Forums - Gaming Discussion - Most hyped game that dissappointed ?



Prediction: In 5 years Nintendo will Lauch a "Core Mario game"  very similar to Astro Bot. That said, many will Ignore Astro Bot existence and say Nintendo created this concept.

Around the Network
TruckOSaurus said:
There's some already mentioned that I agree with (MGS4, FFXIII). I would add Uncharted 3 to the list.

Oh yeah, I forgot about MGS4. Going from MGS3 to that felt pretty anti-climactic.
I'm not sure I'd put MGS5 on my list simply because my expectations were low at that point. Though it still managed to disappoint me in the story department, but positively surprise me with its gameplay.

Another title that comes to mind is Suikoden 3.

I do think it was a good game though. It's just that Suikoden 2 is my favorite game of all time, so going from PS1 to PS2 I had my expectations set very high.


Shadow Hearts 3
is another game that falls into the same category.



Not a bad game, but Shadow Hearts 1 & 2 are also among my favorite games of all time, and this one was nowhere close to that, unfortunately.



You all seem to forget how ridiculously overhyped Destiny, Watch Dogs and Titanfall were back then in 2014. I literally mean the most absurd overhyping I've ever seen so far in my life. I know that some time has passed and a lot may not remember at all but good lord those games were overhyped. Maybe it was because at that time the new generation consoles were not even a year old and everything looked promising.

To sumarize everything: Ubisoft sold WD as the GTA V killer with all that hacking stuff and the most advanced graphics ever. The game didn't look good at all.

Bungie sold Destiny as the game that would forever change FPS and when the game released they kept the review embargo one week longer so sales wouldn't be affected. Reviews came out like 5 days later and were mostly 6s and 7s.

Titanfall was good but was sold also as a genre re-definer and ended being another shooter of the bunch (of good shooters).

Last edited by camilosanchez16 - on 10 June 2020

Gotta go with Red Dead Redemption 2. I am a massive fan of the original RDR from 2010, I’ve played it and it’s Undead Nightmare DLC all the way through at least 4 times each. It is tied for my favorite game of all time. So obviously I was super hyped for RDR2. What a letdown it turned out to be though. The realism focus with the hunger, inventory management, horse brushing, bathing, clothing sets for different climates, lack of proper fast travel and all of that stuff feels super tedious, the story feels overly drawn out, there are too many characters in the gang which gives too little room for individual character growth, the side quest characters aren’t half as interesting as those in RDR1. I couldn’t even bring myself to finish RDR2. I’m really not sure how Rockstar went so wrong. I can only assume that it was due to Rockstar North taking the lead on RDR2, instead of Rockstar San Diego, who was the lead in the first game.

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 10 June 2020

camilosanchez16 said:

You all seem to forget how ridiculously overhyped Destiny, Watch Dogs and Titanfall were back then in 2014. I literally mean the most absurd overhyping I've ever seen so far in my life. I know that some time has passed and a lot may not remember at all but good lord those games were overhyped. Maybe it was because at that time the new generation consoles were not even a year old and everything looked promising.

To sumarize everything: Ubisoft sold WD as the GTA V killer with all that hacking stuff and the most advanced graphics ever. The game didn't look good at all.

Bungie sold Destiny as the game that would forever change FPS and when the game released they kept the review embargo one week longer so sales wouldn't be affected. Reviews came out like 5 days later and were mostly 6s and 7s.

Titanfall was good but was sold also as a genre re-definer and ended being another shooter of the bunch (of good shooters).

Very true; I admit, I'd forgotten about all three thanks to their sheer vacuous mediocrity.

Each one was drummed up through mountainous advertising as the first true killer app of the new generation, and each was overwhelming bland and hollow. 



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
COKTOE said:

I was playing it in 2017, and clearly remember the guide saying the player could use cheats, like infinite ammo, and special "one shot" weapons. Or someting like that. Soooo, I just went to the same guide, and it's been updated.

It says "5/10 difficulty if you have the Digital version/do everything legit but 2.5/10 if you have the retail version and use the many available exploits"....So apparently the digital version is different. That's insane. Very weird. I've never seen a difference in trophies between digital and physical, ever.

I have the physical ( and digital too actually ), but whatever. Doubt I'll be going back to get the plat.

From what I remember the infinite ammo and the like works similar to the previous uncharted games you can only use them on the difficult you have already beaten. The only "cheat" I used was on the last boss to do a "flaweless" fight required for one trophy (that was on chapter select, easy, after doing everything else on the game).

But if there was differences between versions that is bizarre (perhaps that had to do with updates and the digital it already being installed while the retail you could ignore).

NightlyPoe said:

Regardless, you're repeating the tropes.  Maybe it started started at the lunch table at school or whatever, but the lazy digs remain the same.

I know one handle is for the D-pad and the other is for the stick.  It still looks like you need three hands.

Oh, I see.  So your complaint is aesthetics.  Even though you specifically said that it was a problem that you didn't have three hands.

You're backtracking.  And, regardless, complaining about aesthetics doesn't help out your case.

And the controller really does suck balls.  It's the worst controller I've ever actually used.  You may love it.  Fine.  I hate it.  And this all goes back to Mario 64, which is a game I really, really hate.  I can't separate Mario 64 from the controller.  The game seems made to showcase the controller.  I hate the game and I hate the controller.

Oh, and admitted bias that has nothing to do with the controller.  Okay then.

Can't say I'm sure what point you're making.

That it isn't pratical to not be able to use analog stick and the d-pad "at once" like we do with any controller today.

I can't recall that many games that even utilized the d-pad, let alone required use of the d-pad and analog stick at the same time.. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if the inclusion of the d-pad on the n-64 controller was just nintendo hedging their bets, in case the analog stick wouldn't be well received, or if 2D-games happened to remain popular.



NightlyPoe said:
DonFerrari said:

That it isn't pratical to not be able to use analog stick and the d-pad "at once" like we do with any controller today.

What's not practical about it?  All the d-pad does in most modern 3D games is provide an extra set of buttons.  A nice luxury to have, but hardly a necessity.

Especially back in the 90s.  My experience with the DualShock on the original Playstation was that the movement controls were generally cloned to both the analog stick and d-pad anyway.  I'm sure a few games took advantage of both, but for the most part it didn't even make a difference for most of the generation.

Still no controller today expect you to not be able to use both at the same time and I have played several that d-pad is needed fast (Sony even was mocked with the crab grip because of it). In God of War per example or FFVIIR you need to use the d-pad continuously, similar to how you also have to use the left analog continuosly even though you also have to use the face buttons.

Not even Nintendo kept a design that you can't use d-pad and analog at will.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

camilosanchez16 said:

You all seem to forget how ridiculously overhyped Destiny, Watch Dogs and Titanfall were back then in 2014. I literally mean the most absurd overhyping I've ever seen so far in my life. I know that some time has passed and a lot may not remember at all but good lord those games were overhyped. Maybe it was because at that time the new generation consoles were not even a year old and everything looked promising.

To sumarize everything: Ubisoft sold WD as the GTA V killer with all that hacking stuff and the most advanced graphics ever. The game didn't look good at all.

Bungie sold Destiny as the game that would forever change FPS and when the game released they kept the review embargo one week longer so sales wouldn't be affected. Reviews came out like 5 days later and were mostly 6s and 7s.

Titanfall was good but was sold also as a genre re-definer and ended being another shooter of the bunch (of good shooters).

For all it is worth I liked WD and it was a pretty game at launch. And I'm not found of open world. A friend lending me and not needing to pay for it may have helped (similar with The Order).

dan_banan said:
DonFerrari said:

From what I remember the infinite ammo and the like works similar to the previous uncharted games you can only use them on the difficult you have already beaten. The only "cheat" I used was on the last boss to do a "flaweless" fight required for one trophy (that was on chapter select, easy, after doing everything else on the game).

But if there was differences between versions that is bizarre (perhaps that had to do with updates and the digital it already being installed while the retail you could ignore).

That it isn't pratical to not be able to use analog stick and the d-pad "at once" like we do with any controller today.

I can't recall that many games that even utilized the d-pad, let alone required use of the d-pad and analog stick at the same time.. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if the inclusion of the d-pad on the n-64 controller was just nintendo hedging their bets, in case the analog stick wouldn't be well received, or if 2D-games happened to remain popular.

If you couldn't use both at the same time of course very fell games would be made to use both, but they existed. Right now I remember Syphon Filter needing both in some interaction, like at one point you used select to change weapons but you could only go one way, then you could use the d-pad and go back and forth, with up being to lantern and down for health or thing like that.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

mZuzek said:
psychicscubadiver said:

Metroid Other M: This is the game that made me stop pre-ordering games. We were fresh off the end of the Prime Trilogy and so hyped to hear that Ninja Thoery was making the next one. The controls were decent, the gameplay was mediocre, and the story was awful.

The "hold your controller sideways but then awkwardly let go of one hand to hold it vertically to use the pointer" controls were decent?!

Shrug. I only played it for a few hours before putting it down in disgust. I don't recall the controls bothering or impressing me at the time so they're 'decent' in my mind. Maybe if I'd have played longer they'd have bothered me, but who knows.



DonFerrari said:
NightlyPoe said:

What's not practical about it?  All the d-pad does in most modern 3D games is provide an extra set of buttons.  A nice luxury to have, but hardly a necessity.

Especially back in the 90s.  My experience with the DualShock on the original Playstation was that the movement controls were generally cloned to both the analog stick and d-pad anyway.  I'm sure a few games took advantage of both, but for the most part it didn't even make a difference for most of the generation.

Still no controller today expect you to not be able to use both at the same time and I have played several that d-pad is needed fast (Sony even was mocked with the crab grip because of it). In God of War per example or FFVIIR you need to use the d-pad continuously, similar to how you also have to use the left analog continuosly even though you also have to use the face buttons.

Not even Nintendo kept a design that you can't use d-pad and analog at will.

Just because the industry has evolved into a somewhat standard control layout doesn't mean that other control systems aren't practical.  That's like saying a qwerty keyboard is the only practical option for typing.  Obviously, other layouts will work just fine.

We know that the N64 controller was practical because many games had perfectly functional and even great control schemes using it.

Not even Nintendo kept a design that you can't use d-pad and analog at will.

Nintendo doesn't seem to like the industry standard control layout.  They use it, but they fought against it, and we still hear about Nintendo experimenting with ways to get away from it.  The Gamecube minimizes the d-pad in favor of emphasizing the analog stick as comfortable as possible (which is why it's easily the most comfortable of the industry standard controllers).  And, of course, the Wii went in its own direction.

Even the Switch encourages companies to make their games (particularly multiplayer) compatible with a single Joycon using what's essentially a SNES layout.