Game with the worst value for money?

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for RageQuitter69
RageQuitter69

1366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#1 RageQuitter69
Member since 2012 • 1366 Posts

What game do you think would have the worst value to pay full price for?

I vote Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patrios, there only roughly 4 hours of gameplay in the main story and you have to pay for extra content for Metal Gear Online.

Avatar image for DJ_Lae
DJ_Lae

42748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#2 DJ_Lae
Member since 2002 • 42748 Posts
Rogue Warrior is up there - campaign is apparently somewhere between 2.5 and 3 hours on normal difficulty. For $60.
Avatar image for almasdeathchild
almasdeathchild

8922

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#3 almasdeathchild
Member since 2011 • 8922 Posts

brink

Avatar image for lo_Pine
lo_Pine

4978

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#4 lo_Pine
Member since 2012 • 4978 Posts

Any Final Fantasy game.

Avatar image for Kevlar101
Kevlar101

6316

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 29

User Lists: 0

#5 Kevlar101
Member since 2011 • 6316 Posts
Battle for the Pacific. Worst game i ever played, I spent $15 for a 2 hour campaign, sh*t multiplayer that averages 7 people online at one time, and nothing to like at all.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9ba38f308de
deactivated-5f9ba38f308de

1468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 deactivated-5f9ba38f308de
Member since 2005 • 1468 Posts

Any Final Fantasy game.

lo_Pine

such an ignorant thing to say.

Avatar image for lo_Pine
lo_Pine

4978

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#7 lo_Pine
Member since 2012 • 4978 Posts

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

Any Final Fantasy game.

Spirit_Warriors

such an ignorant thing to say.

Not really because I played a little of VII and VIII when they came out. Then X. And just recently tried XIII-2 and I would never buy any Final Fantasy game for any amount of money because if I don't like the game, it has no value to me. And I have also given the franchise a chance more than once. Its like Pokemon but terribly worse for some reason.
Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#8 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27389 Posts

brink

almasdeathchild
Ugh brink was pretty bad...
Avatar image for Planeforger
Planeforger

19591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 Planeforger
Member since 2004 • 19591 Posts
Ridge Racer Vita only has five cars and three tracks. It's not the game with the least amount of content, sure, but it's the first thing that comes to mind.
Avatar image for Ashley_wwe
Ashley_wwe

13412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#10 Ashley_wwe
Member since 2003 • 13412 Posts
[QUOTE="RageQuitter69"]What game do you think would have the worst value to pay full price for? I vote Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patrios, there only roughly 4 hours of gameplay in the main story and you have to pay for extra content for Metal Gear Online.

Personally, I think you have to understand MGS to make it worth your while ;). I love MGS and so MGS4 was amazing to me. The online wasn't particularly anything outstanding though, but it was decent. I haven't been able to spend any time on it for a long while though, I need my own PS3.
Battle for the Pacific. Worst game i ever played, I spent $15 for a 2 hour campaign, sh*t multiplayer that averages 7 people online at one time, and nothing to like at all.Kevlar101
I actually enjoyed that game :P. But, keeping in mind I knew what the game was about and I read the reviews beforehand and I always checked eBay for prices for months on end before getting it. I ended up getting it cheap, which is what I wanted. It was really cheap, and was one of the few games that I PHYSICALLY completed in a day, alongside Driver '76 on the PSP. But I am a bit biased, because I love WWII FPS games. It does have a few things that it doesn't do too well though, such as lack of ammo and the fact that you're told to keep up, but they run at a MUCH faster rate than you and there is no sprint option. Heh, but I enjoyed it for what it's worth, which is what I was expecting. Same for Hour of Victory :P. As I said before, I just love my WWII FPS games. Oh, never got to try the online on BFTP unfortunately, because it was completely dead. I feel that it wouldn't have had as many problems, because most of them were with the difficulty and running out of ammo if I remember correctly, and the squad running away as I said. I can't think of anything personally. Although those Crash Time games aren't very good in my opinion, there's quite a few of them too (I tried the demos). There is also a Ninja game which I didn't like, but I can't remember the name (it's not Ninja Gaiden). It was a game where the game kept zooming in to the ninja's eye. Again, I tried the demo and if I remember correctly he kept running up and down buildings.
Avatar image for 1PMrFister
1PMrFister

3134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#11 1PMrFister
Member since 2010 • 3134 Posts

Action52

Avatar image for CDuG
CDuG

1946

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 CDuG
Member since 2009 • 1946 Posts

[QUOTE="Spirit_Warriors"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

Any Final Fantasy game.

lo_Pine

such an ignorant thing to say.

Not really because I played a little of VII and VIII when they came out. Then X. And just recently tried XIII-2 and I would never buy any Final Fantasy game for any amount of money because if I don't like the game, it has no value to me. And I have also given the franchise a chance more than once. Its like Pokemon but terribly worse for some reason.

It is ignorant. It's not "what game do you hate"? It's worst value. A game that provides you 40+ hours of gameplay (typically double that if you explore, try to get everything, level up, etc) I wouldn't really call lacking in value. Even if you don't like it. The quality of that time may be debatable even if most would disagree with you. But for what you pay you're still getting way more than most games. And saying FF is "like" Pokemon is a bit backwards.

Avatar image for brucecambell
brucecambell

1489

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 brucecambell
Member since 2011 • 1489 Posts

Everybody seems to measure thier games worth differently. For some it might be the length of the game, for me its the quality of the experience that matters. A game for me could be 5 hrs but if a found the experience to be satisfying in many ways then im happy with it.

I dont think i can pick one particular game but i will say most shooters today just feel dated & not worth my time or money. The experience they offer is pretty bland & forgetable. Something like COD has a lifeless campaign & terrible multiplayer

Uncharted on the other hand is a shooter with lots of variety, character, story & soul to it. Something like that is very worthy of my money.

So i would say shooters, not all shooters, but your standard shooter games have no value to me.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
Yusuke420

2770

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#14 Yusuke420
Member since 2012 • 2770 Posts

Unlimited Saga isn't worth the disk it's printed on. I begged gamestop to take this game off my hands for a penny because it was so, so awful.

Avatar image for wiouds
wiouds

6233

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 wiouds
Member since 2004 • 6233 Posts

Games that focus or is only pit fights a.k.a. the death matches. You get some small pits and a little extra code so you can run around and shoot other people.

Avatar image for GamerwillzPS
GamerwillzPS

8531

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 GamerwillzPS
Member since 2012 • 8531 Posts
Skyrim. It's so broken.
Avatar image for brucecambell
brucecambell

1489

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 brucecambell
Member since 2011 • 1489 Posts

Games that focus or is only pit fights a.k.a. the death matches. You get some small pits and a little extra code so you can run around and shoot other people.

wiouds

LMAO. I second that.

You make multiplayer seem so bad, so stupid, summed up how little they have to offer, & how little effort goes into making them.

Well done sir.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
Yusuke420

2770

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#18 Yusuke420
Member since 2012 • 2770 Posts

Games that focus or is only pit fights a.k.a. the death matches. You get some small pits and a little extra code so you can run around and shoot other people.

wiouds

What about the other game modes, what about the strategy involved in capturing control points or a flag? In free for all I could see you point (as minimalistic as it is) but multiplayer has much more to offer then that and I'm saddend that your experience boils down to the basics.

Avatar image for megadeth1117
megadeth1117

1830

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 megadeth1117
Member since 2010 • 1830 Posts

Skyrim. It's so broken.GamerwillzPS

It seems people can't grasp the concept that this thread is about VALUE, not about which game you don't like.Like Skyrim or not, it has quite a lot of content.

I'll have to go with Marvel vs Capcom 3.

Avatar image for metalgrinch
metalgrinch

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 metalgrinch
Member since 2005 • 455 Posts

I think it's funny hearing how many poeple thought MGS4 was incredibly short yet I never even finished it.

My opinion would have to be more old school games but I assume we're talking current gen games. In that case I'd have to go with Street Fighter 4. Just the same rehash of SF2 with updated graphics, trudging along the same characters and beating the boss at the end. whoopee.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
Yusuke420

2770

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#21 Yusuke420
Member since 2012 • 2770 Posts

I think it's funny hearing how many poeple thought MGS4 was incredibly short yet I never even finished it.

My opinion would have to be more old school games but I assume we're talking current gen games. In that case I'd have to go with Street Fighter 4. Just the same rehash of SF2 with updated graphics, trudging along the same characters and beating the boss at the end. whoopee.

metalgrinch

You do know some fighting game player is going to crucify this statement right? I'm not expert, but I'm pretty sure this statement is just wrong from a mechanics stand point.

