I''d thought I''d open up the floor to a discussion on why some games have such great potential at the start but quickly you find out that instead the game medicore at best. I''ll start by mentioning a gamg called "live a live" its an old snes game where you play though 7 chapters each played diffrentyl with a diffrent character. Sounds great doesn''t it? but they game becomes boring a dull very quicky it just didn''t have much in the way of appeal after the initial concept. Master of Orion 3- This title has such promise and anticaption I had been waiting for this since moo2 but it was a terrible I even tried to return it. There was nothing good about the game what so ever. You virtually no control over your empire, you colony built themselves and controlling ships was a hassel and akward since you had to assign them into task forces and then they would function based entirely on what kind of task force you assigned them to. What about the rest of you, what are some games that had potential but failed to live upto it and Why? Hopefully by analyzing past failures we can all improve and develop better game designes. ----------------------------------------------------- Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades Current Design project Chaos Factor Design Document

Maybe poor planning...

100% agree --- moo3 sucked. its just to less ''physical'' with all these aoutobuild stuff. i still prefer moo2 (nice game btw )

one more game i hoped to be good was the new tomb raider. i liked the first one which was very atmospheric for the time it came out. then with every new TR (all where _exactly_ like TR one) it became more of a money horse(?).

when they announced TR6 i was enthusiastic at first since they promised a deep storyline developed by a real writer, finally a new gfx engine, new movement, etc...

but when i played it first i was shocked: during the first three levels there wastnt any real story at all - most of it was the old and boring ''jump n run'' thing. and even worse - even though they had a new 3d engine they still used this sucky step based movement system. leveldesign sucked 2

Well, this isn''t exactly a little game that couldn''t, but I always thought that Sacrifice never got the attention it deserved. The game was superb and yet it''s hard to find people that have played it or even heard of it. It could have been just plain marketing failure that led this, I''m not sure.

quote: Original post by Pext
one more game i hoped to be good was the new tomb raider. i liked the first one which was very atmospheric for the time it came out. then with every new TR (all where _exactly_ like TR one) it became more of a money horse(?).

I think the phrase you''re looking for is "cash cow."

Any RTS game made after Broodwar. StarCraft+Broodwar was the very avatar and image of perfection for the genre. Games that have come out since have just been lame. (yes including Warcraft 3)

EverQuest... had such great potential then we found out it was just MUD code with a gui attached to it.

quote: Original post by gn0m3
Well, this isn''t exactly a little game that couldn''t, but I always thought that Sacrifice never got the attention it deserved. The game was superb and yet it''s hard to find people that have played it or even heard of it. It could have been just plain marketing failure that led this, I''m not sure.

Some reviewers seemed to think that there was too much of a stalemate situation between capable players. That would make winning a match a matter of luck - clicking on the right or wrong thing at the wrong time.

Games need to feel like you are openly realizing that you made a mistake and give you a fair chance to learn better from it. If you need to take random potshots to see what works and what doesn''t without any real chance to formulate a strategy on your own, it wouldn''t be very fulfilling.

I didn''t play Sacrifice enough online to see the stalemate occur, but I could see where they are coming from. Personally, if anything ever turned me off to online gaming, it''s when the other player already has the map so mastered that you get your butt kicked until you imitate their opening moves. I prefer to go online to practice, learn and discover with the other players. It isn''t that way often enough.

I was always one for random maps that ensured an equality between the players. At least that way, both players are forced to do some stumbling in the beginning, hopefully not in a way that jeopardizes their performance.

Wouldn''t Zelda 2 fit in this category?

Zelda 2 sold boatloads, as far as i know.