Games you couldn't understand the hype over?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Bethesda titles in general past Morrowind.
I absolutely loathe being a gamer when the Bethesda hype train comes a rollin' to cut off all other topics of gaming discussion like it's cutting off my morning commute.

I can elaborate all day as to why I feel this way, but given that the topic is just one of those sampler topics, I already know that nobody really cares. So why bother justifying an opinion? I have my reasons. I have a LOT of background-experience with Bethesda games.

This isn't an opinion brought on by one or two bad experiences; it's a long, winding trail of tears and misery in the land of "Bethesda didn't really give a fuck".

Anyway...

The Bethesda-MegaGame fanbase is the only one that I can think of who paradoxically continues to lower their standards while raising their expectations with each new game, and is the only fanbase that continues to grow under such conditions.
No other community I can think of does this; who has been so willing to pay top dollar for such buggy and increasingly shallow products.

It's come to the point where they were willing to blindly throw the highest of accolades at these games WELL IN ADVANCE OF THEIR RELEASE DATES. Given that trend, I'm rightly confused as to how it keeps happening, and how it keeps getting hyped to the heavens.

For me it has to be Journey; maybe I'm just a soulless husk of a person but this game just didn't stir anything in me above a mild admiration for the concept.

Kahunaburger:
Fable, Skyrim, and Kingdoms of Amalur. Just... why?

This is pretty much it.

Any other games that I felt were crap or mediocre weren't really hyped.

Skyrim - pretty enough, nice enough gameplay but too glitchy and I didn't feel driven enough to actually complete the storyline (I didn't really do anything past the starting quests until I'd finished the Dark Brotherhood line...and still haven't finished the main storyline because I can't be bothered).

Prototype - Looked awful and I had no idea why I was supposed to care about any of the characters, least of all Alex Mercer. The only positive was that the movement system was fluid ;)

Anything with terrible graphics - I don't know why, it just really annoys me.

Djinn8:
In b4 Halflife

Anyhow I'm going to go ahead and say Minecraft. Never before has such a mediocre game been lorded so highly. And the way Notch has been put on this pedestal as one of the industries greatest heros... it's like some kind of real life Talos. Case in point, on this site there was a new article on the main page relating to minecraft every single day for a whole year! They should have renamed the site Escapecraft. I guess we'll see if that kind of rabid overpraise continues when Mojang brings out its next game or whether the fickle nature of the public will result in a flop.

Now, the building aspect is fun, thats why I bought it when it only had the build mode. Then they tried to make a pseudo-survival rpg type...mess. I can't understand why THAT part is popular. Whats fun about stretching out the time it takes to build something and fill it with farming materials while getting killed over and over again? I don't know, its just not fun to me.

And guys, seriously? Some of you can't understand why CoD is so popular? Cmon now, its been years since Modern Warfare 2, we know this already.

=HCFS=Discoman:
Katawa Shoujo.
Played it, found it badly written, inconsistent, and actually pretty offensive.

Curious. Now, I'm not a fan of jrpg games and dating sims, and find the concept of the game to be just...ridiculous (which translates to most people on the internet to: I'm an insecure, childish call of duty fan and "just don't get it"), but I would like to know what is offensive about it?

Catfood220:
I have mentioned this in the past but Portal 2, I just don't get why everyone is dry humping Valves leg over this game. Sure it was funny but it was so boring (and ugly and repetetive) that I only got so far and stopped playing due to the fear I was falling into a coma.

you can have boring (it was quite linear and if you ignored the storytelling elements it could get dull). But repetitive? both gameplay and setting changed massively between the three acts (ruined apeture, travel through the companies history, and wheatley apeture) each reflecting the story quite well.

The gameplay evolution was playing around with different tools in the different section. Its less repetitive gameplay than most modern military shooters.

Fable 3
I was a big fan of the original Fable, and after playing the abhorrent sequel, I couldn't for the life of me fathom why anyone would be even a little excited for 3. Sure enough from what I have seen it is also terrible.