Avatar image for keech
keech

1451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#22 keech
Member since 2003 • 1451 Posts

[QUOTE="metalgrinch"]

I think it's funny hearing how many poeple thought MGS4 was incredibly short yet I never even finished it.

My opinion would have to be more old school games but I assume we're talking current gen games. In that case I'd have to go with Street Fighter 4. Just the same rehash of SF2 with updated graphics, trudging along the same characters and beating the boss at the end. whoopee.

Yusuke420

You do know some fighting game player is going to crucify this statement right? I'm not expert, but I'm pretty sure this statement is just wrong from a mechanics stand point.

You're not wrong. A big issue current fighting games have is that someone who only plays them casually can't tell the difference between them. To them every 2D fighter on the market is just another game that plays like Street Fighter. Where in reality if someone were to spend a few hours learning the "under the hood" mechanics they would start to learn that their are differences to each game that require different strategies to be able to play it well.

On topic: Any "free to play" game ever made would easily be the worst value. As they are never actually free. They are glorified demos, and if you want to experience the full game you would have to shell out a ridiculous amount of money.

Avatar image for ZombieKiller7
ZombieKiller7

6463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 ZombieKiller7
Member since 2011 • 6463 Posts

Any MMO

Also CoD

Avatar image for Conjuration
Conjuration

3562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#24 Conjuration
Member since 2006 • 3562 Posts

Street Fighter IV

EB offered me 25 cents for the damn thing. I only bought it because a Capcom rep was quoted in an interview saying "there will not be any other versions of SF4." I fell for it. Paid $60.

Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
speedfreak48t5p

14420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 62

User Lists: 0

#25 speedfreak48t5p
Member since 2009 • 14420 Posts

Any MMO

Also CoD

ZombieKiller7
No. You can get a ton of value from both.
Avatar image for keech
keech

1451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#26 keech
Member since 2003 • 1451 Posts

Any MMO

Also CoD

ZombieKiller7

As sick and tired as I am of CoD I can't really agree. The content in each CoD may just be a slightly changed up rehash of the year before. But the content is still there, and it's quite a bit of content to be fair. For people who still like CoD, the value is still there. Though I'll admit I barely played MW3 so maybe something changed I don't know.

I have to respectfully assume you've never played an MMO for any length of time. For me personally (and most MMO players) when I really get into playing an MMO, I tend to not buy other games I likely would have gotten otherwise. I would go as far as saying playing an MMO tends to save me between $50-$120 a month simply because I didn't bother buying other games. Also if you look at a game like Rift, the amount of content they have released over the last year has been staggering compared to the $15 a month it costs to play the game.

Avatar image for Dracula68
Dracula68

33109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Dracula68
Member since 2002 • 33109 Posts
Any short game for 60 bones. You wanna get a good ratio of hours to cash spent at least.
Avatar image for gamerdude375
gamerdude375

204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 gamerdude375
Member since 2012 • 204 Posts

Any short game for 60 bones. You wanna get a good ratio of hours to cash spent at least.Dracula68

I'll pay 60 bones for a satisfying and excellent 6 - 10 hour campaign over a 50 - 100 hour mediocre campaign that's mostly padding and filler any day of the week.

What good is the ratio of hours to cash spent, if a majority of those hours aren't enjoyable?

Example....which is longer, Heavy Rain or Two Worlds?

...now of those two, which had the better critical and gamer reception?

Avatar image for DJ_Lae
DJ_Lae

42748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#29 DJ_Lae
Member since 2002 • 42748 Posts

I'll pay 60 bones for a satisfying and excellent 6 - 10 hour campaign over a 50 - 100 hour mediocre campaign that's mostly padding and filler any day of the week.

What good is the ratio of hours to cash spent, if a majority of those hours aren't enjoyable?

gamerdude375
Within reason, but yeah, I'd rather have a great short game too. JRPGs seem to suffer the most from overpadding. There are exceptions (Chrono Trigger is basically 10-15 hours long and all the better for it) but not many.
Avatar image for csftar
csftar

937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 csftar
Member since 2009 • 937 Posts

Iron Man 2.

The game sucks, it's four hours, no co op, no multiplayer, no optional paths or unlockable missions = 60$ ?

