Is E.T. really the worst game ever?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Or are we just projecting the video game crash onto the game. Don't get me wrong, that game is awful, but is it really the worst of the worst? I think we might just be using it as a representation of the crash because of how universally despised it was and the fact that it clearly represented everything that was wrong with the video game industry at the time (sort of the EA of the 80s). Personally, I thought the 2600 port of Pac-Man was far worse than E.T. Even then, it still wasn't as bad as...

image

Video Game Top Whatever Countdown--you guys know the Youtube series--did an episode on the worst games ever.
I think Sonic '06 deserves some mention, because of how terrible it was even with everything put behind it. Pound-for-pound, I think it's the modern day Superman 64.

Now, there are several games that are considered "The worst ever" - E.T., Superman 64, that Pac-Man port, and from the newer ones, there are Big Rigs, Ultima 9, and Sonic '06. I think I'm not missing any. And no "I didn't like it" doesn't count, Mass Effect 3 DOES NOT COUNT AT ALL - the games I mentioned are utterly horrendous and are a special kind of bad - giving them a 1 could be a disservice to any other game that ever got a 1.

But they are all special kinds of bad. I think, at most, we can put them on an ordinal scale to compare them (so, just in relationship with each other, not "measuring" what the gap is) but I don't think one dimension would fit them - there are complex reasons for their badness.

OK, I am not fully aware of the exact badness of each, heck, I've not played them but I'm gathering info from what I know.

E.T. - that I can actually defend in a way. Now, it's bad - it's a barely working, cobbled together piece of shit shovelware. But it's such for a reason. As far as I've heard, at no point in the making of it anybody said "Hey, let's make something so bad hatthousands of children would scream and would then suddenly be silenced". Not effectively, anyway - some boss that knew nothing of game development and such just demanded a game to be made that starred E.T. and to be released for the Christmas holidays. And that meant the team had something like a couple of weeks to meet the demand. The devs aren't really to blame - what the boss was asking was outrageous and insane. But the boss didn't really know better (or...like anything). The whole situation is indicative of a profound problem found even today. But it's understandable. I'll put E.T. as sort of a markup point - truly bad games should be lower than it, but E.T. would (probably) top them by the virtue of being bad for a reason of being impossible to be better. Other games would be bad but would have the potential to not be. Well, maybe some special cases would end up at or before E.T. but they should probably have a good reason not to be lower.

The Pac-Man port...this one I'm not sure of - was it the game that didn't, like...function. And took way too long to port in the first place? Or something like that. 'Tis bad, yes. Definitely worse than E.T., since E.T. at least has the excuse of not being even supposed to be good with a backstory like that.

Superman 64 - a game riddled with bugs and glitches. The gameplay sucks, the hints suck (there aren't any, really), the fucking missions suck (Oh, we'll drop you here not explaining what exactly to do and also not mentioning there is a timer which is hidden and kinda arbitrary, too). As opposed to Pac-Man it can be played...which means more suffering to whoever tries that. So dunno if it's better or worse than it. It's mostly consider them on a similar level for the sake of giving them a place.

Big Rigs - that one I can also defend kinda. Let's see what is wrong with the game - there is no music, there are no physics, there is no collision detection, one of the maps is missing (like...if you choose it the game CRASHES), the other maps are map 1, map 2 and them map 1 at night, there is no way to take cargo (the premise of the game is that you are supposed to take cargo and try and deliver it before your opponent), but that's not a real problem as there is no A.I., hence there is no "race", either. And the winning condition is...absent, for a lack of a better term - apparently you can win immediately when you start a track. But that's totally random - sometimes you cannot win at all (and let's face it - if you play the game, you already lost. You read that correctly, you lost the game by playing it). I think that about covers it. So...with so many features missing what can defend the game you ask? Simple - it isn't a game. You cannot call it a game and I don't mean it in the "Oh, I don't like it so much I'll say it's not whatever" like some do with games, music, films and etc. There literally isn't anything to make it into a game. The entire premise is a lie, there is no actual way to get any semblance of "play". It's as much a game as a rough draft consisting of several paragraphs is a book. So, while bad, it's not worse than E.T. Crime against humanity to be sold and a total lie when it comes to naming what it is but not worse than E.T., as it's not on the list at all.

Sonic '06 - this is a special case even in this category. The other games are relatively small by comparison (and Big Rigs isn't a game), Sonic '06 is more, it tries to be more in all respects - more gameplay, more story, more stuff, more characters. everything. And as a result some people may (and do) go "Hey, it's not that bad". It's understandable they could say that at a minor glance. But upon closer inspection the game fails in ALL OF ITS ASPECTS. Like, seriously. E.T. at least cannot fail on story, not so bad anyway, since there isn't much there, Soinc '06 has story and, oh boy does it have one horrendous story. E.T. doesn't have much gameplay - now, I don't know the actual length of it but I doubt there is that much, considering it was made in less than a month. The Game Grumps' playthrough of Sonic '06 recently broke 100 episodes. At an average of 10 minutes per episode and not counting fast forwards, that's 16 hours and 40 minutes or so (maybe even closer to 17 hours, as some episodes go over 10 min). It's still not finished - it's the game that keeps on giving. And the gameplay is horrendous. From bugs, through idiotism to just plain bad. The story is full of plot holes, thinking about it logically may cause a severe headache (it is said this is a "warning shot" by the brain) and concludes by making the entire game not exist. I can't really say it better than this - the plot deletes itself from existence, that's the level we're at.

So, Sonic '06 sucks in all respects. All of them. Clearly worse than E.T. as it was meant to be better than it is, just didn't follow through. But where is it in respects to Superman 64/the Pac-Man port? I'd personally put it lower than them. By the virtue of people actually expecting more from Sonic. If one picked up a copy of Superman 64, they would probably not expect an amazing game by all standards. Definitely something that's not horrendous but not something that good. Sonic '06, however, was the anniversary edition of the franchise - definitely meant to be better (as evidenced by the amount of crap they tried to shove into it...which probably ended up making it as it is). Moreover, the title of the game is actually Sonic the Hedgehog, it was supposed to reboot the franchise, too. It failed in even that respect - the game wasn't a Sonic the Hedgehog game - it was Sonic Adventure (I got the name correct, right?) - the difference is that the two games are of different genres! One is a platformer the other...well, adventure (or however you classify it in reality). And again, the reboot didn't happen because it was undone by the plot. Again, this just goes to show that Sonic '06 managed to fail in every conceivable way there is. Clearly deserves the bottom of the list so far.

And finally Ultima 9. Hoo, boy. If you've seen Spoony's review of it's...it's really something. If you haven't, this bit really is representative.

Now, this game can only be described as Mass Effect 3's ending. The entire game, one ME3 ending one after another connected in a long, long row. All the bad qualities of the ending, as well. And more. I cannot describe it better than Spoony did, however, the review is rather long, so for your benefit, here, I'll summarise - it fails on every aspect again - the plot is especially bad and for series respected for the story, Ultima 9 really is offensive. And the gameplay is bad, really bad. And technically it's bad. All in all a failure. Since I started comparing it to Mass Effect 3 (mostly because it's a recent example and I expect people to know of it), let me do a bit of analogy - imagine if in the beginning ME3, in one of the Shepard's crew said "Come on, Shepard, we have to save the universe of the Reapers". And Shepard replied "Reapers? What Reapers?" then went on to ask what "aliens" are and how does one use a weapon. And then kaidan and Ashley change genders or something. That's actually higher level we're at story-wise.

So, Ultima 9 zooms right past E.T. and I'd say even Superman 64 - Ultima was destined to greatness...or, like, not horribleness. But where is it in comparison to Sonic? Who takes the bottom of the list? This is another debatable thing. I'd go with lower. Why? Well, at least in a Sonic game you don't expect much of the story, the Ultima series is story driven. Sonic also ends up self deleting itself, Ultima 9 is here not only to stay but to make it hurt as much as possible by opening as much wounds as possible. So we have Sonic a self contained, self-destructed plot, vs the plot of 10 (correct? or were they 11?) games building up only to be defiled and desecrated in the end. Also, the Sonic series exists, Ultima doesn't. Finally, there is some measure of taking joy in the horribleness of Sonic '06 - there is the Game Grumps LP I watch just for how cringeworthy the game is at moments (and just bad at others). Ultima 9 brings no joy. Well, there is Spoony's review but I doubt there is an LP I'd like or that me (or a lot of others) would ever play Ultima 9 just to experience it ourselves - Sonic at least has more of that opportunity.

So...my top bottom list of video games in terms of bad to worse:
E.T.
Superman 64/the Pac-Man port
Sonic '06
Ultima 9

Not included: Big Rigs - due to not being qualified to be in a "video games" list.

I have to go with Cheetahmen.
It's as close to Unplayable as any game I can think of, while offering no redeeming qualities.

The worst? Certainly not. This is.

http://www.molleindustria.org/everydaythesamedream/everydaythesamedream.html

A game with no escapism and no fun to be found, every day the same dream opts instead to appeal to people who love to write essays about symbolism. It boasts exploration, but that only goes as far as completing 5 steps that you get by going slightly off routine. No, you don't get to deviate completely from the routine and just not go to work for once, but the 5 steps give the game plenty of room to pretend it's not linear.

It's your morning commute to work in game form with random symbolism thrown in. That's all it is.

It's completely boring. Say what you will about superman, big rigs, e.t, sonic 2006, and so on. At least they can be bad in hilarious ways. At least sonic 06 gave the game grumps something to tear apart. At least superman got us a good AVGN review. At least big rigs got the generic gaming press to make some entertaining reviews.

Every day the same dream is boring by design, and boy does it succeed. I will not play it again, as you can get all 5 steps in one playthrough and there is only one ending. It thinks being subversive against "The Man" by being a boring piece of symbolism filled crap is more important than being entertaining.

Don't waste 5 minutes on it. Don't waste one minute on it. Literally ANY other game is more worth your time, even the worst ones of all time. Because at least they have some funny glitches, or are so bad that they're hilarious.

I gotta throw Drake of the 99 Dragons for the original Xbox in there. I mean, it's an abysmal game by any and all standards, which sold almost no copies (and every copy sold was 1 copy more than the game deserved), but the funny thing is that it was still one of the games that ended up being updated to be backward compatible with the xbox 360.

But seriously, look up Drake of the 99 Dragons. It's awful and will make your eyes bleed.

Racecarlock:
The worst? Certainly not. This is.

http://www.molleindustria.org/everydaythesamedream/everydaythesamedream.html

Link doesn't work but I've played it. It's...whatever, really. I don't think it compares to any of the others I talked about simply by virtue of not being big enough. We can certainly find games broken worse than those - first time projects by random people and the like. But they aren't sold nor are they really supposed to be of high enough quality (considering their target audience may very well be in the single digits. Maybe even 0 not counting the author). So they get a free pass.

it seems people try to block out atrocities committed by games.. i bring you dragons lair on the NES. looks pretty but was for a good chunk of time regarded as one of the worst games ever made. it encapsulates graphics over gameplay

Plumbers Don't Wear Ties
Legend of Zelda
games released on CD-i
Night Trap
MindJack

That short list is easily the worst games ever to have been released for any system. Some you might not have heard of, others I'm sure you have.
Why I put mindjack on this list is simply when I first tried to play the game, no matter how hard I tried apparently putting the crosshairs on the enemy and pulling the trigger does not constitute aiming.

I dunno, to me, a bad game isn't about "hah, look at how buggy/dumb this one game is". More like, if the game has obvious potential that it's so hard to fuck up and squanders it anyway, that's a much worse game.

Which is why I think Assassin's Creed 3 and Darksiders 2 are fucking abysmal games.

There are two categories for this, in my opinion.

The first are games so badly made that they should never have been released. Bugs, glitches, performance issues; a game that is broken at fundamental level.
For me, E.T. and Big Rigs are really tied. Neither should have ever been released, and neither can really qualify for the "game" moniker as a result of their terrible construction.

The other, and an infinity worse offense in my opinion, are games that are completed, and you wish they weren't. They were made exactly the way they were supposed to be made, and yet that's precisely why it's so bad.
The games listed here can all be excused: inexperienced developers, funding, time, publisher control, bad franchise, etc., etc.
For me, Diablo III is the ultimate offender. One of gaming's greatest series, built with a US$100,000,000.00 budget, constructed by the largest developer in the world, using one of the most well versed and mimicked sub-genres in gaming history. It has absolutely no excuses for being as unflinchingly bad as it is.

I think E.T. is more 'the straw that broke the camel's back' more so than being the all-out worst. That being said, I've never played E.T. I've never played Superman 64 or Pac-Man 2600 either to be honest. There are a ton of Atari games that I'd like to play though just to sort of test the waters. All that I know is what I've been told: a combination of bad/mediocre games being released for more money than they were worth ended up burying the Atari and indeed the home console market back in the 80's, leading to a crash in 1982 that lasted up until the release of the Nintendo Entertainment System.

When it comes to what makes a bad game I'm really not an authority. I've been known to LOVE games that are otherwise viewed as 'bad'. I recently beat Sonic the Hedgehog on the 360 and it was greatly satisfying if not downright fun. Before that it was Predator on the NES (look it up).

wombat_of_war:
it seems people try to block out atrocities committed by games.. i bring you dragons lair on the NES. looks pretty but was for a good chunk of time regarded as one of the worst games ever made. it encapsulates graphics over gameplay

I've never played it but...yeah...watching a let's play hurt.

DoPo:

E.T. - that I can actually defend in a way. Now, it's bad - it's a barely working, cobbled together piece of shit shovelware. But it's such for a reason. As far as I've heard, at no point in the making of it anybody said "Hey, let's make something so bad hatthousands of children would scream and would then suddenly be silenced". Not effectively, anyway - some boss that knew nothing of game development and such just demanded a game to be made that starred E.T. and to be released for the Christmas holidays. And that meant the team had something like a couple of weeks to meet the demand. The devs aren't really to blame - what the boss was asking was outrageous and insane. But the boss didn't really know better (or...like anything). The whole situation is indicative of a profound problem found even today. But it's understandable. I'll put E.T. as sort of a markup point - truly bad games should be lower than it, but E.T. would (probably) top them by the virtue of being bad for a reason of being impossible to be better. Other games would be bad but would have the potential to not be. Well, maybe some special cases would end up at or before E.T. but they should probably have a good reason not to be lower.

Team? I am pretty sure it was all one guy Howard Scott Shaw doing everything and he had 5 weeks to go from nothing to finished (and shipped?) product as thats the deadline Atari set him at least thats what I have always heard.

Arguing what is the worst game ever is just as pointless as arguing over the best its all subjective theres a lot of contenders especially as theres a lot of ways the term worst can be construed.

DoPo:
The Pac-Man port...this one I'm not sure of - was it the game that didn't, like...function. And took way too long to port in the first place? Or something like that. 'Tis bad, yes. Definitely worse than E.T., since E.T. at least has the excuse of not being even supposed to be good with a backstory like that.

Not much of a story. The Pac-Man game was popular because it was addicting. Someone demanded a port to be churned out, and the result was, well compare the two:

The image saddens me...

Well if the Angry Video Game Nerd has any say in the matter it is. Personally - while I was around and playing games during the crash - I never actually played the E.T. game and as such have no idea what it's like so sadly I can't offer my own opinion on the matter.

I do wonder if the rumors and legends about it are true...that it was so bad that every unsold copy was rounded up and buried out in the middle of the desert. If that story is indeed true, then I'd have to say that E.T. would likely be worthy of the crown "worst game ever" as I don't think any other game has been so bad as to get that treatment.

amaranth_dru:
MindJack

Hey, I remember that game. Yahtzee's video on it is pretty spot on - it's shot and describes everything that is wrong, the actual game just has...more of it. Same proportions, just larger quantities, pretty much. Hmm, I really should revise my list including that and some other games.

Which reminded me of that Kinect game where you drive a tank (forgot the name)...it. I don't even know how to describe it. No real clue. Big Rigs you could at least play interact with. I mean, when Big Rigs, Big Rigs (!), does better than you, what exactly is there left to say?

And...hmm, I dunno if I should or shouldn't include some foreign games that could be a bit touchy. And by that I mean "really offensive". Well, from what I've heard they aren't bad...technically. But then again I wander if people would complain about technical qualities. But at least one of them tends to be mentioned every once in a while, in a negative light.

I don't think so.
The E.T. game is terrible, but not broken.
People "believe" that it's broken, because part of the video game crash was related to how to handle returns of defective games/game intuitive or with documentation enough so people can learn how to play.
This game of the Superman, for example, is broken. Pitfall Harry for NES was broken. ET is just a crappy game.

BTW, the main culprit of the video game crash was Pacman and the console itself, among the ET game.

Atmos Duality:
I have to go with Cheetahmen.
It's as close to Unplayable as any game I can think of, while offering no redeeming qualities.

Does it really count though? Wasn't it just part of a much larger (terrible) game?

OT: I own both E.T. and Superman 64. They are as bad as everyone says. I actually beat the tutorial in Superman!

I think it's hard to pin down what the worst ever is because people are going to value different things. WHile Big Rigs was one of the buggiest things I've ever seen and perhaps not even finished enough to qualify as an actualy game. You could interact with it in a manner that wasn't pure frustration. Sure it got old and was pointless, but I value its ability to at least entertain me for some quantity of time due to what a mess it is.

I owned every major retail release for the Atari 2600, including E.T. (My aunt worked in a factory where they assembled the game cartridges. I didn't realize it at the time, but she was stealing them.) E.T. was so awful that even though you could technically complete it, the gameplay killed any and all desire to.

The Pac-Man port is really just the first example of hype ruining a game more than anything. It wasn't a good game, but the great hatred for it mostly came because high expectations for it were crushed, not because it was the worst thing to ever come out.

Superman 64 was a special kind of suck because it was almost a fusion of E.T. and BIg Rig's problems. While it wasn't quite as boring as E.T. and not as broken as Big Rigs, its mix of those two dynamics really pushes it beyond either.

In the end though, the game I hated the most and found to be the worst I have ever played was any of those NIght Trap style games. They weren't really games at all, so maybe they don't even deserve to be on here, but in terms of sheer terribleness, they take the cake for me.

DoPo:

Big Rigs - that one I can also defend kinda. Let's see what is wrong with the game - there is no music, there are no physics, there is no collision detection, one of the maps is missing (like...if you choose it the game CRASHES), the other maps are map 1, map 2 and them map 1 at night, there is no way to take cargo (the premise of the game is that you are supposed to take cargo and try and deliver it before your opponent), but that's not a real problem as there is no A.I., hence there is no "race", either. And the winning condition is...absent, for a lack of a better term - apparently you can win immediately when you start a track. But that's totally random - sometimes you cannot win at all (and let's face it - if you play the game, you already lost. You read that correctly, you lost the game by playing it). I think that about covers it.

You forgot that the trucks accelerate infinitely in reverse and stop on a dime when you release the button. Forward speed is limited to something like 60 MPH or whatever, but it can reverse until the speedometer is covering most of the screen (or the bottom of the screen or something, I don't remember how the numbers wrap), and then instantly drops back to a full stop the second you release the key. Coding!

OT: I do think DoPo's list pretty much covered anything you could try to examine "objectively". Too much about "good" or "bad" in entertainment is subjective, so it really comes down to looking at how high the aspirations for a game were and how terribly it came crashing back down to the earth. As also previously mentioned, Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor (that one for the Kinect) is probably another dead ringer for the running of "worst game ever" though.

Atmos Duality:
I have to go with Cheetahmen.
It's as close to Unplayable as any game I can think of, while offering no redeeming qualities.

You nailed it. Action 52 manages to have 52 turds inside. Not only bad games, but buggy as hell.
I believe we could pick a game of the current generation? Last 4 years?

For me is that Star Wars Dance Dance Revolution. Something inside me died when I first saw that game.

No, it isn't. It's playable and I'm fairly certain that the extra ire is due to the crash.
In fact, some people not too long ago went and reprogrammed the game to make it work. The main fix that they applied was not making falling into the pits pixel perfect (or rather, in the original game if one pixel of your sprite was detected as overlapping the pit you would trigger the falling animation). In the "new" version, about half of E.T. would have to overlap the pit for the player to fall.

Two games that I can immediately declare worse are Superman 64 and Cheetahmen 2.
The latter is an unfinished mess that still has bugs, the first is the most atrocious 3D/superhero game of all time.
Though, fortunately, I haven't had the pleasantries of experiencing Big Rigs.

DoPo:

Maximum Bert:
MindJack

Hey, I remember that game. Yahtzee's video on it is pretty spot on - it's shot and describes everything that is wrong, the actual game just has...more of it. Same proportions, just larger quantities, pretty much. Hmm, I really should revise my list including that and some other games.

Which reminded me of that Kinect game where you drive a tank (forgot the name)...it. I don't even know how to describe it. No real clue. Big Rigs you could at least play interact with. I mean, when Big Rigs, Big Rigs (!), does better than you, what exactly is there left to say?

And...hmm, I dunno if I should or shouldn't include some foreign games that could be a bit touchy. And by that I mean "really offensive". Well, from what I've heard they aren't bad...technically. But then again I wander if people would complain about technical qualities. But at least one of them tends to be mentioned every once in a while, in a negative light.

Is it a thing now to quote people and change what they say? it seems to be happening a lot lately and its kind of annoying feels like you are putting words in my mouth.

I never mentioned MindJack even though I have heard its pretty bloody bad.

There are enough functionally broken titles out there that one has to grade it based on notoriety.

ET won the award to a level where someone actually had to bury the unsold cartridges in the desert.

Also, they set the stage for every terrible movie tie in that followed.

E.T. isn't the worst game ever. It's not even the worst game on the Atari VCS. Check out duds like Firefly for that. What ET and the Pac-man cartridge are is disappointing.

Pac-man was the biggest game at the time and it was the first step toward characterization in games. The Space Invaders cartridge wasn't very close to the arcade game, but similar gameplay was good enough. With Pac-man, that changed. Similar gameplay wasn't good enough. It needed to have the same look and feel. Since it didn't, Atari's credibility took a blow.

On a side note, homebrew programmer Dennis Debro has made Pac-man 4K for the Atari VCS. Using the same 4K, he's made a much more faithful translation. We can only wonder how history would have been different if the Atari Pac-man cartridge looked like this:

But the Pac-man cart as released served a purpose. The negative feedback convinced the Atari brass that they should up games to the new 8k chips instead of trying to translate 1981 games on 1977 hardware and expect it to work.

One lesson they didn't learn was giving the programmers sufficient time to make the game. E.T. was squeezed out in an incredibly short time and the result is an unfinished game that has potential, but would never get to realize it.

The first and most glaring problem is the pits. The pits have a bit of a bug where you need to activate the levitation power and press up to levitate. Once you reach the top of the pit, the screen changes to the overworld and if you're still pushing up, you may move to where your levitation deactivates but you're still over a pit. The result is you'll simply fall back in and need to repeat the whole process again. Atari was keenly aware of this bug and put it in the manual and printed a flier with various "hints" mainly to document this problem so people can be aware of it and avoid the frustration. This didn't work. Overall, the main gameplay was confusing and half-baked.

This was further blow to Atari's reputation so that when the crash it, they were vulnerable. Before people would confidently purchase games made by Atari, but now that confidence was shaken. Funny how one of the better third party game makers is still with us, Activision. So I don't think ET or Pac-man caused the crash, but they may have led to Atari being unable to survive the crash.

Maximum Bert:
Is it a thing now to quote people and change what they say? it seems to be happening a lot lately and its kind of annoying feels like you are putting words in my mouth.

I'm...I'm sorry D: I quoted you and amaranth_dru then mistakenly snipped the wrong amount of quote. And, ironically, I was quoting you to acknowledge my mistake. Here is what I was actually going to say

Maximum Bert:
Team? I am pretty sure it was all one guy Howard Scott Shaw doing everything and he had 5 weeks to go from nothing to finished (and shipped?) product as thats the deadline Atari set him at least thats what I have always heard.

Ah, so I got the numbers wrong - it wasn't a "team" but a single person and it wasn't "less than a month" but 5 weeks (thought that's probably like 4 weeks max of actual dev time). Well, still impossible, so I am going to leave E.T. where it is now.

---

So...will you accept my apology?

DoPo:

So...will you accept my apology?

Fine since you didnt do it on purpose I will forgive you I was just sorta annoyed because I have been misquoted a few times in the last few days.

Anyway on with the thread, im keeping the cookies though.

Fappy:

Does it really count though? Wasn't it just part of a much larger (terrible) game?

It was part of the Action 52 multicart for the NES, a collection of otherwise unrelated games.
Most of which were unbelievably terrible; but The Cheetahmen goes the extra mile by being...awful and hideous to an unholy degree.

DoPo:
So...my top bottom list of video games in terms of bad to worse:
E.T.
Superman 64/the Pac-Man port
Sonic '06
Ultima 9

I support this clever individual's list.

It would be between E.T. and Ultima 9 for me.

The former because of its association with the video game crash, and because it was a technical disaster that was barely even recognizable as a "game".

The latter because it is perhaps the most egregious example of pissing on a fan base in the history of MEDIA. 20+ years of award winning RPGS topped off with arguably the worst made, most insulting game of the modern era.

Atmos Duality:

Fappy:

Does it really count though? Wasn't it just part of a much larger (terrible) game?

It was part of the Action 52 multicart for the NES, a collection of otherwise unrelated games.
Most of which were unbelievably terrible; but The Cheetahmen goes the extra mile by being...awful and hideous to an unholy degree.

Ever since AVGN reviewed it I have always wanted to play Cheetahmen XD

Fappy:

Ever since AVGN reviewed it I have always wanted to play Cheetahmen XD

You don't "play" Cheetahmen. Cheetahmen "plays" YOU.
And I've actually played an Action 52 Cart at a convention.
I almost pity the poor sap who had to spend 200 bucks back in the day to get it.
It's...awful. To an almost fascinating degree.

I think it's time a few newer games could give the old ones a run for there money.
May not topple the ET or superman but they may make it into a few peoples top 10 worst list:

My list:
The War Z
Aliens Colonial marries
Sonic Riders
Steel Batation: Heavy Armor
Legends of Pegasus- put out in what seems to be a early alpha build with a nice looking trailer and screenshots that do not show in game graphics, it was never finished and source code was never given out so players could fix it.

Legendarily bad copycats:
Metal of honor War fighter: Shows everything that is wrong with playing Copy COD and had the sales figures to show it.
X-blades- showed you can't sell a game on fan service alone.

direkiller:
The War Z

Hmm, I'd disagree. As I've said for other games - it is horrible. I'll whip out my goto clip which in a minute can say so many bad stuff, I cannot in an essay.

So there, the game is horrendous. But it's meant to be horrendous - it's an alpha. The actual bad thing about the game wasn't the game - it was the developers being greedy trying to cash in on the holidays (the game was released in December) and selling a product that wasn't fit for sale yet. I hear it's better now but whatever - their attempt at money grabbing and what could even be fraud (some wildly inaccurate statements were made about the game) failed spectacularly with the game being pulled from Steam (!!! it's probably the first game that was too bad for Steam). So the game itself isn't too bad, and it continues being patched and improved (well, it's hard to get worse. ZING!). It's actually the reasons around the game that are bad, so I wouldn't myself put it in a list of "worst games". It can be in other lists that accounts more for meta factors, though.

direkiller:
Aliens Colonial marries

I'm not sure. It's not too bad - it can certainly be (and is) guilty pleasure others simply enjoy it. I don't think these are qualities high up on the feature list of a "worst game". The actual problems again stem from outside - it was marketed as a different product, so the failure to deliver is not majorly on the part of the game. It's like being promised a bowl of chocolate chip cookies but getting a single block of white chocolate (for the record, I don't really like white chocolate - I can eat it but I'd still be quite disappointed). I don't think I'll really put it in a "worst games" list but I'll undestand if somebody else does.

direkiller:
Steel Batation: Heavy Armor

Oh, that is the name of the game I was mentioned before. The which Big Rigs outperformed. And it's a game, it's a fucking game so it can get in as many lists as possible.

And the War Z reminded me of another one - Revelations 2012. This is...horrible.

E.T. was not the worst game, it was not very good, but it did work, you could finish it. Hell the guy that made it had two weeks to program it, and is apparently quite proud that he got it done and shipped in that time frame. What really got me at about the same time was that Pac-Man port, awful and waste of money.

hazabaza1:
I dunno, to me, a bad game isn't about "hah, look at how buggy/dumb this one game is". More like, if the game has obvious potential that it's so hard to fuck up and squanders it anyway, that's a much worse game.

Which is why I think Assassin's Creed 3 and Darksiders 2 are fucking abysmal games.

In that case, where would you put sonic 06. It could have been an at least solid platformer, but it fucked up on pretty much every front.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked