Worst game ever? - Page 2

BustaMike · March 7, 2003, 18:14

Most disappointing game ever... no question... CIV 3!

Alinestra Covelia · March 7, 2003, 20:33

Tassadar, I never said Perfect Dark was the worst game ever. I just said it was overhyped and a disappointment.

It also helps if you use the quote function selectively to show which part of the quoted passage you refer to, instead of quoting the whole post.

My posts are long and boring and so you should be kind to the other poor readers who don't want to read it twice

Static Universe · March 7, 2003, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG

Well... maybe The Sims is the worst game ever, but was is a dissapointment? What expectations did you have about this game... and was the game, the way you expected it to be, then it's not a dissapointment... boring, maybe, but not a dissapointment...

It's a huge hit with the type of gamers who think choosing wallpaper is a valuable feature. A spectacular success.

Ben Kenobi · March 7, 2003, 21:21

Biggest Disappointment?

Civ3 of course. Too slow.

As for Non-civ games I'd have to say Warcraft 3.

It loses some of the appeal of the previous Warcraft we waited so long for.

DrSpike · March 7, 2003, 21:25

WC3 is a great game. Why did it disappoint you?

Alinestra Covelia · March 8, 2003, 01:22

One of Blizzard's longstanding commitments to the gamer was the ability to deliver a very good graphics set at a low system resource consumption.

A commitment that Warcraft 3 evidently decided to take, roll up, and then proceed to stuff right into their [text missing from transmission] pockets.

VJ · March 8, 2003, 05:04

Messiah had superb graphics, pretty good concept, but it was filled with bugs.
It was also hyped, but it had no effect, because Daikatana was published during the same year.

Adagio · March 8, 2003, 06:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
One of Blizzard's longstanding commitments to the gamer was the ability to deliver a very good graphics set at a low system resource consumption.

They could have done much better graphics, if they didn't use 3D... and the worst part: They only used the 3D graphics in a way, they could have used 2D graphics

So War3 was also a dissapointment...

DrSpike · March 8, 2003, 08:40

Well if the gripe is just that low end systems can't play the game then I am not that sympathetic. Most gamers have a system that can handle it, and it sold bags and bags of copies. On top of that it is a great game SP and MP.

Adagio · March 8, 2003, 09:17

The point was:

I just don't understand WHY they chose 3D graphics... 2D graphics are much better (unless 3D is done right... witch it wasn't in this case), and 2D graphics requires less computer power...
It's like War3 just shot themselfes in the foot, by choosing 3D graphics... The 3D graphics they chose did in NO way, make the game any better... at least that's what I think...

DrSpike · March 8, 2003, 09:43

Well they have to strike a balance. If they do as you suggest (as they would have in days gone by) they would have annoyed people who felt the game was not as pretty as it should have been. Ultimately they willl satisfy the biggest portion of potential gamers, and I'm sorry to say the way they chose is the way the vas majority of games will be from now on.

Adagio · March 8, 2003, 09:54

Most people I know, are also dissapointed by the graphics in the game... So here it doesn't look like the majority wants the type of graphics they chose...

DrSpike · March 8, 2003, 10:02

Apart from some posts here everyone who I have heard criticise the graphics means that they should have been even better, not that they are too good, leading to some people not being able to play the game.

Blizzard satisfied the largest section of the community, as of course they would do. Consequently, WC3 sold bags of copies.

Maquiladora · March 8, 2003, 10:09

Its a terrible trend this everything in 3D thing, alot of games have beenb ruined because they thought 3D was needed where it wasnt, except to sell more copies. The only games that benefit from 3D (in game enjoyment) are sports and action games stuff like that, where you dont need to intake alot of information at once, you just have a quick blast. Strategy games, i like to feel in control and see everything easily without shifting a 3D camera all over place all the time. My wrist can only take so much

DrSpike · March 8, 2003, 10:28

Personally I have always felt that graphics should be secondary to gameplay. But if you can keep gameplay as good whilst having better graphics there is no reason not to, as long as enough of your target consumers have machines that can play the game. The default requirements for WC3 are not that high, and the gameplay is great. Therefore WC3 is a success.

Adagio · March 8, 2003, 10:44

Yes, gameplay over graphics... but AFAIK it takes longer time, to make 3D graphics, than 2D graphics... and 3D graphics requires a better computer, than 2D graphics would...
And in War3's case, they should have spent the time, they spent on 3D graphics, on making gameplay better... I wouldn't call it great... it's just avarage gameplay... and avarage can always get better (Therefore the name

)

Maq: Yes, I'm tired of this trend also... they mentioned in an interview some time ago, that SC3 was set to be in 3D, simply "Because everything is 3D nowadays"... It was the producers who wanted it, but lucky for us, the developers persuaded the producers to make it isometric instead...

loinburger · March 8, 2003, 11:19

Robinson's Requiem. Words do not describe how vomitorious this game was.

Your ship crashes on an alien world, and you're left with nothing -- no tools, no weapons, no nothing. You've got to get off of the planet, somehow. A nice concept, except that the graphics were buggy, and the game was too damned hard! The game tracks every little injury and malady that is inflicted upon you (Slept outside overnight without shelter? Now you've got pnumonia! Slept outside on hard ground? Now you've got a twisted back! Didn't boil that water? Now you've got cholera! Cut your arm in that knife-fight? Now it's gangrenous, time to cut it off!), and you can pretty much guarantee that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Supposedly you encounter aliens and robots and alien robots later in the game, but we always died after about three days in the wilderness.

Sarxis · March 8, 2003, 17:56

Well, I've played some lemons in my time. But the ones that really hurt are the ones you get so hyped up about and get your expectations real high for.

Like MoO3.

Ben Kenobi · March 9, 2003, 00:25

Quote:

Well if the gripe is just that low end systems can't play the game then I am not that sympathetic.

I had hoped to actually play WC3...
As it is, I cannot, so WC3 disappoints until I can buy a new computer.

asleepathewheel · March 9, 2003, 00:36

Star Voyager for the NES

I would recommend downloading the rom just to see a truely awful game.

you can play the game literally for hours, flying around in a starship without finding anything other than a few empty planets.

It was a task to even get killed in the game (Insert MoO3 joke here)

Luckily I didn't pay for it, it was a gift from my (former) step-grandparents.

Blech

Dis · March 9, 2003, 04:24

Star Wars Rebellion

Black and White

Call to Power 2

DrSpike · March 9, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

I had hoped to actually play WC3...
As it is, I cannot, so WC3 disappoints until I can buy a new computer.

I love problems where the solution is neatly packaged with it.

Maquiladora · March 9, 2003, 09:27

Quote:

Black and White

I dunno WTF the reviewers were on giving it constant 90%+ ratings but that game sends me to sleep.

Datajack Franit · March 9, 2003, 10:25

Don't forget the unanimous 100% given by about 12 different game review sites to Crono Cross

Of course there are even the opposites, as sites giving crap marks to great games as The Longest Journey (54% WFT???)

mactbone · March 9, 2003, 10:43

Chrono Cross is that bad?

My roommate had it and I played it. I thought it was pretty good - it was a Japanese RPG (which means it will have many stereotypical elements). My only problem was that I couldn't figure out who I wanted in my party, I had like 25 guys and only 4 slots.

vee4473 · March 9, 2003, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

I had hoped to actually play WC3...
As it is, I cannot, so WC3 disappoints until I can buy a new computer.

My system wasn't up to running it smoothly either. But I doubled my ram from 128 to 256 for $30 in a last ditch cheap attempt to make it playable.

It worked, I still need to disable things, but it was sped up very much.

Try that...

DrSpike · March 9, 2003, 10:59

Yes you need 256K minimum these days. RAM is so cheap, there is no reason not to upgrade. Additionally a cheap celeron or duron processor (not my personal preference, but ok for those who don't want to spend too much on their computer) around the 1Ghz mark, and a low end Ge-force or Radeon card would not be that expensive.

Insigna · March 10, 2003, 03:19

Black and White Was a GREAT game. How could anyone not like it? Black and white is more like the best game of all time not the worst.

Some of the worst:

Outpost 2
Test Drive: Off Road
CTP

Sarxis · March 10, 2003, 03:46

WHAT? Someone gave TLJ 54%?? Idiots!

Btw, sequel coming.

Another fine pile of crapware is Hegemonia. Ok, it's got great eye-candy, but the game has VERY serious balance and gameplay issues.

Adagio · March 10, 2003, 05:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Insigna
Black and White Was a GREAT game. How could anyone not like it? Black and white is more like the best game of all time not the worst.

The challenge of the game, was to keep awake...

Quote:

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
WHAT? Someone gave TLJ 54%?? Idiots!

Btw, sequel coming.

Sequel? To TLJ? Sounds great... do you have a link?

Nevermind... found it here