Rayburn's topic gave me idea for this. Which games do you played and in your opinion was fail?
My top 3 would be:

World of Warcraft
Iron Man
Real War(with Rogue States)

- Games like Postal; the mere existence of such games is giving the entire gamer community a bad name. If such worthless pieces of software exist, it doesn't come as a surprise that politicians and journalists scapegoat us for everything because such games keep giving them more ammunition for their hateful arguments than necessary. It seems as if some parts of the industry weren't even willing to help find a compromise.

- World of Warcraft; never actually played it but this game takes so much attention from the rest of the PC that it hampers the progress of the computer as a gaming platform. Why come up with new concepts when all you gotta do to cash in is to make an MMO that feasts on addicted people's lives like a fucking parasite. I'm not saying that all WoW players are like that but there sure IS a whole lot of them. I know what I'm talking about. There was this one guy in my senior class who failed every single one of the final exams because he found it more important to play WoW all day. Out of like 42 people, he ended up as the only one with no qualification and he's probably still playing the game as I'm writing this.

- Rainbow Six Lockdown and Empire Earth 3 for being the shittiest sequels I've ever played.

Both Rogue Squadron and Battlefront games that did not make an appearance on the PC.

reminds me of the "worst game ever" topic over there at FS.
Got to be:
Captialism II: A waste of 4€ started to be boring after not more than half an hour due to uber reptitive gameplay.

Any MMORPG than is made as a sequel of a single player game story

i am lookint at you WOW, and you, you to Knights of the old republic

i dont hate mmorpgs(i do find WOW super generic as far as MMORPG goes and its only popular for 2 reasons: the Warcraft/Blizzard name and "my first MMO" syndrome) but i hate how you need to play them if you want to know "what happen next"

I totally forgot about this "legendary" RTS game.
SUNAGE
When I read about this game and saw several pics in magazine it looked like Starcraft so I decided to get it. I just removed it from my comp 20 min after I installed it.
Game is dead now.

In no particular order:

Sonic the Hedgehog for PS3 and 360: Terrible, terrible game. The 3D Sonic games never were masterpieces but this one takes the cake as the worst Sonic game ever. Shadow the Hedgehog comes close.

World of Warcraft: I play this game and I absolutely hate it. That's how addicting it is I'm hoping Diablo 3 and Dragon Age release soon so I can stop playing World of Warcraft for good.

The non-jp versions of Ace Combat 3. they dumbed down the JP version way too much

NFS Carbon, Underground 2, Undercover.
Prostreet was shitty but it was a fun to play.

Command and Conquer Yuris Revenge

Empire Earth II. Good god what a dump that was on the original.

Stalin vs Martians

i've never played EE2 nor NFS undercover, so i cant say anything about them, but NFS underground 2 and Carbon are the best NFS games i've played.

as for YR, why? what made it so bad?

The fact that it led to the next game on this list:

RA3 - for being absolutely ludicrous in every possible way in comparison with RA1.

-Rorschach

Red Alert 3 was actually pretty good (i.e. way better than C&C 3).

And yes, World of Warcraft, though tremendously successful, is a detriment as a whole as I don't like it and Blizzard continues to jack around with it instead of focusing on Diablo III and Starcraft I (i.e. games that I really want to play).

-Skunny in the Wild West
One of the most terrible pieces of shit I have ever played. I hardly got further than five seconds into the game.

-Diggers 2
None of you will probably have ever played or even heard of the original Diggers, but it was really cool IMO. The sequel sucked piss out of something's arse.

-Moho
Oh lord this game was terrible. Unfortunately my best friend at the time loved it, though D: .

That has to be the most original explanation of why someone hates WoW I've ever seen .

MapleStory

MMO that all my friends love/loved for some reason. It's worse than WOW. Far worse.

I'll add FlyFF and a bunch of other J-MMOs that a couple of friends are hooked to.

The sims (where EA is milking it sooooo badly out, i don't know how many expansion packs there are made for 1 and 2 )

MechQuest.

Played it for all of a day before realizing just how stupid the system is, and how it's set up so you only get the most out of it by:
A ) Using RL money
B ) Spend huge amounts of hours trying to get lucky.

C&C 3 Kane's Wrath.

HAWX, only gives headaches

World of Warcraft destroyed an 8 month relationship for me (well, contributed) so it must die.

Empire Earth III pretty much killed my one of my favourite rts series. >:(

EE2 and EE3.
AoE 3.
ACX.
C&C3 and KW.

Most of these games sucked hard: EE2's stupid territory control system and so few number of units, and the completely off-style EE3; AoE3 completely lost the AoE feeling for me; Ace Combat X could use a serious mission buff-up; most people know why I chose C&C3 and KW.

``AoE3 completely lost the AoE feeling for me´´

Indeed. Although it wasn't really horrible as a game, it sure was as an AoE title. The scenario was quite promising but what we ended up with really didn't
FEEL much like Age of Empires anymore. They should have kept it historical rather than making up that silly family story fantasy bollocks to begin with...

As for C&C3 and KW, I'm also inclined to agree. Even though I didn't find it so unredeemably awful that I wish it was never made, it was still quite disappointing, mainly because of the lack of unit diversity and the utterly forgettable story which didn't really make the best of the scenario and presented one of the most mundane alien invasions I've ever seen. Tripods with heat rays burning down cities is all fine with me but if the bigger part of the planet has already been a smoking, crystal-infested wasteland for four decades, it kinda loses some of the appeal.

Not to mention they seriously downplayed the problem with tiberium in C&C 3. It's like they went "okay, we got Kane and some green crystals and some similar blue crystals and generic looking aliens" and just stopped at that.

Star Wars Battlefront II, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2, Universe at War, and Starshatter.

Probably others I can't think of right now.

Any of the Tom Clancy game ports for the Play Station 2, what the fuck.

``Not to mention they seriously downplayed the problem with tiberium in C&C 3. It's like they went "okay, we got
Kane and some green crystals and some similar blue crystals and generic looking aliens" and just stopped at that.´´

Like they said in that article I've posted on Fallout some time ago: Tiberium has become something lifeless. They took away all of the mystery and turned it into a mere resource/generic sci-fi plot device. In the old games, Tiberium used to be so much more. There was fauna, there was flora and the crystals actually spread asymmetrically beyond that pre-determined circle around the tree...err...the 'pit'. They scrapped all the interesting aspects that made TS more than just another above average two-faction RTS.

This is why I only put KW there. CnC3 isn't that much a bad game and I've had my fun with it, but I have just never touched KW after I finished the campaign. It has so few content aside from the campaign, that it's really a waste of my money. I had hoped that they would fix up CnC3's shortcomings, like atmosphere (Tiberium creatures anyone?) and faction variety (Just compare the differences between the factions to Generals and you will get my point) and replayability.

But no, everything aside from the momentarily passable campaign is a complete fail.

Almost all of the Childish Nintendo games and The Wii's Shitastic Stick wagglers.

Those gimmicky kindergarten games were quite a disgrace for Nintendo veterans, indeed. Would have been easier to accept if they had released any good
games from their main franchises as well but that didn't happen for quite a while. Oh well, at least they announced a whole lot of promising games on the E3.

the wii itself and i know evry1 has said this alrdy but im gonna add to it...WoW

There's nothing wrong with the Wii itself in my opinion. Everyone may argue that the whole motion control thing was gimmicky or that it could have been done much better but the mere fact that they DID it rather than just releasing yet another console with the standard controller-with-buttons system like EVERYONE else speaks positively of Nintendo's ability to come up with fresh concepts i.e. what they're KNOWN for and which sets them apart from the others. Plus, the big name titles like Zelda or Mario were just as good with motion controls. It's not like the new control scheme did any major damage to them.

Problem is third party developers seem unable to develop good games for the Wii, so after the standard Nintendo titles from well known saga's, there is not much to enjoy on the Wii.

And they did that better in previous consoles. When Nintendo was still in race with Playstation, their licensed games were the best ever, but they cannot do that anymore with a graphically demoted console.

Demoted hardware is less of a problem for Nintendo's first party titles (Because Mario and the likes don't really NEED realistic graphics) than it is for third parties. Any game that goes multiplatform - i.e. 360, PS3, Wii - is completely inferior on the Wii because the hardware simply doesn't hold a candle to the other systems. If the Wii had better hardware, Nintendo could benefit from its own titles AND decent third party games. The problem is that developing games for the Wii is simply too easy.

honsetly you might as well by a gamecube because thats literaly what a wii is except with a motion chip and internet card theres only 1 game thats even good on the wii and thats super smash bros. the new zeldas are horrible compared to the nin64 ones

Ahh, the old Gamecube-argument. The Wii is competing in the same market as the 360 and the PS3 unlike the Gamecube which rivalled the original X-Box and the aging PS2 in the last generation. Just because the Wii's hardware is undoubtably inferior to the other systems doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be compared to them. Nintendo's simply making different use of their resources. They didn't go for 'ZOMG realistic graphix', they went for innovation and while you may rightfully argue that some of that innovation was pretty gimmicky, you can't deny that the thing was pretty damn successful. But oh well, this is getting dangerously close to the dreaded console war scenario and since this place isn't Gametrailers (thankfully) I better get this over with. Consider this: If the Wii is basically just a Gamecube with such minor improvements, would it have been an equal success if they had just re-released the Gamecube without any major changes? I doubt it. The system was at least innovative enough to get some new people into gaming. People who wouldn't have played video games if it weren't for the funny motion controls. People who now know first hand that games are more than GTA and 'murder simulators'. Isn't that a good thing too?

u know wat ima end this now and just say computers will always be the best systems as they meet all our needs

Well, we can all agree on that.

I miss the good days of Star Wars Rogue Squadron, Racer and James Bond Goldeneye though, too bad that ball isn't in the Nintendo alley anymore.

_{offtopic:
C.o.m.m.a.n.d.e.r
I don't mean to be picky but I have gotten used to reading full english on these forums that your l33t abbrevations are just making things harder. If you can, avoid it. (:}

Goldeneye 64 was great. Until this very day, the game is actually banned here because
at the time it came out, the death animations were 'too realistic' for our moral watchdogs.