the worst games ever

Eraser · Post by **Eraser** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:42 pm

Vegor, let me guess, clive barker's undying didn't scare you at all either. alot of what you think of a game comes from how you think of it before you even play it. If you think a game will be boring, chances are it will be to you. if you expect nothing but a tech demo, you won't experience any more than that.

stump, your console fanboyism clouds your vision. you can change controls to anything you like. I personally use the arrow keys for movement.

But saying a whole type of games suck because of a controller preference is lame beyond comparison. a mouse and keyboard is infinitely more intuitive for a shooter, looking around with a little joystick hat like thingy is way too cumbersome and inprecise, I've yet to see a console shooter that you could very easily look in any direction and move, strafe etc at the same time without being totally disoriented and being unable to keep a view you want.

Which deus ex? 1 was incredible, the most open ended shooter I've played, 2 was lame. UT is great too, although not for someone who wants a complex game.

Whats next? a bunch of oleg fanboys bashing cfs3 and proclaiming the greatness of il2?

Vegor · Post by **Vegor** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:58 pm

Eraser wrote:If you think a game will be boring, chances are it will be to you. if you expect nothing but a tech demo, you won't experience any more than that.

Actually, a friend recommended Doom 3 to me. I expected a lot of it and was stunned by the graphics and scary -or so I thought at first glance- atmosphere. I liked it the first couple of maps but it became so repetitive and boring after a while, due to the linear gameplay. I didn't even get to that undying, I just stopped after a while when I just met those fat-ass rocket launching guys somewhere in a sewer-like place. I couldn't take any more 'scary creatures' to face with these lame cinematic events popping up all the time.

Stumpytheguar · Post by **Stumpytheguar** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:17 pm

Annon wrote:what about school tycoon?

Edit: and halo 2 must be the worst game ever

If that's not direct flaming and a banworthy offense, I don't know what is.

Silly boy, you ought know to whom you are talking. I play tournaments online and win more each round than most kids my age make working steady jobs! I love Halo 2.

Eraser · Post by **Eraser** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:21 pm

since when was having a different opinion of games, especially just of yours a banable offense?

Could I then not say

Actually, you know what? ALL PC shooters suck. Especially UT. The keyboard mouse combo just doesn't work.

is a banable offense?

sirwootalot123 · Post by **sirwootalot123** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:56 pm

My god, you are missing so many here....
- Any "tycoon" game. pure shit.

- The non-EA fellowship of the ring. boring and hard as fuck, even though it's true to the book, but I still hated it. terrible animations and voice acting, too.

- ANY educational "game". pure shit in a bucket, I never learned anything from them.
- Recoil. A shitty, lame, long-forgotten tank shooter with laughably terrible cinematics, only 3 levels, and no recogniseable plot.

- Final Fantasy X-2 and Crystal Chronicles, X-2 was like a goofy MTV video and CC just plain blowed.

- Kingdom Hearts. fucked-up plotless headtrip, and a co-licensing disaster.

- The ending in Half-Life 2. the game was too short compared to the original, and the end seemed like an excuse to leave 6 or so plot-crucial levels for an expansion. The game was still the best game ever, though.

- Anything on the Nintendo DS. Nintendo has merely tied its own noose with this carrier of shitty games desperately trying to support a "cool" concept. PSP ownz anyway.

- the Megaman Battle Network series. it's a total shit-in-the-face to the cool old megaman games, with some gay kid and a horribly shitty world where microwaves are connected to the internet for no aparent reason.

- Castelian. that game made my CRY when I rented it at blockbuster for the NES (I was 5)... being my first game ever played, i never touched video games again till I was 8. literally impossible, and the frustration level was to the point of carving a hole in your skull with a rusty spoon to let the demons of its shittyness escape.

- Every single nickelodeon-cartoon-game. shit in every single aspect, with archaic graphics and numbingly bad level design.

- Every damn driving game ever made, but thats just personal opinion.

