Worst Video Game(s) you've ever played

[Rollofthedice]

@Fartingo

P.S. I forgot one, Sly Cooper 2 and 3 (Jesus Christ…)

First of all, that’s two, not one.

Secondly, are you saying you don’t like them? I thought they were amazing.

@Medevilae

Personally, I really enjoyed WaW. I think it got what it did mostly because it was “ergg another WWII game,” when everyone wanted another modern shooter. Had it been released before MW, I think reception would have been different.

I don’t get why people hate the Call of Duty series in the first place. The multiplayer might arguably be bad, but the campaigns are a blast to play. Other than COD3, of course. That one was just bad overall.

Going back on topic, I think FEAR is incredibly boring. Sure, the game’s pretty, but nothing scares me, and the environments get massively repetitive after a while. I think FEAR 2 is much better; I actually got frightened once or twice.

EDIT: Not that I’m being rude or anything, Fartingo. Just terse.

[Jethrosoup]

@Rollofthedice

I don’t get why people hate the Call of Duty series in the first place.

That’s what I’m saying. They’re not bad games; I think people hate them just because they’re the cool thing to hate.

[Someonerandm]

I just hate MW2 personally, because it represents a lowering of standards for games, and is the model for the horribly generic games that we are seeing everywhere.

[Surplus]

I found Manhunt to be a pretty boring game.

[CTID]

Call of Duty 3 was just a terrible game overall.

Modern Warfare 2 is terrible because it was a halfhearted effort that Activision made Infinity Ward make to capitalize on the Modern Warfare game for money. It’s just not fun like Modern Warfare or CoD 2 or 1. I also actually liked World at War quite a lot.

[Ham_Solo]

I liked MW2, but it felt like an addon to MW, not like a “new” game. That’s often the case with EA’s games. They bring out a new part of a franchise after 1-3 years, and thus the presentation and gameplay doesn’t advance or change much. Innovations are not in the detail, but barely noticable at all.

[Pokemon_Eater]

MW2 wasn’t that bad on the first play through. The level design and locales were creative although very linear, and it had enough moments to keep it entertaining such as assaulting the West Wing or the final battle on Zodiac’s. Some of the Spec Ops mode missions were good too, such as the Stealth mission in the snow or “Wardriving” with the Stryker giving support. The graphics weren’t that bad- although they were low poly the textures were good enough to add a diversion from the meshes and the animations were good, with the except of characters clutching their face after being hit by a grenade. The combat wasn’t very dynamic though, unless you go balls out and storm the enemy position with an auto shotgun such as the DAO-12 or with an LMG. It was definitely the gameplay that ruined it, though I repeat only after you beat it once. Plus it was short.

I have to admit the Multiplayer was complete shit. There was no way to avoid being flanked or camped unless you paranoidedly throw grenades around every corner and window. When you do die, it’s probably because the weapons are wildly inaccurate with the campaign ones being infinitely more accurate and damaging. Spme weapons din’t make any sense, such as the UMP 45 being better than a SCAR which can’t shoot for shit unless you have an incredible sense of concentration and live by the motto “Short controlled bursts”. The addition of kill streaks basically rewarded being a camping asshole and nukes just became buzz kill as you’re in the middle of an otherwise good match, with supply drops being unnecessary.

[CTID]

I didn’t particularly like it on playthrough one. It was exactly the same as Modern Warfare. With literally zero innovation.

[Ham_Solo]

@CTID

I didn’t particularly like it on playthrough one. It was exactly the same as Modern Warfare. With literally zero innovation.

What other kind of “zero innovation” is there? Metaphorical innovation?

[garrthbarrttinn]

@Pokemon Eater

MW2 wasn’t that bad on the first play through. The level design and locales were creative although very linear, and it had enough moments to keep it entertaining such as assaulting the West Wing or the final battle on Zodiac’s. Some of the Spec Ops mode missions were good too, such as the Stealth mission in the snow or “Wardriving” with the Stryker giving support. The graphics weren’t that bad- although they were low poly the textures were good enough to add a diversion from the meshes and the animations were good, with the except of characters clutching their face after being hit by a grenade. The combat wasn’t very dynamic though, unless you go balls out and storm the enemy position with an auto shotgun such as the DAO-12 or with an LMG. It was definitely the gameplay that ruined it, though I repeat only after you beat it once. Plus it was short.

