Topic: The Most Games You Were Disappointed With

Final Fantasy XIII.

A New Beginning - after all the good things I've heard about this game, and I was hungry for good poing and click game, I've got it dirt cheap. And then I played it. For 6 hrs. And then saw the end credits. The voice acting sucked big time and the plot even more. It was also dead simple.

Deponia - after all the creaming all over the internet I was happy that I've got it brand new for 5 euro. It's suppoused to be funny, clever, with hard puzzles and everything I like about p&c. After 5 hrs it was over, the characters were either total tards or just straight a-holes, the biggest one of them being main character and as for the difficulty... It's not even Willy Beamish or any other Sierra game hard. The only thing good about this game are the graphics - it's drawn beautifuly.

FEZ - I love puzzles, exploration etc.,I've heard praise for this game pretty much everywhere, and I liked the idea and graphics. It was good idea only on paper, it sounds really cool being able to go from 2D to kinda 3D, sort of like Super Paper Mario, but here's the problem - it's the only mechanic in this game, meaning 85% of the puzzles depend on shifting/tilting, others are braindead simple, like recreating a shape from the picture with 4, 5 or even 6 blocks (or getting owls, or just waiting). In NG+ it gets more "variety" with flying and FPP, but still, it's simple, it's buggy. To me it felt rushed and underdeveloped and before you know it, it's over. I expected more.

The Witcher 2 - I don't get it. I don't get it at all how people can overhype this game, how they love it and brag about it. I mean, people jump on Bioware how their games are more action oriented, how the choices doesn't matter at all in their newer games, and yet people see this game as greatness. Your choices from the first game are actually worthless and bring barely anything to this game - oh yes, you get your gear, which will turn out useless fast, but the only choice that matters is if you killed Siegfried or not, because it kinda helps you with one quest. But other choices go down the toilet. You would think that saving or killing the king's daughter would be important, right? WRONG! It doesn't matter at all, because even if you saved her, CDPR in their laziness forgot to delete the line when Radovid says that he will marry barsteward daughter of Foltest anyway, so you have one of the "Greatest" moments in video game history, where the king says he will marry the sister of his current wife anyway, and she doesn't care about it at all. The only choice in TW2 that actually mattered was if you choose the way of Roche or Iorweth - that's it. And also that's why this game is patheticaly short -if you want more from this game, you must go the other way for the exclusive quests. Yeah, great desing choice there. The epilogue is downright insulting and as bad as the plot of New Beginning, where the bad guy actually flat out tells you why it all happened. And, spoiler alert, another choice that doesn't matter at all, because the game doesn't save any progress after the choice. It was poorly optimized and buggy as hell, with such awesome bugs like backstabs to the face (or facestabs) and floating characters. This game was only created to show off the engine. I get what they wanted to do, but it's not even close to Gothic 3 - there the world was actually big, there were a lot of quests and things to do and explore and even if you chose the side of rebels or orcs it didn't have that much influence on how long the game is - it was at least 2-3 times longer than that what TW2 offered and you still had the quests for each side only. Problem is, the only thing that killed Gothic 3 was that, like this game, it was rushed and buggy as hell.

Splinter Cell Double Agent & Conviction - less said the better. These games were only good on paper, and I liked the idea of Conviction before they canned it and instead made Assassin's Creed out of it (which was huge, repetitive disappointment with decent story too).

Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones - they promised so much before the release of this game my mind was blown. Going through whole city of Babylon from ground to rooftops, your darkside, drama... Another case of rushed game. It was 5-6 hrs long, simplified bugfest with Dark Prince being more of the annoyance rather than anything dependent on your choices, which made his plotline pointless and forced.

I don't know why, but I have a sad feeling that the upcoming Thief will be mentioned too :/ I still have hope it will be great, though.

Any FF game after 10. I'm an old school turn base kinda guy.

The Little Big Planet games first come to mind. As a platform fan they were high on my must have list when I got my PS3 and they never really sucked me in. I don't hate them by any means but was expecting to love them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was disappointed with Super Mario Galaxy 2.
I think one of the driving points for SMG1 was the story of Rosalina and the Lumas. It's an adorable story, and I was slightly let down by the fact that Rosalina isn't really in the second game. It was different to have a bit of a deeper story in a Mario game, and I think that's why I liked Rosalina.

I was also a little disappointed with LA Noire (yet, I'm playing right now). I'm just not a fan of Phelps. He's not likable to me. I really like the game as a whole, but when you don't like the main character that you're playing as... it just doesn't work for me.

