Don't know if it was pointed out, but pretty much anything after Valkyria Chronicles 1.
Yeah, I know 3 went back to what people liked about 1 in the West, but it's still on the PSP, still doesn't use the Canvas Engine, and still has pitiful maps compared to 1.
That middle bullet point still gets to me. You make an engine that creates graphics that gorgeous that STILL look good on a modern PC, and you never use it again. For shame, Sega.
Quiotu on
+2
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I suppose Firefall should be mentioned? I'm not sure where the bar on failed is, but didn't live up to the hype.
It's super hard to determine a failure state with F2P's besides how quickly they are shut down. F2P games can survive for a really long time with very little % of their base paying into it. When the new car smell wears off and your game hasn't gotten viral masses to jump on board, you can effectively let it stagnate for years. Especially when its a platform that people paid a boxed copy for, a few months of gametime, then it went F2P like SWtOR.
Eh, I think it's fair to call Firefall a failure by the standards and goals it set itself. It was a really ambitious title that now mostly just feels like an MMO FPS with not a lot going for it.
Holy shit, I didn't realize Firefall had released. I had signed up for the Beta years ago, never heard anything more. But I did hear the story of the bus. It was special.
If the only metric of success is 'made money' then pretty much every game listed thus far was a success. Even Firefall still makes a pretty good chunk of money. Enough that they keep hiring new people and expanding.
I count Titanfall as a failure because it sure was hyped as the next big Halo/CoD/Whatever killer and it couldn't even tickle those franchises, much less kill them. I think Call of Duty: Ghosts gets more people per day playing then Titanfall does, and Ghosts is considered probably the worst CoD game ever.
Using the metric of financial failure though: Grim Fandango, Psychonauts and Brutal Legends sure are paragons of horrible failure.
So what, are we judging based on games that 'Lived up to the hype', 'made money' or some other nebulous thing like 'Well I like it and enough other people like it so it must have been good enough'?
If the only metric of success is 'made money' then pretty much every game listed thus far was a success. Even Firefall still makes a pretty good chunk of money. Enough that they keep hiring new people and expanding.
I count Titanfall as a failure because it sure was hyped as the next big Halo/CoD/Whatever killer and it couldn't even tickle those franchises, much less kill them. I think Call of Duty: Ghosts gets more people per day playing then Titanfall does, and Ghosts is considered probably the worst CoD game ever.
Using the metric of financial failure though: Grim Fandango, Psychonauts and Brutal Legends sure are paragons of horrible failure.
So what, are we judging based on games that 'Lived up to the hype', 'made money' or some other nebulous thing like 'Well I like it and enough other people like it so it must have been good enough'?
The Last of Us. It wasn't a game that changed gaming the way everybody was talking. I had just finished Dishonored before and everything about the AI in that game was better then TLoU. The story was predictable and the characters were so stupid.
Joel knew how the fungus worked and knew that the hospital was going to kill the girl the whole time but decided to bring her to the place anyway?
I will never get the love for The Last of Us. It's a mediocre 3rd person action game that, while it has great voice acting, is so obvious and trope heavy it's just ridiculous. It's a paint-by-numbers zombie tale. And for a survivor horror game, it's not scary in the least. Incredibly disappointing to me.
It is pretty obvious that it's a combination of how well the game did in terms of critic/fan opinion for the most part, and sales to a slightly lesser extent, and individual opinion far, far less.
Titanfall sold like hotcakes, was pretty fun, and got good reviews. Even if it's not your cup of tea, it was a game that should have been amazing and was by most metrics, still pretty great, not a failure.
Compare it to Daikatana. It was advertised to be super big.. and it sucked in all ways. It didn't sell. Fans hated it. Critics hated it. That's a game that could have been amazing, that failed.
Then compare both to Grim Fandango. I'm pretty sure it's actually made a fair chunk of change over what it cost to make, but it wasn't supposed to be an amazing game, it's a cult classic, and it's still got a fanbase. It fails this topic because it isn't a critical failure and it didn't have the necessary hype to really be called a game that anyone thought "should have been amazing."
And before you ask, these are all qualitative and I'm not interested in solving the heap problem with you or anybody else. It's pretty obvious that there's a big difference between "well liked, somewhat profitable, not a WoW/CoD/Halo/Smash/Street Fighter/whatever killer" and "taking Shadowrun and making it into a shitty counterstrike with some magic" or "literally everything about Sonic, holy shit."
