2012 - Do not buy titles
- Thread starter [TFU] Thegoon84
- Start date
Oh another one I just thought of - Iron Front 1944.
Was majorly anticipating it, love arma 2 and love games in a ww2 setting but it was pretty damn awful.
Also the multiplayer is abandoned afaik. Major fail this game was.
Was majorly anticipating it, love arma 2 and love games in a ww2 setting but it was pretty damn awful.
Also the multiplayer is abandoned afaik. Major fail this game was.
This lasted 40mins with me and about 27 of those minutes were setting up the Options and looking through menus and stuff. Did a few laps and just couldn't get on with it at all. Fortunately it was an impulse buy in the STEAM Sale so I didn't get stung too badly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Indeed, there are so many reasons this game fails, it is such a massive step back in terms of innovation, I heard it was bad but I thought might as well give it a go, seems to look nice (it doesn't, it has potential but little details **** me off like black thick lines around people, what does comic style has to do with this game goddamn it!?!??!) then after around an hour of doing some "quests" I realized it's not going to get better. It's a turd encrusted with pretty things figuratively speaking.
Treyarch are the only ones innovating in the CoD series. It is Infinity Ward who are the ones doing sod all with it.
Look at MW, MW2 and MW3. All exactly the same. At least Treyarch have tried new stuff in the series. They introduced the best game mode in the series (and later removed it unfortunately when BO was released) which was War, have the best stats / lobby system, generally have much better maps, brought in the Zombie mode, brought in the feature that allowed you to record multiplayer games and included a radically different class system in BO2 which allows much more customisation.
Seriously all those people who say Treyarch are the ones who do not innovate have not played MW, MW2 or MW3. I'm never buying another Infinity Ward CoD game again.
As for my worst game of 2012? Guild Wars 2 without a doubt. What a load of rubbish. Diablo 3 was pretty boring too but I might reinstall it to see if any of the new patches have made it more fun or not although I doubt it.
Why do developers feel the need for too many cut scenes? Surely the story should be told IN THE GAME THROUGH GAMEPLAY?
It is just Lazy developing and **** story telling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
I got the exact same feeling. I really wanted to like it but I just didn't. I also didn't like the leveling system.
To a degree, but Treyarch have done what?
- Zombies
- Some tweaks to the multiplayer
Otherwise, all they've done is ride on the shoulders of IW's hard work with the creation of the IW 3.0 engine, dressing each game up in new textures and trying to pull the wool over your eyes with different time settings.
Infinity Ward however;
- Took Call of Duty to what it is, if it wasn't for them it wouldn't be so popular, and Treyarch would have most likely been defunct trying to survive on their own.
- Improve the engine each and every installment, World at War was on the I.W 3.0 engine from MW1, Black Ops was on the 4.0 engine from MW2 and Black Ops 2 runs on the MW 3 engine from MW3, only they've cheekily renamed it Black Ops 2 Engine. LOL!
- Are the ones working on I.W 5.0 with Unreal 4 technology.
Treyarch will simply copy and paste I.W 5.0 and make a game set in 2177 that'll probably get sued by Halo or something.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 5,607
- Location
- UK
another one for Iron Front, that was 6 months hype and £25 wasted. Anyone considering it just download I44 instead, its free and miles better.
To release a game sub-par to a free mod is not a great achievement...
To release a game sub-par to a free mod is not a great achievement...
COD is sterile. There's nothing in it anymore. I ask you to find one person on the planet that played the original series that thinks it is better now. I'd bet you would struggle.
And you know what the problem with COD is and why it's sterile. Community. There is none whatsoever. COD is a game where faceless people can shoot faceless people 1 hour a night and switch off. Granted people used to do this on the original games, but the way the game is structured and the way Activision want you to play it you have no choice, and they don't want you to have a choice either because $$$$$$$$ is king.
Really hoping Respawn (ex Infinity Ward) come up with something new for the fps genre.
Last edited:
Frankly I don't really understand this argument. You seem to be implying that because Treyarch use the same graphics engine as the Infinity Ward CoD games that they are not innovating and are just relying on Infinity Ward to do all the hard work.
The problem with that argument comes when you look at the number of FPS games that use the Unreal engine or the Source engine or the CryEngine. Are you seriously suggesting that any game that does not use its own custom engine is not innovative?
Look at Valve. They are still using the same basic graphics engine from Half Life 2 and just tweaking it every now and again and Half Life 2 was released in 2004.
I thought gamers were intelligent enough to realise that graphics have basically no bearing on innovation at all. I still play some text only games, not because of the graphics (obviously) but because they have damn good game play.
I don't give a monkies if the graphics uses a third party game engine. All I care about is if the game is enjoyable to play.
Can't think of any games that were released this year that I've regretted buying. I've bought a couple of lemons in 2012, but they all came out in previous years.
If I had to pick the most disappointing one, probably Medal of Honor: Warfighter (a step down from the 2010 game, which had better set pieces and was quite underrated IMO).
If I had to pick the most disappointing one, probably Medal of Honor: Warfighter (a step down from the 2010 game, which had better set pieces and was quite underrated IMO).
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,260
- Location
- Surrey, UK
[TW]Sponge;23360350 said:
RE: Diablo III
I pre-ordered the CE.
I was too hyped for this game.
For starters I had terrible microstutter despite 60fps. Bought an SSD just for this game, and it didn't even fix the problem completely, but with 400MB/s read speeds it negates pretty much any asset loading issues.
For seconders, I was terribly disapointed in items. Class specific items sucked whilst levelling (always worse than non-class specific). Always getting items which were miles below my level. Once I hit Nightmare difficulty, it took forever to find a piece of gear which was an actual upgrade on my current gear.
Don't like the fact that you have to play through the same campaign with the same maps 4x. What's the point in that?
In D2, maps were fully randomised, so you always had to explore places. Now you can just run straight for the exit.
In D2, normal -> nightmare or nightmare -> hell was a HUGE jump in difficulty. In D3, I barely notice the difference.
Blacksmith crafting was 100% useless on release.
Followers were 100% useless, they deal practically 0 dmg, and have a tiny handful of utility spells that you have no control over.
Got bored out of my brains before even completing the game on nightmare difficulty.
Played all classes to the end of normal, then shelved.
Made tonnes of posts on the D3 forums, but felt like I was being ignored 100%.
Faster to get gear upgrades by playing the auction house than actually playing the game, this was the main thing that put the nail in the coffin for me.
Biggest disappointment of the year for me, and I used to be a huge Blizzard fan boy.
Last edited: