Biggest Disappointment of '07

The Witcher

Hellgate london , jericho and empire earth 3

[QUOTE="gogators4life"]

C&C 3

TA127

Are you high dude?!

Unlike you, no.

I have to agree with you, I really was hiped on this one and it turned down, I still play it but It was a dissapointment, BioShock I havent touched sence I beat it.

But One of the most dissapointing game for me was Call of Duty 4, just because its too short! I beat it easy! Lucky theres multiplayer but I was really thinking this would be a game that would of got a 9.6 Out of 10 or somthing,

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, and The Disappointment

I wouldn't call Call of Duty 4 a disipontment by any means, the graphics were awesome, the gameplay was awesome, but it was short. I also didn't like how the american campaign just ends and thats it. Overall it was a great game

I, have to agree that Bioshock was a disapointment, it has awesome graphics, but the story was lame, they left no real room for an expansion of sequel, and there really wasn't much to expolore either it was really set on this is where you go and this is how you get there.

another would have to be Battlestar Galactica, it looked like it was going to be a 3d space shooter, but it came out looking like it was created for a target audience of 4 years olds, the graphics were juvinille based, goofy looking, you could not explore anywhere other than in the given zone, the story was a joke. I love the show and was hoping they would do a good job, just a another disapointment, it would be nice to have a BSG RTS.

Clive Barkers Jerhico, Tv Spot's, awesome demo, great hype, total let down. They should change the name to CLive Barkers Let Down. The graphics were ok, game play was horrible the main character dies and they use his soul as crutch to finish the game out, the ai was retarded, and to sum it all the ending was a joke, first thing i did when i beat it was to see if there was an alternate ending and low and behold nope, Jerhico must go as the biggest disappointment for in 2007.

My list

3)Bioshock

2)Hellgate London

And the prize goes to

1)Quake Wars

Anything shoved out the door this year by EA, C&C, Hellgate, Prostreet and so on. onlyexception isCrysis which i think made it well past the clear point for EA to mess that up.

Right now there is cause for sleepless nights as to whether EA in conjunction with Mythic will f*** up Warhammer Online, in which case i'll stop looking at the MMO genre all together.

kane&lynch- i thought it would be an amazing game because it had the potantial :(

nfs-ps just sucks :(

Toss up between Bioshock or Crysis. I say Bioshock because the gameplay is so dull let alone story made absolutly no sense, however I love the quotes and environments. I included Crysis cause I expcted alot not only from visuals but for gameplay and the gamepaly felt as if I played it already let alone the optimization was very poor to enjoy the visuals.

On the side note Im dissapointed with the Xbox 360 and thus far will always be a dissapointmentuntil they fix the rrod issue. From now on the xbox 360 will be label as the xbox3sh***y. I WANT TO PLAY PERFECT DARK ZERO!:cry:

1: Hellgate London: It's painfully obvious its the New Daikatana

2: Kane and Lynch: "And these are the same guys entrusted with doing Deus-ex 3"...I'm afraid.

3: Soldier of Fortune Payback: How to ruin a great franchise in one budget title.

Easy choice for me as I am running Vista with SLI.

Crysis was easily my biggest let down.

And Still no SLI patch that was promised by the time the game was released.

Just Lie after Lie about how Crysis runs best on quad cores (only uses one core at the moment)...

Nothing worse then someone who makes all these promises and cant keep any of them... Reminds me of my old girlfriend.

C&C 3, EE 3 and Jericho for being the most shallow games ever; with no pros also

at least Hellgate London has some neet atmoshpere; wich i like

no facts, just opinions

1. Bioshock (i didnt even finish the game. I lost interest even though i was far into it)

2. The lack of good games for the pc this year. Idont play rts so my library of games to choose from is smaller. Most pc games are also on the 360 and i usually rent them first on the 360 to see if i like them. The only game i purchased for the pc this year was Crysis which was awesome bythe way.

3. UT3 (graphics are bad. Doesnt even look like a 2007 game even at 1680^1050. Unless the retail version is much better than the demo i will not buy it) Maybe my standards are too high

I hope they come out with some better games for the pc next year. I hopei didnt upgrade my comp only for crysis. Project Offset is my most anticipated game if it doesnt come out in 08 ill be pissed

[QUOTE="Alkpaz"]You Are Empty seems like the new Big Rigs of 07 :)mrbojangles25

Hahah ya, it got a 1.5 didnt it?

