The Not Quite Best Games of 2011

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

erttheking:

Woodsey:

erttheking:

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

Bluecho:
The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Well here's the thing buddy, he said in the very first paragraph that he "being accused of being automatically biased against shooters" Accused meaning being charged with something, and from that wording, he was saying that he wasn't biased against shooters but you just said that he was biased, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little confused by the mixed messages that I'm getting. Also I was more or less saying that he was biased in a way that isn't incorrect, but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry.

I think there's a pretty big difference between bias against two specific games/franchises (and games that attempt to emulate them), and being biased against all first-person shooters...

erttheking:
You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by bias in this situation?

Bobic:

erttheking:
You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by bias in this situation?

Mainly that he's got an extreme hatred for these games, a kinda irrational hatred too if I can get away with that.

erttheking:

Bobic:

erttheking:
You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by bias in this situation?

Mainly that he's got an extreme hatred for these games, a kinda irrational hatred too if I can get away with that.

Well, yes, he does have a hatred for them, that's why they get the number one spot. That's kinda what woodsey was getting at. It's a list of the 5 (well, technically 6) games he hates the most. So if hatred counts as bias, then yeah, the number one spot will always be biased, by definition. If we're counting it as an opinion, however, then it's perfectly reasonable.

CaptOfSerenity:
You can't say Arkham Asylum is "in fact" better than Arkham City because that's not a goddamn fact, it's an opinion. Yahtzee's been utterly dismissive of other opinions lately.

He's always been dismissive of other peoples opinions? The whole Anti-Wii thing, for instance.

And yes, he can say that MW3/BF3 is shit, because he only plays the singleplayer. So you people feel that the multiplayer is "70% of the content"? Fine, but he isn't reviewing that content, now is he? So every time he starts a review, imagine a big neon sign flashing before your eyes saying "THIS REVIEW IS BASED SOLELY ON THE SINGLEPLAYER EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME", and then maybe you could stop complaining about it?

just because Resistance 3 ripped off other games doesn't make it bad..it's just cleverly taking the best bits out of other games and using it..there is a lot of games I had wished had "borrowed" other games ideas instead of coming up with their own shitty mechanic

Why no mention of Serious Sam? I really don't think he gave that game enough credit...

Xenominim:
I wonder if we could ever get a worst games of all time list. You see best games of all time lists with things like X-Com and Super Mario Bros. always near the top. But what games are so wretchedly bad as to be remembered years later as having caused pain to so many?

Wouldn't be possible. You'd have to look at:

1) The "blockbusters" that are carbon copies of older, better games, with none of their charm or energy, that we seem to get so many of nowadays (ditto sequels, etc).

2) Going back a bit, you'd need to include what I like to call "coin-op conversions from hell", the likes of which "Double Dragon" for the C64 would represent nicely. You have an entire legion of Golden Axe, Space Harrier, Afterburner etc imitators that were just awful.

3) Then you have the whole "granny games" section, by which I mean games that barely classify as such and that only your grandmother could think would be fun ("Chester Cheetah: Too Cool to Fool". Yeah, I played it. Yeah, it really is that bad. Worse than "Barney's Hide and Seek". Reportedly worse than the "Barbie" games on the Sega Megadrive. Not that I would know. Ahem...)

4) Then you have what I like to call "the curse of the adventure game". Early on this would be text-based, later point-and-click, but this is the kind of "game" where the only way to ever progress would be to try using every object on every other object within the game. And even then the logic would be obscure. Text-based is worse because sometimes the game wouldn't recognise what you were trying to do, even if it was right. Basically the kind of game that you have to use a walkthrough to solve, and even then it's not worth it.

5) Bible games. Just bible games. If you've ever played one of these wretched things from the 8-bit era ("Super Noah's Ark", anyone?) then you'll know what I'm talking about.

6) And then you just have the legendary failures: "ET the extra terrestrial", "Superman 64", "Kane and Lynch 2", etc.

Add in the fact that everyone has a subjective viewpoint and everything's gonna be hated by SOMEBODY.

Now go through all of that and tell me how the heck you're gonna sort out a definitive list of "worst games of all time"? I mean, there's so much bad, so much mediocre. It's like any art form: a helluva lot of it will always be produced solely for the money, with no real creative vision behind it, sometimes under extremely stressful or hurried conditions, getting shoved onto the shelves for Christmas without being properly finished, etc. You just gotta know where to look for the good stuff.

