• taterboob - January 5, 2012 11:38 p.m.

    Everyone raises good points, but I've gotta say that I'm not feeling Mr. Cooper's extreme anger toward Bloodrayne. It was very challenging at times, but never to the point of being impossible. The part that (I believe) he mentioned on Tdar about having to jump on tiny platforms while being chased by a giant sawblade only took me about four or five tries to get through. If I can get through that part, anybody can. I'm usually the first person to ragequit when a game is giving me trouble (I don't like being angered or frustrated by my escapist entertainment), and I managed to play through the entire game without much trouble. TL;DR Bloodrayne: Betrayal wasn't THAT hard, and this is coming from a guy who is actually afraid to play Dark/Demon's Souls because of their famous difficulty.
  • Poggs - January 5, 2012 10:48 p.m.

    It's getting salty in here.
  • Raptorsaurus - January 5, 2012 10:10 p.m.

    Charlie Barratt...I thought I was the only one. I love you. That game was garbage.
  • Flashinthepan - January 5, 2012 5:57 p.m.

    After looking through all the comments, I'm pleased that some people took the time to critique Uncharted 3, and not just the obvious punching bags of 2011. Although I did not agree with the lack of story, or uninventiveness of the combat, (I know it's not a word), I do concede the validity of the complaints. My opinion of these flaws is the diverted time to secretly conceive, plan, and develop an entirely new IP with the current staff took more of a hit on the Uncharted game than anticipated. The gameplay of Uncharted 3 isn't really newer or incredibly more diverse because the people who created the first two games were mostly in charge of The Last Of Us. Amy Hennig was in charge of the project once the teams were divided, which would explain the more story oriented game design. I don't dislike the story, so I don't agree with the criticism. I'm just glad someone out there isn't blinded by fanboy rose-colored glasses, to which I may be at fault. Can't wait for next winter, when The Last Of Us is scheduled to release. Keepin' it real, Sony style.
  • xarab4lyfex - January 5, 2012 5:39 p.m.

    Charlie, I lost any respect I had for you after you said catherine was a bad game. It seems like you didn't finish the game, but I can't say that because I don't know you're life, but the block puzzles made you think, unless you used a walkthrough or played on very easy. It made me rage at times, but it was so satisfying when you reached the top. Also, yes the girls might be somewhat stereotypical, but the story wasn't and unlike the stereotypical girl, they were fleshed out and the gamer cared about them (at least i did). And the story was fantastic. Anyway my anti-game of the year was Batman Arkham City, because of the rediculous amount of hype for a 5-6 hour campaign, the God awful story, and the rediculous lie they told of it being a "50 hour game". Riddler trophies count as extending a game as much as backtracking does.
  • Meleedragon27 - January 5, 2012 5:38 p.m.

    I notice both the editors in the article and the community complaining about underwhelming single-player modes... this makes me sad. No, not the comments themselves, but knowing that I'm not alone when I see all these game developers put more and more focus into things like co-op and multiplayer while compromising the single-player. Seeing the game industry change like this is depressing. While I have nothing againts multiplayer or co-op, I remain adamant in my belief that a game should be more than capable of standing on single-player merits alone, something a lot of games in recent years are failing to do. If the dev team demands I go out and make friends just to enjoy their stupid game (read: "just to enjoy the game" as opposed to "get even more enjoyment out of an already enjoyable experience"), then that game has already failed in my eyes.
  • EwoksTasteLikeChicken - January 5, 2012 5:21 p.m.

    MW3. My friend brought it over, hoping for me to buy it, and as we were playing the multiplayer, all I could think of was: Wow, why the hell wasn't this just DLC for MW2? Also, Rage and L.A. Noire were both good games, I don't care what anyone out there says.
  • taterboob - January 5, 2012 10:36 p.m.

    I agree. I did get burned out on L.A. Noire after a while though.
  • MonocledYaoGuai - January 5, 2012 5:06 p.m.

    It's always nice to see Buttercup participating. My anti-game of the year was Sonic Generations. I liked the 2D parts, but fuck, 3D sonic is nearly unplayable, not to mention How quick I beat the damn thing. The final boss is horrible and all of Sonic's friends and they're god awful voices are back, which didn't help the game at all. The music was VERY good though, and I got to say, it was a very pretty game.
  • Darkhawk - January 5, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    My picks: PS3 Skyrim for obvious reasons, and Shadows of the Damned: The most overrated (by Gamesradar) game of the year, SotD is a by-the-numbers Suda 51 entry with none of the intelligence, love, or care obvious in his other creations. The humour (which has always had broad elements) is outright crass, the gameplay bland and unoriginal, and the story uninteresting. A far contrast from Killer7 or NMH, and a BIG disappointment.
  • Norwegian420 - January 5, 2012 3:46 p.m.

    Did any of you play Rage? If you did, you probably forgot about it already. It was that bad :S I had suck high hopes for that game. My biggest anti-game of 2011
  • UberNoob - January 5, 2012 3:03 p.m.

    So true Buttercup, so true...
  • Yeager1122 - January 5, 2012 1:40 p.m.

    Completley agree with L.A Noire i bought it day one got halfway through still havent ever gone back to playing it and most likley never will.
  • Fuzunga - January 5, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    Super Mario 3D Land. I really wanted to like it, but the run button made it broken and unplayable.
  • dmc4eva - January 5, 2012 11:24 a.m.

    i only bought gears 3 for the campaign, i have no time for the multiplayer, the campaign was lacking the wow factor of gears 1 and dom and maria's emotional end in 2, despite trying with the poorly done death of dom. It wasn't great, but i enjoyed it and the four player co-op with friends, that saved it for me.
  • Sjoeki - January 5, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    Miss Buttercup, you forgot to digres!
  • MegaInferno124 - January 5, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    For someone who read 3 of the 4 currently available books in the Gears series, I found the story in Gears 3 to be enjoyable. It finally gave a face to the characters that had been introduced to the series years ago, such as Bernie and Sam. It had fan service in the fact that another Carmine was included. It even gave several mentions to events that happened within the novels. Yeah, I'm a geek. I read the books written for games. But I find it unfair that people say the story was weak, when they probably haven't read the books. Of course, you may have read them, and still find the story weak. In which case that's your taste. And that's cool, bro. :P
  • thinkBrigger - January 5, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    The main issue is the majority of the Gears consumer fanbase simply aren't going to read the tie-in novels. Clearly, the games haven't been very well explained without them in the past, but the third game was pretty painfully confusing to anyone actively trying to follow it. The game should really have had its own contained, concise and clear writing that anyone could follow, then references to more minor points from the books and licensed comics. Not being able to pick up the narrative by just jumping into it, as the game did lack a lot of exposition dialogue, definitely led to some gamers thinking the story writers were either being lazy, greedy (leaving important information out to encourage book sales) or knew the game would sell regardless of shoddy writing. I still loved the game and Gears is always going to be exceptionally fun in terms of couch co-op (and bust out whenever there's company), but the writing of the third game was lackluster. Unless it's a niche game, there really aren't any good excuses for making new players have to boot up the wiki for context. Something I almost had to do with the friend I played with who was unfamiliar with the series, which I think definitely soured his experience as he has zero intention of getting into the previous two installments now. I certainly don't buy the Gears games for their story, but do think this one would have benefited from being more straight forward and less vague, instead of relying on canon from something a lot of the casual fanbase hasn't gotten into.
  • MegaInferno124 - January 5, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    Fair point, dude. :) I got given the first book as a "gaming" present one year, and personally thought it was a well written novel. But you do have a point, as many people will feel short-changed in terms of story. In particular people who get dragged along for the co-op ride (nobody I've played Gears co-op with actually owns any of the games :P) will indeed be a bit put off. The point I'd like to make is that if anyone really cares about the story, they should try the first novel. If they don't like it, fair doo's. I just personally enjoyed it. :)
  • fullmetallegend - January 5, 2012 7:59 a.m.

    Seems more like biggest dissapointments of the year, otherwise, there would definitely have been Duke Nukem and Blackwater.

Showing 21-40 of 93 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.