But honestly, were you disappointed? I think everyone was expecting that game to bomb.

Actually, at one time I did have it on my wishlist.. lol Was I disappointed? no. Too many good games out this year, heck look at the top PC games 3 of the top 07 games lead by Diablo 1 are at the top. Diablo 1 scoring a 9.6 Either the reviewers are just going nuts and handing out 9.0s or its been a very good year for the PC.. and one that will probably not happen for a while.. considering the trend.

I didn't look at the console ratings though and compare/contrast the good years for the PC vs the bad years.. but it would be interesting to see the comparison.

If anything I would have to say I was disappointed mainly with World in Conflict.. I picked it up, installed it then it ran like garbage.. had to tone the settings down to medium-low. (This was upon release) I have yet to try it again with a patch.. but I will.. just give me time! :)

I was a little late on getting Hellgate though and by the time I got it.. some of the major eyesores were pretty much gone.. now with the .5 patch it seems even better.. another patch is due out soon to fix the "invisible party members" bug.. but I go solo most of the time anyway, and chat a ton when I die in Nightmare.. (which is a lot of the time) being a lvl 36 and facing off a horde of 45s isn't cool. Also, leveling after you hit 36 becomes very hard.. been playing since this morning and still have not reached 37 (only 100K more xp to go though) was 1.2mil xp from the beginning....

BTW, my nick on Hellgate is TheOri go figure.. kinda was amped about Season 10 of SG-1 :)

Toss up between Bioshock or Crysis. I say Bioshock because the gameplay is so dull let alone story made absolutly no sense, however I love the quotes and environments. I included Crysis cause I expcted alot not only from visuals but for gameplay and the gamepaly felt as if I played it already let alone the optimization was very poor to enjoy the visuals.OoSuperMarioO

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Toss up between Bioshock or Crysis. I say Bioshock because the gameplay is so dull let alone story made absolutly no sense, however I love the quotes and environments. I included Crysis cause I expcted alot not only from visuals but for gameplay and the gamepaly felt as if I played it already let alone the optimization was very poor to enjoy the visuals.foxhound_fox

Hehe what??? :) Good optimization means you can run a new game great on older hardware. Doom3, far cry and hl2 all could be run on medium settings awesome with old hardware, crysis eats older hardware. New hardware should be able to max a new game with ease and even there crysis can eat new hardware and it dosnt even look that superb. I mean it looks great, ive seen it on high settings at a friend but it still just looks great, i mean every new game these days looks great, the thrill is gone. Doom 3 still looks great.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

I was hyped for about a week before, and when I played it, I almost barfed. It's really bad, bad game. Just the lipsynching alone was enough to drive me insine. Or the garbage controls. Poor graphics and framerate, along with a "fake" sandbox feel.

I wish I had more hands, so I could give that game four thumbs down.

As for Bioshock, I wasn't totally sold on it to begin with. It exceed my expections, but they weren't very high for starters. Overall it's a meh kinda game.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Toss up between Bioshock or Crysis. I say Bioshock because the gameplay is so dull let alone story made absolutly no sense, however I love the quotes and environments. I included Crysis cause I expcted alot not only from visuals but for gameplay and the gamepaly felt as if I played it already let alone the optimization was very poor to enjoy the visuals.foxhound_fox

Crysis is so poorly optimized for the systems they said it would run on it's not even funny.

Read my post...

The Witcher

Septiva

Ummm, what?

Sorry, I know its your opinion, but for my own curiosity please explain how this disappointed you when, from my experience, it has yet to let down a single person on these boards.

Like I said, not trying to be a jerk. Im just curious.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Toss up between Bioshock or Crysis. I say Bioshock because the gameplay is so dull let alone story made absolutly no sense, however I love the quotes and environments. I included Crysis cause I expcted alot not only from visuals but for gameplay and the gamepaly felt as if I played it already let alone the optimization was very poor to enjoy the visuals.mimic-Denmark

Hehe what??? :) Good optimization means you can run a new game great on older hardware. Doom3, far cry and hl2 all could be run on medium settings awesome with old hardware, crysis eats older hardware. New hardware should be able to max a new game with ease.

Wow, just wow

The optimization in Crysis is anything but poor, I mean have you even taken a look at their tech? They don't fake anything, the entire damn island is there, they don't fake the clouds, they are there. Compare it to CoD 4 where you're in a maze with the illusion that there's more stuff around you. Crysis isn't poorly optimized, it's extremely well optimized. No other engine on the planet can render such huge environments in such detail. Having a real island in the distance instead of a skybox maybe doesn't make that big of a deal, but performance wise, it's insane that they've pulled it off.

A new rig should be able to max any new game with ease? För mycket pilser för dig eller? First of all, you can play Crysis on older hardware JUST AS WELL as you could with Crysis, the difference might seem larger just because the higher settings on Crysis break a realism barrier which is really noticable. When a company makes a game they try to predict how much computers in X years will be capable of and they shoot for that. Some companies make games that are less demanding than what the best computers at the time can handle, and others overshoot. Crysis may have overshot by a small margin, except there are new GFX cards around the corner.

No, it's not a rule that "new hardware should be able to max a new game with ease". Every computer has been new at some point. If Crysis were released two years ago no machine would've been able to max it and that would have had NOTHING to do with optimization, it has to do with physical limitations of processing power. They've included locked rendering options to future proof the game, so it's not necessarily so that a new rig in 1 years can "max" Crysis even then.

Would it have been better if they had made the graphics worse just so that new rigs could max it? That wouldn't have inceased the capacity of those rigs. They could have scrapped the "very high" setting in its entierty and the game would stil look better than anything out and more rigs could max it. Be glad that they didn't instead of complaining

crysis is not poorly optimized.

its just that crysis is a resource hog and crytek lied about how well it would run

optimization (computer science)

- improving a system to reduce runtime, bandwidth, memory requirements, or other property of a system; in particular

Compiler optimization

- improving the performance or efficiency of compiled code

crysis is well optimized; just very hardware intensive

Hehe what??? :) Good optimization means you can run a new game great on older hardware. Doom3, far cry and hl2 all could be run on medium settings awesome with old hardware, crysis eats older hardware. New hardware should be able to max a new game with ease and even there crysis can eat new hardware and it dosnt even look that superb. I mean it looks great, ive seen it on high settings at a friend but it still just looks great, i mean every new game these days looks great, the thrill is gone. Doom 3 still looks great.mimic-Denmark

[QUOTE="Septiva"]

The Witcher

mrbojangles25

Ummm, what?

Sorry, I know its your opinion, but for my own curiosity please explain how this disappointed you when, from my experience, it has yet to let down a single person on these boards.

Like I said, not trying to be a jerk. Im just curious.

Thats more like swedish you wrote there ;) And no, because i dont drink.

Far Cry gave the same illusion, its just in better detail in crysis. And if get down to in technical then its great what they did, but doom3 gave me the illusions of the mars base, hl2 gave me the illusion of a occupied world, what more do you want? Freedom, far cry gave us that.

[QUOTE="mimic-Denmark"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Toss up between Bioshock or Crysis. I say Bioshock because the gameplay is so dull let alone story made absolutly no sense, however I love the quotes and environments. I included Crysis cause I expcted alot not only from visuals but for gameplay and the gamepaly felt as if I played it already let alone the optimization was very poor to enjoy the visuals.kyrieee

Hehe what??? :) Good optimization means you can run a new game great on older hardware. Doom3, far cry and hl2 all could be run on medium settings awesome with old hardware, crysis eats older hardware. New hardware should be able to max a new game with ease.

Wow, just wow

The optimization in Crysis is anything but poor, I mean have you even taken a look at their tech? They don't fake anything, the entire damn island is there, they don't fake the clouds, they are there. Compare it to CoD 4 where you're in a maze with the illusion that there's more stuff around you. Crysis isn't poorly optimized, it's extremely well optimized. No other engine on the planet can render such huge environments in such detail. Having a real island in the distance instead of a skybox maybe doesn't make that big of a deal, but performance wise, it's insane that they've pulled it off.

A new rig should be able to max any new game with ease? För mycket pilser för dig eller? First of all, you can play Crysis on older hardware JUST AS WELL as you could with Crysis, the difference might seem larger just because the higher settings on Crysis break a realism barrier which is really noticable. When a company makes a game they try to predict how much computers in X years will be capable of and they shoot for that. Some companies make games that are less demanding than what the best computers at the time can handle, and others overshoot. Crysis may have overshot by a small margin, except there are new GFX cards around the corner.

No, it's not a rule that "new hardware should be able to max a new game with ease". Every computer has been new at some point. If Crysis was released two years ago no machine would've been able to max it and that would have NOTHING to do with optimization, it has to do with physical limitations of processing power. They've included locked rendering options to future proof the game, so it's not nessesarly so that a new rig in 1 years can "max" Crysis even then.

Would it have been better if they had made the graphics worse just so that new rigs could max it? That wouldn't have inceased the capacity of those rigs. They could have scrapped the "very high" setting in its entierty and the game would stil look better than anything out and more rigs could max it. Be glad that they didn't instead of complaining

Your missing the point...

It only runs good on certain configurations reguardless of your systems power.

For example... I could run on high no problem when I had my single gtx running it... I went to SLI and it runs like poop.

Also, no dual or quad core support....???????????

If you call that optimized then we are done talking.

Your missing the point...

It only runs good on certain configurations reguardless of your systems power.

For example... I could run on high no problem when I had my single gtx running it... I went to SLI and it runs like poop.

Also, no dual or quad core support....???????????

If you call that optimized then we are done talking.

cperry005

[QUOTE="cperry005"]Your missing the point...

It only runs good on certain configurations reguardless of your systems power.

For example... I could run on high no problem when I had my single gtx running it... I went to SLI and it runs like poop.

Also, no dual or quad core support....???????????

If you call that optimized then we are done talking.

foxhound_fox

Man... I'll say it again optimized or not it doesnt do anything they claimed it would.

They said "crysis runs best on quad cores" oh really? it only uses one core.

They said "crysis will support SLI with a patch by the retail release date. oh really? where is the patch?

It's a 1 CPU and 1 GPU game and thats why it cant be opend up... it's poor.

I'm not saying they wont fix it but untell they do it's my biggest letdown just IMO though.

Man... I'll say it again optimized or not it doesnt do anything they claimed it would.

They said "crysis runs best on quad cores" oh really? it only uses one core.

They said "crysis will support SLI with a patch by the retail release date. oh really? where is the patch?

It's a 1 CPU and 1 GPU game and thats why it cant be opend up... it's poor.

I'm not saying they wont fix it but untell they do it's my biggest letdown just IMO though.

cperry005

[QUOTE="cperry005"]Man... I'll say it again optimized or not it doesnt do anything they claimed it would.

They said "crysis runs best on quad cores" oh really? it only uses one core.

They said "crysis will support SLI with a patch by the retail release date. oh really? where is the patch?

It's a 1 CPU and 1 GPU game and thats why it cant be opend up... it's poor.

I'm not saying they wont fix it but untell they do it's my biggest letdown just IMO though.

foxhound_fox

It's a letdown because it doesnt run on the hardware they said it runs best on...

Simple.

I know it only uses one core because when I bring up the performance monitor it is only using 1 core.

Other games can use 2 cores and some can use all 4.

I just get bent out of shape when people say one thing and do the opposite.

#1 - Hellgate London

#2 - Quake Wars

#3 - Unreal Tournament 3

I would say Bioshock but I never anticipated it considering it always looked mediocre. So instead I'll say Hellgate London. I've had high hopes for the game. It always looked "iffy" but I was hoping the developers knew what they were doing. A runners up is Quake Wars. Quake Wars definitely didn't do it for me. Neither did UT3.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="cperry005"]Man... I'll say it again optimized or not it doesnt do anything they claimed it would.

They said "crysis runs best on quad cores" oh really? it only uses one core.

They said "crysis will support SLI with a patch by the retail release date. oh really? where is the patch?

It's a 1 CPU and 1 GPU game and thats why it cant be opend up... it's poor.

I'm not saying they wont fix it but untell they do it's my biggest letdown just IMO though.

cperry005

It's a letdown because it doesnt run on the hardware they said it runs best on...

Simple.

I know it only uses one core because when I bring up the performance monitor it is only using 1 core.

Other games can use 2 cores and some can use all 4.

I just get bent out of shape when people say one thing and do the opposite.

You're full of it bro. Stop being such a graphics whore. I max the game on an 8800GTS (except for AA) and it looks amazing.

I would say Bioshock but I never anticipated it considering it always looked mediocre.GodLovesDead

#1 - Hellgate London

#2 - Quake Wars

#3 - Unreal Tournament 3

I would say Bioshock but I never anticipated it considering it always looked mediocre. So instead I'll say Hellgate London. I've had high hopes for the game. It always looked "iffy" but I was hoping the developers knew what they were doing. A runners up is Quake Wars. Quake Wars definitely didn't do it for me. Neither did UT3.

[QUOTE="cperry005"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="cperry005"]Man... I'll say it again optimized or not it doesnt do anything they claimed it would.

They said "crysis runs best on quad cores" oh really? it only uses one core.

They said "crysis will support SLI with a patch by the retail release date. oh really? where is the patch?

It's a 1 CPU and 1 GPU game and thats why it cant be opend up... it's poor.

I'm not saying they wont fix it but untell they do it's my biggest letdown just IMO though.

GodLovesDead

It's a letdown because it doesnt run on the hardware they said it runs best on...

Simple.

I know it only uses one core because when I bring up the performance monitor it is only using 1 core.

Other games can use 2 cores and some can use all 4.

I just get bent out of shape when people say one thing and do the opposite.

You're full of it bro. Stop being such a graphics whore. I max the game on an 8800GTS (except for AA) and it looks amazing.

sigh...

I have a widescreen with a native resolution at 1920 x 1200 lets see your GTS do anything at that res... not gonna happen.

Dx 10,little eye candy improvements with performance crushing even top-of-the-line PC's,enough said.

Not much else really.

1. Hellgate london - What the hell were they thinking ? had a great fanbase, solid fun core gameplay, cool idea etc but the spoiled it

2. Bioshock - although the game was not really bad, but the reviews and hype really made me excited for this game and eventually i was dissapointed badly. i cannot understand how so many reviewers gave it a 10

Your expectations have NOTHING to do with how optimized the game is.

Besides, if you're saying it doesn't have dual core support then you're full of ****. I've seen the game use two cores, physics runs in a separate thread and I'm pretty sure streaming is a lot more efficient with two cores. No quad core support? Well I haven't seen their source code so I can't really comment, but know that if you have a top of the line C2D and a top of the line 8800 you GPU will bottleneck the game. You won't be at 100% CPU usage on both cores because the CPU can handle the game. If a C2D can handle the game then it won't run better with a quad because the CPU is not the problem.

edit: oh, and if at some point you aren't at 100% both cores and you're not rendering much then maybe it's because whatever the CPU is doing doesn't scale well over multiple cores. Guess what, double the cores is not double the performance. Making SupCop use 4 cores soooo much easier than making an arbitrary algorithm scale well, but I don't expect you to know crap about multi core optimization.

Your expectations have NOTHING to do with how optimized the game is.

Besides, if you're saying it doesn't have dual core support then you're full of ****. I've seen the game use two cores, physics runs in a separate thread and I'm pretty sure streaming is a lot more efficient with two cores. No quad core support? Well I haven't seen their source code so I can't really comment, but know that if you have a top of the line C2D and a top of the line 8800 you GPU will bottleneck the game. You won't be at 100% CPU usage on both cores because the CPU can handle the game. If a C2D can handle the game then it won't run better with a quad because the CPU is not the problem.

kyrieee

Do you have a dual core?

I do remember the mulitplayer beta using all 4 of my cores at about 50%

Funny how someone can tell me I'm full of @#$% when I can clearly see the retail single player only uses one core.

If it is using the second core I can hardly tell if it is or not...

But hey go ahead and try to make yourself sound smart.

Funny how alot of other forums have people saying the same thing about no multithreded support in retail.

I wouldnt expect you to know anything about multithreading from your post anyway. heheh

Hellgate London hands down by far without a doubt. Not just because the game mechanics are horrid, the monsters repeated throughtout the entire game, the non existent confusing storyline, the lacklust spells and effects, the sad excuse for cut scenes, the barrage of bugs littered throughout, the lack of community, laughable themed events ect.

But ontop of all of that, they tricked people into believing that the $150 liftime founders subscription was on a limited time frame, and they promised all these features, half of which were not implemented on the day the game went live, and are still missing, but then go and extend the founders offer, and give away EXCLUSIVE perks that Founders/Subscribers PAYED for to the people who are playing the game without a subscription without ANY compensation to those paying them. There was a huge uproar on the forums for 10 days...and they said NOTHING....completely silent...and still say nothing about it. The game is a joke, the company is a joke, beware of them, and do not ever do business with FlagShip Studios...EVER!

Having been a huge System Shock 2 fan, I found Bioshock disappointing. The graphics, art direction, and story (at least initially before it got really cheesy and non-sensical) were all excellent. The problem was the gameplay. It was horribly dumbed-down in favor of the X360 version just like I feared. Most of the RPG elements that made SS2 great were absent. The plasmids were really gimmicky and fairly useless. The vita-chambers made death essentially irrelevant, and as a consequence none of the enemies, not even the big daddies, were all that intimidating. There was no incentive not to save the little sisters - the rewards were the same either way, and you would get a crappy ending if you harvested them. The difficulty seemed really unbalanced as well. The game was ridiculously easy to the point where the final boss fight against Fontaine actually left me laughing out loud it was such a joke, and I finished the game quickly with no compelling reason to replay it. It wasn't even particularly scarylike System Shock 2. It was an just an overhyped and ultimately pretty forgettable game.

Crysis has some of the best graphics of any game I've seen, but that's no excuse for it being so poorly optimized and scaling so poorly (the gamelooks awful on anything other than high or very high settings).I don't care what anyone says. Any game that runs poorly on a high-end setup like mine, which is better than what the vast majority of gamers out there are working with, is poorly optimized. Crytek and EA need to take a hint from Valve or Blizzard on how to create a great looking game that runs well on a wide array of hardware configurations.

Not on the machine I'm on now but the one 2 feet away from me yes

It's not like this is a new topic of debate, there are tons of screens floating around:

Hellgate for sure.

1: Hellgate London: It's painfully obvious its the New Daikatana

2: Kane and Lynch: "And these are the same guys entrusted with doing Deus-ex 3"...I'm afraid.

3: Soldier of Fortune Payback: How to ruin a great franchise in one budget title.

Alwaysrun

Kane and lynch developers are IO interactive, the makers of hitman. Deus Ex 3 is not being developed by IO

Hellgate:London, I was so pumped for this game for like at least a year and a half, and then it came out and the game on a whole was a disappointment, although it was addicting for a few hours.

Also Bioshock was a disappointment, although it wasn't a bad game, it was just so hyped that I couldn't wait to play the successor to System Shock 2.

While everyone is too busy thinking about whats going to get GOTY, I am curious as to what your biggest disappointment has been of 2007. This isnt strictly limited to specific games, so if you are disappointed in certain trends you noticed or something else related to PC gaming, go ahead and say so.

For me, the biggest disappointment is Bioshock. Through a combination of high standards (my fault) and sub-par gameplay and storytelling (their fault) it just wasnt what it should have been, especially given the pedigree behind it ("oh em gee, its gonna be like System Shock 2!"). Overhyped, dumbed down for consoles, and lame.

The most disappointing trend I've noticed is video cards and Dx10. First, Dx10 is a scam, there is no secret there...with Halo 2, Shadowrun, and Crysis (very high settings) being able to not only run, but run BETTER, on XP. Add to this the "cutting edge" video cards that were released: first, there was news about Dx10.1 which caused a scare...then nvidia decided to release the 8800GT that has 30+% the performance of the GTS and at the same price. I am happy with my 8800GTS, but its like, come on.

OK, thats it for me.

mrbojangles25

I so agree

Bioshock was good but not great

I just got my 8800GTS like 2 months before the GT came out.... Damn1t... it is very disappointing, they should at least drop the price of the GTS so I can go SLI:D

O yeah... Vista does suck...

edit:Wow kyriee..... are all those pictures really necessary?