Bayonetta shouldn't be anywhere near this thread, you mentalists.

Liveinadive wrote:

Amma gonna say it.

Duke Nukem Forever.
Playing it is like playing a 'best bits' of the past ten years of gaming yet implemented so badly.

In a weird way it is a game that I want everyone to play.

Perhaps the Edge review that will live with me longest, there's a line saying "it's a game that everyone should play exactly once".

I agree.

Liveinadive wrote:

Oh god Too Human was bad. That 5 minute long death animation was insane!

I completed and enjoyed the hell out of Too Human, it had it's problems but the combat was decent, good setting and a fairly interesting storyline.
Shot themselves in the foot with the planned trilogy though

I think people are mistaking WORST with 'games I have a grudge with'.

Grudgey ones will last longer in the memory than the outright shit I'm thinking.

You kray

I think Apocalypse for the PS1 should go in this list. Terrible action platformer with robotron controls and Bruce Willis' likeness and voice in the game. The plot didn't resolve and it was generally terrible, but a 10-12 year old Tempy adored it, especially its mental boss encounters with the Four Horsemen, War being a highlight, as was the level set in and around the Whitehouse, which was surrounded by a moat of Lava, natch.

Late last night, I remembered some Jaleco games I played on the SNES that were shit.  Rival Turf and Rushing Beat Run were shit brawlers, and Dead Dance/Tuff E Nuff (fucking stupid name) was a shit SF2 clone.

Talking of SF2 clones, there were so many shit ones.  World Heroes was immensely shit, and I never liked Art of Fighting.

Oh yeah.  Mortal Kombat and the rest of the series was, and still is, utter dog shit.

JonB wrote:

Half-Life 2

That sacredness was marred by Live in another thread.

This thread is epic.

Brooks wrote:

Action games need thematic sense, but slim to no Exposition. Arcade development understood this implicitly for decades.

I might get the above tattooed on the palm of my hand so I can just hold it up to the other person when having a debate / argument about video games. I'll replace the first word (Action) with "All", though.

Regarding Goldeneye, I can't understand how a game can be "good back then" but shit now. A good game is a good game. Sure, there's a nostalgia to factor in, and the fact that younger children have a higher tolerance of shitness, but fundamentally I don't believe time can have such an impact on a game as to flip it from classic to utter toss. To a certain extent I agree with whoever said "It's shit now, it was shit back then". Maybe not shit, but it was certainly never as good as it was made out to be.

Well I avoid 'bad' games so I haven'y played a lot. However I've recently taken it upon myself to collect SNES games and by doing that I've came accross some real stinkers.

They are:
George Foreman's KO Boxing
Pit Fighter
Home Alone 2
Wayne's World
T2: Judgement Day
Last Action Hero

These are really shit

retroking1981 wrote:

Home Alone 2

Had that on the NES, minus 8 bits did not improve the experience

adkm1979 wrote:

retroking1981 wrote:

T2: Judgement Day

I had forgotten this game.  Wasn't one of the levels a slidey tile puzzle of a T800 or something?

Possibly.  It took us twenty minutes to get to level two, which is where we gave up.

Mouldywarp wrote:

Regarding Goldeneye, I can't understand how a game can be "good back then" but shit now. A good game is a good game. Sure, there's a nostalgia to factor in, and the fact that younger children have a higher tolerance of shitness, but fundamentally I don't believe time can have such an impact on a game as to flip it from classic to utter toss. To a certain extent I agree with whoever said "It's shit now, it was shit back then". Maybe not shit, but it was certainly never as good as it was made out to be.

I think it's understandable with FPSs in particular from that period that they've lost their shine. Goldeneye was still part of the formation of the genre which has been standardised and refined since. Other genres were established earlier, and their first examples are also pretty poor now in comparison. I mean, Space Invaders was as good as it got when it came out, but it's kinda limited when put up against Ikaruga or something.

Whether someone likes it or not, Goldeneye was by far the most advanced console FPS of its time, and had a ton more depth than any of its PC FPS contemporaries. It was the first time a properly 3D FPS had been adapted to work well on console controls pads. The scope for different tactical approaches (including stealth) in the SP mode was very wide. The levels made different demands on playing style. There were great design ideas like changing mission objectives depending on difficulty level. Modern genre staples, like the sniper rifle, were used or established for the first time. The mulitplayer had a massive range of customisation options and perfectly suited arenas.

It's not my favourite game by any means, but it was groundbreaking in so many ways and superbly designed. But the benchmarks it set are now at least standards, and in many cases have advanced even further, so it now seems primitive.

Choke wrote:

JonB wrote:

Modern genre staples, like the sniper rifle, were used or established for the first time.

To paraphrase Southpark: MDK already did it. Edit: but I agree with your post.

"used or established". MDK was hardly as influential as GE. Or an FPS.