I have to admit the Multiplayer was complete shit. There was no way to avoid being flanked or camped unless you paranoidedly throw grenades around every corner and window. When you do die, it’s probably because the weapons are wildly inaccurate with the campaign ones being infinitely more accurate and damaging. Spme weapons din’t make any sense, such as the UMP 45 being better than a SCAR which can’t shoot for shit unless you have an incredible sense of concentration and live by the motto “Short controlled bursts”. The addition of kill streaks basically rewarded being a camping asshole and nukes just became buzz kill as you’re in the middle of an otherwise good match, with supply drops being unnecessary.

I agree with all this, except I don’t think it it made it a bad game. It made it a lot worse than it could have been but it still didn’t make it a bad game. When you’re losing in the mp because of campers/hacker/nube tubers/ it’s frustrating as hell. but nothing is more fun and satisfying than going on a massive killstreak rampage in MW2.

[jambo]

TF2 is always more satisfying than MW2.

Always.

[Deimos]

@Jambo

TF2 is always more satisfying than MW2.

Always.

It really is.

Although i don’t hate MW2, the singleplayer was very entertaining for the 4 hours it took.

[CTID]

@Ham Solo

What other kind of “zero innovation” is there? Metaphorical innovation?

Well, there’s…you know, real innovation.

@garthbartin

I agree with all this, except I don’t think it it made it a bad game. It made it a lot worse than it could have been but it still didn’t make it a bad game. When you’re losing in the mp because of campers/hacker/nube tubers/ it’s frustrating as hell. but nothing is more fun and satisfying than going on a massive killstreak rampage in MW2.

Well no fucking shit. Games are always more fun and less annoying/frustrating when you’re the one that’s winning.

@Jambo

TF2 is always more satisfying than MW2.

Always.

Agreed.

[Fartingo]

@Rollofthedice

First of all, that’s two, not one.

Secondly, are you saying you don’t like them? I thought they were amazing.

To be fair, it was less than a year ago since I first played them, not to mention I had swine flu at the time. In all honesty, though, I find it to be heresy when people place it next to Jak & Daxter and Ratchet & Clank. The level design, combat, and voice-acting all came off as extraordinarily half-assed in comparison.

[Bloodshot]

@Jambo

TF2 is always more satisfying than MW2.

Always.

ANY game is always more satisfying than MW2.

Always.

@Ham Solo

I liked MW2, but it felt like an addon to MW, not like a “new” game. That’s often the case with EA’s games. They bring out a new part of a franchise after 1-3 years, and thus the presentation and gameplay doesn’t advance or change much. Innovations are not in the detail, but barely noticable at all.

Battlefield 2142, anyone?

[mrfohlin]

@Bloodshot

ANY game is always more satisfying than MW2.

Always.

I guess you haven’t played Sonic the Hedgehog for 360/Ps3.

[Bloodshot]

@mrfohlin

I guess you haven’t played Sonic the Hedgehog for 360/Ps3.

That i could understand. But in terms of FPS games, MW2 is pointless. The only decent thing was Killstreak rewards - but every other CoD game is superior.

[Daedalus]

@Fnoigy

Actually part 1 was pretty stupid, too. It just aslo happened to be entertaining.

Except that it’s a satire. The whole government basically being a bunch of fascists. Kind of a ‘What if Hitler won the war?’ situation.

It’s too bad some people can’t see that.

Same goes for Robocop and Showgirls for that matter. And in the sequels that aren’t made by Verhoeven they just don’t seem to get it.

[higgsboson]

Snake III on Nokia. What was wrong with the original Snake? That game rocked…

[CW6]

I’ve played a couple games that made me wish to stab myself in the eyes. The first one is Angst - Rahz’s Revenge. My god this was sooooooo horrible bad! Ugly enemy sprites ans crappy animations and textures, it took forever to to kill an enemy (the took dozens of shots) and those fucking elevators, I ALWAYS fell of them. Yuk, just EVERYTHING in this game was just horrible. Here a nice video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8opG6YMIhzU

The other one is called W.A.R. Soldiers. It’s a crappy Vietnam shooter. It has about 5 Levels and each one was about 2-3 Minutes gameplay. The graphics were ugly, especially the enemies. They head big, stupid baloon heads. Unfortunatly I can’t find any videos or screenshots.

The next one is called The Hidden Below. It’s another shooter, remindes me a little bit of ANGST. At least it was a little better but still crappy. Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n8QcUv7jns

And yet another crappy shooter is Depth Dwellers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fnQqZfzI70