TheGameReviews takes a look back at six great video game trailers that blew them away - it's just a shame that the games themselves turned out to be blowouts. Be warned: actual gameplay may vary.
I actually liked all those games, even Hellgate: London.
How could you? Scoring lower than 9/10 means it's downright unplayable!
Most of those games are pretty fun, none where spectacular, but neither where they really bad
and how did you like Alone in the Dark? great hype surrounding it but if you dare play it...... :(
Especially Silent Hill 4, that was incredible. Everything down to the story, to the atmosphere, to the music, to the new combat, it's still one of my favorite. I think that most fans just didn't like the change.
Silent Hill 4...my heart still aches for you. SUCH A GREAT FRICKIN PREMISE!
Haha great stuff. Too often the hype that surrounds a game ends up getting confused with its actual quality when it's looked back on. This is a nice b**** slap to those fake classics like Assassin's Creed.
prototype belongs in there too
@ Exclusive I don't think so because honestly... The trailer didn't do much for me..
I quite liked Assassin's Creed but it wasn't as good as the hype made it out to be.
..and how many review sites bathed that game in 9s? if you remember back then, the game was riddled with the most atrocious buggs it was ridiculous how it managed to rate 9 and up from sites like GT etc This was truly a prime example that if you think editorial reviewing gaming sites are legit and have no outside interest or influences on their rating games then you're just simply a hopeless sheep.
it was cus of that brunette chick developer that the game got so much attention
So much wasted potential. Especially Rule of Rose. Man, that game should have been amazing.
Oh Hellgate - you took my heart with that trailer, then STAMPED ON IT WITH STILETTO'S. Such a wasted concept, such a lot of money thrown down the bog.
Those Hellgate trailers were OFF THE CHAIN! When I actually saw gameplay I was like "oh no they didn't!"
I like most of these games. Am I weird? and What'S good with N4G today? the site is bugging out
Silent Hill: The Room and Lair were both good games. Lair was just really short and was bad without the control patch. Assassin's Creed was definitely a big letdown though...
Well if you know a little about me you'll know I'm a huge advocate for the game LAIR. I just will never understand how people that call themselves gamers had problems with the game's controls. I mean, I'm just a normal average gamer but eventually I could even play the whole game with one hand for crying out loud and even when the analog patch came out 2yrs ago you got people going "meh, it's too late" ... TO LATE?! it only came out 5months ago?! lol Oyi yoi yoi. If you can't play a game that's 5months hold what about Mario3 from decades back? that's too late to enjoy too? Madness. Back in the day, gamers just played games. No matter the learning curve we just learnt it, played it and beat it. Nowadays gamers want easy games to stroke their egos. If it presents a bit of thinking or a challenge of any sort it's labeled as "Broken". Ironically I've never seen a proper broken game since 1994 and back. Gamers today are just insanely jaded and spoilt I find and I hope developers dont' cave in the whims of the emotionally challenged gamers of today. You look at that list and see a lot of fantastic great gaming experiences but alas, if it ain't "AAA" or a 9.5 from <insert conglomerate gaming site here> then it's "teh flopz" and crap. I remember when your imagination used to work over time with game graphics. You'd see green Ving out on the screen with blue in the middle and brown on the bottom and you could visualize you were in the forest... and they have jaggies the size of my head! The other day I read some usual EMO newage gamer crying about "..teh jaggies on GeoW" and I'm like ... " WHAT?!" Oh I pray for the day when these gaming sites are looked at with a massive grain of salt and can't dictate what the gaming community experiences with our games. *takes deep breath* lol
Just because you can figure the controls out eventually doesn't make them good...
agreed chubear have a bubble well said
...and just because some gamers are impatient and can't be bothered to learn new things doesn't mean the controls were bad either. It swings both ways. Personally I thought it was a great idea to go for the motion controls with Lair. The problem is these days that if a game isn't a pick-up-and-play kinda game then people are put off way too easy. The first game I used the motion controls for (and still do) was Warhawk. Tbh, I'd like to see matches in Warhawk where motion flight is required, that would seriously whittle out the skilled fliers from those that can't handle it.
I guess I'm on the right side, i didn't fall for any of those games, though I'm itching to rent Assassin’s Creed and give it a go in case the second one turns out to be good.
you're missing out on some great games. This article is full of s***
Assassin's Creed is a good game. It's repetitive, but no more repetitive than FPS shooters and such. After playing FPS games for 10 years with no decent stories, I played Assassin's Creed with a lot of joy and the story itself was wonderful for me. Nothing ever lives up to the hype of a trailer. It usually cannot because the trailer is usually a CGI render of the game. Remember Killzone 2. It's a great game and looks beautiful but it doesn't live up to the trailer 100 percent to me.
wait wait wait first up, AC was/is a good game and a great attempt at bring something new to gamers but that being said, the game is the poster child for repetitive gameplay. Even if you enjoyed it you'd have to atleast acknowlegde that and no, FPS are not repetitive. Having a mechanic of a genre repeat isn't repetitive gameplay at all. Secondly, I don't know if you've actually played Killzone 2 but if you have it's not even remotely an argument that GG surpassed that 2005 trailer in spades. One would have to be blind not to obviously see this.
i'm still amazed when i play the game.
Dudes, I agree that Killzone 2 is an amazing looking game, but there are some things about the game that did not surpass the trailer. For example - explosions and fire effects. In the 05 target render the smoke effects are much more volumetric than in the final build of the game. If you don't agree, please go watch the trailer again. My opinion of the CGI render is that it takes some aspects of the gameplay and makes them much more polished. Particle effects in the explosion are much clearer and the smoke that comes from the explosions in the 05 trailer don't dissipate as quickly, which means they stay on screen much longer. But in the final build of the game, the smoke disappears much quicker after the explosion as taken place, so quickly that it feels unrealistic. If you don't believe me go play the section of the game where you have to blow up the bridge with the RPG. The explosion is fantastic by console standards but the smoke disappears much too quickly. I'm not bashing the game's visuals because they look much better than anything on consoles, even 10 times better than Gears of War where smoke effects disappear almost immediately after a frag explodes. As for Assassin's Creed, yes the game is very repetitive but I still think that FPS shooters are inherently repetitive. Of course, the fact that FPS shooters rely on the mechanic of killing enemies over and over again to reach from point A to B makes it impossible for them to be varied in some sense. Assassin's Creed is repetitive in the sense that every mission is modeled in the same exact way. But like I said, because I am used to playing repetitive shooters like Halo, I was okay with playing AC because at least there was a refreshing story.
I understand where you're coming from with FPS's but it truly depends on what ones you choose to play. Old school FPS games are based on the frag-or-be-fragged premise with games like Doom, Quake and Unreal Tournament. Modern FPS games now have some serious twists to the gameplay, the Battlefield games are a prime example of this. The capture and hold style of play allows players to not only go around guns blazing but also allows them to sneak around the map taking zones and earning points. It gives the FPS genre more variety. The game I think best proves my point is the upcoming MAG. Yes it may be an FPS and yes you'll probably have to kill a lot of enemies but the emphasis is on teamwork and backing up your team-mates to complete objectives. The classic FPS gameplay really has evolved. In Call of Duty I'm much more of an assassin and stealthy player than I could have ever been in the old school FPS games. No genre can immediately be classed as repetitive because the gaming industry is evolving all the time.
It's not the style of play that makes FPS seem repetitive to me. It's basically what happens. There are many ways to kill people in FPS, but that doesn't change the repetitive nature of the game - the fact that I will basically be killing the same enemies over and over again in my quest to complete an objective. This happens in Bioshock, Halo, Half-Life, Doom, Call of Duty (WAW), Timeshift, Gears of War (not an FPS but still a shooter game), Killzone, Resistance, and many more. It's also the story of behind these games that make them seem very repetitive, especially if you compare them to each other. Look at how many game plots revolve around Humans vs. aliens in a last stand for humanity. Resistance Halo Half-Life Killzone Gears of War Quake See how repetitive it is? Assassin's Creed was also super repetitive. I don't know why they made it that way. In the end, however, I was at least satisfied that there was a different story.
Want to talk about trailers lying to you? Transformers 2. The movie.
Ohh definitely, as much as I wanted to like it, I couldn't. There was just too much wrong with it. On the plus side, Megan Fox was looking hotter than ever.
If you look at trailers for what they ARE...then it is REALLY hard for them to lie. Videogame trailers have gone the way of MOVIE trailers. They are meant to give you a 2-3 min. snapshot of what you should expect when you play the game. It just so happens that they usually give you the BEST part of the movie/game to judge. Point being, if you spend $60 based on a 3 min. snapshot...well you were the target audience. Personally, I take trailers with a "grain of salt". Most of them now a day sell you on the concept or the story anyway. Sometimes, gameplay mechanics aren't even solidified when the trailers are created. That being said, I thought Assassin's Creed was a good game. I never thought it was great. I even kinda liked Silent Hill 4. Didn't play Hellgate. Lair was cool to watch, but didn't really ever interest me. Killzone 2 delivered everything I expected (cuz I didn't even think they could come close to the CG render)!!!
Far Cry 2.
Assassin's Creed was a very repetative game, but in all honesty, I really enjoyed it. The developers said that they're trying to kill the repetative elements in AC2, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the new mission structure works better than AC1.
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.