Skyward Sword
I am not entierly sure why people were pissing their pants over the trailers. I didn't see a single thing in them that looked exciting. And yes, I am a HUGE Zelda fan. Skyward Sword just looked like Twilight Princess(but not as good) with really washed out colors. Now that the game is out the annoying sword, lack of any overworld and the mandatory motion controls really depress me. I would say no sale, but I am unfortunate enough to have already bought and played it. I can't believe this game is getting perfect 10s. But then again every game gets a perfect 10 now. People are just too damned excited about new things apparently.

Half Life 2
Cool, claustrophobic yet complex level design? Nope.
Amazing, new abominations from beyond the stars around every corner? Nope.
It killed the game for me that these things from HL1 were absent, mostly because I was looking for these exclusively. Overall it was an ok game, but it didn't even feel like an actual sequel, it just felt like a tech demo for their new engine with a Half Life theme added. I just wanted imagination, and instead of got what felt like a thinly veiled war shooter out in the country. Fighting other humanoids with guns was the most boring part of HL1, and HL2 was all about that, yuck.

Casey Bowen:
Fallout 3.... I was falling asleep through that game. The movement was clunky, the gameplay was stale, the VO was bad, the main story was un-interesting.

Funny -- 'cause I loved FO3 for the most part. But I hated New Vegas.

'Tis interesting how people can react so differently to such a variety of games.

I liked NV but hated Fallout 3. I put 25hrs into F3 and it didn't a damn thing for me.

Metalhandkerchief:
Guild Wars 2 and Tera.

The first one, everyone is expecting fireworks and a totally groundbreaking MMO, and so far, all the people I know in beta are completely indifferent to it because it's as bog standard as it gets.

The former, because this douche of a company has engineered the perfect titillating *shell* of a game to max out their appeal with pre-pedo teenagers who are just breaking puberty, and GROWN MEN are going to play it. GROWN MEN! That they aren't embarrassed to play that shit is beyond comprehension. Also, it is a really bad game, judging from beta. Full of bugs and shallowness.

First of all, they're entire race looks like that, and little girls don't have huge thighs like that, and they don't have males, so its ok to fantasize about screwing pre-pubescent looking girls. Its totally normal, sheesh.

^is basically what I have heard for defense of the loli race. Its quite pathetic to be honest. And I think it suffers the same problem Dragon Age 2 had with its combat. Making it actiony just made it so that you have to constantly spam buttons instead of auto-attack.

And in defense of Guild Wars 2, we can all see exactly whats its like from the footage and its quite different in many, many aspects from the traditional mmo. Just because a few people in the UNFINISHED BETA are a bit grumpy, doesn't mean we should automatically listen to their opinions without question. Does it have too much hype? All mmos do because everyone demands it kill WoW.

Mass Effect 3, there was just warning flags going off in my head that it was going to be disappointing and yet it was hyped and failed to meet expectations. I just want to scream "how are you surprised?!"

Also Duke Nukem Forever, I can kind of understand the hype of him returning but I didn't get the unrealistic expectations of it being the best shooter. It's Duke Nukem, I don't recall it being better than any shooter, just shooting aliens with adult humor. And my adult humor I mean thinks that please your inner middle schooler who laughs at crudely drawn penises.

I guess it's less of people being excited over a certain game since people have different taste but how/why do they have such unreasonable expectations and think it's going to be the best thing ever or change gaming.

I never understood the hype behind the following series: (Warning: Wall o' Text Ahead.

Halo - It's a competent game, but I've played 1 and 2 and I found them completely boring, and the large maps are easy to get lost in. The multiplayer can be fun, but I personally think ANY multiplayer has more to do with the people you play with more than the game. Unless you play online, and then it's the community as a whole.

Gears of War - Big burly men in powered armor with a chainsaw-rifle fighting humanoid aliens... Again, a competent game, but as Yahtzee said in his review for 3 (or was it 2?) The only level I really remember in the series is the inside of the worm, mainly since that's one location that isn't visited too often. Online multiplayer is extremely lag-infested (1 and 2), and split screen multiplayer is boring (2v2 at the most is SERIOUSLY boring in any shooter imo)

Any military shooter that came out after CoD4 - Most shooters that came out before CoD4 had some form of bizarre or unique appeal to it(Most didn't try to be real or modern. Most 'real' shooters were based on WW2, and most 'modern' shooters took place in an alternate reality.). And really military shooters didn't get really popular until after CoD4 (I didn't hear my friends talking about any shooter apart from Halo, to be fair), and every game since than has been the same formula that CoD4 had but with added cheese and one-ups-manship. I understand that some people like the over-the-top stories. But what gets me is that people will pay $60 for what is essentially an expansion pack for the multiplayer.

For those of you saying Skyrim, it's essentially a Role Player's wet dream. After the tutorial you're free to be your character. Though I wish the game didn't make you into the world-savior from the get go. I think it would be much more interesting if you start as a nobody but as you progress the story your actions turn you into the world-savior, and not just "Hey, you're the PC you're the Dragonborn."

CoD
Skyrim
Battlefield 3

ImmortalDrifter:
Ahhh this good old thread. Where people can come to pretend that they weren't excited by games that didn't live up to their expectations. Or, to simply be hipsters who rail against popular games that they might even like, for the sake of not appearing akin to one of those sheep that actually fucking enjoys something that someone else does.

What is the point of this thread? Sure fandom gets out of control but why is worth it to say you didn't like how excited other people were?

Since I'm here.

Timesplitters was terrible, how anyone like it is beyond me.
Portal was valve stealing ideas from indie game studios and taking the credit.
The witcher 2 is the single most boring thing to ever come out of the human imagination.
Half Life 2 was a vanilla shooter with a vanilla plot delivered in a way that made it impossible to realize how stale it actually was.
Deus Ex might have actually been compelling as a fucking book.
Baldurs Gate 2 was like Diablo with all of the interesting bits ripped out.

How any of these abominations deserve any hype is completely out of my range of comprehension. Anyone who likes any of these games obviously has no taste and should go back to playing CoD or something.

I love the hate for Half Life. I can't explain it, and I'm not trying to be a condescending asshole (it comes naturally) but I find it hilarious how hipster people try to be to....put themselves on a pedestal of self-riteousness? I don't understand why they do it to be honest. I agree with your points though, this thread is just a fandumb fight.

And the whole "I don't get why triple A shooters aimed at casual-gaming college males". Please quit it. You know why those games sell lots of copies, you aren't fooling anyone. So you don't like Call of Duty. FASCINATING. I bet you're the pinnacle of human intelligence then.

Fallout: New Vegas. I loved Fallout 3, but for whatever reason New Vegas was a complete flop for me. If Obsidian took an extra year in development to fix the broken quests, ugly enviroments, and all of the other problems, it would be GOMLT (Game of my life time). But for now it serves as my coaster.

This huge-ass rant summarizes my feelings for FO:NV
http://blog.wilshipley.com/2011/01/why-i-hate-new-vegas.html

Dragon Age, I don't know why this got so much hype. Its gameplay is boring to look at and is so slow. Its story is so cliched and blatantly steals from other fantasy stories. Only one or two areas did I like but they are few and far between. So I could never understand the hype for this game.

Don Savik:

Djinn8:
In b4 Halflife

Anyhow I'm going to go ahead and say Minecraft. Never before has such a mediocre game been lorded so highly. And the way Notch has been put on this pedestal as one of the industries greatest heros... it's like some kind of real life Talos. Case in point, on this site there was a new article on the main page relating to minecraft every single day for a whole year! They should have renamed the site Escapecraft. I guess we'll see if that kind of rabid overpraise continues when Mojang brings out its next game or whether the fickle nature of the public will result in a flop.

Now, the building aspect is fun, thats why I bought it when it only had the build mode. Then they tried to make a pseudo-survival rpg type...mess. I can't understand why THAT part is popular. Whats fun about stretching out the time it takes to build something and fill it with farming materials while getting killed over and over again? I don't know, its just not fun to me.

And guys, seriously? Some of you can't understand why CoD is so popular? Cmon now, its been years since Modern Warfare 2, we know this already.

=HCFS=Discoman:
Katawa Shoujo.
Played it, found it badly written, inconsistent, and actually pretty offensive.

Curious. Now, I'm not a fan of jrpg games and dating sims, and find the concept of the game to be just...ridiculous (which translates to most people on the internet to: I'm an insecure, childish call of duty fan and "just don't get it"), but I would like to know what is offensive about it?

well, to start with, the name is actually offensive. As in, katawa is a word you can't actually say on tv or radio in Japan. While it loosely translates to imperfect girls, a more accurate translation is 'gimp chicks.'
Another thing is it is supposed to treat the girls and their respective issues with a lot of respect, and it, well, doesn't.
If they wanted to treat issues seriously, they could have started by not using the male character with what seems to be severe schizophrenia as comic relief.
for a game that wasn't supposed to sexualize the girls, you have a bonus option where you collect CGs of the sex scenes with the girls. Images that can be later used as fap material.
Each character path was done by a different writer, with the result that the main character is cold and uncaring in one path, and warm and friendly in another. It's as if the writers didn't consolidate how the main character is supposed to be-different paths create conflicting ideas of how the main character is.

I like the idea behind it though. A Visual Novel (KS is a Visual Novel, not a dating sim. instead of explaining the difference, KS is a Visual Novel, College Romance: Rise of the Little Brother is a Dating Sim.) that uses characters that would never see the light of day in a normal VN, such as the large-breasted girl with odd color hair. No, wait, they have one of those. But they don't have the shy girl who is insecure about something and hides from the protagonist as a result, but later warms up to them. No, wait, they have that too. The characters are basically the standard Visual Novel characters, but someone scribbled 'They're Disabled!' in the margins of the characters sheets.

Sorry if that turned a little ranty.

=HCFS=Discoman:
snip

well, to start with, the name is actually offensive. As in, katawa is a word you can't actually say on tv or radio in Japan. While it loosely translates to imperfect girls, a more accurate translation is 'gimp chicks.'
Another thing is it is supposed to treat the girls and their respective issues with a lot of respect, and it, well, doesn't.
If they wanted to treat issues seriously, they could have started by not using the male character with what seems to be severe schizophrenia as comic relief.
for a game that wasn't supposed to sexualize the girls, you have a bonus option where you collect CGs of the sex scenes with the girls. Images that can be later used as fap material.
Each character path was done by a different writer, with the result that the main character is cold and uncaring in one path, and warm and friendly in another. It's as if the writers didn't consolidate how the main character is supposed to be-different paths create conflicting ideas of how the main character is.

I like the idea behind it though. A Visual Novel (KS is a Visual Novel, not a dating sim. instead of explaining the difference, KS is a Visual Novel, College Romance: Rise of the Little Brother is a Dating Sim.) that uses characters that would never see the light of day in a normal VN, such as the large-breasted girl with odd color hair. No, wait, they have one of those. But they don't have the shy girl who is insecure about something and hides from the protagonist as a result, but later warms up to them. No, wait, they have that too. The characters are basically the standard Visual Novel characters, but someone scribbled 'They're Disabled!' in the margins of the characters sheets.

Sorry if that turned a little ranty.

Interesting, and I don't mind rants at all :) I think the art doesn't do the concept justice. They look too plasticy, and the removal of an arm or making one blind doesn't fix this. I don't understand why people who like these games can't see why others are turned off by the overall concept. Its not that people dismiss it because we think people who play them are losers (I myself have never had a girlfriend and am quite awkward, you'd think the ideal target for these kinds of games) its just looks like the game was trying to justify its concept for no reason other than to be different. It seems like everyone was trying to advertise it as being revolutionary as far as VNs go, but by doing so turned out to be other standard VN that just happens to deal with cripples. I don't see any part of the concept enjoyable. People say the characters are troubled and complicated which means its instantly a facsinating game, but having a dark and troubled character is just as cliche as a static character. Troubled angsty teens aren't any more deep and thought provoking than average ordinary adults.

I would like to explain my thoughts to my friend, who I've seen playing it recently, but sadly he is the kind (like most on the internet) to dismiss my thoughts because "I just don't get it" because apparently you have to be a deep, emotional, and extroidinary human being to understand these games. *rolls eyes* I think the pretentiousness of the genre's fans is what drives people away to be honest.

Skyrim.

When I brought this up people would say "it has dragons!", to which I would reply

"So what I have this old PS1 game called Spyro where you actually get to BE a dragon. It's awesome."

After reading the reviews and playing the game a bit (I own it now), I understand the hype, but I didn't before the game was out.

Battlefield 3. A lot of people talked about how it was going to break call of duty and that didnīt really work out.

Final Fantasy. There has been so many now I cannot understand why some people still get all worked up about the next installment.

Call of duty. I wonīt even say something about COD.

Don Savik:

=HCFS=Discoman:
snip

well, to start with, the name is actually offensive. As in, katawa is a word you can't actually say on tv or radio in Japan. While it loosely translates to imperfect girls, a more accurate translation is 'gimp chicks.'
Another thing is it is supposed to treat the girls and their respective issues with a lot of respect, and it, well, doesn't.
If they wanted to treat issues seriously, they could have started by not using the male character with what seems to be severe schizophrenia as comic relief.
for a game that wasn't supposed to sexualize the girls, you have a bonus option where you collect CGs of the sex scenes with the girls. Images that can be later used as fap material.
Each character path was done by a different writer, with the result that the main character is cold and uncaring in one path, and warm and friendly in another. It's as if the writers didn't consolidate how the main character is supposed to be-different paths create conflicting ideas of how the main character is.

I like the idea behind it though. A Visual Novel (KS is a Visual Novel, not a dating sim. instead of explaining the difference, KS is a Visual Novel, College Romance: Rise of the Little Brother is a Dating Sim.) that uses characters that would never see the light of day in a normal VN, such as the large-breasted girl with odd color hair. No, wait, they have one of those. But they don't have the shy girl who is insecure about something and hides from the protagonist as a result, but later warms up to them. No, wait, they have that too. The characters are basically the standard Visual Novel characters, but someone scribbled 'They're Disabled!' in the margins of the characters sheets.

Sorry if that turned a little ranty.

Interesting, and I don't mind rants at all :) I think the art doesn't do the concept justice. They look too plasticy, and the removal of an arm or making one blind doesn't fix this. I don't understand why people who like these games can't see why others are turned off by the overall concept. Its not that people dismiss it because we think people who play them are losers (I myself have never had a girlfriend and am quite awkward, you'd think the ideal target for these kinds of games) its just looks like the game was trying to justify its concept for no reason other than to be different. It seems like everyone was trying to advertise it as being revolutionary as far as VNs go, but by doing so turned out to be other standard VN that just happens to deal with cripples. I don't see any part of the concept enjoyable. People say the characters are troubled and complicated which means its instantly a facsinating game, but having a dark and troubled character is just as cliche as a static character. Troubled angsty teens aren't any more deep and thought provoking than average ordinary adults.

I would like to explain my thoughts to my friend, who I've seen playing it recently, but sadly he is the kind (like most on the internet) to dismiss my thoughts because "I just don't get it" because apparently you have to be a deep, emotional, and extroidinary human being to understand these games. *rolls eyes* I think the pretentiousness of the genre's fans is what drives people away to be honest.

Yeah, I found that as well. they tried to be different with something that really didn't make a difference, but they got a lot of hard-core fans who will defend it to the death.
Nicely enough, most gamers on, well, game sites and not VN sites seem to be rational about this, but man, you should see the, for lack of a better word, shitstorm that happens when a VN reviewer calls it out.

Zhukov:
I never understood the hype for Tetris.

The story sucked and the gameplay was the usual shallow modern crap, but everyone just goes on about it being a "classic". Must be nostalgia at work!

And don't even get me started on Asteroids...

...

These threads get under my skin something fierce. They turn up like clockwork about once a fortnight and are made of nothing but whinging, insecurity and supreme arrogance.

Also, stop liking things I don't like. Don't you all know how rude that is?

I like you. When I rule the world, you will be one of the last to die.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Found it painfully bland.

Quests were uninteresting, gun-play felt old, and whoever thought about using energy cells for stealth attacks was an idiot.

The conversation battles were probably the only good thing I can think of. The argument with Sariff before going to Hong Kong was awesome.

Adam's shades were pretty bad-ass, too.

onegirlgaming:
For me it has to be Journey; maybe I'm just a soulless husk of a person but this game just didn't stir anything in me above a mild admiration for the concept.

...

You are a terrible person. /sarcasm

I see you are new here. Welcome to the escapist, I hope you enjoy your time with us. ^_^

Now, if you will excuse me, I have other matters to attend to.
image

Bye-bye...

bahumat42:

Therumancer:
Pretty much any shooter right now, as they all seem to be slight variations on the same things, and even wind up using the same basic "whack a mole" pop and shoot cover mechanics. There have been some good ones out there, but I fail to see what is so radical and exciting about say the newest "Call Of Duty" or "Gears Of War" installment or clone.

Maybe console shooters, but thats a limit of the platform.

Take tribes:ascend for example, to the untrained eye it just like any other power armor shooter, if you play it for more than 5 minutes it shows itself as something which it clearly isn't, with considerably faster gameplay and much more varied guns than most other shooters.

So while console shooters may be in a rut, i don't think the same can be said of all shooters (sure thats just one example, but there are many like the upcoming planetside 2, painkiller or gotham city imposters which do play differently.

Anyway games i couldn't understand the hype for, this is quite limited because most of the time it makes sense, for example deus ex was a potential rebirth of something amazing (may not of actually become that, but the potential WAS there), similarly saints row the third or brink had interesting features, whether or not they hit the goal on release (they didn't) doesn't mean there was no reason for this.

But one i couldn't get was skyrim, it didn't look fun in the videos, it looked drab and colourless and lifeless, which is exactly what it turned out to be. Its good it can be modded but that should only ever be an extra, no the primary reason to buy a game.

So yeah skyrim shoo!

Well, there are exceptions to every rule, but even most PC shooters are similar to console shooters, and the majority of shooters are multi-platform titles nowadays anyway.

When it comes to Skyrim, it's a niche title, not trying to go for the same kind of mainstream appeal as shooters do. It's just a title with a LARGE niche of RPG gamers, which used to be the dominante force in gaming before the mainstream was brought in.

Skyrim's problem, as far as it has one, is that even as a niche title it decided to focus on a niche setting. It went all out with the entire "Norse" theme including the enviroments to really give it that feel. If you really like the whole viking schtick it was your dream game, if your more into traditional sword and sorcery enviroments, it's understandable that it was less appealing.

A lot of people have reacted the same way to Skyrim's enviroments, and to an extent it shows exactly why the whole "forests, elves, dwarves" motif tends to dominate, people claim they get tired of it, but extreme changes of scenery tend to illicit even more extreme reactions.

I see Skyrim as the most successful attempt of it's kind, and showing that gamers might slowly be weaned into other settings. I tend to look back at games like say "Al Quadim" or "Prince Of Qin" and others with extreme setting changes (D&D Arabian Nights, and Ancient China respectively) as examples of similar attempts in the past that didn't meet with any major success for what amounted to similar reasons.

Personally, I like Skyrim, we do disagree there in overall reaction, but I do agree that the presentation left a bit to be desired. Germany had it's share of thick, dark forests, and really I think we needed a bit less of the icy tundras and annoying "always in your way" mountains and some areas that were a little more traditional.

The CoD and Battlefield games.
Guild wars 2. I mean it's just an MMO. they aren't really doing anything that revolutionary. it will be just another MMO. That's what i think at least.

Dragon Age: Origins.
It would be fun they said...like oblivion they said...
It wasn't horrible but I seriously wanted my money back, 60 euro is FAR too much.

Therumancer:

bahumat42:

Therumancer:
Pretty much any shooter right now, as they all seem to be slight variations on the same things, and even wind up using the same basic "whack a mole" pop and shoot cover mechanics. There have been some good ones out there, but I fail to see what is so radical and exciting about say the newest "Call Of Duty" or "Gears Of War" installment or clone.

Maybe console shooters, but thats a limit of the platform.

Take tribes:ascend for example, to the untrained eye it just like any other power armor shooter, if you play it for more than 5 minutes it shows itself as something which it clearly isn't, with considerably faster gameplay and much more varied guns than most other shooters.

So while console shooters may be in a rut, i don't think the same can be said of all shooters (sure thats just one example, but there are many like the upcoming planetside 2, painkiller or gotham city imposters which do play differently.

Anyway games i couldn't understand the hype for, this is quite limited because most of the time it makes sense, for example deus ex was a potential rebirth of something amazing (may not of actually become that, but the potential WAS there), similarly saints row the third or brink had interesting features, whether or not they hit the goal on release (they didn't) doesn't mean there was no reason for this.

But one i couldn't get was skyrim, it didn't look fun in the videos, it looked drab and colourless and lifeless, which is exactly what it turned out to be. Its good it can be modded but that should only ever be an extra, no the primary reason to buy a game.

So yeah skyrim shoo!

Well, there are exceptions to every rule, but even most PC shooters are similar to console shooters, and the majority of shooters are multi-platform titles nowadays anyway.

When it comes to Skyrim, it's a niche title, not trying to go for the same kind of mainstream appeal as shooters do. It's just a title with a LARGE niche of RPG gamers, which used to be the dominante force in gaming before the mainstream was brought in.

Skyrim's problem, as far as it has one, is that even as a niche title it decided to focus on a niche setting. It went all out with the entire "Norse" theme including the enviroments to really give it that feel. If you really like the whole viking schtick it was your dream game, if your more into traditional sword and sorcery enviroments, it's understandable that it was less appealing.

A lot of people have reacted the same way to Skyrim's enviroments, and to an extent it shows exactly why the whole "forests, elves, dwarves" motif tends to dominate, people claim they get tired of it, but extreme changes of scenery tend to illicit even more extreme reactions.

I see Skyrim as the most successful attempt of it's kind, and showing that gamers might slowly be weaned into other settings. I tend to look back at games like say "Al Quadim" or "Prince Of Qin" and others with extreme setting changes (D&D Arabian Nights, and Ancient China respectively) as examples of similar attempts in the past that didn't meet with any major success for what amounted to similar reasons.

Personally, I like Skyrim, we do disagree there in overall reaction, but I do agree that the presentation left a bit to be desired. Germany had it's share of thick, dark forests, and really I think we needed a bit less of the icy tundras and annoying "always in your way" mountains and some areas that were a little more traditional.

I wasn't opposed to the setting, i just didn't want it to all look so samey, maybe thats the tradeoff for realism. I don't know, i think games like world of warcraft or kingdoms of amular have spoilt me somewhat in that i like visual variety when killing 200 bears for their skins.

I respect what it was trying to do, but im very much from the sonic era where you had the opposite end of always a tech level, always a snow level, always a fire level. Which was comforting.

thememan:

LiquidSolstice:
Skyrim. After blowing $60 on it, I don't know how the fuck anyone stays patient enough to play it.

You obviously never played Morrowind. For the first 20-some hours you are effectively being ripped to shreds by Mudcrabs of all things. It is at this point you are graduated to "Nix-Hound kibble". Only after investing nearly a hundred hours worth of time can you confidently stroll the landscape without getting eviscerated if you wander across the random bestiary you did not plan to run into but did.

Skryim moves at lightning speed for anyone who played Morrowind. That said, it's a sort of game that isn't for everyone really. It's a whole lot of "making your own way" with little to no guidance at all. Which is what I have always loved about the series.

I'll admit I never played Morrowind. I jumped into Skyrim because of the hype, and 5 hours into the game, I didn't have a fucking clue who I was, what I was supposed to do, what faction I belonged to (if that concept even existed), how to kill "the vampires in the cave" without getting destroyed, or just anything, to be honest. Everything was so.....vague. Pretty for sure, but vague. I don't mind games that throw me a challenge or complicated system of advancement, but Skyrim was ridiculous.

Basically the iterations of the Modern Warfare Call of Duties -- I have MW2 and had some fun with it, to be sure. But I can't understand how it is the best selling game with each iteration. All the sequels to MW1 have pretty much been dull churned out single player with all the development effort going into the multiplayer... except that the multiplayer changes very little from game to game too.

Certainly not worth waiting for in a line for on release day.

Halo 4, my friends have been overly excited about it and though it is my favourite series to date I am keeping it at arms length for the moment. No game has the same feel in another company, no matter how hard they try (Bioshock 1 and 2.)

EDIT: WAIT STOP THE PRESSES

Deus Ex: HR was boring as shit.

Kahunaburger:
...Kingdoms of Amalur. Just... why?

Kingdoms of Amalur was hyped...? Not trying to be a smart-ass but I missed a whole lot of the ads and, all of the anticipation for this one. I tried the demo though and it felt like Dragon Age: Origins with a brighter color palette. Then I noticed the Todd MacFarlene name attached to it and figured...well, there's a reason to hype the thing up.

---

I agree with OP when s/he mentions Uncharted. It was done before by Lara Croft except for the cover-based shooting but that was done by everyone else around the time Drake was getting ready for his first adventure.

---

Dragon Age 2. It deserved all of the hype it got BUT the hype train was really deceptive about the sequel to one of Bioware's (then) greatest new IPs. The thing is, this game was being talked up as a great role-playing game blah-blah-blah...This game played more like a beat-em-up than an RPG and if it were released in any other era or, as an arcade cabinet this would have been classified as a beat-em-up with RPG elements and different quest lines.

Mass Effect 3- I've not played any of the previous games and with all the bitching and whining that's been going on in the forums since the third one came out I don't think I want to. Ever.

Final Fantasy series- I just don't get it and I could really care less.

Anything that is a PS3 exclusive- Don't have a PS3, so could care less.

Halo...all of it.

I guess this is going to some extremely petty but, I just can't connect with a protagonist that lacks a face. All those fancy dramatics, all of those super emotional moments, and we stare at a featureless green helmet with a gold visor.

If the Master Chief is void of facial expressions, and emotion, why should I care about him at all? he's just a robot, and to me, from my interpretation of the lore, he kinda is.

Story wise I never 'got' why it's so hyped up.

skyrim, any cod games, quild wars 2, half-life. hmmm ya thats my list, i do not understand why these games are or were so hyped.

Every Sports Game Ever Made - Barely changes
Every Racing Game Ever Made - Barely changes
Every Modern War Game Ever Made - Barely changes
Every Final Fantasy Ever Made - Barely changes (Starting to see a pattern here?)
Nearly Every Cover Shooter Ever Made - Barely changes AND becomes repetitive (BROKE THE CHAIN!)
Every Dancing Game Ever Made - Barely changes, hate dancing, although DDR can be fun at times.

EDIT: Oh yeah you can throw Journey, Limbo, and Flower in there.

As for games that I actually back up the hype?
Persona 4
Ocarina Of Time
Psychonauts

And finally, games I believe should have gotten more hype.
Dead Island - If people were patient and showed some love this great game would have been fixed.
Psychonauts - Sure it's a cult favorite but it's sales were poor, they deserved so much more.
Brutal Legend - Same as Psychonauts.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked