This thread is for those games you thought "should have stayed in the oven a little longer" -- meaning if they had been given a little more time for development and testing they would have been so much better.


Star Wars: The Clone Wars: Republic Heroes - This one came as a bit of a surprise to me. Having played the demo on my 360 I was less than impressed, however after borrowing a copy (hey, it's a free play through, right?) I forced myself to give it another try. And honestly, this game had a lot of potential. The animations were great, particularly cutscene-based animations. The platforming had a cool "lock on" aspect for jedi, allowing for very precise jumps without requiring a lot of skill. Trouble was that system only worked about 85% of the time. The rest of the time you'd fall to your death. Had this bug been fixed I would have been totally satisfied with the platforming. And what's with a totally unused button for the Jedi? (B or Circle) Why not move the force powers to that button and use the Y (or triangle) button as an alternate attack, letting us string combos together, but still making it so so little Bobby can play by mashing a button?

Playing as clones were, for the most part, fun experiences. Clones are controlled a la Smash TV, with the left thumbstick moving the clone, and the right one making the clone face and fire in the direction you push. A cool system, but given the camera angles a little bit of lock on would have gone a loooong way. Often you miss a droid by mere inches over and over. The other big upset was the lack of replayability. Sure, you can play a mission over, but you can't play an Ahsoka/Anakin mission with, say Plo and Kit. This would have been another little thing that would go a loooong way. Lastly, the rendering engine made a few characters look a little off. Anakin's robes and armor looked too blue/red, and at times Luminara's robes looked brown instead of black.

All in all I had a fun play through. The cutscenes were great, as was the voice acting. Most of the time I felt immersed in the CGI series. Still, that last little handful of things broke this game for me.

Spider-Man: Web of Shadows - Okay, the first big complaint is a rather big undertaking, but where did they get Spidey's voice actor? This guy is beyond horrible! Honestly, it's painful to hear him talk, and during minor conversations I just keep skipping his dialogue. Where's Rino Rimano (Spider-Man Unlimited, and the PS1 Spider-Man games), Christopher Daniel Barnes (1990s series) or Quinton Flynn (Marvel Ultimate Alliance)? This guy is worse than Tobey McGuire, and that's saying something.

But on to the game. I picked it up at a video store that's going out of business for a deep discount. I'd always wanted to try it since I LOOOOVED Spider-Man 2 for the Xbox. That game was perfect, aside from the fact that it was based on the movies. WoS just feels... weird. The controls don't make any sense and are convoluted. The plot so far isn't interesting, the secondary voice actors aren't that great, and the textures are tons muddier than in the promotional screenshots.

Disappointing so far --- this game could have been tons more with a little more time and a fresh set of play testers. In fact, I think that's the biggest issue with games that fall short. It's not that the company couldn't do a good job -- it's that they keep the same play testers during the whole process, and they get used to (and so either dismiss and/or learn to like) fundamental flaws in a game.

The vanilla version of KOTOR 2. All the restored content is now up for download, but that would have been an awesome game had LA not rushed development. Also, the Wii version of TFU. It had potential, but I have no clue what the developers were thinking when they made the Wii version. It was just a hack and slash with a bit of plot thrown in.

Ping wrote:I have no clue what the developers were thinking when they made the Wii version.

Probably:

Ping wrote:just a hack and slash with a bit of plot thrown in.

I don't know what the supposed difference between that version (PS2/Wii) and the PS360 version is (hack, slash, plot, and shiny?). For what it's worth, neither version of the game looked great (I've only played the Wii version, so I could be wrong), but I don't see anything wrong with a hack 'n slash 'n plot game. It's a highly lucrative genre (for the publishers) and it's not not fun.

Star Wars Battlefront 2 -'Nuff said.

Modern Warfare 2 -I felt as though there was a lot of potholes and wasn't really well explained.

Nova Hawk wrote:Star Wars Battlefront 2 -'Nuff said.

Not quite. I think BF2 is a great game. Even before mods I loved it, and I still enjoy sitting down with some friends in my dorm now and then to play the stock PS2 version. This is all opinion of course, but "'nuff said" doesn't really explain to me why someone might think the game falls short of being great.

Eggman wrote:

Nova Hawk wrote:Star Wars Battlefront 2 -'Nuff said.

Not quite. I think BF2 is a great game. Even before mods I loved it, and I still enjoy sitting down with some friends in my dorm now and then to play the stock PS2 version. This is all opinion of course, but "'nuff said" doesn't really explain to me why someone might think the game falls short of being great.

While I do agree that "nuff said" is not... hum... enough... I stand by Nova's side on this matter, Battlefront 2 was undeniably rushed, this is somewhat visible through the stark contrast of the level of polish on some aspects of the game (namely, the addition of Acklays to the Felucia mission) compared to the more improvised stuff (e.g.:Boba-Fett having the same gun as Stormtroopers, even though it's supposed to be a different gun).
Is it a fun game? Yes, of course it is.
Is it completely polished and finished? Unfortunately no.

And yeah, KoTOR 2 "should have stayed in the oven a little longer", that's for sure.

Nova Hawk wrote:Star Wars Battlefront 2 -'Nuff said.

Modern Warfare 2 -I felt as though there was a lot of plotholes and wasn't really well explained.

I agree with these but for slightly different reasons.

BF2: Well, maybe not the game, but the ways and means they made the game. Objects were puzzle-pieced together poorly, which meant that those models will be hard to work with in the Mod Tools (i.e. Polis Massa). Textures were 2nd rate, and UV's were messed up (i.e. Clone Scout Trooper, Battle Droid) Really, could be more variety in the sides in relation to the map, such as having the 212th on Utapau, the 327th on Felucia, etc, and these could only be quelled by mods. And it was rushed to meet the DVD release of Ep III, if I'm not mistaken. Really, it was close, but there could have been more effort and attention to detail.

MW2: There were definitely plotholes in the Campaign, but MP really irks me. The way the perks and weapons can be combined to form devastating classes, the stats of the weapons are weird (notice the stats between the P90 and Uzi: the Uzi, while it takes longer to unlock, has a slightly lower rate of fire). Certain parts of the maps can be manipulated to give someone monopoly on that part of the map (i.e. the roof-less shed on Wasteland). Although Spec Ops is fun, that's one thing I can't touch. But I don't think Infinity Ward thought as far outside the box as they should have.

Star wars empire at war forces of corruption: even though it fixed the game speed of the original, game which i think is to slow, it could used more work. It was one of those games that had a strong feeling of incompletness.

Dinomight wrote:Star wars empire at war forces of corruption: even though it fixed the game speed of the original, game which i think is to slow, it could used more work. It was one of those games that had a strong feeling of incompletness.

I haven't played Forces of Corruption yet, but I know where you are coming from, EaW has a very basic design, though I believe that may be intentional, I think they were going for a movie-esque style, using generally recognizable units and making the game quite simple, straight-forward (though you still have to micro-manage a lot). To be honest I like the unit setup, as well as the (few) abilities available, I reckon there is a lot left to be desired as a RTS, though; newer games of this genre tend to have some pretty creative units and EaW is a bit underwhelming in that area (with a couple exceptions). The maps aren't at all impressive either, I think the developers failed to capture the fascinating views and characteristics of memorable planets such as Manaan and Kashyyyk.

As for the game speed, that is just a matter of preference, some people like fast paced Real Time Strategy games, others prefer those which are slower, I fall in the latter group.

Maveritchell wrote:I've only played the Wii version, so I could be wrong

Weeellll, you're not wrong, but I don't think that it's as bad as the Wii version. Of course, I bought the PC version where they *seemed* to fix most of the camera angle issues, but other than that it's the exact same as the PS360 version. In my opinion, the PC version made the Wii look like it lacked in the extensive combo system required for a hack'n'slash game like TFU. Plus, there's more story added that they left out of the Wii version, and the graphics are 10x more amazing.

Either way, all 4 versions still fall under the "good but short of great" category. Here's hoping Activision can do something to change this in TFU2.

Rome: Total War

While this is a good game, its not a great one (at least to me). Several features from the first Medieval Total War (good AI, faction civil wars, etc...) were absent, the clone units were annoying, and some units were hystarically ahistorical.

impspy wrote:Rome: Total War

While this is a good game, its not a great one (at least to me). Several features from the first Medieval Total War (good AI, faction civil wars, etc...) were absent, the clone units were annoying, and some units were hystarically ahistorical.

