Author Topic: Worst Video Games Made (Read 25963 times)

SushieBoy · « **Reply #120 on:** February 16, 2007, 02:24:44 PM »

No, it's that designers have lost their touch.

CoconutMikeNIke · « **Reply #121 on:** February 16, 2007, 03:29:35 PM »

I'd prefer Chup's suggestion since that at least makes me feel good.

The Chef · « **Reply #122 on:** February 16, 2007, 04:36:47 PM »

Then how come I can beat Super Mario 64 with one hand tied behind my back yet I still can't beat SMB?

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #123 on:** February 16, 2007, 11:32:48 PM »

SM64 has tighter control and three dimensions. It's a lot easier to move in 3 dimensions.

Glorb · « **Reply #124 on:** February 17, 2007, 10:00:29 AM »

I sort of remember when SM64 came out; it was considered awesome because it was full 3D. In fact, the mid-'90s were kind of a bad era for platformers, because some developers really just cared about making 3D games.

I remember a game called "U.S. Army Rangers: Tactical 3D Squad" or some other generic name of that nature. It was for the PS1, around the time that it started rotting to death. On the back was a list of "features" that went something like:

. Extreme 3D tactical graphics and different areas
. More than 4 real-life gameplay weapons for maximum action
. 3D environments include snow and the desert
. Real-time graphics and 3D gameplay polygons
. Intense tactical gameplay over six missions
. Super-realistic 3D real-time tactical pause menu

And so on. Seriously, the back of the box was essentially a crazy soup of various different words and phrases with the words "3D", "tactical", "gameplay" and "real-time" bandied about liberally. The game itself is so bad that if you put it next to a pile of actual feces, the two would be indistinguishable.

Jman · « **Reply #125 on:** February 19, 2007, 10:12:29 PM »

Boy, I don't think I've played a game that could qualify for "Worst game of all time."

Glorb · « **Reply #126 on:** February 20, 2007, 12:20:06 PM »

Then you haven't played Drake of the 99 Dragons. Good for you.

Toad · « **Reply #127 on:** February 21, 2007, 07:02:50 PM »

Dink Two and the Runes of Coolness

That is a bad game. It is in a topdown perspective, and you play a little guy that holds a sword (kind of like Zelda), excpet that this game stinks. Bad.

Whenever you try to hit an enemy, you often miss, as the game has poor hit detection. If you make it to the boss of the first area, you can't defeat him anyway, because he has no place that you can hit him on (thus making him invulnerable).

The sound is terrible. When you use your sword, Dink stabs and says "Yaa!" in a voice that doesn't match him at all, and when you lose all of your life power, the game further insults you by saying "You lost, you moron!"

It was good for a laugh or two (a few years back), but I have long since deleted it and thrown out the disk it was on. If you get the chance, do not play it.

Glorb · « **Reply #128 on:** February 22, 2007, 10:55:21 AM »

That reminds me of this spectacularly crappy NES game; I forget what it's called, but you play as this stupid little robot-looking guy, and you enter a random encounter every few seconds. The outcome of the fight is completely random, and most of the time you die.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #129 on:** February 22, 2007, 07:16:26 PM »

If it's completely random, then you should live 50% of the time.

Markio · « **Reply #130 on:** February 22, 2007, 10:08:03 PM »

There were three things I didn't like about Pokemon Snap: the fact that you couldn't see all 150 pokemon in the entire game; Bulbasaur was too big; and only for like a month after its release could you print out those little stickers of your photographs.