Falseprophet:

Richard Beer:
So the problem, and you should really understand this without me or anyone else having to spell it out for you, is that you've judged a game with a 90% focus on multiplayer on its single-player experience. Perhaps if you'd given the award to the "BF3 and MW3 Single Player Campaigns" instead of the games as a whole, people would understand.

So why aren't these games just released as multiplayer online arenas, and they don't even have to bother with their linear, set piece to set piece, badly-written single-player campaigns?

This is a very good point. I understand the reasoning behind the shift towards focusing on multiplayer, since they generally involve a lot less effort to develop than single player campaigns and yet have much more replay value. But that just brings up the question of why the same developers who operate on that logic still do pour all that work into making the campaigns at all.

I remember Yahtzee complaining about developers focusing on multiplayer and singling out Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament as targets of blame, and I didn't bother to argue with it at the time, but now's a good time to bring it up again: He was wrong about that. Really, if anything, those games (and all of Valve's multiplayer games from '99-'07) did it the right way: If you wanted to play a game against other people, you would buy one of those games. If you didn't, you wouldn't. It was pretty cut-and-dried and nobody forced you to buy what was essentially two games if you only wanted to play one. Sadly, they have always been the exception rather than the rule, and the only game I can think of to do it since 2007 was Brink, and given how much its "single-player/multiplayer integration" was hyped I'm not sure it counts.

I have to say that I felt MW3 was indeed the most disappointing to me this year because there was a while where I was considering buying it due to the story because the previous game, as mediocre as it may have been, set it up in a way that I wanted to see what happened next. It looked interesting and I was hoping that they'd do something good for the next one, but apparently they took the thing that was the most interesting to me (Both the Russians and the Americans being portrayed as partially justified douchebags and the main characters being secret fugitive badasses on a mission to stop a senseless war) and threw it out the window in favor of another modern-cold-war-round-two game where the Russians are evil and Americans are the shining saviors of the human race and it's better to be dead than red. At least with DNF I realized there was no way it could recapture the old-style of gaming because hunting for secret doors in non-linear spread-out levels and such just wouldn't work in the modern days, and that's what I liked about the Doom era the most.

Resistance 3 was one of the more pleasant surprises because, while I was fully confident Insomniac would make a good game, I was surprised at the way they rounded it off and listened to the fanbase and improved the game accordingly. I would've been begrudgingly satisfied with an updated Resistance 2. I did get the HL2 vibe, especially in Ravenholm Mount Pleasant, but I know that basically all the changes were specifically requested by a large chunk of the fanbase (the removal of health regen and the return of the weapon wheel) and were more-or-less present in the first Resistance so I didn't really peg it as a rip-off, but I can definitely see how some could see it that way.

I certainly agree with Deus Ex. The last boss battle was kind of a step in the right direction, but even then they were a step downwards, and the game was never terribly tricky. Not to mention that I've never been a huge fan of save-scummying and it was pretty much necessary in that game with some of the random-ass cases where I'm not aware that I'll piss the guards off if I do something, like the police station once I talked my way in. Walk into that restricted access area? Sure, go right ahead. Walk into an office? STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM! Grab a credit chip off a table right in front of a guard? No problem, enjoy! Open up that drawer with a proenergy bar in it? DIE YOU MONSTER!

Realitycrash:

CaptOfSerenity:
You can't say Arkham Asylum is "in fact" better than Arkham City because that's not a goddamn fact, it's an opinion. Yahtzee's been utterly dismissive of other opinions lately.

He's always been dismissive of other peoples opinions? The whole Anti-Wii thing, for instance.

And yes, he can say that MW3/BF3 is shit, because he only plays the singleplayer. So you people feel that the multiplayer is "70% of the content"? Fine, but he isn't reviewing that content, now is he? So every time he starts a review, imagine a big neon sign flashing before your eyes saying "THIS REVIEW IS BASED SOLELY ON THE SINGLEPLAYER EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME", and then maybe you could stop complaining about it?

The anti-Wii thing is easy to have. I'm an RPG fan and I've always had an anti-Wii thing because Nintendo has been the piss-bucket for RPGs since the N64 era. Leave your dirty handheld RPGs out of this too. I got this big frakkin TV so I could play my video games on it, not so I can get a 3" screen and try to read the tiny text. It's like I have the Dreamcast controller and they are trying to force me to play a game on the memory card. Motion controls and 3D gimmicks don't really matter to an RPG, so nintendo is just a waste when it comes to RPGs. With VERY few exceptions, I've never said 'I regret buying a Xbox 360 rather than a Wii'. As opposed to my desire to get a PS3, which is MUCH stronger.

As for why MW3/BF3 deserves the top of the crap-list, it really comes down to them being cookie-cutter games with nonsense storylines and shit-tastic gameplay. The stories make VERY LITTLE SENSE. In MW3 they gas like every city in Europe, then invade at the same time, and there is something about kidnapping the russian presidents daughter so they can get nukes... REALLY? 'I've got the power to kill tens of millions of people in a single day! Woohoo, I don't think it's enough, I need to be able to kill everyone left without having to deploy my seemingly endless supply of soldiers.' Craptastic! Now I'll get to BF3 and it's glaringly stupid plot to terrorize us with suitcase nukes. First, you find a case with three spaces for the bombs, but only one nuke in the case. Nobody comes to the conclusion that there was only ever one nuke. Nobody wonders why one nuke was left behind (meh, I don't need three nukes, two will do me just fine. Leave the third for the americans to find and worry about. Maybe they will blame the russians for selling nuclear weapons to Iran...). In France they go to stop the first nuke and the bad guys have dozens of guys and large canisters of GAS in the building. Why did they bring gas and men to a city they wanted to nuke? Did they expect somebody to get wind of their operation and try to stop them with three russians? Since everyone in the game except the civilians has a gas mask, why bother with gas? Same thing in New York, lots of guys taking over a train to transport an easily hand-carried nuclear device to the city center. Only reason it goes off in Paris is because the guy slips it on the train on a timer before you could get there and nobody was any the wiser. It's like this villians WANT somebody to try to fight them, and ultimately defeat them. Also the viewpoint of BF3, where you are being interrogated at the end by somebody else about the events of earlier in the game seems to be taken right from COD: Black Ops, except they were ripping off Alpha Protocol, which is at least fifty times better than both of these games combined, and it itself is only a shadow of what Deus Ex Human Revolution turned out to be.

Oh, and a game can't stand without a solid single player experience. Even an MMORPG like World of Warcraft is STILL a solid game if you could play it offline by yourself.

TheMadDoctorsCat:

Xenominim:
I wonder if we could ever get a worst games of all time list. You see best games of all time lists with things like X-Com and Super Mario Bros. always near the top. But what games are so wretchedly bad as to be remembered years later as having caused pain to so many?

5) Bible games. Just bible games. If you've ever played one of these wretched things from the 8-bit era ("Super Noah's Ark", anyone?) then you'll know what I'm talking about.

Hey, Super Noah's Ark probably wasn't that bad of a game. Sure it was baffling as hell but it was Wolfenstein 3D with a fresh lick of paint and who doesn't love Wolfenstein? Ok, yes, no-one but Nazi sympathizers would choose it over Wolfenstein, but still, I'm sure you could have fun with it.

MonkeyPunch:
I never read the comments on the worst game of the year because I guessed there would probably be a shit-storm about them. (Also I called in advance that Yahtzee's worst game of the year would be either MW3 or BF3) Gold star for me.

I guess though one reason why people are "upset" about the fact is that Yahtzee just refuses to acknowledge the multiplayer aspect of those games which is arguably the bigger portion of those titles. Some people will buy those games exclusively for the multiplayer.
So I guess some people feel hard done by, because Yahtzee never really reviewed those games in their entirety and his view of them is ill-informed because he plain refuses to play or acknowledge the existence of 70% of the game.

Heck, BF3 didn't have a single player until this most recent iteration. It used to be Multiplayer only, with the option to practice offline against bots.
So I understand where a lot of people are coming from I guess. It's like saying WoW is crap because the singleplayer just doesn't do much. At all.

On the other hand based on previous statements I doubt Yahtzee would like those games more if he did play the multiplayer anyway.

Though I wonder why so many people are so intent on having some "random" dude like the game they like...

The reason he never reviews multiplayer is because everyone's experience online is different, based on who you are playing with, and no two people will have the same experience.

Person 1 may get a team the works together well, some opponents who work together well, and have a jolly good time all around.

Person 2 may get a game full of people lobbing grenades every 2 seconds, or get permanently spawn trapped, or play against a team of raging 12 year olds with the language of a dirty sailor, and have a terrible time.

So which one is the correct multiplayer experience?

Critics have to look at the things that don't change for the average person. The single player campaign doesn't change based on who is playing.

The gameplasy in Resistance 3 is similar to the gameplay in the Ratchet and Clank series...just in 1st person.

Ratchet and Clank was released before HL2, so as far as gameplay goes, no, they didn't just "rip it off". Maybe they took some inspiration in locations, but other than that, no.

I find it hard to believe Yahtzee wouldn't do just a couple of minutes of research to realise this (is he even aware of the Ratchet and Clank series?).

Well, I guess what I predicted was true. Yahtzee didn't put Call of Juarez: The Cartel on the list because it is boringly bad, even though it is much worse (in my and I'm betting quite a few others' opinion) than Duke Nukem Forever (a game let down by unrealistic hype through development hell, mediocre gameplay and trying to extensively borrow cliches from popular FPSes throughout history, and say what you may about Duke's personality here) and Dead Island (a game that while competent but initially buggy, was a substantially jarring change in tone from the original, beautifully-done trailer), while some would argue worse than Mindjack too (indeed, fucking fucking fucking fucking bad bad bad bad don't don't don't don't play it).

After watching Extra Credits' take on CoJ:TC though, I am just infuriated with the game (perhaps even moreso than even DNF's Alien Hive). It's not just that it's boring and ultralinear with an unnecessary dose of hardcore edge, it's also laced with unfortunate implications and blatant untruths. Of course, it seems nobody gives a damn about the game anyways. For a fully-priced release, when Ubisoft decided to delay the port a couple months, I never saw it in the top ten best-selling games and hardly if ever saw it in the top twenty. By the time of the console versions' release, the bad reviews were already pouring from critics and community and Techland just didn't care as they were focusing on Dead Island.

Minecraft is more of a "game" than any "crafted experience" ever could be. Why is a game a "crafted experience" now? Isn't a game more of a set of systems used to create the illusion of a world? To this end, wouldn't that make Minecraft the most game-like game that came out all year? I dare say "creativity toy" doesn't cut it. Open-world sandbox with a set of engaging core principles behind it is what makes a game.

I'm not a Minecraft fanboy, not in the slightest. But I'd have assumed it makes the cut more than any cinematic, "immersive" "experience".

I'm actually playing through Deus Ex:HR for the time now. My character is diversionist (damn I just made up a word), and going through a police office building without anyone seeing you is pretty fun, but you know what's not, that first fucking boss fight against an augmented dude with a minigun on the end of his fucking arm and when he isn't shooting you he spams grenades that kill you instantly if you get too close to the blast and that's very difficult when your in a small room with lots of obstacles playing with sluggish controls! *takes a breath*, but yeah, otherwise a good game. (I hate you Barrett).

L.A NOIR and deas ex HR are both games i must get this year

I played some Resistance 3 before putting it down and calling it off as complete BS
BUT I was forced to play it with Move controls so that might have been an unfair handicap for the game lol

I played through both MW3 and BF3 (didn't buy then, gosh no) and...well I enjoyed myself enough
but I wouldn't encourage their behavior. esp CoD under Activision

ChupathingyX:
The gameplasy in Resistance 3 is similar to the gameplay in the Ratchet and Clank series...just in 1st person.

Ratchet and Clank was released before HL2, so as far as gameplay goes, no, they didn't just "rip it off". Maybe they took some inspiration in locations, but other than that, no.

I find it hard to believe Yahtzee wouldn't do just a couple of minutes of research to realise this (is he even aware of the Ratchet and Clank series?).

Ratchet & Clank: heavy emphasis on platforming and collecting various items in typical cartoonish platformer fashion. Possesses light shooting elements with a minimal focus on aiming or ammo conservation. Levels arre broken up into multiple, open hub areas connected by corridors. Just your average 3D platformer, but with guns.

Resistance 3: possesses little to no platforming elements. Aiming and ammo conservation are integral to gameplay, as with every first person shooter made since 2001. Levels are composed of mostly linear stretches, with few to no areas where open maneuverability is permitted.

I question your logic, good sir.

Hal10k:

Ratchet & Clank: heavy emphasis on platforming and collecting various items in typical cartoonish platformer fashion. Possesses light shooting elements with a minimal focus on aiming or ammo conservation. Levels arre broken up into multiple, open hub areas connected by corridors. Just your average 3D platformer, but with guns.

Resistance 3: possesses little to no platforming elements. Aiming and ammo conservation are integral to gameplay, as with every first person shooter made since 2001. Levels are composed of mostly linear stretches, with few to no areas where open maneuverability is permitted.

I question your logic, good sir.

Did you just say that Ratchet and Clank has "light shooting elements"? I recall the R&C commercials back in the PS2 era being specifically focused on the weapons and the destruction they can cause.

In the Resistance 3 episode of ZP, Yahtzee mentioned things such as health kits, not constantly taking cover and more straightforward action.

All of which have been featured in the Ratchet and Clank series.

To say that Resistance 3 is an outright "rip-off" seems misinformed. Maybe Insomniac took some inspiration, but "rip-off"? No.

CardinalPiggles:
I'm actually playing through Deus Ex:HR for the time now. My character is diversionist (damn I just made up a word), and going through a police office building without anyone seeing you is pretty fun, but you know what's not, that first fucking boss fight against an augmented dude with a minigun on the end of his fucking arm and when he isn't shooting you he spams grenades that kill you instantly if you get too close to the blast and that's very difficult when your in a small room with lots of obstacles playing with sluggish controls! *takes a breath*, but yeah, otherwise a good game. (I hate you Barrett).

Barett's the first of three of these terrible bosses. There are environmental solutions with all of them, but it sucks to focus on stealth and have this happen. The fourth "boss" is a good mix of everything learned in the game.

Check out the Zero Punctuation review, and how he talks about the boss fights.

it's impossible to get past those horrible boss fights and terrible ending.

I still don't get what the big deal is with the Deus Ex boss fights. They're like five minutes of game time combined, out of 12+ hours. I just ignored them and moved on.

"You know why I hate the two specified realistic war games? Because they're horribly written and the gameplay is so dull and repetitive that it puts me in a fucking trance. And I'm pretty sure that's not a sensation that pitched do-or-die war battles are supposed to evoke, so there you go"

People still dont get it? i am pretty sure that even in the Extra Punctuation reviews you made it already clear. Oh wait, they have to read the article to notice and reading isnt on the list of things that the educational system have to teach

OT: You know, because i dont live in a place where the news of new video games (or any video game export for that matter) reach this place i was really surprised that Gears of War was developed by Epic Megagames (Know now as Epic Games)
To think that a shitfest like that get up to 3 games makes me wonder: Is the series popular because the gamers feared that if they DONT buy the games from Epic the company will shut down and never see another Unreal game or even a sequel to Tyrain?? Dont they know that if they buy a Gears of War the developers will think that you want more of it?? Why not just donate your money if its so important for you for them to make other games??

And while i am at it: WHEN WILL YOU MAKE A GAME THAT WILL SURPASS TYRIAN IN TERMS OF AWESOME, Epic Games?????

ChupathingyX:

Hal10k:

Ratchet & Clank: heavy emphasis on platforming and collecting various items in typical cartoonish platformer fashion. Possesses light shooting elements with a minimal focus on aiming or ammo conservation. Levels arre broken up into multiple, open hub areas connected by corridors. Just your average 3D platformer, but with guns.

Resistance 3: possesses little to no platforming elements. Aiming and ammo conservation are integral to gameplay, as with every first person shooter made since 2001. Levels are composed of mostly linear stretches, with few to no areas where open maneuverability is permitted.

I question your logic, good sir.

Did you just say that Ratchet and Clank has "light shooting elements"? I recall the R&C commercials back in the PS2 era being specifically focused on the weapons and the destruction they can cause.

In the Resistance 3 episode of ZP, Yahtzee mentioned things such as health kits, not constantly taking cover and more straightforward action.

All of which have been featured in the Ratchet and Clank series.

To say that Resistance 3 is an outright "rip-off" seems misinformed. Maybe Insomniac took some inspiration, but "rip-off"? No.

Lets talk about this line that divides a game from being "inspired" and from being a "Rip-off" because i am still waiting for someone to say "all these shooters are a clear rip off of Doom and blah blah blah" or "The Star Wars prequels are just a 3 movie rip off of Citizen Kane badly done"

So lets try to be honest here and see what we can work out. Why you think that Resistance 3 ISNT a rip-off? Because for me it feels like the developers were going for the nostalgia cash in since R3 isnt like R2 in terms of gameplay (as Yathzee pointed out, it isnt as brown and boring) You will think that they will just have the same as R2 but with some innovation but the change of mechanics makes me believe that it IS a cash in in nostalgia.

TheMadDoctorsCat:

Xenominim:
I wonder if we could ever get a worst games of all time list. You see best games of all time lists with things like X-Com and Super Mario Bros. always near the top. But what games are so wretchedly bad as to be remembered years later as having caused pain to so many?

Wouldn't be possible. You'd have to look at:

1) The "blockbusters" that are carbon copies of older, better games, with none of their charm or energy, that we seem to get so many of nowadays (ditto sequels, etc).

2) Going back a bit, you'd need to include what I like to call "coin-op conversions from hell", the likes of which "Double Dragon" for the C64 would represent nicely. You have an entire legion of Golden Axe, Space Harrier, Afterburner etc imitators that were just awful.

3) Then you have the whole "granny games" section, by which I mean games that barely classify as such and that only your grandmother could think would be fun ("Chester Cheetah: Too Cool to Fool". Yeah, I played it. Yeah, it really is that bad. Worse than "Barney's Hide and Seek". Reportedly worse than the "Barbie" games on the Sega Megadrive. Not that I would know. Ahem...)

4) Then you have what I like to call "the curse of the adventure game". Early on this would be text-based, later point-and-click, but this is the kind of "game" where the only way to ever progress would be to try using every object on every other object within the game. And even then the logic would be obscure. Text-based is worse because sometimes the game wouldn't recognise what you were trying to do, even if it was right. Basically the kind of game that you have to use a walkthrough to solve, and even then it's not worth it.

5) Bible games. Just bible games. If you've ever played one of these wretched things from the 8-bit era ("Super Noah's Ark", anyone?) then you'll know what I'm talking about.

6) And then you just have the legendary failures: "ET the extra terrestrial", "Superman 64", "Kane and Lynch 2", etc.

Add in the fact that everyone has a subjective viewpoint and everything's gonna be hated by SOMEBODY.

Now go through all of that and tell me how the heck you're gonna sort out a definitive list of "worst games of all time"? I mean, there's so much bad, so much mediocre. It's like any art form: a helluva lot of it will always be produced solely for the money, with no real creative vision behind it, sometimes under extremely stressful or hurried conditions, getting shoved onto the shelves for Christmas without being properly finished, etc. You just gotta know where to look for the good stuff.

Why did you put "ET the extra terrestrial" for the Atari 2600 along with Superman 64?? ET is a bad game for the wrong reasons. It looks and acts as shitty as the Indiana Jones game from the Atari but no one marks it as the worst game ever. ET has bad reputation rather than being a bad game because Atari thought that they could sell it like hot cakes and end up making more cartidges than they could sell and that is it. Worse of all, they rush the game just as they rushed the Pac Man port from the arcades to the Atari in the last year and that failed too, and somehow they made the same fucking mistake TWICE of releasing a rushed game on Chrismast and overproduce it.

Superman 64, however, just plain sucks. It doesnt have the same excuse as an Atari game

CardinalPiggles:
I'm actually playing through Deus Ex:HR for the time now. My character is diversionist (damn I just made up a word), and going through a police office building without anyone seeing you is pretty fun, but you know what's not, that first fucking boss fight against an augmented dude with a minigun on the end of his fucking arm and when he isn't shooting you he spams grenades that kill you instantly if you get too close to the blast and that's very difficult when your in a small room with lots of obstacles playing with sluggish controls! *takes a breath*, but yeah, otherwise a good game. (I hate you Barrett).

Trust me... I despise Barrett and his stupid minigun/grenade combo. I also despise that second boss, the one that can use the Typhoon AND cloaking. I also hate that third boss, because seriously? A plasma rifle when all my augmentations are shut off? And I especially hate the last boss. Why the hell do you put THE EASIEST BOSS IN THE GAME AT THE END OF IT?! PUT BARRETT THERE, AT LEAST WE WOULD FEEL LIKE WE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING!!! But, I digress.

binnsyboy:

The Crazy Legs:
Yeah... I was a bit surprised to not see Call of Juarez: The Cartel on the list. Everyone I know (me included) disliked that game. But Yahtzee has a point. I don't hate the game, I just get depressed whenever I think about it. Is that hatred? ... It's entirely possible.

I never played it, but if Extra Credits is to be believed (about the game twisting how the Cartel worked and passing it off as fact) then it's certainly one game I don't need to play to know I hate it. Even if the gameplay wasn't purportedly mediocre, it's still offensive.

Yeah... Never play the game. If the messages it tries to rub into your brain won't offend you, the goddamn AI will. "You don't have to do this all by yourself, you know." I DID ALL THE WORK, YOU SARCASTIC SON OF A BITCH!

I think the list is fine, although it wouldn't match mine. What it does seem to be is a big FU to publishers and developers to stop making the same crap over and over, stop restricting player interaction, and try something different rather than safe.

As he says, he doesn't hate BF3/MW3 because of how they play but of "what they represent". It's the same as BF3 fans gives 0's on Metacritic to MW3. It's resentment at being peddled the same crap over and over.

But as Rich Hall once said "Good things come to those who wait. Sh1t comes straight away"

If you're going to say that Arkham City is a step in the wrong direction at least back it up. Or at least put it in a way that doesn't make me say 'Who the hell are you and what do you mean by wrong direction?'

erttheking:

Bobic:

erttheking:
You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by bias in this situation?

Mainly that he's got an extreme hatred for these games, a kinda irrational hatred too if I can get away with that.

Or it might be that anyone with half a brain could tell that Duke Nukem would an awful, awful game of epic proportions. BF3 and MW3 at least had a pretty solid production team behind them, a realistic development time and at least some expectations of relative quality. Instead one was a horrendously dull corridor shooter, the other a quicktime event mash up of invisible walls and corridor shooting in faux open environments, both with multiplayer options that could be fun, if you're willing to brave the wasteland that is the console shooter community. Which most people aren't.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

The reason he never reviews multiplayer is because everyone's experience online is different, based on who you are playing with, and no two people will have the same experience.

Person 1 may get a team the works together well, some opponents who work together well, and have a jolly good time all around.

Person 2 may get a game full of people lobbing grenades every 2 seconds, or get permanently spawn trapped, or play against a team of raging 12 year olds with the language of a dirty sailor, and have a terrible time.

So which one is the correct multiplayer experience?

Critics have to look at the things that don't change for the average person. The single player campaign doesn't change based on who is playing.

I don't agree at all. From what you're saying there's no possible way to review a multiplayer game. And that's not the case.

Sure you everyone's experience will be different depending on the people you play at a specific moment but you can still * "review" * the basic framework and functionality of the game and what it has to offer.

Also from the way you put it that's someone forming their opinion on a single game of multiplayer.
If you're to play the game any length of time, you're bound to run into both people who are fun to play with and people who are not. The one thing that won't change on the other hand is the actual game. The mechanics etc.
Basically off what you're saying it would be impossible to review a game like Team Fortress 2. Which it obviously isn't.

So no. That's not grounds to fob off the multiplayer altogether and you sure as hell can review the multiplayer component of a game or a multiplayer only game.

* I don't see Yahtzee's videos as being true reviews in the first place. They are more of a comedic show with humours quips about a game. He tends to be "negative" about most games just because it's fun to bitch about stuff like that. He himself admits that he's sometimes overly harsh on games just to get a good pun. And that's fine because it makes for good entertainment.
I've enjoyed ZP's since the first one he released on YouTube, but I think you'd have to be a bit silly to base whether or not you're going to buy a game off one of Yahtzee's shows.

DioWallachia:

TheMadDoctorsCat:

Xenominim:
I wonder if we could ever get a worst games of all time list. You see best games of all time lists with things like X-Com and Super Mario Bros. always near the top. But what games are so wretchedly bad as to be remembered years later as having caused pain to so many?

Wouldn't be possible. You'd have to look at:

1) The "blockbusters" that are carbon copies of older, better games, with none of their charm or energy, that we seem to get so many of nowadays (ditto sequels, etc).

2) Going back a bit, you'd need to include what I like to call "coin-op conversions from hell", the likes of which "Double Dragon" for the C64 would represent nicely. You have an entire legion of Golden Axe, Space Harrier, Afterburner etc imitators that were just awful.

3) Then you have the whole "granny games" section, by which I mean games that barely classify as such and that only your grandmother could think would be fun ("Chester Cheetah: Too Cool to Fool". Yeah, I played it. Yeah, it really is that bad. Worse than "Barney's Hide and Seek". Reportedly worse than the "Barbie" games on the Sega Megadrive. Not that I would know. Ahem...)

4) Then you have what I like to call "the curse of the adventure game". Early on this would be text-based, later point-and-click, but this is the kind of "game" where the only way to ever progress would be to try using every object on every other object within the game. And even then the logic would be obscure. Text-based is worse because sometimes the game wouldn't recognise what you were trying to do, even if it was right. Basically the kind of game that you have to use a walkthrough to solve, and even then it's not worth it.

5) Bible games. Just bible games. If you've ever played one of these wretched things from the 8-bit era ("Super Noah's Ark", anyone?) then you'll know what I'm talking about.

6) And then you just have the legendary failures: "ET the extra terrestrial", "Superman 64", "Kane and Lynch 2", etc.

Add in the fact that everyone has a subjective viewpoint and everything's gonna be hated by SOMEBODY.

Now go through all of that and tell me how the heck you're gonna sort out a definitive list of "worst games of all time"? I mean, there's so much bad, so much mediocre. It's like any art form: a helluva lot of it will always be produced solely for the money, with no real creative vision behind it, sometimes under extremely stressful or hurried conditions, getting shoved onto the shelves for Christmas without being properly finished, etc. You just gotta know where to look for the good stuff.

Why did you put "ET the extra terrestrial" for the Atari 2600 along with Superman 64?? ET is a bad game for the wrong reasons. It looks and acts as shitty as the Indiana Jones game from the Atari but no one marks it as the worst game ever. ET has bad reputation rather than being a bad game because Atari thought that they could sell it like hot cakes and end up making more cartidges than they could sell and that is it. Worse of all, they rush the game just as they rushed the Pac Man port from the arcades to the Atari in the last year and that failed too, and somehow they made the same fucking mistake TWICE of releasing a rushed game on Chrismast and overproduce it.

Superman 64, however, just plain sucks. It doesnt have the same excuse as an Atari game

Ah, I'm not thinking of the Wolvenstein ripoff, I'm thinking of the game where you play Noah and have to run around platforming sections carrying animals into an ark. Over, and over, and over...

FTR I've played every game I've mentioned EXCEPT the three in part 6, so I have no idea if E. T. is as bad to play as it looks like on YouTube. But I think you've overstating things when you say "no one marks it as the worst game ever". A lot of people put it pretty high up there. And I don't give an 8-bit game a "pass" for poor design when there are so many fantastically-designed 8-bit games out there.

Come to think of it, the only thing I WOULDN'T say qualifies for "worst game ever" would be something from the "mediocre blockbusters" section. You might not like the "Modern Warfare" series or the effect it has on gaming in general, but I don't think you can call it the "worst game" when hundreds of thousands of people still play it and enjoy it. (Again, just using an example at random here of something that gets a lot of flak for what it represents. I've never played any of the "Modern Warfare" games so I'm not equipped to pass any judgement, good or bad, on it.)

FTR "The Great Waldo Search" on the Sega Genesis is the only game I can recall that fits into four separate categories above (if that game doesn't count as a "legendary failure", I don't know what does.) You have to use your joypad to move a pointer over a guy in a red and white top, then click one of the fire buttons. Five times (yes, there were exactly five levels in this shitpile.) Worst game ever? I think it has a strong claim.

Forgot to mention that "The Great Waldo Search", which could literally be finished in two minutes (and probably WOULD be finished in close to that), cost 40 when it came out. 40!!! You could get, for the same price:

- Street Fighter 2 Champions Edition
- Jungle Strike
- A gamepack featuring Golden Axe, Streets of Rage and World Cup Italia 90

...And many, many more.

The reason why I'm annoying by his Worst Game of 2011 pick is because it felt like he was only doing it to make a "Big Statement." It just felt kind of condescending. That's not what I watch his videos for. I watch them to laugh, not to have someone wag their finger at me and and chide me for having the gall to enjoy something he doesn't necessarily approve of.

It's like a movie critic naming the big-budget 3D movie that made a billion dollars and got mostly positive reviews as his worse movie of the year simply because it was in 3D and made a billion dollars.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here