Indoril · Post by **Indoril** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:22 pm

sirwootalot123 wrote:My god, you are missing so many here....
- Any "tycoon" game. pure shit.
- The non-EA fellowship of the ring. boring and hard as fuck, even though it's true to the book, but I still hated it. terrible animations and voice acting, too.
- ANY educational "game". pure shit in a bucket, I never learned anything from them.
- Recoil. A shitty, lame, long-forgotten tank shooter with laughably terrible cinematics, only 3 levels, and no recogniseable plot.
- Final Fantasy X-2 and Crystal Chronicles, X-2 was like a goofy MTV video and CC just plain blowed.
- Kingdom Hearts. fucked-up plotless headtrip, and a co-licensing disaster.
- The ending in Half-Life 2. the game was too short compared to the original, and the end seemed like an excuse to leave 6 or so plot-crucial levels for an expansion. The game was still the best game ever, though.
- Anything on the Nintendo DS. Nintendo has merely tied its own noose with this carrier of shitty games desperately trying to support a "cool" concept. PSP ownz anyway.
- the Megaman Battle Network series. it's a total shit-in-the-face to the cool old megaman games, with some gay kid and a horribly shitty world where microwaves are connected to the internet for no aparent reason.

Didn't read all of that, but i caught the part about Kingdom Hearts, And I agree with you unto no ends of the earth. That game was so @#$%ing @#$%ed up that I had a @#$%ing siesure from its @#$%ing waves of gayness. I honestly think that the guy(s) who think(s) up the FF story lines are/is ashamed of it. I would take a shotgun to Disney's head there. All in all. It was @#$%ing shit.

As for Halo 2, It was Ok, but I think the Halos are media-hyped.

Absolute most dissapointment to me amongst RPGs though: Fable. F stands for @#$%. A stands for Ass, from which the game came. B stands for, well, that one is obvious. L stands for lifeless. And E stands for Evil.

All in all, I think Fable was a game pulled from the Shitter in an attempt to compete with "open ended" rpgs. It is so @#$%ing linear.

*Partakes of Ms. V's many cookies.*

Agannazar · Post by **Agannazar** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:49 am

Jedi Knight III. It's sad that a game made in 2004 still uses the Doom II engine. The graphics hadn't improved one bit from JKII, and the much-advertised so-called 'roleplaying' part was that you got to pick what race you character is. And it doesn't matter whether you're a human or a rodian, your name is always Jaden and you always have the same voice.

nietzsche · Post by **nietzsche** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:41 am

you want to know why arcanum sucks?
here's some reasons:

-lame start. a "gnome" gives you a ring (BTW that "gnome" looks suprisingly similar to bilbo, so the ring...)

-after the ring some babling idiot named virgil talks about fulfilling some idiot prophecy. later on he babbles about the stupid panarii religion (is this panarii like some ultimate cult of world savers or what?

)

-overall arcanum has horrible graphics (especially the outdoors are horrendous *pukes*). okay so the magical elf forest, tulla and that dark elf forest are okay, maybe because the elf forests are copied from BG or something and the tulla is a copy from Fallout II's Vault city

-the lame jokes. For example in tarant: Appleby and Bates ? c'mon!!!

-the tech components. some the components are impossible to find, since the inventories of the shopkeepers are randomized

-the magic. okay i admit, the magic is pretty cool. however, I was pissed by the realisation that you could only master one school of magic. how incredibly stupid.

-most the time you spend in idiotic dungeons or doing stupid fedex quests

- probably one of the most intresting thing is the ultimate quest of getting blessings from gods. never finished it, though

I could give you examples why arcanum sucks ad infinitum. But that would be pointless, as Arcanum simply just sucks.

As for the bad games list:

I agree with sirwoot. all tycoon games suck
also, all license games suck
also, all settlers games suck. I mean they look like some happy happy children games, probably because of the child-like settlers themselves (*shudders from disgust*)

more bad games coming in the future

Vernon · Post by **Vernon** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:07 am

nietzsche wrote:I could give you examples why arcanum sucks ad infinitum. But that would be pointless, as Arcanum simply just sucks.

Fair enough, but I could say the same about the positive aspects of Arcanum.

Eraser · Post by **Eraser** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:41 am

jedi knight 3: jedi academy wasn't the doom 2 engine, nothing has used that in 10 years. it used the quake 3 engine, which if you've played call of duty, still holds up very well.

Stumpytheguar · Post by **Stumpytheguar** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:45 am

Any game aimed at a realistic depiction of World War II is teh suxorz. They all look, handle, and play about the same.

I think the only thing we've truly agreed on is that sports and racing games are horrible.

Especially friggin GTA! Ooh my god, everyone brags about the graphics and gameplay? I can count the number of polygons for each model on my fingers!

Stalker · Post by **Stalker** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:33 am

Yopu know Stumpy each your post in this thread make me respect you less and less. Games are not about cool graphics, they are about gameplay. Graphics is just a way of realisation of the gameplay.

Dexter · Post by **Dexter** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:39 am

Graphics are worthless. I'd take Sonic 3 on Sega Genesis over any X-Box or Playstation travesty any day. People that like graphics in video games are typically the same people who liked the Matrix sequels. Show them something flashy, and all the sudden they go and join the Halo 2 cult. Don't think, just play.

Vegor · Post by **Vegor** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:06 pm

I totally agree with that, although good graphics can be a good help in creating a certain atmosphere, possibly enhancing gameplay that way. It's just the way developers use it that makes great graphics valuable or worthless.

Stumpytheguar · Post by **Stumpytheguar** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:12 pm

What exactly DO you guys have against Halo 2? I don't get it. You all just seem to hate the game for some reason.

Halo has been the definitive console shooter for the past five years. Nothing else has compared in player control, replayability and multiplayer capacities. Sure, it's a horribly linear game without much plot development. I didn't buy it for the story, I bought it for the gameplay. If I want story, I play Morrowind.

The graphics on Halo are not exaclty what was promised. I know that, you know that, everyone knows that. It's not the graphics that make the gameplay - in fact I preferred the Halo 1 models to the newer ones (easier headshots). It's nice to have new textures, and I like the new vehicles, but I'm not saying the game is perfect. There are a HUGE number of gameplay flaws and glitches that I can exploit to my advantage. Which just makes it more fun.

I suppose I'll never understand the desperate straits of boredom that Dexter grew up in to have enjoyed Sonic the Hedgehog so much, or the bitterness he displays against all that is right in the world of console gaming. It's shameful to see how quickly he connects great material like Halo to the atrocities that were the Matrix sequels. It's okay though, I think they have medication for that.

Really now Dexter... alot of thought goes into competative gameplay, especially online. Playing online in Halo's engine, which basically places you on a team of 7 stranger, against 8 more strangers, none of whose abilities you know and play patters you've ever seen before requires a very adaptable playing style. You don't know if you're going to be the best sniper, or the flag carrier, or the guy who plays defense. Winning the game all depends on your ability to judge the potential of your teamates and respond accordingly before you get owned. I enjoy that challenge; I like the planning, the strategies, the struggles. I even enjoy getting beaten once in a while, as I can later look up the game record on Bungie's servers and see what they did to counter my team's attempts. I can even go into another game with new people and try it myself. That's where I have the most fun - playing games that allow me to think. If you honestly believe that playing games without thinking is how you win, log on to one of the Bungie servers and allow me to educate you otherwise. Sirwootalot did, and for all his bragging, suffered several embarassing losses. When I got bored of cracking his skull open repeatedly with the butt of my pistol, I handed the controller over to my nine year old brother and coached him into winning. It's not the player's skill level that truly matters, it's their ability to understand what's going on, where their enemy will most likely run to, where they can escape and which way they will most likely be followed.

PC shooters such as UT have very different and weapon designs that simply do not allow for planning, organization or rational thought. That's why I hate them. They are far to chaotic and unplanned, far too symmetrical, and far to easily navigated. There are stupidly similar weapons that all do the same thing - pummel the enemy with bullets until their corpse explodes in a colorful blood spray. Those are the flashy games, the shiny things that people incapable of rational thought are attracted to. The game moves so fast that there is no time to think, no time to plan, and honestly, no purpose to it anyway, as each game quickly turns into a competition to get the stupidly powerful weapons first and smash the hell out of the opposing team (although the more I think about it, the more I realize that's the sort of game that Dexter would like).

Abramul · Post by **Abramul** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:49 pm

X-Box only. That's the biggest flaw in Halo 2.

Massalinie · Post by **Massalinie** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:15 pm

?? What? You can get Halo 2 on PC too!

Thane · Post by **Thane** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:23 pm

Halo...not Halo 2.

Jedi Academy is okay. With Forcemod 3 it pwns all fps pc games.

Eraser · Post by **Eraser** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:41 pm

Stump, you're really off base about UT and all PC shooters in general. great graphics help the atmosphere, but a game thats all graphics is no good.

UT is supposed to be chaotic and fast, thats the fun of it. years of UT have improved my what otherwise would have been poor hand eye coordination. There is alot of underlying strategy to UT, not only weapons but with map design.

There are tons of tactical shooters where strategy and planning comes in, ala rainbow six.

Don't you ever dis CoD again, depicting WWII, nothing comes closer in games. NOTHING in any other game, EVER has been so chaotic, intense, breathtaking and brutal as CoD. Play and beat the pegasus bridge defense level and you'll know what I mean.

Halo is actually dumbed down in comparison to most PC shooters, even MP-wise. Since its on a console, levels are somewhat flattened to make up for the difficulty of 360 degree viewing on a console, along with alot of visual aids.

Dexter · Post by **Dexter** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:57 pm

I don't have much against Halo or Halo 2. I don't like console shooters though. When you play with friends, you can see what they see. And I never bothered buying my own X-Box to do the online thing. I have played a select few online shooters on the PC, including Star Wars: Battlefront (which I love). But all shooters are so painfuly similar to me. The guns, graphics, and settings change from game to game, but they're all the same game.

Eraser · Post by **Eraser** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:17 pm

at their most basic level, yes they are, but there are so many things that set them apart.

CoD, UT, HL and rainbow six are all shooters. you run around and kill people, but they all have their unique gameplay.

I've nothing against halo, I have the PC version, its good fun, but I am pissed at MS for what they did to it. I followed halo from its original announcement pre xbox days, both the singleplayer and multiplayer were originally going to be incredibly better. How it finally turned was rather ordinary in both aspects.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:44 am

vernon said back on page one..."Myst (Macintosh slideshow that had the pretense of being more cerebral than it really was)."
i have a mac....and your soooo RIGHT, i hate both, mac and myst....Halo 1&2 both rocked, i have them for xbox because *takes breath and calms down...* I HAVE A FLIPPIN MAC!!!!! gosh....mmmkk, Battlefront was/is awesome...Lots of shit sucked....Gran Turismo is kewl, though i did get bored...but now there is GT4 (YAY), GTA 3, vice, and andreas were all okay, Andreas better than the others..but they did have drawbacks, in the nice cars, you felt like you were going a 4736507437580563298757640835208457661087563567346543956433.5754554 miles an hour, while when you hop into the evil vans they always make you drive in the missions you feel as if you are going 3 miles an hour TOPS, and in normal taxi carss, you go about 10...lol but it is a fun game, all three...bad games...kareokee revolution shit, mostly cuz i had to listen to my friends sister ATTEMPT to sing it, while i screamed in misery...and sports games aren't bad at all, you just have to like sports a lot, i mean, my brothers HATE anything that isn't super-realistic...they only play stuff like madden, call of duty, and counterstrike (i LOVE counterstrike online)...i don't dislike sports games either, they're fun, just not NFL street...SUCKS EVIL, OLD, JUICY ASS!!! (eww thats GROSS) hmmmm whats else licks giant fleas...mmmm i might think of more to say...if any y'all can endure my fucked up ranting anymore...shit man, i gotta stoop fucking swearing, it's getting to be one fucked up, fagg-ass habit of shit.

nietzsche · Post by **nietzsche** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:58 am

Fair enough, but I could say the same about the positive aspects of Arcanum.

Okay, so maybe there was good things like the skills mastery system, collecting new schematics, cool magic effects etc.

However as I previously pointed out it is kind a boring in the start, but does get quite interesting in the end.

