Post = tinderbox.darthmalak95 said:
OT:
Psychonauts. I found it boring, found the protagonist irritating and found the much lauded humour to be a bit dull and lacking.
The platforming was quite inventive though.
Popular games that you hate (or at least really don't like)
- Thread starter acklumos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT:
Psychonauts. I found it boring, found the protagonist irritating and found the much lauded humour to be a bit dull and lacking.
The platforming was quite inventive though.
While I absolutely LOVE Half Life 2, the game does have the flaws you mentioned, especially the console versions.UncleUlty said:
The vehicle handling is godawful and completely counterintuitive, you end up moving back and to the left when you're trying to steer forward out a drainpipe you've crashed backwards into.
The bullshit sections where you get attacked from all sides while speeding through the canal was just unfair and cheap.
Some of the signposting is also rather lacklustre, I remember two or three occasions thinking 'where the fuck am I supposed to be going?'
The friendly AI is atrocious (apart from Alyx) and is often more of a hindrance than a help as they block your path and get in the way of your shots.
I hear that brother. My friends talked it up so much that I was expecting it to be fantastic. Boy was I wrong.-Stranger- said:
Got to be Guitar Hero and Rock Band. I played GH up to the 3rd one, and I still love the 1st three, but after I played Rock Band at my friend's house I just lost all faith in the series.
What I despise even more than the later GH & all RB games are the people who have never played the very first two GH's, which defined the series, but go off about how awesome they are at it. Seriously. Go back and play expert on the 1st one, where they didn't need 1000 notes to make you fail.
What I despise even more than the later GH & all RB games are the people who have never played the very first two GH's, which defined the series, but go off about how awesome they are at it. Seriously. Go back and play expert on the 1st one, where they didn't need 1000 notes to make you fail.
Halo 3. The amount of hype behind that game is undeserved; it's just plain crap. I couldn't get myself to enjoy it even after playing it for 2 hours. Good thing it came for free with the 360 I bought, otherwise buyers remorse would've strangled, incinerated and thrown me into a dumpster.
Second analog stick useless? what do you mean? one moves, the other one looks around...?WayOutThere said:
I've said this before in a similar thread, but, I just don't get why people love Oblivion so much. Once I got out into the main game world, it just got boring. I don't particularly hate Oblivion, I just can't get into it. What I DO hate, though, is when my friends tell me that Oblivion is the best Western Fantasy RPG ever made, and Dragon Age: Origins (which I think is one of the better Western Fantssy RPGs in existence) sucks. I was in a discussion with these people about why I didn't like Oblivion, and they responded with stuff like, "You're just not playing it right," and "You just don't know how to have fun with it." The thing is, I tried to have fun with it. I really did. No matter how I played it, though, I just couldn't understand what the big deal was. The one thing I hate more than any game is when people talk down to me because I don't have the same taste in games as they do. Seriously, people, get over yourselves!
Fucking Little Big Planet. Looked like trash, yet everyone on the gaming website where calling it amazing and made it seem like it was going to change the way video games worked. Rented the game, and then I remembered why I usually let the developers do the game creating for me. It's because my creativity is shit.
Despite what movies and games have tried to teach us, shooting guns is harder than it looks and people actually do tend to need to plant themselves to brace for firing.WayOutThere said:
Back on topic. Final Fantasy VII. I would say the entire series, but really, I just didn't play any of them other than FFVII, and it convinced me not to pursue the series any further. I didn't even finish the first disc of this one. For me, I think it's a frustration thing. I even played this before I developed my overall distaste for JRPGs, and indeed, this game contributed towards my sentiment. I have nothing against turn-based combat (had fun with Golden Sun, against the odds), especially since some of my favourite games ever involved turn-based combat. But even more than any other RPG I've played, the combat in FFVII felt to me like the combat was merely a test to see if I had enough health potions on me at any given moment.
Even worse, though, is the fact that the game was only ever letting me actually play it for a few minutes at a time, and "interactivity" was returned to me only to be interrupted by another cutscene by the mere detection of joystick movement. My character didn't even take a single step in any direction before the next character ran in and the dialogue boxes started pouring in.
I get it, Square. You got a neat story you want to tell. But if you're going to make a game, then let me actually play the goddamn thing. Just saying.
well .... not an original answer, but I dont like Halo 3. I found the story boring and shallow, never found that "epic feeling" that the fans always talk about. The gameplay is very good though, for a console FPS.
I also don't like Killzone 2, in this case, the gameplay was awful.
I also don't like Killzone 2, in this case, the gameplay was awful.
Halo games of course are incredibly unappealing to me. Probably a good third of my disdain for the entire series comes from how much it is loved for doing absolutely nothing new. The other day I heard it argued that it was the first game to have controls so tight and created the model for other games control schemes. This is a phenomena that occurs EVERY SINGLE CONSOLE CYCLE. It's not all that impressive that a game developer can look at a controller and say,"Hmm, I think it would seem appropriate if the right trigger fired".
Next I'm going to throw GTA4 in the fire. This game simply tried to do too much. I understand the appeal of free-roaming sandbox gameplay, but a game still needs to understand that a player needs to feel as if they have an actual purpose. At times it can be difficult to even tell the difference between the main plot and the side quests. They're all delivery and escort missions. Then there's the issue of the environment. I know everyone is going to tout about how good GTA: San Andreas was, but honestly I didn't like this game either. Having a good twenty minutes of driving from quest giver to quest giver is not exactly fun to me. The world was simply too big, with so much of it feeling redundant and unnecessary. If we're talking "king of GTA" I'd have to give it to Vice City. This game, as I understand it, receives most of it's criticism for being too short. It genuinely held my attention though, and the bright visuals and almost cartoonish visualization of the 1980's was immensely amusing to me. It immersed me like no other GTA has even come close to.
Finally I would end this list with Left 4 Dead 2. I won't bore you with the usual arguments of how it could have been released as DLC, and how it doesn't really add much. No, these things I think are rather arbitrary, seeing as how even if it had been released as DLC I would be mostly worried that this game's issues would infect my L4D1 experience. I'm honestly surprised that it would appear no one else is fussing about it, but it commits the cardinal sin of crippling the player. And not the sort of crippling where Yuffie runs off with your materia for a couple of hours, no we're talking a full on crowbar to the knees. I can certainly see why you would limit a players knockbacks during a vs. match, but why is it necesarry during campaign co-op? What, is Valve afraid the Director AI is going to rage about how players are over-powered? Also, the big pull of this one was supposed to be the inclusion of melee weapons, but I don't agree with how they shove them down your throat. Remember how in the first one if you picked up a shotgun you could then easily rely on your pistols for range? Well not in this one, because we're in the whacky zany universe of L4D2 where a frying pan is a far superior weapon to pistols wielded akimbo. The pistols got nerfed so hard, don't be shocked when you see children in the street hurling them at each other like foam footballs. Sequels almost always make the effort to up the ante, but you do that by making the enemies stronger, not the player weaker.
Next I'm going to throw GTA4 in the fire. This game simply tried to do too much. I understand the appeal of free-roaming sandbox gameplay, but a game still needs to understand that a player needs to feel as if they have an actual purpose. At times it can be difficult to even tell the difference between the main plot and the side quests. They're all delivery and escort missions. Then there's the issue of the environment. I know everyone is going to tout about how good GTA: San Andreas was, but honestly I didn't like this game either. Having a good twenty minutes of driving from quest giver to quest giver is not exactly fun to me. The world was simply too big, with so much of it feeling redundant and unnecessary. If we're talking "king of GTA" I'd have to give it to Vice City. This game, as I understand it, receives most of it's criticism for being too short. It genuinely held my attention though, and the bright visuals and almost cartoonish visualization of the 1980's was immensely amusing to me. It immersed me like no other GTA has even come close to.
Finally I would end this list with Left 4 Dead 2. I won't bore you with the usual arguments of how it could have been released as DLC, and how it doesn't really add much. No, these things I think are rather arbitrary, seeing as how even if it had been released as DLC I would be mostly worried that this game's issues would infect my L4D1 experience. I'm honestly surprised that it would appear no one else is fussing about it, but it commits the cardinal sin of crippling the player. And not the sort of crippling where Yuffie runs off with your materia for a couple of hours, no we're talking a full on crowbar to the knees. I can certainly see why you would limit a players knockbacks during a vs. match, but why is it necesarry during campaign co-op? What, is Valve afraid the Director AI is going to rage about how players are over-powered? Also, the big pull of this one was supposed to be the inclusion of melee weapons, but I don't agree with how they shove them down your throat. Remember how in the first one if you picked up a shotgun you could then easily rely on your pistols for range? Well not in this one, because we're in the whacky zany universe of L4D2 where a frying pan is a far superior weapon to pistols wielded akimbo. The pistols got nerfed so hard, don't be shocked when you see children in the street hurling them at each other like foam footballs. Sequels almost always make the effort to up the ante, but you do that by making the enemies stronger, not the player weaker.
My apologies for the above post being so long. I am an ass-hat and as such also tend to be long winded.