when they have a GOOD way to do it for us they should. They could've released different map packs. Like have a Sonic Adventure 2 pack, or Sonic Unleashed pack, or hell even revamp more levels into better levels with something like a Sonic 06 pack. I probably would pay for each and every one. I remember when that game came out. Reviews from xPlay and IGN actually baffled me. A con to the game in their eyes was "rehashed versions of old levels."......THAT WAS THE POINT! To me Sonic Generations is one of the best anniversary and tribute games ever made.
Also they moved away from the style of gameplay? Was the Sonic Unleashed/Colors style not used in Lost World or is it the Sonic Boom thing that you are talking about.
As for my pick I'd have to say Remember Me. I'm not done yet but I've played enough and read Yahtzee's Extra Punctuation on it (the only time I can take him seriously) and I'd have to agree. Still at least playing with a pretty uncommon setting (cyberpunk) and toying with an interesting idea for gameplay I can respect. I hope it gets some kind of sequel/remake or something like Mirror's Edge. I think it deserves a second chance in the sun.
But I mean, my other choices would be like... Sonic Generations because Sega decided not to support it with extra levels after release and appear to have moved away from that amazing style of gameplay presently.
That is the only part of Sonic Generations that was disappointing. They could've made so much money off of it. I know we don't want them to act like leeches but when they have a GOOD way to do it for us they should. They could've released different map packs. Like have a Sonic Adventure 2 pack, or Sonic Unleashed pack, or hell even revamp more levels into better levels with something like a Sonic 06 pack. I probably would pay for each and every one. I remember when that game came out. Reviews from xPlay and IGN actually baffled me. A con to the game in their eyes was "rehashed versions of old levels."......THAT WAS THE POINT! To me Sonic Generations is one of the best anniversary and tribute games ever made.
Those are my thoughts exactly. I would've adored map packs for Sonic Generations, even if it was paid DLC. Remakes of Marble Zone, Hydrocity Zone, Mushroom Hill Zone, Ice Cap, Windy Valley, and like you said making levels from Sonic '06 actually good. It would've been awesome. But nope. Sega hates money almost as much as Square Enix, apparently.
Also they moved away from the style of gameplay? Was the Sonic Unleashed/Colors style not used in Lost World or is it the Sonic Boom thing that you are talking about.
Both, from the looks of things. Sonic Boom is admittedly not being made by Sonic Team so it's 50/50 on whether it represents the direction the franchise will take in the future, but Lost World threw out basically every part of the playstyle of Modern Sonic since Unleashed in favor of slower platforming and running and gravity-defying stages inspired by Super Mario Galaxy and some of the classic Sonic special stages. And Boom is looking like it might try redoing Sonic Adventure/Sonic Heroes gameplay, which could be either cool or dreadful depending on how it's pulled off, considering the fact that Adventure-Heroes haven't exactly aged all that well.
Those are my thoughts exactly. I would've adored map packs for Sonic Generations, even if it was paid DLC. Remakes of Marble Zone, Hydrocity Zone, Mushroom Hill Zone, Ice Cap, Windy Valley, and like you said making levels from Sonic '06 actually good. It would've been awesome. But nope. Sega hates money almost as much as Square Enix, apparently.
No don't say that about Square Enix. Sure Final Fantasy XIII was a stumbling block but its the stuff they have on the horizon that shows they care about fans...and money. Total remake of a crap MMO into, apparently, a pretty damn good one. FF XV and lets not forget KH 3 is on its way along with an HD re-release of 2, BBS, and Coded for the console that will include Final MIx. The first time its been released outside Japan. No someone that hates money would be Capcom. Legends 3 shut down, Mega Man ZX 3 never put into development. We had to wait for a Super Smash Bros. 4 announcement to see any modern Mega Man stuff in years. Also Mighty No. 9 is happening and that's proving my point that they hate money. Because its totally logical to completely abandon the franchise that made you and leave it to die a slow painful death from neglect. Despite their stumbling blocks at least Square Enix and Sega haven't done that to their company making franchises.
Both, from the looks of things. Sonic Boom is admittedly not being made by Sonic Team so it's 50/50 on whether it represents the direction the franchise will take in the future, but Lost World threw out basically every part of the playstyle of Modern Sonic since Unleashed in favor of slower platforming and running and gravity-defying stages inspired by Super Mario Galaxy and some of the classic Sonic special stages. And Boom is looking like it might try redoing Sonic Adventure/Sonic Heroes gameplay, which could be either cool or dreadful depending on how it's pulled off, considering the fact that Adventure-Heroes haven't exactly aged all that well.
Kind of a shame Lost World did that. It looked like it was gonna keep it going. I mean with Unleashed they finally found the formula that makes 3D Sonic work like gangbusters. I'll admit that Adventure 2 and Heroes gameplay hasn't aged that well. Surprisingly in terms of how they look with the one exception of 06 most Sonic games age pretty graciously just on the visuals. Well hopefully this new team knows what they are doing and at least with Sonic Boom Amy doesn't look like she will be annoying.
I'd say the massively multiplayer role playing game genre has been under-delivering on potential for the better part of a decade now. The ever eloquent Mr. B Tongue explains why better than I can. Or at the very least will do the work for me.
Hm hm, i would say not the "better part" but pretty much "Yepp, it's been 10 years". Well there are a few samller MMORPG's which did enhance and innovate... but all "big-money" ventures were were really disappointingly the same (at the core)
For Single-Player i nominate "Spore"
Could have been so good if the "Creature builder" would have mattered, the first phases would have been longer and more in detail. Could have been groundbraking and genre-defining (or rather genre-creating *g*).
Almost every single modern PC game in the world has issues that have to be fixed with an .ini file edit. 64hz bug was just change ifpsclamp to 60.
I've yet to play a single PC game in the last 5 years where I didn't have to edit the .ini file to make it perform better. I don't see how Bethesda gets flak for it and everyone else gets a free pass.
Anyway, most mods in Skyrim are unnecessary; first I use the mod, then I go "OMG this is awesome why didn't Bethesda implement this?" Then 10 minutes later the mod's novelty factor wears off and I realize why they didn't put it in.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
