The Unofficial [H] 2011 Most Disappointing Game Award

Vote for the 2011 release that disappointed the most

  • Assassin's Creed: Revelations

    Votes: 2 1.0%

  • Battlefield 3

    Votes: 11 5.4%

  • Brink

    Votes: 23 11.2%

  • Bulletstorm

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • Crysis 2

    Votes: 13 6.3%

  • Dead Island

    Votes: 15 7.3%

  • Dragon Age II

    Votes: 31 15.1%

  • Duke Nukem Forever

    Votes: 62 30.2%

  • The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

    Votes: 4 2.0%

  • LA Noire

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Rage

    Votes: 40 19.5%

  • Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Total voters
    205
MavericK96 said:
What's disturbing to me is that BF3 has one more vote than Dead Island...Really? Clearly you have not played Dead Island.
Click to expand...

I went straight to Dead Island when the word "Disappointing" was going to be applied. Brink blew goats but I didn't now what to expect and I think a smart man did say that we knew DNF was going to be bottom of the barrel out of the gates. I really had high hopes for DI and it kicked me in the junk instead.
 
0mega said:
Where's MW3? Unless I'm Blind...
Click to expand...

Good question...I guess it's hard to be disappointed, though, when you know it's going to be the same as the last 2 games. Buying it and expecting different is kind of like the definition of "insanity"... :p
 
So this poll shows us that 38 people (DNF) are gullible fools that thought DNF was going to be good? :confused:. I could understand a more recent game but come on .. really?

And BF3 doesn't deserve to be up there either , hardly a "bad" game by any means. The worst game of 2011 is probably Crysis 2 , utter garbage that impressed people with smoke and lens flares .. the same people are probably impressed by shiny objects as well.
 
Godmachine said:
So this poll shows us that 38 people (DNF) are gullible fools that thought DNF was going to be good? :confused:. I could understand a more recent game but come on .. really?
Click to expand...
The game was in "development" for more than 10 years and changed hands a few times... But how is that related to the real flaws with DNF? Sure you can expect dated graphics, maybe a lot of bugs from sloppy/recycled coding.

But the game had flawed mechanics which could have existed for ANY game on ANY development cycle. The two gun limit, the bad jokes, the really linear-scripted level designs, boring and repetitive puzzles, the horrible driving/turret levels. Oh yeah, it also has really bad graphics and all those other things that MOST PEOPLE expected. Yeah, it has all the problems we expected it to have, AND WORSE. The game could have been announced in 2010 and came out a year later and it would still be a disappointment.

So, saying "the game took a long time to make and was constantly being scrapped to start over" doesn't really work as evidence to what the REAL problems with DNF are. :\
The game is the biggest disappointment because we expected it to be bad... and the game actually manages to be worse than what we expected.
 
I played the Balls of Steel off DNF with no screen tearing, shit graphics or control problems, unlike another game I wanted to get ie: Rage. And for all you fans, DNF has DLC on Steam, Come get some.
 
Some of these games are truly awful like Dead Island and Brink but Duke Nukem Forever was absolute garbage.
 
Kenworth said:
I went straight to Dead Island when the word "Disappointing" was going to be applied. Brink blew goats but I didn't now what to expect and I think a smart man did say that we knew DNF was going to be bottom of the barrel out of the gates. I really had high hopes for DI and it kicked me in the junk instead.
Click to expand...

I believe I said that. :cool:

But yeah. Dead Island was so disappointing IMO because the concept was great, the graphics were pretty good, the gameplay was actually pretty fun...just technically, the game was a horrible piece of shit. It had so many bugs and problems right from the get-go that it totally killed my enthusiasm for the game. Sadly I pre-ordered it (not for $50 thank god, but still) and played up to the part where you get in the city, but by then the bugs just made me not want to play it anymore...and I haven't since. I may again someday, but it just left such a bad taste in my mouth that I can't even think about it, let alone play it without feeling kind of sick inside.

I might have chosen Rage as the most disappointing, but I honestly didn't think it looked that good before it was released, so I didn't bother with it. Dodged a huge bullet, there.
 
DNF is leading by a large margin, but honestly, who didn't see that disappointment coming? It's Captain Obvious material.
 
Unlike most people I actually enjoyed Dead Island with my 3 friends. The Co-op was pretty fun but the game on its own was a mess , however being chased by hordes of zombies down an alley way while low on bullets with my melee weapons almost broke (dumb mechanic poorly implemented) was pretty tense with friends.

Dead Island had seriously huge potential and it was mucked up by lousy development , shit they even released the dev version as the final to Steam users. If they can manage to make the next game much less buggy and give it more direction it could be truly awesome.

Between Crysis 2 and Rage though , it's still a better game compared to those giant piles of failure.
 
UtopiA said:
The game was in "development" for more than 10 years and changed hands a few times... But how is that related to the real flaws with DNF? Sure you can expect dated graphics, maybe a lot of bugs from sloppy/recycled coding.
Click to expand...

Again after that statement I would expect you to "get" the point I was making. Before it even came out it was over developed garbage , expecting it to live up to expectations and listing it as one of the "Most Disappointing" games of the year is like saying the new Twilight movie was just as horrible as the rest... a "DUH" moment.

All the other games on the list (minus BF3) I could understand the disappointment but DNF? You are telling me you honestly thought it would be anything else but a let down?
 
Last edited:
Plague_Injected said:
I voted Battlefield 3. I wasn't expecting great things from any of the other games, but I was expecting greatness from BF3. While its audiovisual presentation is phenomenal and the gunplay is excellent, it has some of the worst maps I've ever played on in an online FPS ever. Player/team skill is not as important for winning as getting to a chokepoint first. Maps like Operation Metro are anti-Battlefield and DICE's sloppy one-map-fits-all-modes approach to map design that was barely passable in Bad Company 2 just doesn't cut it here.

Accompany with this lots of nonsense like tacticalolol flashlights brighter than the sun, IRNV-the-wallhack-scope (both have been nerfed to different degrees since, I am aware) and other similar bullshit seemingly hand-crafted for griefers and bad players to exploit, idiotically unrealistic garbage like renegerating vehicle health, lies/deception/bait-and-switch about which platform was the lead, and rampant instability across all three platforms...Battlefield 3 easily gets my vote for the most disappointing game of 2011.
Click to expand...

+1 not that the game is the worst game of 2011, but after factoring in expectations the disappointment factor takes the cake. Feels like i am still playing a beta, I don't like paying for beta's.
 
MavericK96 said:
What's disturbing to me is that BF3 has one more vote than Dead Island...Really? Clearly you have not played Dead Island.
Click to expand...

The vote is about disappointing games, I never played Dead island because nothing stood out for me in that game. Kinda hard to be disappointed with a game when you already have such low expectations of it, ya know?

Battlefield 3 is simply held to a higher standard, I have played roughly 150 hours and the game has probably crashed at least 100 times or more.

Do you remember those old dial-up modems we all used to have? you would go out and buy the best one thinking it was the bomb and still get disconnected every time it rained or something of that nature. Well BF3 feels like a dial-up modem with constant disconnects, patches have made it better but not all the issues have been resolved.
 
Worst game /= most disappointing.

If BF3 was a disappointment to some, it was a disappointment.

Even Skyrim has a couple votes, and it is widely regarded as a really solid title.

Nobody voted for Bulletstorm even though it was a poster child for crappy port, and the dev turned out to be a pack of pricks that likened altering config files to get proper widescreen POVs, to rape.
 
Is Rage that bad? Its sitting in my Steam library unplayed but I plan on getting around to it sometime. Any word on a high res pack for Rage PC like Carmack mentioned at QuakeCon? I heard the game would be pretty good if the res and technical problems were worked out.
 
With DNF, people were expecting a dated, B-grade shooter that would be a throwback to the old-school FPS games. What they got instead was a truly tragic attempt at Duke Nukem trying to be modern, as it followed every modern-FPS cliche in the book - unskippable waffle, quick-time events, highly scripted and linear level design, obscene weapon limits, pointless and intolerable vehicle sequences, and regenerating health. The game could have played like a shooter from 1996 with fairly-closed levels available for exploration and backtracking ("secret-hunting"), finding the different-coloured keys and health-kits, and people would have been more than happy with that. In a very crowded FPS scene where every developer is obsessed with removing control from the player at every turn and forcing them to play the game how they want it to play out, something from 1996 would have been a breath of fresh air, as contradictory as that is.

The fact that nobody was expecting greatness from DNF and it still managed to disappoint so many, so badly is a very damning testament to how awful the game is.
 
NukeDukem said:
Is Rage that bad? Its sitting in my Steam library unplayed but I plan on getting around to it sometime. Any word on a high res pack for Rage PC like Carmack mentioned at QuakeCon? I heard the game would be pretty good if the res and technical problems were worked out.
Click to expand...

It's not a horrible game imo, just lackluster, and rather forgettable. If it had been put out by an indie dev, or some little known dev, their would be a lot fewer complaints. It was the expectations that iD would launch a next gen PC engine, not just a high end console engine, and that Bethesda's involvement would mean that the game would have more depth than iD is known for.

What we got was just another shooter, that looked great from a distance and like ass up close, and an engine that appears to have been made from the ground up with a consoles first, PC, meh, whatever, mentality.

If you own it, might as well play it and decide for yourself.
 
It's sort of sad that there are two "most disappointing game of 2011" threads on page 1, and only one "best of" currently languishing on page 2.
The Witcher 2 was probably my most disappointing, not because it's bad (it's not) but because a) it had QTEs which is inexcusable, and b) I saw all the other potential disappointments coming a mile off. DNF? Rage? Crisis 2? I've even recall seeing a thread on here from someone complaining that they were disappointed by MW3 ffs. I don't know what some people are thinking when they buy games these days.
 
To be fair im not going to vote for a game that i haven't played. So for me it would of been between Home front and Brink. As crazy as it may be, to me homefront was alot better game thank Brink. The single player was Decent (The Typical go here and press this that Modern Shooter Singleplayer games have become) and The multiplayer was good enough to rack up 30 or 40 hours. As much as i wanted to like brink i just could not bother to play it for more than a few hours even on the Free weekend when i had nothing else to play.
 
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/12/the-best-and-most-disappointing-games-of-2011.ars


I guess the results closely mirror what we are seeing in this article, seems to be pretty spot on. Thanks for the poll, Plague_Injected

I find it hard to say that Duke Nukem Forever is "disappointing" when any rational person knows that a game that took 11 years of development to come out has all that old technology behind it. It for sure will not end up being a GOTY candidate, no matter how talented the team behind the game is. That was just a huge clusterfuck. But having acquired the Duke Nukem license, they can scrap and start over.

My only fear is that people who bought DNF and aren't happy won't be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a new Duke Nukem game, and that would be a crying shame.
 
Fail said:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/12/the-best-and-most-disappointing-games-of-2011.ars


I guess the results closely mirror what we are seeing in this article, seems to be pretty spot on. Thanks for the poll, Plague_Injected

I find it hard to say that Duke Nukem Forever is "disappointing" when any rational person knows that a game that took 11 years of development to come out has all that old technology behind it. It for sure will not end up being a GOTY candidate, no matter how talented the team behind the game is. That was just a huge clusterfuck. But having acquired the Duke Nukem license, they can scrap and start over.

My only fear is that people who bought DNF and aren't happy won't be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a new Duke Nukem game, and that would be a crying shame.
Click to expand...

I know myself that I expected DNF to be better because it was so dated, in that it would avoid all of the trendy BS that infests every modern FPS, that it would have played in a terrible-in-a-good-way manner and functioned as a throwback to the FPS school of old. It was the embarrassing attempts at being modern that really hamstrung the game.

I can't really imagine too many people would have been that disappointed with a glorified "Duke Nukem 3D: 2" on a 2004 graphics engine; since DN3D is by far the better game, it certainly would have been better than what was eventually served up with the Duke Nukem Forever label.
 
FrEaKy said:
Why in the world is Warhammer Space Marine on this list, that was an incredibly well done title!

My vote went for DNFE
Click to expand...

I know... It fitted in with the world storyline..had good combat, great level design/atmosphere and was a decent length campain. The only slight problem is the multiplayer finding a server, but it's not entirely broken, and works for me. Not exactly sure what you could be dissapointed with? :confused: (talking about space marine! DNF sucked horribly! :D)

Yet noone put LA noire, a game with huge over hyping that turned out to be shitty.
 
Plague_Injected said:
I know myself that I expected DNF to be better because it was so dated, in that it would avoid all of the trendy BS that infests every modern FPS, that it would have played in a terrible-in-a-good-way manner and functioned as a throwback to the FPS school of old. It was the embarrassing attempts at being modern that really hamstrung the game.

I can't really imagine too many people would have been that disappointed with a glorified "Duke Nukem 3D: 2" on a 2004 graphics engine; since DN3D is by far the better game, it certainly would have been better than what was eventually served up with the Duke Nukem Forever label.
Click to expand...
I can understand how you might have been disappointed by that, though if that's what you were expecting, you weren't paying attention leading up to its release. All the prerelease demo videos showed hugely consolised gameplay with quick time events and scripted triggered mission events (eg. Run through hall with explosions all around you, yet nothing can actually kill you because its all scripted). These features were clearly displayed in gameplay videos long before launch.
 
RavenX said:
BF3 made the list but not MW3???!!! this poll is automatically bunk.
Click to expand...

People know what they are going to get with the reheated yet frozen in the middle MW series. I don't think it's possible to be dissapointed with it, just underwelmed. :D
 
I'm sorry, but who the hell was disappointed with Duke Nuk'em, the most dysfunctionally developed game to ever reach a customer? How could your expectation be anything other than "A crappy game not worth playing unless you get competitive pay to do so"?

Man kind. Sometimes I despair.
 
lol @ DNF winning...did anyone actually expect to be blown away by this game? I would've expected Crysis 2 or Rage to win. Given the 2 xxxxx Sucks threads that are pages long on here.
 
_50_ people here bought DNF?! I'm calling bullshit.

DA2 and Rage, clear winners once DNF is disqualified.
 
Rage.

DNF wasn't disappointing because my expectations were already somewhere within the mantle of the earth.
 
Voted DA II. I know DNF and Rage are solid candidates to win this prestigious award, but I think it's got to be DA II because nobody saw it coming that it would be the worst piece of trash Bioware has ever released. In fact it's the only bad game Bioware has ever put out and that's over 15 years.

I'll be disappointed if DA II isn't voted the most disappointing, thus adding to overall disappointednesses.
 
My fellow forum-ers seem to have saved me from much of the pain of disappointment by providing a heads-up on most of these titles. While I had fun playing DA2 and all the DLC, I would still have to admit I was disappointed having played DA:O. BF3 SP was disappointing, MP is frustrating but mostly because I suck at it and I'm not enough of an online FPSer to really critique the finer points. I had preordered both of those games.

Too bad about Dead Island, I was interested in it and waiting for it to drop <$10 to play it (even though the release trailer disturbed my wife enough for her to scowl at me for wanting to play it).
 
Easy vote for me. Dragon Age II. They just crapped all over Dragon Age.

Not sure how DNF is leading, did people actually expect it to be good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top