*coughcoughahemcoughcough*

Don't be hatin' on my game.

GangsterJawa wrote:

impspy wrote:Rome: Total War

While this is a good game, its not a great one (at least to me). Several features from the first Medieval Total War (good AI, faction civil wars, etc...) were absent, the clone units were annoying, and some units were hystarically ahistorical.

*coughcoughahemcoughcough*

Don't be hatin' on my game.

Well, I personally think the game was awesome, though I didn't like the fact that Rome was three or four different factions. Also, some of the historic battles only let you play as Rome, even though they historically lost the battle(s). I personally didn't mind the historically inaccurate units, as it helped make the game good.

Ping wrote: I personally didn't mind the historically inaccurate units, as it helped make the game good.

Uber-chariots that annihilate everything in there path are good?

okay, not everything, you could beat 'em with hoplites...

actually i just played it again today and it really is not that slow and Empire at war is a good game, but foc definatly could of used more work.

Another game I thought could have been better was Halo: CE. As I've mentioned in the past, I thought the game was overrated. While the experience of it was okay, I felt like something was lacking in the game. Maybe I'm just used to shooters from the good ol' '90s, but IMO, the developers could have put in a bit more work to make it more enjoyable.

Halo 2 was a rushed disappointment. The game was fun, but Microsoft set the time constraint which made the game half of what it could have been.

Ping wrote:Another game I thought could have been better was Halo: CE. As I've mentioned in the past, I thought the game was overrated. While the experience of it was okay, I felt like something was lacking in the game.

I think the level design could have used more work.

To the game's credit, there were some cool parts, such as the "training" level in the Pillar of Autumn; that first level with the Warthog, after your ship crashes and you have to help evacuate your fellow crewmen; that one in an island (the Silent Cartographer, I think) and also the ending.

I found myself terribly uninterested in the indoor areas, they were repetitive, bland, labyrinthic and sometimes even difficult to navigate (trying to evade rockets from a Flood rocket trooper while at the same time navigating the unlogically obstructed corridors in the level "Two Betrayals" was a chore). Worst of all: the majority of the game takes place indoors, so yeah...

I wish they kept going with the outdoor levels, I would have loved Halo if they had done that.

Nihillo wrote:

Ping wrote:Another game I thought could have been better was Halo: CE. As I've mentioned in the past, I thought the game was overrated. While the experience of it was okay, I felt like something was lacking in the game.

I think the level design could have used more work.

To the game's credit, there were some cool parts, such as the "training" level in the Pillar of Autumn; that first level with the Warthog, after your ship crashes and you have to help evacuate your fellow crewmen; that one in an island (the Silent Cartographer, I think) and also the ending.

I found myself terribly uninterested in the indoor areas, they were repetitive, bland, labyrinthic and sometimes even difficult to navigate (trying to evade rockets from a Flood rocket trooper while at the same time navigating the unlogically obstructed corridors in the level "Two Betrayals" was a chore). Worst of all: the majority of the game takes place indoors, so yeah...

I wish they kept going with the outdoor levels, I would have loved Halo if they had done that.

I hated the indoor levels. I could never tell if I was going the right way. But the gameplay made the game for me.

Grev wrote:

Nihillo wrote:

Ping wrote:Another game I thought could have been better was Halo: CE. As I've mentioned in the past, I thought the game was overrated. While the experience of it was okay, I felt like something was lacking in the game.

I think the level design could have used more work.

To the game's credit, there were some cool parts, such as the "training" level in the Pillar of Autumn; that first level with the Warthog, after your ship crashes and you have to help evacuate your fellow crewmen; that one in an island (the Silent Cartographer, I think) and also the ending.

I found myself terribly uninterested in the indoor areas, they were repetitive, bland, labyrinthic and sometimes even difficult to navigate (trying to evade rockets from a Flood rocket trooper while at the same time navigating the unlogically obstructed corridors in the level "Two Betrayals" was a chore). Worst of all: the majority of the game takes place indoors, so yeah...

I wish they kept going with the outdoor levels, I would have loved Halo if they had done that.

I hated the indoor levels. I could never tell if I was going the right way. But the gameplay made the game for me.

QFT. I preferred the outdoors missions a lot better the indoors just sucked.