If the only metric of success is 'made money' then pretty much every game listed thus far was a success. Even Firefall still makes a pretty good chunk of money. Enough that they keep hiring new people and expanding.
I count Titanfall as a failure because it sure was hyped as the next big Halo/CoD/Whatever killer and it couldn't even tickle those franchises, much less kill them. I think Call of Duty: Ghosts gets more people per day playing then Titanfall does, and Ghosts is considered probably the worst CoD game ever.
Using the metric of financial failure though: Grim Fandango, Psychonauts and Brutal Legends sure are paragons of horrible failure.
So what, are we judging based on games that 'Lived up to the hype', 'made money' or some other nebulous thing like 'Well I like it and enough other people like it so it must have been good enough'?
Keep it simple. Failed = not amazing.
So, every single poster in this thread (myself included!) is a failure? Works for me!
Honestly the main metric I'm using is the reality of the game vs the hype it had.
Firefall was initially talked as a game with a huge PvE war front and resource management alongside a competitive E-sports scene. We currently just have an MMOFPS which is really content light.
Titanfall told me 'fuck bro, you wanna play call of duty with jet packs and giant robots?' and delivered on that. Even if it didn't live up to being the CoD killer alot of the hype made it out to be.
I don't think I'd call Titanfall a failure though because gameplay wise it absolutely met expectations.
One title I can't help but think about is L.A. Noire.
I mean, you have a post-WW II noir story taking place in an (apparently) painstaking historical recreation of L.A., with groundbreaking facial animation tech. And it's published/finished by Rockstar! That means lots of side activities and secrets to find! And it's the game that followed RDR on the release schedule, and that was fun and had a pretty good story, so this should be solid in that regard, right?
The Last of Us. It wasn't a game that changed gaming the way everybody was talking. I had just finished Dishonored before and everything about the AI in that game was better then TLoU. The story was predictable and the characters were so stupid.
Joel knew how the fungus worked and knew that the hospital was going to kill the girl the whole time but decided to bring her to the place anyway?
I will never get the love for The Last of Us. It's a mediocre 3rd person action game that, while it has great voice acting, is so obvious and trope heavy it's just ridiculous. It's a paint-by-numbers zombie tale. And for a survivor horror game, it's not scary in the least. Incredibly disappointing to me.
Maybe games that are really character focused aren't your bag then?
The characters were very compelling and nuanced, the world was incredibly well realized, the story was well paced balancing tension, discovery, character moments, and action, the gameplay itself actively added to the story and atmosphere (and mechanically was pretty solid), etc.
If it didn't click for you, that's fine, but acting like it's objectively mediocre, or that people liking it is completely baffling, is more than a bit silly.
Edit: Like, I have no desire whatsoever to play Dark Souls or any of the Metal Gear Solid games from what I've seen of them, but I can see why they might appeal to people, and can definitely accept that those games just aren't for me.
Except, not really? Joel is the "lost a loved one, can't trust again" archetype. Ellie is the "orphan who had to grow up fast" archetype. Their relationship evolves in a 100% predictable manner - Joel opens his heart again, with Ellie filling the void created by his daughter's death, and Ellie gains a father figure and can finally let her guard down. The only moment that I liked between them was Joel's lie at the end. Beyond that, again, paint-by-numbers.
IMO, people conflate the acting performances - which were stellar - with what actually happened. The performances were top notch. Everything else was zombie story 101.
the world was incredibly well realized
Huh? We don't see much of the world at all. We really only get a series of maps which are the typical post-apocalyptic fare. Partially destroyed buildings with the obvious entrances/exits barricaded. Obvious signs of people leaving in a hurry. A couple of pockets of resistance with varying levels of friendliness The same kinds of environments we've seen a million times before. The only well realized part I can think of is the nature of the zombie infection, which at least has a real life analogue.
the story was well paced balancing tension, discovery, character moments, and action,
What tension? Outside of the cannibal rapist guy, there wasn't any, IMO.
the gameplay itself actively added to the story and atmosphere (and mechanically was pretty solid), etc.
How? Finding resources and building temporary weapons? Using Joel's radar? I mean, yeah, it fit the setting, but I don't think it added anything. It suffered from the same thing most games suffer from - obvious discover/restock supply moments and obvious kill room moments. It was just shy of 3' tall wall territory in how blatantly it telegraphed its intentions. And, really, subverting those expectations would've been a great way to amp up the tension. Have zombies burst into the room while Joel's crafting. Have there be a zombie invasion and your ability to resupply is based on a timer before you're overrun.
If it didn't click for you, that's fine, but acting like it's objectively mediocre, or that people liking it is completely baffling, is more than a bit silly.
Except, it does baffle me? I mean, I played it. I beat it. I still don't get the love it gets, outside of the voice acting as I've said many times. I step back, and I see a plot that can be correctly guessed by reading the back of the box. Characters that are 90% tropes. Mediocre (yes, mediocre) 3rd person action (camera and an overly sticky cover system). No real scares. A generic setting outside of the nature of the zombie infection itself.
I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm honestly not. This is just one of the few games whose popularity simply doesn't measure up to my experience playing it. It's like everyone else found a secret game beneath the one I played.
If the only metric of success is 'made money' then pretty much every game listed thus far was a success. Even Firefall still makes a pretty good chunk of money. Enough that they keep hiring new people and expanding.
I count Titanfall as a failure because it sure was hyped as the next big Halo/CoD/Whatever killer and it couldn't even tickle those franchises, much less kill them. I think Call of Duty: Ghosts gets more people per day playing then Titanfall does, and Ghosts is considered probably the worst CoD game ever.
Using the metric of financial failure though: Grim Fandango, Psychonauts and Brutal Legends sure are paragons of horrible failure.
So what, are we judging based on games that 'Lived up to the hype', 'made money' or some other nebulous thing like 'Well I like it and enough other people like it so it must have been good enough'?
Keep it simple. Failed = not amazing.
So, every single poster in this thread (myself included!) is a failure? Works for me!
Pfft, speak for yourself buddy. I'm fuckin amazing
If the only metric of success is 'made money' then pretty much every game listed thus far was a success. Even Firefall still makes a pretty good chunk of money. Enough that they keep hiring new people and expanding.
I count Titanfall as a failure because it sure was hyped as the next big Halo/CoD/Whatever killer and it couldn't even tickle those franchises, much less kill them. I think Call of Duty: Ghosts gets more people per day playing then Titanfall does, and Ghosts is considered probably the worst CoD game ever.
Using the metric of financial failure though: Grim Fandango, Psychonauts and Brutal Legends sure are paragons of horrible failure.
So what, are we judging based on games that 'Lived up to the hype', 'made money' or some other nebulous thing like 'Well I like it and enough other people like it so it must have been good enough'?
Keep it simple. Failed = not amazing.
So, every single poster in this thread (myself included!) is a failure? Works for me!
Pfft, speak for yourself buddy. I'm fuckin amazing
Until just now. Now you are a failure. THAT'S THE TRAP!
The point being that this thread wasn't really intended to be about knocking "overrated" games down a peg. I'm not saying that there aren't valid criticisms to be made against the Last of Us, as you have just clearly done, but overall it is a game that has recieved almost universal praise. It sold well, reviewed incredibly well by professionals and amateurs alike and is by many considered one of the best games of the generation. It is fine that you don't agree with that, but this might not be the thread to pick that fight.
Edit: Of course, I am saying that having just brought up a game that is by many considered a true work of art, but I hope my point stands
<snipping a long diatribe>
I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm honestly not. This is just one of the few games whose popularity simply doesn't measure up to my experience playing it. It's like everyone else found a secret game beneath the one I played.
And this is why "failed... for ME" shouldn't be the criteria for saying a game is a failure. It's almost the poster child for such sentiment. I blame the OP, personally. Burn the OP down! BURN!
By orders of magnitude the most disappointing game in history.
I agree with this. I had heard of the precursors in the series and was excited.
I read articles in magazines and on the web and was excited.
I read that insanely lengthy backstory in the manual that maintained a cannon but flexibility for player actions in the previous game.
I watched the intro movie and was sad I couldn't play as the rat people and got excited. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpeBD86U8dk
What I played was.......shit.
I didn't realize how shit until I went into gamestop during its then PC demostation phase and tried Galactic Civilizations 2 and realized what fun could be.
Strictly speaking this is a console rather than a game, but one of the most bizarrely fascinating stories of overhyped-game-product-leading-to-spectacular-failure in existence would have to be the Gizmondo.
Hell, their executive had ties to the Swedish Mafia.
It's often been said that the story of the Gizmondo would make a great movie. In fact, it would make a terrible movie, one with an implausible plot and a predictable ending, probably starring Stephen Baldwin.
Here is that story, in brief: back in March 2005, Tiger Telematics launched a handheld console called the Gizmondo. It was supposed to run great games, play videos, send text messages, power GPS apps and more. A raft of wealthy investors were on board, along with many major games publishers and high street retailers.
Less than a year later, Tiger Telematics went bankrupt. The financial filings were a mess of huge debts, weird share deals and unresolved lawsuits. The company's total losses stood at £189 million. The Gizmondo went down in history as the worst-selling handheld of all time.
Here's the sub-plot: in February 2006, a Ferrari Enzo travelling at 162 miles per hour crashed on a Californian highway. Gizmondo executive Stefan Eriksson, who had previous convictions for involvement with the Swedish mafia, was found at the scene. Eriksson claimed the driver, a man named Dietrich, had done a runner. Police alleged the Ferrari had been illegally imported. Eriksson served two years in prison. Dietrich was never found.
Cause its boobs, which is self explanatory
And its fur because guys sometimes get cold while looking at boobs.
Blue...well that one id have to just put down to exoticness.
I enjoyed my time in Shadowbane, but then they made class/balance decisions that I couldn't get behind.
How DARE they keep me from stealing everything and anything! Also getting to watch a guild scam was just full of schadenfreude.
Person aggressively recruited for their big ol' guild, and since you could build your own forts and such required everyone in the guild to give them pretty much any loot they hunted up. Then, after a few months of relentless farming by like 100 people, took the money and ran with it.
Grandia 1 was one of the best RPGs on the Saturn & PS1 and Grandia 2 was easily the best RPG on the Dreamcast. Then we got Grandia 3 and ugh. Combat is even better than before, but the rest of the game is worse, and before long, they kick the fun characters out of your party & replace them with annoying ones.
You mean when the main character's hot mom joined the party? I never did finish that game, but I remember it was shortly after that part that I never got back to it.
Also, I've been following the thread for a while, but is it bad that when I first saw the thread title, the absolute very first thing I thought of was Hellgate: London? Then I click on it and what do you know... God damn, that was disappointing.
And I was one of the dumb bastards that bought the Hellgate:London lifetime subscription cause apparently I was still a baby and my skull hadn't hardened against hype.
Oh shit yes, Assassin's Creed 3. A game where the optional side missions are more fun (but still not very fun) that the mandatory story missions. A game that wasn't a tenth as thrilling as its E3 trailer made it out to be. A game with little giggling street urchins taunting a badass, mass-murdering assassin in every city.
Heads up for this thread: you need to explain why the game didn't live up to its potential, and it has to be a decent explanation. Just naming titles makes this a boring poll thread, and if that's the way things go then the thread is just going to get locked.
And I was one of the dumb bastards that bought the Hellgate:London lifetime subscription cause apparently I was still a baby and my skull hadn't hardened against hype.
Well, I figured if it had lasted just 10 months or something, it would've paid for itself. It didn't last nearly that long...
My friends and I were getting tired of the endless parade of CoDs - the only gaming juggernaut that all of us could agree to play together - and along came Brink. It promised to be something new and interesting. No one-shot kills! Class customisation! Parkour! Multiple objective maps! Teamwork!
It looked great. Myself and a couple of the other more hardcore gamers talked all the guys into buying it. And then it was terrible. The game itself was actually fine. Alright. And when it all came together it was good. But the matchmaking never got more than 2 or 3 real players on the other side. Some objectives were either super easy or impossible. And I'll be honest, I've actually forgotten or blocked out all the other reasons we gave up on that game.
If that was all, it would have just been a disappointment. But now, Brink has become a byword in our group for "game that promises to bring us all back together at the cost of $100 AU and won't live up to the hype". We still all play and chat together, but except for a few months with Battlefield (BF4 destroyed that) we've never been able to all buy and commit to another game with the same fervor. Evolve is looking like a fantastic game for just the kind of numbers we get on any one night, but I can just feel the spectre of Brink hanging around whenever I hype Evolve to the guys.
Posts
Though when you take an exclusively multiplayer game and focus on the single player I'm not sure what you can really expect.
Yeah, I know 3 went back to what people liked about 1 in the West, but it's still on the PSP, still doesn't use the Canvas Engine, and still has pitiful maps compared to 1.
That middle bullet point still gets to me. You make an engine that creates graphics that gorgeous that STILL look good on a modern PC, and you never use it again. For shame, Sega.
Holy shit, I didn't realize Firefall had released. I had signed up for the Beta years ago, never heard anything more. But I did hear the story of the bus. It was special.
http://www.gamefront.com/no-win-situation-the-troubled-history-of-firefall-part-3/
I count Titanfall as a failure because it sure was hyped as the next big Halo/CoD/Whatever killer and it couldn't even tickle those franchises, much less kill them. I think Call of Duty: Ghosts gets more people per day playing then Titanfall does, and Ghosts is considered probably the worst CoD game ever.
Using the metric of financial failure though: Grim Fandango, Psychonauts and Brutal Legends sure are paragons of horrible failure.
So what, are we judging based on games that 'Lived up to the hype', 'made money' or some other nebulous thing like 'Well I like it and enough other people like it so it must have been good enough'?
Keep it simple. Failed = not amazing.
I will never get the love for The Last of Us. It's a mediocre 3rd person action game that, while it has great voice acting, is so obvious and trope heavy it's just ridiculous. It's a paint-by-numbers zombie tale. And for a survivor horror game, it's not scary in the least. Incredibly disappointing to me.
Titanfall sold like hotcakes, was pretty fun, and got good reviews. Even if it's not your cup of tea, it was a game that should have been amazing and was by most metrics, still pretty great, not a failure.
Compare it to Daikatana. It was advertised to be super big.. and it sucked in all ways. It didn't sell. Fans hated it. Critics hated it. That's a game that could have been amazing, that failed.
Then compare both to Grim Fandango. I'm pretty sure it's actually made a fair chunk of change over what it cost to make, but it wasn't supposed to be an amazing game, it's a cult classic, and it's still got a fanbase. It fails this topic because it isn't a critical failure and it didn't have the necessary hype to really be called a game that anyone thought "should have been amazing."
And before you ask, these are all qualitative and I'm not interested in solving the heap problem with you or anybody else. It's pretty obvious that there's a big difference between "well liked, somewhat profitable, not a WoW/CoD/Halo/Smash/Street Fighter/whatever killer" and "taking Shadowrun and making it into a shitty counterstrike with some magic" or "literally everything about Sonic, holy shit."
Firefall was initially talked as a game with a huge PvE war front and resource management alongside a competitive E-sports scene. We currently just have an MMOFPS which is really content light.
Titanfall told me 'fuck bro, you wanna play call of duty with jet packs and giant robots?' and delivered on that. Even if it didn't live up to being the CoD killer alot of the hype made it out to be.
I don't think I'd call Titanfall a failure though because gameplay wise it absolutely met expectations.
I mean, you have a post-WW II noir story taking place in an (apparently) painstaking historical recreation of L.A., with groundbreaking facial animation tech. And it's published/finished by Rockstar! That means lots of side activities and secrets to find! And it's the game that followed RDR on the release schedule, and that was fun and had a pretty good story, so this should be solid in that regard, right?
What a steaming pile it turned out to be.
Maybe games that are really character focused aren't your bag then?
The characters were very compelling and nuanced, the world was incredibly well realized, the story was well paced balancing tension, discovery, character moments, and action, the gameplay itself actively added to the story and atmosphere (and mechanically was pretty solid), etc.
If it didn't click for you, that's fine, but acting like it's objectively mediocre, or that people liking it is completely baffling, is more than a bit silly.
Edit: Like, I have no desire whatsoever to play Dark Souls or any of the Metal Gear Solid games from what I've seen of them, but I can see why they might appeal to people, and can definitely accept that those games just aren't for me.
Masters of Orion 3....
By orders of magnitude the most disappointing game in history.
Except, not really? Joel is the "lost a loved one, can't trust again" archetype. Ellie is the "orphan who had to grow up fast" archetype. Their relationship evolves in a 100% predictable manner - Joel opens his heart again, with Ellie filling the void created by his daughter's death, and Ellie gains a father figure and can finally let her guard down. The only moment that I liked between them was Joel's lie at the end. Beyond that, again, paint-by-numbers.
IMO, people conflate the acting performances - which were stellar - with what actually happened. The performances were top notch. Everything else was zombie story 101.
Huh? We don't see much of the world at all. We really only get a series of maps which are the typical post-apocalyptic fare. Partially destroyed buildings with the obvious entrances/exits barricaded. Obvious signs of people leaving in a hurry. A couple of pockets of resistance with varying levels of friendliness The same kinds of environments we've seen a million times before. The only well realized part I can think of is the nature of the zombie infection, which at least has a real life analogue.
What tension? Outside of the cannibal rapist guy, there wasn't any, IMO.
How? Finding resources and building temporary weapons? Using Joel's radar? I mean, yeah, it fit the setting, but I don't think it added anything. It suffered from the same thing most games suffer from - obvious discover/restock supply moments and obvious kill room moments. It was just shy of 3' tall wall territory in how blatantly it telegraphed its intentions. And, really, subverting those expectations would've been a great way to amp up the tension. Have zombies burst into the room while Joel's crafting. Have there be a zombie invasion and your ability to resupply is based on a timer before you're overrun.
Except, it does baffle me? I mean, I played it. I beat it. I still don't get the love it gets, outside of the voice acting as I've said many times. I step back, and I see a plot that can be correctly guessed by reading the back of the box. Characters that are 90% tropes. Mediocre (yes, mediocre) 3rd person action (camera and an overly sticky cover system). No real scares. A generic setting outside of the nature of the zombie infection itself.
I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm honestly not. This is just one of the few games whose popularity simply doesn't measure up to my experience playing it. It's like everyone else found a secret game beneath the one I played.
Pfft, speak for yourself buddy. I'm fuckin amazing
Edit: Of course, I am saying that having just brought up a game that is by many considered a true work of art, but I hope my point stands
I agree with this. I had heard of the precursors in the series and was excited.
I read articles in magazines and on the web and was excited.
I read that insanely lengthy backstory in the manual that maintained a cannon but flexibility for player actions in the previous game.
I watched the intro movie and was sad I couldn't play as the rat people and got excited.
What I played was.......shit.
I didn't realize how shit until I went into gamestop during its then PC demostation phase and tried Galactic Civilizations 2 and realized what fun could be.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Hell, their executive had ties to the Swedish Mafia.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-06-a-horse-named-gizmondo-the-inside-story-of-the-worlds-greatest-failed-console
Just a little bit from the start of the article:
Doom 3 was good but in 2004 it wasn't awesome and so it belongs in this thread.
Cause its boobs, which is self explanatory
And its fur because guys sometimes get cold while looking at boobs.
Blue...well that one id have to just put down to exoticness.
How DARE they keep me from stealing everything and anything! Also getting to watch a guild scam was just full of schadenfreude.
aw man, this reminded me of tribes:ascend
which was actually pretty fun, but then stopped getting support from HiRez because who knows why
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Because that's what they do. If HiRez finds a better genre to tap for cash I can guarantee you they'll drop Smite like a sack of hot shit.
You mean when the main character's hot mom joined the party? I never did finish that game, but I remember it was shortly after that part that I never got back to it.
Also, I've been following the thread for a while, but is it bad that when I first saw the thread title, the absolute very first thing I thought of was Hellgate: London? Then I click on it and what do you know... God damn, that was disappointing.
What a fucking travesty.
Not even Half Life 2 Episode 3
Until it comes out, HL3 might as well be considered a failure.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, better to never release your game than to release it and have it be judged as mediocre.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Oh shit yes, Assassin's Creed 3. A game where the optional side missions are more fun (but still not very fun) that the mandatory story missions. A game that wasn't a tenth as thrilling as its E3 trailer made it out to be. A game with little giggling street urchins taunting a badass, mass-murdering assassin in every city.
Well, I figured if it had lasted just 10 months or something, it would've paid for itself. It didn't last nearly that long...
I dunno, I definitely got my money and time's worth out of it.
My friends and I were getting tired of the endless parade of CoDs - the only gaming juggernaut that all of us could agree to play together - and along came Brink. It promised to be something new and interesting. No one-shot kills! Class customisation! Parkour! Multiple objective maps! Teamwork!
It looked great. Myself and a couple of the other more hardcore gamers talked all the guys into buying it. And then it was terrible. The game itself was actually fine. Alright. And when it all came together it was good. But the matchmaking never got more than 2 or 3 real players on the other side. Some objectives were either super easy or impossible. And I'll be honest, I've actually forgotten or blocked out all the other reasons we gave up on that game.
If that was all, it would have just been a disappointment. But now, Brink has become a byword in our group for "game that promises to bring us all back together at the cost of $100 AU and won't live up to the hype". We still all play and chat together, but except for a few months with Battlefield (BF4 destroyed that) we've never been able to all buy and commit to another game with the same fervor. Evolve is looking like a fantastic game for just the kind of numbers we get on any one night, but I can just feel the spectre of Brink hanging around whenever I hype Evolve to the guys.
So fuck Brink.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk