Bit strong there, dude.Drunkern_Hobo said:
I'm a WoW player myself, but I think I can confidently say I have a life thank you...
In your opinion, what was the worst game you ever played?
- Thread starter jackpackage200
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm a WoW player myself, but I think I can confidently say I have a life thank you...
Darkguy89 said:
... *RAGE*
Why do you hate on Minecraft? D: The clue is in the name.. Mine and craft?
RE Survivor wasn't a HORRIBLE game. I enjoyed it.Drunkern_Hobo said:
Though the worst game i've played?
E.T
I win.
Maybe Red Steel :/ I usually play games with good reviews, so don't encounter bad ones a lot.
Captcha: WTF ITS UPSIDE DOWN
Captcha: WTF ITS UPSIDE DOWN
Dynasty Warriors: Fighter's Battle (DS). Here's a short review of it I wrote about six years ago:
"I feel sorry for anyone who plays the console series Dynasty Warriors, love it as so many have, then buy this hoping for an amazing portable substitute for the extremely successful series.What they get instead is what seems like invulnerable enemies, shoddy 2D movement, horrible mastery, terrible graphics, repeated over far to many levels than it should be.
A few factors that make the console versions successful, fun and on the whole stress relieving games: leagues of enemies, 60+ playable and unique characters, a decent mastery system, with at least basic ways of using moves to maximum effect, and a decent amount of levels. Of course, repetitiveness was an issue, and some aspects did grow annoying, such as the endless archers, combined with the terrible draw distance, which have your character flinch for a moment every second until you slaughter their cowardly behinds. Fighter's Battle takes all of these aspects and makes them oh so much worse. It also gets rid of most, if not all of the best parts of the console series.
For example, the archers, now more numerous, have more health than the toughest playable character each and shoot faster than Legolas on speed. The moves list is now limited to three quick attacks, and two stronger attacks, the levels are almost identical, except maybe, if you're lucky, some colour difference, and there are only three characters, as shown on the front cover. That's it, that's all you get.
One level, which I felt obliged to complete to give a full, informed critic, lasted about forty minutes, and I felt I took the quickest route. I chose the 'average' out of the typical three character system (strong/slow, fast/weak, and average) to make it a little easier on myself. The thing is, in this three character system, none of them worked, because the enemies seemed practically immortal, impervious to pain. The final straw for me was that you could not actually block, despite there being at least four buttons available."
Yeah, I hated it, and I still do.
"I feel sorry for anyone who plays the console series Dynasty Warriors, love it as so many have, then buy this hoping for an amazing portable substitute for the extremely successful series.What they get instead is what seems like invulnerable enemies, shoddy 2D movement, horrible mastery, terrible graphics, repeated over far to many levels than it should be.
A few factors that make the console versions successful, fun and on the whole stress relieving games: leagues of enemies, 60+ playable and unique characters, a decent mastery system, with at least basic ways of using moves to maximum effect, and a decent amount of levels. Of course, repetitiveness was an issue, and some aspects did grow annoying, such as the endless archers, combined with the terrible draw distance, which have your character flinch for a moment every second until you slaughter their cowardly behinds. Fighter's Battle takes all of these aspects and makes them oh so much worse. It also gets rid of most, if not all of the best parts of the console series.
For example, the archers, now more numerous, have more health than the toughest playable character each and shoot faster than Legolas on speed. The moves list is now limited to three quick attacks, and two stronger attacks, the levels are almost identical, except maybe, if you're lucky, some colour difference, and there are only three characters, as shown on the front cover. That's it, that's all you get.
One level, which I felt obliged to complete to give a full, informed critic, lasted about forty minutes, and I felt I took the quickest route. I chose the 'average' out of the typical three character system (strong/slow, fast/weak, and average) to make it a little easier on myself. The thing is, in this three character system, none of them worked, because the enemies seemed practically immortal, impervious to pain. The final straw for me was that you could not actually block, despite there being at least four buttons available."
Yeah, I hated it, and I still do.
personally I have to say Xenosaga. I generally like jrpgs, but I couldn't make it more than a few hours into this one.
Halo and Super Smash Bros Brawl were the only two games I ever stopped in the middle of for how purely horrible they were.
Dragon Age Origins was the worse game I ever finished.
Dragon Age Origins was the worse game I ever finished.
Hydrophobia is a third person shooter, not an FPS (first person shooter)...Jake Martinez said:
Two Worlds on the Xbox 360. My god it was a horrible port, with bad animations and I kid you not a 2 second lag between button press and action used. The menu text was small and fuzzy and the item screen had a kind of cursor lock making so it took several taps in one direction to get to the item you wanted. And did I mention you're as tough as a box of Kleenex, even starting enemies can shred you just by looking at you cross. And the script and voice acting was atrocious as well. I hated Gamestop for a bit after that, they wouldn't take the game back when I tried to return 4 hours later. However, the sequel was actually enjoyable and fun. Two Worlds 2 was a complete turn around and is good for those who like slightly cheesy hack and slash games.
I don't play many bad games, but the one that made me die insinde when I played ot was GTA IV, the game wasn't fun thank god I found Saints Row 2.
Games like CoD, Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising, Halo Reach and Rome Total War are in my "they could be great if they were fixed" list.
Games like CoD, Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising, Halo Reach and Rome Total War are in my "they could be great if they were fixed" list.
Monopoly.
Losing money's enough of an issue in real life, I don't need no board game to simulate it.
Going for video games, I'd go with Team Fortress 2, at least since Valve started adding community weapons and tacking random, balance breaking attributes to them just to make an extra buck from that store.
I don't think TF2 really needed extra weapons in the first place. If they'd have just stopped after the Engineer update, so every class had some variation, that'd have been fine. But then they just kept going and going...
Just as a disclaimer, I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy all the new weapons or whatever. Simply saying I don't like 'em myself one itty bit.
Losing money's enough of an issue in real life, I don't need no board game to simulate it.
Going for video games, I'd go with Team Fortress 2, at least since Valve started adding community weapons and tacking random, balance breaking attributes to them just to make an extra buck from that store.
I don't think TF2 really needed extra weapons in the first place. If they'd have just stopped after the Engineer update, so every class had some variation, that'd have been fine. But then they just kept going and going...
Just as a disclaimer, I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy all the new weapons or whatever. Simply saying I don't like 'em myself one itty bit.
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. It was a (badly done) direct console port which assumed you were going to use a controller. Mouse and keyboard controls were unbelievably clunky and the textures and models were so low quality. It was pretty much unplayable.