GameZone looks at six examples of games that either failed to reach the hearts of buyers or earned the scorn of critics.
Homefront didn't fail. It did well in sales. It just wasnt as good of a game as people hoped.
If we all judged games by sales then Modern Warfare 3 was the best game of 2011.
... it didn't fail because of lousy marketing, but more due to releasing a platformer for full-price in the holiday season. Most people expected this to be a downloadable game for 1200MSP/15 dollars TOP. Now those people are just waiting for it to drop down severely in price before they pick it up. It's simply overpriced. It's a great game, but in today's market, it's overpriced.
Yes the story did sux but the multiplayer was awesome IMO you got points for doing stuff then you could buy stuff to help out the team. @Below notice how i said IMO it was awesome if you think it was like cod then i can respect that to each his own.
Multiplayer was awesome? Same as all other COD games if you ask me..
they forgot about resistance 3
"[Brink's] AI was not as sharp as it could've been." *eye twitches* I recently bought the game for $0.50 on eBay (Now I know why) and, DAMN, did it suck. Turning on the game, I was greeted by ugly face choices and whatnot, but let's just get down to my point, shall we? The AI is balls. How balls? Well, about as balls as you can imagine. I have tried 7 times and can't beat the second level on the campaign in solo mode. The AI is just so terrible, whether by sucking incredibly hard or by almost cheating. Oh, and it feels GREAT having to do all of the objectives by myself because my AI homies either don't change class or die dozens of times before they get to my location. So, yes, I'm the one switching classes, doing the objectives (while the entire enemy team shoots at me, no less), and doing the killing. All the while, those 60 FPS feel incredibly sluggish and STUPID. *sigh* I really needed to get some Brink anger off my chest.
While I agree it is awful... ITS NOT THAT BAD. I beat the full campaign on hard with the AI within a day... so I mean it's hard impossible, though more difficult than it should be.
Really? I mean, the AI sucks and the game flopped, and I was very disappointed (bought at 60$ on release)... but I beat the campaign in one day on hard, I didn't think it was very hard at all.
Well, maybe the AI was just good with you, but it's been screwing me over time and time again. And I'm REALLY good at FPS games, yet I can't get past that mission, even on easy. Pisses me off.
Lol, Im with Evil....Brink was horrible. The premise of the game wasnt that hard but if you tie in a broken AI to a game that hinges on teamwork...well then you're screwed. As for beating the campaign quickly I wouldnt say thats much considering it was 8 missions twice from opposing sides. Biggest letdown of 2011.
Waazzaaaaaap, antz! But, yeah, I got royally jones'd. The game was clearly not designed for a CoD-esque style of gameplay. Unfortunately, the AI was about as intelligent as your average CoD player (yeah, I'll hate on you too, antz. Ya traitor :P). While I knew coming into this game that it was going to be multiplayer-based, it doesn't give an excuse for such retarded AI. And, hell, let's not forget how, um... "excellent" the MP was at launch and for a good few months after that. DAMN SERVERS, LET ME IN.
Heeeeeeey buddy! My friends played it at PAX and got in early due to an ongoing correspondence my friend had with a Splash Damage dev. The dev was talking to them about where they were going to go with the game in terms of dlc, abilities, and story. They said it was fantastic and they were more hurt than I was when we got it. This douche had basically lied to them about everything, and at this point my friend had already got alot of people, myself included, on the Brink train. At least he had an outlet to tell them exactly what he thought of their product, bunch of scheisters.
Its because most of them are shooters which just cant seem to break the mold and offer some good addictive rewarding gameplay. Its all fast food gaming these days with multiplayer its get you in, get you out and it gives you easy to get kills with low health and high damage weapons without the realisim. Even BF3 didnt hold my interest as it seemed like just a brand name because the on foot was not enjoyable to me due to client side hit detection and the only good part was using the jets effectively on large maps in co ordination with a wingman. I just find high damage, low health games unrewarding to play because its instant gratification gameplay, you dont work for your kills as such and I guess to me that makes it unfufilling.... But hey man its just an opinion, you go out there and play whatever the **** you wanna play :)
SO... while most of the games on the list were failures based on their execution, Rayman made it because of... marketing? A critically praised game that probably didn't get the sales it deserved (yet; it's not like it's been out for that long, either) and it's somehow a failure?
Call of Juarez: The Cartel was SHIT Duke Nukem Forever was SHIT Brink was SHIT Homefront didnt fail Red Faction Armageddon. havent play it yet, got it off Steam for £3.74. Rayman Origins looks amazing but should of been a £10 downloadable game.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.