Maybe the reasons I'm being so harsh towards Arcanum are that
1. It wasn't quite what I expected (a mix between Fallout & BG)
2. It was too short
3. The point that it wasn't interesting right from the beginning (okay even the beginning can be interesting the first few times, but then it gets boring).

Point 3 especially is important because usually the beginning tells whether the game is good or not. And this point is not restricted only to games. Whether it is a book, TV program, cartoon, etc. the known fact is that usually the beginning tells a lot.

This rule doesn't seem to work in arcanum however. But still it is not likely that you have the energy to play to the end if the beginning is lame and boring.

So, summa summarum: There are fun things like the skill system, collecting schematics, trying to become God (or at least have godly powers), traveling to the underworld etc.

However, the attractiveness of Arcanum varies a lot. Maybe it is the graphics, or the attempt to mix the elven fairyland and 19th century industrialism. Or maybe it is something do with the 3 points I mentioned earlier. Beats me.

P.S. Feel free to tell us (or me) about the positive aspects of arcanum
[/quote]

Darnoc · Post by **Darnoc** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:25 am

Personally, I think Arcanum is one of the best games ever, because of its story. Look, most games have crappy stories which, if they were books, wouldn't be read by anyone. But Arcanum acctually has a deep, philosophical and interesting story and that is why it is one of the best games ever, like Planescape: Torment, which is the best game ever or at least the best RPG. I only know two games in which you can beat the final enemy by talking with him/it: Arcanum and Planescape. Those two games are intelligent and that is what makes them good and worth playing more than once.

In my oppinion, anyone who condemns or praises a game for graphics is a moron. It is the story and the gameplay which counts. And mostly RPGs are telling stories. Of course, there are some RPGs with bad stories too, like Gothic 2. It was really bad to see how the genious setting and story from Gothic 1 was just abandond in Gothic 2. Man, what a waste.

The dumbest and worst games ever are sport and racing games. No story. Always the same. No diversity. Why do people play those things?

And of course those mindless, graphic-testing shooter games like Unreal 2, Doom 3 or FarCry. Man, how can any person on earth play such games?

I also don't trust something from a console. I make an exception for Halo, for it was originally planned to appear on PC first. Most console games are idiotic, mindless teenage games with no depth at all. I play games, because they make me feel as if I'm inside a movie or novel, but I decide how the story moves on. That is why I love RPGs.

Baalzebub · Post by **Baalzebub** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:41 am

Darnoc wrote:I also don't trust something from a console. I make an exception for Halo, for it was originally planned to appear on PC first. Most console games are idiotic, mindless teenage games with no depth at all. I play games, because they make me feel as if I'm inside a movie or novel, but I decide how the story moves on. That is why I love RPGs.

i agree totally with all of those thing you said exept the thing about console games, HAVE YOU NEVER TRIED FINAL FANTASY!!?????

Darnoc · Post by **Darnoc** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:49 am

HAVE YOU NEVER TRIED FINAL FANTASY!!?????

Oh, sorry, forgot those. I never tried them personally, but I heard they were rather good. But they are also exceptions. And Eastern is just not my style, from what I saw until now. I like the Western RPGs better, for being more sinister.

Baalzebub · Post by **Baalzebub** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:58 am

Darnoc wrote: Oh, sorry, forgot those. I never tried them personally, but I heard they were rather good. But they are also exceptions. And Eastern is just not my style, from what I saw until now. I like the Western RPGs better, for being more sinister.

ok, someone are probably going to get mad at me for spamming.

well if you have a ps2 console you really should get youre face away from the computer an get final fantasy 7 its the best game ever and you can get it real cheap, and it doesent feel to eastern.
WARNING!! the battle system is turn based but it rules.

by the way doom 3 is a really bad game (for the topic)

Kothloth · Post by **Kothloth** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:03 am

I agree with Baalebub. I am a PS/PS2 user myself and I must say that I enjoy the console singleplayer-based games a lot more then PC games right now. Though I mostly play japanese rpgs (there is an infinite amount of them, and the quality is suprisingly high compared to the quantity.) that is more then enough to keep me busy at all times.

Darnoc · Post by **Darnoc** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:05 am

well if you have a ps2 console

I don't and I probably will never have. I just can't get used to the controls of the console. I just need a mouse and a keyboard, my hands can't adjust to those damn console-controls.

Baalzebub · Post by **Baalzebub** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:07 am

Darnoc wrote:
I don't and I probably will never have. I just can't get used to the controls of the console. I just need a mouse and a keyboard, my hands can't adjust to those damn console-controls.

you can get it for pc to but i don`t know if they produce it anymore.

Eraser · Post by **Eraser** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:12 am

Just another stumpy I see, you never read any post of mine about shooters did you?

They are infinitely far from mindless, trust me. I have a father who is a shooter nut, he plays in the original doom style (just stand up right in front of the bad guy and shoot) and he gets his arse kicked. Meanwhile I'm using cover, flushing people out with grenades, taking advantage of the environment etc.

nietzsche · Post by **nietzsche** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:23 pm

I only know two games in which you can beat the final enemy by talking with him/it: Arcanum and Planescape.

yeah, you're right. but that is in the end, right?

In my oppinion, anyone who condemns or praises a game for graphics is a moron.

okay, that makes probably partly moron, because IMO graphics do have some meaning. However, I do think that the overall attrictiveness is more important

It is the story and the gameplay which counts. And mostly RPGs are telling stories.

I totally agree with this statement

The dumbest and worst games ever are sport and racing games. No story. Always the same. No diversity. Why do people play those things?

I also agree with this statement

And of course those mindless, graphic-testing shooter games like Unreal 2, Doom 3 or FarCry. Man, how can any person on earth play such games?

yeah, just mindless shooting without even the slightest original idea

So basically, good game has to make up two demands:
1. It has an original idea
2. It sweeps you off of your feet from the beginning to the end
I think those two demands are pretty much linked together

Assassinace · Post by **Assassinace** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:44 pm

Kotar wasnt' too bad and it never freezed on me... well except for the sand people camp but that's just because that area was so buggy it made it unplayable. Someone asked about MOO. It stands for Masters of Orion. Great series and the 3rd completally sucked untill you got all the patches (Which took forever to come out) and downloaded about 5 mods. Then the game was the great game it intended to be. As far as letdowns probably deus ex 2. The story just kinda sucked and the game although prettier had fewer options. IMO civ 3 kicked ass and although I beat the game easily there was a great mod for it that made the game a ton more balanced and difficult (Ok maybe not balanced but it gave you so many options it was a lot harder to min max).
Also super nintendo games and nes games were great (final fantasy, zelda, contra, and tons of others) granted I was six years old when I beat most of those so my memory may be using a bit of nastalgia.
Arcana was great although it gave you so much freedom it wasn't at all balanced (the same could be said for the fallout series).
As far as worst I would say those hundreds of shoddy cheap games with no gameplay value. Yes I'm looking at you daikatana, xtreme (insert genra ie deer hunter, skater, rally truck ect.) and most games made off of movies or tv shows.

sirwootalot123 · Post by **sirwootalot123** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:36 pm

about that NES game, castelian. truly terrible.
To sum up the gameplay, It's like someone straps 50 pounds of C4 to your groin and put you in the middle of the desert. Then the person instructs you to perform a given set of exotic dance routines, except that he forgot to give you the list of what you're supposed to do. If you don't do it exactly right, the bomb explodes.
I bet that the economy in Hell is thriving soely because of this game. Demons line up for miles in ticket lines so they can watch the damned play Castelian. How many times in your life are you able to play a game, then go over to your toolshed, get out your axe, and proceed to thrash yourself in the groin with the blade several times, and then sit back and go "Ahhhhhhhhhhhh."? that is the terribleness of castelian.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:04 pm

darnac said....I don't and I probably will never have. I just can't get used to the controls of the console. I just need a mouse and a keyboard, my hands can't adjust to those damn console-controls.

well, the ps2 has two USB ports which i have connected my keyboard to my console to cheat on a game lol, but that's beside the point, i don't know if you can play the game hooking up your mouse and keyboard...(as my ps2 is broken)...but you prolly can...

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:53 pm

the worst game ever was "doctor jeceal and mister heyeda" it was a game where you walked to a park and when you steped in crap, get hit by a baby or used your only wepon (your cane) you got angry and when you got anrgy you became mr. hyedal and you had to go around attacking people to lose all the rage. i win this game sucks the most

CommonsNat · Post by **CommonsNat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:19 pm

sirwootalot123 wrote:about that NES game, castelian. truly terrible.
To sum up the gameplay, It's like someone straps 50 pounds of C4 to your groin and put you in the middle of the desert. Then the person instructs you to perform a given set of exotic dance routines, except that he forgot to give you the list of what you're supposed to do. If you don't do it exactly right, the bomb explodes.
I bet that the economy in Hell is thriving soely because of this game. Demons line up for miles in ticket lines so they can watch the damned play Castelian. How many times in your life are you able to play a game, then go over to your toolshed, get out your axe, and proceed to thrash yourself in the groin with the blade several times, and then sit back and go "Ahhhhhhhhhhhh."? that is the terribleness of castelian.

LOL, this sounds like fun.

Darnoc · Post by **Darnoc** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:45 am

yeah, you're right. but that is in the end, right?

Not only in the end. In Planescape you can solve most things by talking the right way with high enough intelligence, wisdom or charisma. This is the reason, why intelligenc and wisdom are far more important in Planescape than strength, dexterity or constitution. You can also solve most problems by remembering the philosophical beliefs of different groups and by that helping in sorting out problems the intelligent way. The best thing about Planescape is, that it really matters more what you believe than what weapon you wield. The ultimate question of the game is "What can change the nature of a human being?". By realizing that beliefs can do that, your character can solve a lot of problems, including the end-game (you can tell this to the end-enemy and attempt to kill yourself by only believing in it). There are countless other occasions in the game where you can solve problems by believing in something or explaining something to someone (like the personal problems of Dak'kon with his belief in the teachings of Zerth or help growing trees by believing in them). You can avoid a lot of fights by talking people out of it. And in case of Ravel (one of the major enemies of the game), what she tells you before she attacks is crucial to your success. By being intelligent enough you can persuade her to tell you more about your own past and why your character is imortal. Of course, this is also one of the coolest aspects of the game: you simply cannot die (unless you burn to ashes or the lady of pain gets angry with you) and when should be dead, you simply wake up in the mortuary again. Sometimes you can only solve problems by "dying". And sometimes dying or receiving wounds which would kill others get memories of your past life back. If there is any a class of games which has the same status like literature with books, Planescape would be in this class.

Same counts for Arcanum. A lot of problems inside the game can be solved by having a high talent of persuasion (can be learned in the game) and some by being intelligent enough to realize complex problems (especially with the dwarf king and the dwarven philosophy of stone and form). And you can philosophize with Khergan (the end-boss), until he realizes that his philosophy (everyone should die; he believes the same thing as the dustmen in Planescape) is wrong.

Vernon · Post by **Vernon** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:01 am

You can talk your way out of the final encounter in Fallout, also. These kinds of games are infinitely better than shooters because they encourage critical thought, albeit low-level compared to say, a real-life situation.

So that's Arcanum, Fallout and Torment. I have finished all of these. Darnoc, are there any other games similar to these?

Darnoc · Post by **Darnoc** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:26 am

So that's Arcanum, Fallout and Torment. I have finished all of these. Darnoc, are there any other games similar to these?

Fallout also? *makes personal note: Buy Fallout ASAP!!!*

Sorry, I don't know any other game like this. And I don't think we will see a lot more. Today it is mostly about technology and not about stories. As I said before, most stories in games would never be read, if they were books. This also counts for some RPGs. They should hire professional writers to make those stories, perhaps this would improve the quality of games in general.

Well, we could do it. We could establish a new game-developing-company whichs main goal would be to create intelligent, creative and original games with good and deep stories. Perhaps we would hit a niche in the market, who knows?

Tamriel Rebuilt

the worst games ever

some explanations and more bad games

Re: some explanations and more bad games

Re: some explanations and more bad games