Avatar image for Dracula68
Dracula68

33109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 Dracula68
Member since 2002 • 33109 Posts

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]Any short game for 60 bones. You wanna get a good ratio of hours to cash spent at least.gamerdude375

I'll pay 60 bones for a satisfying and excellent 6 - 10 hour campaign over a 50 - 100 hour mediocre campaign that's mostly padding and filler any day of the week.

What good is the ratio of hours to cash spent, if a majority of those hours aren't enjoyable?

Example....which is longer, Heavy Rain or Two Worlds?

...now of those two, which had the better critical and gamer reception?

Yeah I see your point.

Avatar image for ArchonOver
ArchonOver

1103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#32 ArchonOver
Member since 2010 • 1103 Posts

Iron Man 2.

The game sucks, it's four hours, no co op, no multiplayer, no optional paths or unlockable missions = 60$ ?

csftar
You deserve that for buying a movie cash-in game.
Avatar image for Ashley_wwe
Ashley_wwe

13412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#33 Ashley_wwe
Member since 2003 • 13412 Posts
I dont think i can pick one particular game but i will say most shooters today just feel dated & not worth my time or money. The experience they offer is pretty bland & forgetable. Something like COD has a lifeless campaign & terrible multiplayerbrucecambell
I respect your opinion and I can see where you're coming from, but I just wanted to mention CoD a little bit :). I have been playing CoD since CoD1 came out on the PC. So that means I've played and completed the original, the expansion (United Offensive), CoD2, the console versions (Finest Hour and Big Red One), CoD3, CoD4, WaW, MW2, BO and I've even played the PSP title Roads To Victory. I love CoD basically. But ever since CoD4 I have noticed a change in the series. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy it, but I do miss that old feeling. CoD4 was a great game though and it was something different. WaW made me happy because it was going back to WWII, but it felt more like CoD4 than the original CoD games, but it's still a great game MW2 was a great game, but this is the point where it started to feel more of an add-on (that is even coming from me, an original CoD player) BO was no different in that aspect, but it still was great. It also had some great multiplayer modes such as Gun Game and some fun maps, just like MW2 MW3 I haven't played much yet because of problems with it at the start of the year (disc read error, but it's all okay now) I will be going to it soon though. But from what I have played, the campaign is easier than ever and the multiplayer is faster than ever with VERY small maps) That seems to be the problem. The campaign gets a LOT easier every year. Play CoD2 (or 3, but this is probably slightly harder? hmm) campaign on the 360 (or really, the originals, but this will do), then play MW2 campaign, both on Veteran by the way. You will notice a VERY big difference. The other point I was on about is the multiplayer gets faster every year. It went from normal speed, to a bit faster, to a BIT faster, to TOO fast. From what I played of MW3 it gave me a bit of a headache... the maps seem to get smaller every year too, or that may just be me. There are definately a lot of small ones in MW3 though. I think after Black Ops 2, that we should go back to CoD2 style (but with better graphics). Of course, the originals are my favourites, but CoD2 is a bit more modern with regenerative health and whatnot. I would also love it to go back to WWII. While Black Ops was in vietnam, it still felt like MW1, 2 and 3 to be honest... and even WaW, to be fair. Don't get me wrong I do still enjoy CoD, but I think it's time for a change again. It will be 5 years after the release of Black Ops 5 (I think that is the one that is next, right? or it's rumoured, either way). Back to WWII would be fantastic, in my opinion. But no killstreaks or perks. Just straight up CoD2 feeling (or even CoD3, I feel that game is so underrated!) Or really, I would love a new CoD game where they use a new engine that looks FANTASTIC, go back to making it feel like CoD2, but make a "remake" of CoD1. Not remake word by word... I can't think of the correct term. Think of it as a loose reference, if you know what I mean? basically like a reboot using some of the key levels and moments.
Avatar image for deactivated-61d91d42c39df
deactivated-61d91d42c39df

2741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 0

#34 deactivated-61d91d42c39df
Member since 2002 • 2741 Posts

force unleased 2 should have been an expansion pack, is like 5 hours max.

Avatar image for BatCajunMan
BatCajunMan

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 BatCajunMan
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
Any Call of Duty Modern Warefare game for example.
Avatar image for BossPerson
BossPerson

9177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 BossPerson
Member since 2011 • 9177 Posts

Lol, to thing MGS4 is bad for your money?? You essentially get two games in one. The replayablity of MGS4 is pretty good (with all the guns you can use, and the stuff you can unlock to use in your next playthrough), while MGO is like a whole other game. The number of maps in it are pretty decent for what your paying for.

Avatar image for rzepak
rzepak

5758

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 rzepak
Member since 2005 • 5758 Posts

I would say MW3. I played the first 2 MW games alot but cant get into the MW3 multiplayer at all, the maps are so bad I just cant stand the game for more than 10 min at a time, which is a shame cause even though MW2 had problems with the lack of dedis it had some good maps. I dont compare it to Blops cause that game had really good maps.

Avatar image for crimsonman1245
crimsonman1245

4253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 crimsonman1245
Member since 2011 • 4253 Posts

I'd rather have my mind blown in a 6 hour campaign like Vanquish than be bored to tears in an open world RPG for 100 hours.

Its all about your preference.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#39 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

What game do you think would have the worst value to pay full price for?

I vote Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patrios, there only roughly 4 hours of gameplay in the main story and you have to pay for extra content for Metal Gear Online.

RageQuitter69
As a fan of the Metal gear series i have to say your wrong, the whole story was excellent and there is more then 4 hours of gameplay. Also i would stay it depends on how much you pay for it but if we take it as you go out on release day and pay full price i get why it can be seen as a ripoff. But the game i think is the worst value for money is Star Wars the old republic, you pay full price for the game and considering you have to pay a monthly subscription for the content is a clear rip-off.
Avatar image for brucecambell
brucecambell

1489

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 brucecambell
Member since 2011 • 1489 Posts

[QUOTE="brucecambell"]I dont think i can pick one particular game but i will say most shooters today just feel dated & not worth my time or money. The experience they offer is pretty bland & forgetable. Something like COD has a lifeless campaign & terrible multiplayerAshley_wwe
I respect your opinion and I can see where you're coming from, but I just wanted to mention CoD a little bit :). I have been playing CoD since CoD1 came out on the PC. So that means I've played and completed the original, the expansion (United Offensive), CoD2, the console versions (Finest Hour and Big Red One), CoD3, CoD4, WaW, MW2, BO and I've even played the PSP title Roads To Victory. I love CoD basically. But ever since CoD4 I have noticed a change in the series. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy it, but I do miss that old feeling. CoD4 was a great game though and it was something different. WaW made me happy because it was going back to WWII, but it felt more like CoD4 than the original CoD games, but it's still a great game MW2 was a great game, but this is the point where it started to feel more of an add-on (that is even coming from me, an original CoD player) BO was no different in that aspect, but it still was great. It also had some great multiplayer modes such as Gun Game and some fun maps, just like MW2 MW3 I haven't played much yet because of problems with it at the start of the year (disc read error, but it's all okay now) I will be going to it soon though. But from what I have played, the campaign is easier than ever and the multiplayer is faster than ever with VERY small maps) That seems to be the problem. The campaign gets a LOT easier every year. Play CoD2 (or 3, but this is probably slightly harder? hmm) campaign on the 360 (or really, the originals, but this will do), then play MW2 campaign, both on Veteran by the way. You will notice a VERY big difference. The other point I was on about is the multiplayer gets faster every year. It went from normal speed, to a bit faster, to a BIT faster, to TOO fast. From what I played of MW3 it gave me a bit of a headache... the maps seem to get smaller every year too, or that may just be me. There are definately a lot of small ones in MW3 though. I think after Black Ops 2, that we should go back to CoD2 style (but with better graphics). Of course, the originals are my favourites, but CoD2 is a bit more modern with regenerative health and whatnot. I would also love it to go back to WWII. While Black Ops was in vietnam, it still felt like MW1, 2 and 3 to be honest... and even WaW, to be fair. Don't get me wrong I do still enjoy CoD, but I think it's time for a change again. It will be 5 years after the release of Black Ops 5 (I think that is the one that is next, right? or it's rumoured, either way). Back to WWII would be fantastic, in my opinion. But no killstreaks or perks. Just straight up CoD2 feeling (or even CoD3, I feel that game is so underrated!) Or really, I would love a new CoD game where they use a new engine that looks FANTASTIC, go back to making it feel like CoD2, but make a "remake" of CoD1. Not remake word by word... I can't think of the correct term. Think of it as a loose reference, if you know what I mean? basically like a reboot using some of the key levels and moments.

I have played them all leading up to MW2. Call Of Duty 1, United Offensive, Big Red ONE, 2, 3, 4, WAW. I had enough at WAW. For me nothing beats the originals. They were great back in the day.

THe campaigns even though arcadey actually felt authentic at the time. Today they feel generic & dated, but maybe thats just me. The multiplayer for 1, UO, 2 & 3 were the best. I would still argue that COD3 had the best multiplayer in the series. Its MP design also had the most potential.

MY love for COD died with COD4. It killed everything good it had going & everything i loved about it. All of its charm was gone. Now its just a money milking machine. I understand people love it but i dont understand why after all these years they still love it.

I see many other games, unqiue games, better games, all doing something that i feel is much more worth my time & money. I cannot support something like COD over other games that i feel deserve my money.

For me i wish they would ditch the COD4 crowd & go back to its root. Drop the fast paced noob action, drop the perks, killstreaks, & pick up where COD3 left off with its team & class based, large scale, vehicle, multiplayer. From there get back to rooting itself in history but with rich charcaters & memorable, emotional WW2 action

Avatar image for chilly-chill
chilly-chill

8902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#41 chilly-chill
Member since 2010 • 8902 Posts

Star Wars Force Unleashed 2

COD

Last few Final Fantasy games

Marvel vs Capcom 3

Avatar image for Ashley_wwe
Ashley_wwe

13412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#42 Ashley_wwe
Member since 2003 • 13412 Posts
[QUOTE="brucecambell"]I have played them all leading up to MW2. Call Of Duty 1, United Offensive, Big Red ONE, 2, 3, 4, WAW. I had enough at WAW. For me nothing beats the originals. They were great back in the day. THe campaigns even though arcadey actually felt authentic at the time. Today they feel generic & dated, but maybe thats just me. The multiplayer for 1, UO, 2 & 3 were the best. I would still argue that COD3 had the best multiplayer in the series. Its MP design also had the most potential. MY love for COD died with COD4. It killed everything good it had going & everything i loved about it. All of its charm was gone. Now its just a money milking machine. I understand people love it but i dont understand why after all these years they still love it. I see many other games, unqiue games, better games, all doing something that i feel is much more worth my time & money. I cannot support something like COD over other games that i feel deserve my money. For me i wish they would ditch the COD4 crowd & go back to its root. Drop the fast paced noob action, drop the perks, killstreaks, & pick up where COD3 left off with its team & class based, large scale, vehicle, multiplayer. From there get back to rooting itself in history but with rich charcaters & memorable, emotional WW2 action

I agree with you that nothing beats the originals. I do still feel that the new ones are still fun as I said before, but I do definately understand where you are coming from, as I also prefer pre-CoD4 Call of Duty games (although CoD4 is really awesome, the rest after it are the ones that feel kind of like an expansion). I think looking back (as for the second generation of CoD games) I preferred the single player of WaW the best (it is the most like the originals) and the multiplayer of CoD4, just because it had something that was really fun, personally. The rest are still fun, but yeah I feel they need to go back to how they were before now. I know what you mean about that authentic but arcadey feeling. I don't think they feel generic and dated today, but yeah we all have our opinions :). I totally agree with you there, spot on! 1, UO, 2 and 3's multiplayer was definately the best!! I might also throw in CoD4's, but it's not as good as the originals still. Out of the originals (those 4) if I had to pick a further favourite, it would probably be UO. As for CoD3, I can't believe how underrated that game is! I personally feel that it had too much unnessessary hate and I don't know why. I wasted just as many hours on CoD3 as I did on the original, UO and 2! CoD3 was and still is just fantastic. The guns felt great, they looked great, the maps were fun and the campaign was great and challenging (even though veteran made me angry!! :P at least I got through it on Veteran once or twice to the end and a few other times on Hardened. By the way, it seems like you haven't played Finest Hour - I really recommend it if you liked the originals. I got it for the Christmas it came out and I was just hooked on it, I loved it :D. I do prefer it over BRO. It's a shame I never was able to get my PS2 online to play either of those two games :(. I just hope they're released in HD or on XBLA, so that way I will be able to play online as no doubt they will be closed down or will be dead online by now. I really enjoyed CoD4. I was just hoping it was like a one off or something though, but we haven't seen WWII since (besides WaW). That's not to say MW2, BO and MW3 aren't fun because they are (in my opinion) but I really miss WWII in the games. I can see why they still love it, I still really enjoy it. But I don't get as addicted to the multiplayer as long as I used to. When I get addicted to the multiplayer, it doesn't seem to be for nowhere near as long. I mean I do come back to it a lot, but yeah. For me it was a bit like this: CoD1 and UO - Literally lasted me about two full years. CoD2 - Was again, addicted to this for a year straight (alongside CoD1 and UO). When I wasn't on my PS2, I was on these. It was when I got my Xbox 360 when I started playing... CoD3 a lot more (ironic? :P) that I stopped playing the others for a bit and kept playing this CoD (and other games of course) for about a year straight. I think I got CoD2 later on in the year and I played this alongside CoD3 a LOT until the end of the year (in regards to the CoD games that is) so CoD2 still got it's fair amount of play. CoD4 - I played this a LOT as well, but maybe I kept going back to CoD3 a lot more later in the next year than I did CoD4? can't remember now. But yeah, while I still love CoD and am always excited to get the new one, it just doesn't seem to have THAT amount of lasting appeal as it once did. Whereas before I could constantly play it between games for a YEAR or more straight, it is now maybe a month or so, before I come back to it a few months later. Basically, it's kinda choppy here and there. This started a LITTLE with CoD4 but not so much, then a little more with WaW, then a LOT more with MW2, then LOADS more with MW2, and I haven't had much of a chance to play MW3 yet (but there are other reasons for that, I think I mentioned it in my last post. I'm getting to it soon though).
Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
speedfreak48t5p

14420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 62

User Lists: 0

#43 speedfreak48t5p
Member since 2009 • 14420 Posts
Any Call of Duty Modern Warefare game for example.BatCajunMan
LOL. Not saying they are the best games ever made, but they have tremendous value for your $60.
Avatar image for dcelw540
dcelw540

462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#44 dcelw540
Member since 2007 • 462 Posts

Kaane and Lynch 2:

3 hour campaign

few gamemodes but everyone only plays one game mode :/

Avatar image for chilly-chill
chilly-chill

8902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#45 chilly-chill
Member since 2010 • 8902 Posts

Kaane and Lynch 2:

3 hour campaign

few gamemodes but everyone only plays one game mode :/

dcelw540
I can't stop thinking about that ending :lol: [spoiler] Get on the plane, credits roll [/spoiler]
Avatar image for tjricardo089
tjricardo089

7429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 tjricardo089
Member since 2010 • 7429 Posts

The majority of games these days. I finish them in about 2-3 days, and I don't play that much.

Avatar image for TheFallenDemon
TheFallenDemon

13933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 TheFallenDemon
Member since 2010 • 13933 Posts
Marvel vs. Capcom 3. God, what a way to phone in the most wanted fighter ever, Crapcom.
Avatar image for chilly-chill
chilly-chill

8902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#48 chilly-chill
Member since 2010 • 8902 Posts
Marvel vs. Capcom 3. God, what a way to phone in the most wanted fighter ever, Crapcom. TheFallenDemon
Agreed, that game was so barebones.
Avatar image for TheFallenDemon
TheFallenDemon

13933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 TheFallenDemon
Member since 2010 • 13933 Posts
[QUOTE="TheFallenDemon"]Marvel vs. Capcom 3. God, what a way to phone in the most wanted fighter ever, Crapcom. chilly-chill
Agreed, that game was so barebones.

Not to mention horribly unbalanced and chaotic. But don't worry. Crapcom will make it up to you by releasing an upgraded addition six months later for ten dollars less.
Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
speedfreak48t5p

14420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 62

User Lists: 0

#50 speedfreak48t5p
Member since 2009 • 14420 Posts

The majority of games these days. I finish them in about 2-3 days, and I don't play that much.

tjricardo089
You must not play many games then. Forza 4, Gears 3, Skyrim just came out last year. Any Call of Duty/Halo game over-delivers in value. Fallout New Vegas, Just Cause 2, Burnout Paradise, Saint's Row the third, Batman Arkham City, The Orange Box, and I'm just scratching the surface.