I played the original (and its expansions) for the first time a year or so ago. I think the game holds up pretty well considering how old it is, but it is definitely a bit bland by today's standards. I still enjoyed it and can see why it is considered such an important game. Half-life 2 and its subsequent episodes are among the best games I've ever played though.

To answer the original question, Super Mario 3D Land was a bit disappointing.

Luigis Mansion Dark Moon
Braces for fanboy rants

I can see that. The actual gameplay was the weakest part of the game for me. I thought the atmosphere and production values were very good though. The locales and bosses were creative too. I've never played the original so I can't compare it to that at all.

Bravery Default. While I have only played the demo for a few hours I just couldn't get into to it. The lack of a strong story to rope me into it immediately pretty much strengthened my negative opinion of the Bravery Default combat system. It is laid out so simply but I just don't enjoy it, although I do commend Square Enix for trying something new. Is there something I'm missing to this game? Because so far it isn't a day one purchase, at least until the price goes down to warrant me picking it up and trying it again.

You're missing the fact that the demo is almost nothing like the full game. It's really just a bad demo.

You are also missing the fact that unless they make the combat completely different than it was in the demo, I just didn't enjoy it at all. I do hope the game is stronger than I have perceived it so far.

You went into an old school JRPG inspired game being disappointed when the combat is like old school JRPGs.

ok

That's hardly a fair comparison. I enjoy plenty of old school JRPG's. I am just saying I didn't enjoy the demo, the lack of a story, and I didn't enjoy the Bravery Default portion of the "old school JRPG" combat. If the game is named after it's combat system It certainly makes it seem to be an epic adventure, I appreciated the a fresh idea for the formula but it just wasn't my thing. Maybe it isn't fair for me to judge it just from the demo but it does give you a pretty strong idea of the combat and dungeon system. Enjoy your sarcastic comments though, really brings a lot to the conversation.

Honestly, he was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you had a solid reason for disliking the combat. Now I'm just convinced that you've been playing the demo wrong - which I wouldn't blanme you for, it's a terrible demo that does very little to teach you how to play the game, and what little advice it gives you is actually misleading. Not to mention the classes work differently in the demo, giving you certain skills right away that leave you with a handful of strategies that will allow you to easily overpower anything the demo has to offer very quickly into it. Really, this is one of those cases where you shouldn't judge the game based on the demo. And yes, the dungeons are much simpler than what they are in the main game. It's a terrible demo that's nothing like the main game at all.

^so I must assume that if I liked the demo the game will be amazing and perfect to me?

Yeah, pretty much. I enjoyed the demo, but more in spite of everything than because of anything. There's a really well-made game somewhere deep inside it.

Jaws for the NES

I don't know if I've mentioned this yet, but Half-Life 2 was one of the dullest gaming experiences I've ever had. The combat stinks, the story is uninspired, and the vehicle sections are SO awful. I can't, for the life of me, understand why people want HL3 so badly, if this is indicative of the general quality I should expect from the series.

I can't imagine why. Manta Ray Killer for the NES was by far the best Manta Ray killing game I've ever played.

All the Megadrive/Genesis Sonic games. I just find the momentum-based movement extremely counter-intuitve to the precision platforming and level design which to be honest requires the player to move slowly the majority of the time after the first zone. Maybe I'm just too used to the Mario games and their mechanics which I grew up with to appreciate the mechanics in Sonic.

I can see the logic in what your saying, I just don't think it was very smart of Square Enix to make a demo if it didn't do the game itself justice. I watched videos on youtube of people's play through of the first hour or so and the game does look far more interesting than the demo makes it seem. I will stand by my lack of love for the combat system. I expressed my gratitude that Square Enix tried something different, It feels a lot more like a Final Fantasy game than any of the console releases have in a long time, but to me saving up BP for attack combos, and going into the negative and allowing the enemy to have multiple turns, and relying on the job classes just complicated the combat where it became somewhat unenjoyable. It's not even that it takes strategy or that it isn't easy to grasp at first because I love Fire Emblem and that combat is much less forgiving to newcomers when it comes to mistakes (If you play the classic mode where characters die in battle). I do agree that the demo was poorly made, and I'm going to give the game a shot from the start once it's released in the US. I'll retract my statement that this game disappointed me, the demo didn't give me any "WOW" moments and did a terrible job of representing the game itself.