biggest dissapointments of 2008

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: Darklife

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Crysis. Hands down. Major hype, craptacular performance, horribly inefficient graphics engine, and WAYYYYY not "groundbreaking" in either genre or graphics/technology.

x2

I wouldn't really say the graphics engine is inefficient. I don't understand how people can call it's graphics engine plain , compare the visuals of the snow levels with those of any other game on the market. Crysis wins hands down.

I think they are calling it an in-efficient graphics engine because it is/was damn near impossible to run it at highest settings.

Geez. I actually think some people would have liked the game better if Crytek had simply left out the highest graphics setting. Even though there IS a noticeable increase in visual detail for every setting, people wouldn't feel so bad about their shiny new $500 graphics card not being able to run a current gen game, and therefore wouldn't be going on about Crysis' "inefficient graphics engine". It runs more or less like I would expect it to considering how it looks. That makes me feel just as disappointed in my rig as it does anyone else, but some people seem to think that because Crytek didn't dumb the graphics down to the level of mainstream cards they did something wrong.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
For me it is Warhammer online. It promised so much and had everyone thinking it was going to be the next great MMORPG. It failed to deliver.

It has to be Age of Conan. Warhammer is not the best MMORPG, but it is not nearly as bad a Conan, and I think the hype was about the same.
Conan just failed in almost every way possible, while Warhammer is actually fun, just not as great as I was hoping, but I think they are improving it.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: Darklife

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Crysis. Hands down. Major hype, craptacular performance, horribly inefficient graphics engine, and WAYYYYY not "groundbreaking" in either genre or graphics/technology.

x2

I wouldn't really say the graphics engine is inefficient. I don't understand how people can call it's graphics engine plain , compare the visuals of the snow levels with those of any other game on the market. Crysis wins hands down.

I think they are calling it an in-efficient graphics engine because it is/was damn near impossible to run it at highest settings.

Geez. I actually think some people would have liked the game better if Crytek had simply left out the highest graphics setting. Even though there IS a noticeable increase in visual detail for every setting, people wouldn't feel so bad about their shiny new $500 graphics card not being able to run a current gen game, and therefore wouldn't be going on about Crysis' "inefficient graphics engine". It runs more or less like I would expect it to considering how it looks. That makes me feel just as disappointed in my rig as it does anyone else, but some people seem to think that because Crytek didn't dumb the graphics down to the level of mainstream cards they did something wrong.

Okay, the story line and gameplay sucked too. I felt like I was playing a crappy remake of some last-ran B-Movie on SciFi.

 

[Polish3d]

Crysis was quite enjoyable, as was Warhead

 

[Regs]

lol. I agree with sunny on Crysis. I can't even say B- rated movie because the protagonist didn't even talk. Somehow I found Warhead to be more enjoyable than Crysis.

Spore I didn't buy because I knew from the start if wasn't going offer half the imaginative fancy stuff some people wanted to believe in their hopeful heads.

COD W@W is a game made for juveniles with cerebral palsy. How the fuck do you shoot straight in this game? The spawning is just an out-of-control merry go round even worse than COD4. At least in COD4 there was a vocal point or front line in each map. COD 5 you just run around like your ass is on fire. And why are all the animations so freaking unnaturally fast and jerky? They tried too hard making this game different from COD4.

 

[hooflung]

I would say WAR but I didn't have any expectations for that game. I really just waisted 50 bucks because well... I knew people who bought it so we were going to clan it up.

Age of Conan held my attention for 3 months. Good graphics, decent performance and fun PVP. However, it defaults to the MMO disapointment of the year because Funcom ruined it for me. They were their own worst enemies.

Hellgate London is a 2007 game but it is a huge disapointment that announced their servers closing. Chalk that up to Tabula Rossa as well.

Crysis I would say had one of the better demo's of the year. I played the dickens out of it. But it got old fast. So as a game I'd say it falls short.

I didn't play spore or fallout 3. I am getting FO3 on my PS3 after I finish Dead Space and GTA 4 on it. My free copy of Far Cry 2 hasn't arrived so I can't pass judgment yet.

Left 4 Dead had an awesome demo, and it irks me they didn't keep it open after retail cause I am not paying 50 bucks atm for a PS title.

I am pretty sickened at the cosolization of PC games in 2008. Not that I don't mind console games going over to PC and visa versa; however, I would like them to pay more attention to control tweaking. Also, its nearly 2009 and some games get Wide Screen wrong!

Overall, the industry has let me down. I play EVE and Everquest 2 still and they continue to be where my PC game time is spent.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Okay, the story line and gameplay sucked too. I felt like I was playing a crappy remake of some last-ran B-Movie on SciFi.

No arguments on the story, but I usually give non-RPG games a free pass in that department anyway. I'll just have to disagree with you on the gameplay. It was repetitive, but never seemed to get old to me. The nanosuit was well done and imparted a definitive sense of super-human power. Enemy AI was good. The only poorly done parts of the game IMO was the vehicles, which seemed rather clunky and unnecessary most of the time (yes the VTOL flight at the end is horrendous), and multiplayer, which is unremarkable at best. All in all it's one of the more enjoyable games I've played in a while, and I look forward to the prospect of being able to see it in Ultra-high detail setting on future video card upgrades.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Darklife

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Crysis. Hands down. Major hype, craptacular performance, horribly inefficient graphics engine, and WAYYYYY not "groundbreaking" in either genre or graphics/technology.

x2

I wouldn't really say the graphics engine is inefficient. I don't understand how people can call it's graphics engine plain , compare the visuals of the snow levels with those of any other game on the market. Crysis wins hands down.

I wouldn't really say Crysis came out in 2008. People need to get their dates straight.

Originally posted by: brikis98
Of the games I played that were released in 2008, I can group them as follows:

Crap

Spore
Fallout 3
Call of Duty: World at War

Average

Assassin's Creed
Dead Space

Good

...


So I'd say the whole damn year has been pretty disappointing.

The 2008 releases I have purchased have been:

STALKER: Clear Sky
Crysis: Warhead
Mass Effect PC
Penny Arcade Adventures Episodes 1 and 2
Left 4 Dead


And they've all been rather enjoyable. Some better than others. Clear Sky and Left 4 Dead are definitely standouts. Mass Effect was excellent but a wee bit short.

What I'm trying to say is, stop buying the wrong games. I need to look into Dead Space though. I've heard it's worth the time.

Far Cry 2 and Assassin's Creed are just further evidence of Ubisoft's decline. Apparently, the company figured out that Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was the best fucking game they'd ever make and decided not try any more after that.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: ja1484
I wouldn't really say Crysis came out in 2008. People need to get their dates straight.

The release date was mid-November 2007... for all intents this was a game for 2008.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Far Cry 2 and Assassin's Creed are just further evidence of Ubisoft's decline. Apparently, the company figured out that Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was the best fucking game they'd ever make and decided not try any more after that.

Yep.

XIII was kinda fun, though. It got dull...but, at $7 at Half Price Books, I can't complain.

My biggest disappointment of 2008 was Fallout 2 - specifically, that nobody else seems to have played this truly excellent game. I've heard rumors of death threats following the cancellation of the original Fallout 3 - and now I can see why.

Second biggest disappointment was finding out that Bethesda decided to kill off Harold. I haven't played Fallout 3 yet, but I think it's a dang shame.

That said, death is not necessarily a permanent problem for everyone's favorite ghoul....

 

[Celstar]

warhammer online for me. Buggy, laggy, rushed to beat out WoW xpack and failed.

 

[Smilin]

Hellgate takes the crown for worst of 2007-2009 combined.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: ja1484
I wouldn't really say Crysis came out in 2008. People need to get their dates straight.

The release date was mid-November 2007... for all intents this was a game for 2008.

Read the sentence you just posted and ask yourself if you have a clear understanding of the english language.

 

[Oceandevi]

THIS IS SPOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ta

 

[Raduque]

I never was interested in Spore. "Life Simulators" (except for Sim City) bore me to tears. So, even though I didn't play it, from what I read about it, Spore was definitely the winner of the "Biggest Fail" award.

My biggest disappointment of 2008 so far is NFS: Undercover.

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Geez. I actually think some people would have liked the game better if Crytek had simply left out the highest graphics setting. Even though there IS a noticeable increase in visual detail for every setting, people wouldn't feel so bad about their shiny new $500 graphics card not being able to run a current gen game, and therefore wouldn't be going on about Crysis' "inefficient graphics engine". It runs more or less like I would expect it to considering how it looks. That makes me feel just as disappointed in my rig as it does anyone else, but some people seem to think that because Crytek didn't dumb the graphics down to the level of mainstream cards they did something wrong.

Since when is a $500 card a "mainstream card"?

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: ja1484
I wouldn't really say Crysis came out in 2008. People need to get their dates straight.

The release date was mid-November 2007... for all intents this was a game for 2008.

Read the sentence you just posted and ask yourself if you have a clear understanding of the english language.

He does. You just dont understand him.
He was saying that since it came out really late in 2007 that is was a game for 2008, which I can understand but dont agree with.

It seems like most of the hype and thrills in a game end about 1 month after it debuts. So in my mind its still a 2007 game.
Also, mid November leaves a month and a half for most of us game junkies to get it or hear hands-on reviews from others who got it first. That gives us plenty of time to be disappointed in 2007. So to me its a big disappointment for 2007, especially considering it was a Christmas game (being that you have plenty of time to buy during the Christmas shopping season).

His argument was it will be played mostly in 2008 since lots of folks who dont grab up new stuff immediately first experienced it sometime in 2008. Which is not a bad argument by AT standards.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Geez. I actually think some people would have liked the game better if Crytek had simply left out the highest graphics setting. Even though there IS a noticeable increase in visual detail for every setting, people wouldn't feel so bad about their shiny new $500 graphics card not being able to run a current gen game, and therefore wouldn't be going on about Crysis' "inefficient graphics engine". It runs more or less like I would expect it to considering how it looks. That makes me feel just as disappointed in my rig as it does anyone else, but some people seem to think that because Crytek didn't dumb the graphics down to the level of mainstream cards they did something wrong.

Since when is a $500 card a "mainstream card"?

It's not. I was exaggerating to make my point more evident. My point was that Crysis' graphics were too advanced for even the most expensive cards at the time of its release. That put a bee in the bonnets of people who had spent all that money on video cards and expected to be able to play every current generation game at max settings. Hence the complaints of an inefficient graphics engine. I think Crysis' graphics really are as good as their hardware requirements would indicate.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: ja1484
I wouldn't really say Crysis came out in 2008. People need to get their dates straight.

The release date was mid-November 2007... for all intents this was a game for 2008.

Read the sentence you just posted and ask yourself if you have a clear understanding of the english language.

He does. You just dont understand him.
He was saying that since it came out really late in 2007 that is was a game for 2008, which I can understand but dont agree with.


His argument was it will be played mostly in 2008 since lots of folks who dont grab up new stuff immediately first experienced it sometime in 2008. Which is not a bad argument by AT standards.

No, no...I understand what he's saying. It's just stupid.

Biggest disappointment of 2008. Not made in 2007 for 2008. Not interpreted by someone to be for 2008 because of its release date. Not biggest disappointment for him because he waited until 2008 to buy a game that came out in 2007.

If it was released in '07, it's out of the playing field.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: Darklife

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Crysis. Hands down. Major hype, craptacular performance, horribly inefficient graphics engine, and WAYYYYY not "groundbreaking" in either genre or graphics/technology.

x2

I wouldn't really say the graphics engine is inefficient. I don't understand how people can call it's graphics engine plain , compare the visuals of the snow levels with those of any other game on the market. Crysis wins hands down.

I think they are calling it an in-efficient graphics engine because it is/was damn near impossible to run it at highest settings.

Geez. I actually think some people would have liked the game better if Crytek had simply left out the highest graphics setting. Even though there IS a noticeable increase in visual detail for every setting, people wouldn't feel so bad about their shiny new $500 graphics card not being able to run a current gen game, and therefore wouldn't be going on about Crysis' "inefficient graphics engine". It runs more or less like I would expect it to considering how it looks. That makes me feel just as disappointed in my rig as it does anyone else, but some people seem to think that because Crytek didn't dumb the graphics down to the level of mainstream cards they did something wrong.

Okay, the story line and gameplay sucked too. I felt like I was playing a crappy remake of some last-ran B-Movie on SciFi.

exactly. everyone says that the people who don't like it, don't like it because they can't play it at the highest settings. it's completely untrue and just proves that people are only graphics whores any more.


Disappointments:

Age of Conan - I really like the Conan stories and lore, so when I heard I was able to play in that world I was excited.

Warhammer Online - supposedly the next big MMORPG but it turned out to be a lifeless WoW clone. Not that WoW is/was bad. I had fun going from 1-60 in WoW but then the constant raidfest sucked. I really couldn't even get into warhammer at the beginning.

Fallout 3 - Oblivion mod. Oblivion sucked. While this doesn't suck as much as oblivion, its still not a true Fallout successor.

Far Cry 2 - I loved it in the beginning but now its just the same thing over and over again with no real story.

Red Alert 3 - all i'm going to say is RIP C&C

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

It's not. I was exaggerating to make my point more evident. My point was that Crysis' graphics were too advanced for even the most expensive cards at the time of its release. That put a bee in the bonnets of people who had spent all that money on video cards and expected to be able to play every current generation game at max settings. Hence the complaints of an inefficient graphics engine. I think Crysis' graphics really are as good as their hardware requirements would indicate.

Wouldn't you think a "current generation" game would run well on the high-end "current generation" hardware? I'd think so, as it should be. Crysis isn't "current generation". It's "three generations from now".

But, I, and many others, believe Crytek could've given us both the good graphics AND good performance. Just like 3dmark Vantage, it doesn't look as good as it should for the way it runs.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: Darklife

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Crysis. Hands down. Major hype, craptacular performance, horribly inefficient graphics engine, and WAYYYYY not "groundbreaking" in either genre or graphics/technology.

x2

I wouldn't really say the graphics engine is inefficient. I don't understand how people can call it's graphics engine plain , compare the visuals of the snow levels with those of any other game on the market. Crysis wins hands down.

I think they are calling it an in-efficient graphics engine because it is/was damn near impossible to run it at highest settings.

Geez. I actually think some people would have liked the game better if Crytek had simply left out the highest graphics setting. Even though there IS a noticeable increase in visual detail for every setting, people wouldn't feel so bad about their shiny new $500 graphics card not being able to run a current gen game, and therefore wouldn't be going on about Crysis' "inefficient graphics engine". It runs more or less like I would expect it to considering how it looks. That makes me feel just as disappointed in my rig as it does anyone else, but some people seem to think that because Crytek didn't dumb the graphics down to the level of mainstream cards they did something wrong.

Exactly

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

It's not. I was exaggerating to make my point more evident. My point was that Crysis' graphics were too advanced for even the most expensive cards at the time of its release. That put a bee in the bonnets of people who had spent all that money on video cards and expected to be able to play every current generation game at max settings. Hence the complaints of an inefficient graphics engine. I think Crysis' graphics really are as good as their hardware requirements would indicate.

Wouldn't you think a "current generation" game would run well on the high-end "current generation" hardware? I'd think so, as it should be. Crysis isn't "current generation". It's "three generations from now".

But, I, and many others, believe Crytek could've given us both the good graphics AND good performance. Just like 3dmark Vantage, it doesn't look as good as it should for the way it runs.

I quite simply disagree. I think the only way they could have given significantly better performance would be to reduce the quality of the graphics noticeably. The very highest detail setting in Crysis runs like shit on current hardware, but it also stands alone as the best looking game there is.

There is no other game I know of that you can point to and say "See?" "This game looks as good as Crysis at max detail and runs much better". The best anyone could say is that game X at max settings looks as good as Crysis at one or two steps below max settings and runs about the same, and that's not saying too much when you think about it. Which is why I mentioned the idea of Crytek removing the highest detail settings to make everyone feel better, because then they'd have a game that "only" looks as good as any other game out there while running about as fast as any other game out there. Obviously this would REDUCE the value of Crysis rather than adding to it, but perception is everything in the end.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Biggest disappointment? Direction of DRM,

so I couldn't even allow myself to be disappointed by Spore, because I have to boycott EA, so I couldn't even buy it.

I've found myself doing something similar.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

It's not. I was exaggerating to make my point more evident. My point was that Crysis' graphics were too advanced for even the most expensive cards at the time of its release. That put a bee in the bonnets of people who had spent all that money on video cards and expected to be able to play every current generation game at max settings. Hence the complaints of an inefficient graphics engine. I think Crysis' graphics really are as good as their hardware requirements would indicate.

Wouldn't you think a "current generation" game would run well on the high-end "current generation" hardware? I'd think so, as it should be. Crysis isn't "current generation". It's "three generations from now".

But, I, and many others, believe Crytek could've given us both the good graphics AND good performance. Just like 3dmark Vantage, it doesn't look as good as it should for the way it runs.

I quite simply disagree. I think the only way they could have given significantly better performance would be to reduce the quality of the graphics noticeably. The very highest detail setting in Crysis runs like shit on current hardware, but it also stands alone as the best looking game there is.

There is no other game I know of that you can point to and say "See?" "This game looks as good as Crysis at max detail and runs much better". The best anyone could say is that game X at max settings looks as good as Crysis at one or two steps below max settings and runs about the same, and that's not saying too much when you think about it. Which is why I mentioned the idea of Crytek removing the highest detail settings to make everyone feel better, because then they'd have a game that "only" looks as good as any other game out there while running about as fast as any other game out there. Obviously this would REDUCE the value of Crysis rather than adding to it, but perception is everything in the end.

define current hardware

i can run crysis on my current hardware - c2d e8400 @3.6 Ghz, 4gb ram, crossfied 4850s at 1680x1050 with all settings MAXED and get 40+ FPS average and even up into the 70s in some areas.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: pontifex

define current hardware

i can run crysis on my current hardware - c2d e8400 @3.6 Ghz, 4gb ram, crossfied 4850s at 1680x1050 with all settings MAXED and get 40+ FPS average and even up into the 70s in some areas.

Hmm...I guess the hardware has caught up with Crysis after all, but 40 FPS average usually means dips into the low 20s at times in my experience. That's playable, but irritatingly noticeable when it slows down. I'd say if your lowest framerate at any time was 30 you're golden. I'm hoping my next graphics card update will put me there.

My point still stands and will stand long after graphics cards are eating Crysis for lunch, though.