You just bought a game, played it and ughhhh... Something wrong with it. Feel free to choose as many options.
Last edited:
You just bought a new game and something stinks.....
- Thread starter Intellivision
- Start date
Besides the easy achievement games. The only game i've bought in recent memory that was truly bad was Alone in the Dark and that's because of the controls. The idea behind it was solid. Game ran fine from what i remember. Might have been some glitchy moments. Those controls though.. I wasn't having it.
Oh and Naughty Bear was a mess but i still had fun with it. Drowning teddy bears in cake mixers was epic. The game kept freezing though. It didn't help that i bought it for the PS3 which had worse multiplats.
Oh and Naughty Bear was a mess but i still had fun with it. Drowning teddy bears in cake mixers was epic. The game kept freezing though. It didn't help that i bought it for the PS3 which had worse multiplats.
Lol, what?!
I feel like I play a lot of games that I just don't gravitate towards. Can't say if a game is bad, more so that I just don't get it.
Yeah, i'm just easily satisfied i guess. If a game runs and has a shred of fun factor i'm there. I can look past most flaws. Like all the hate for Watch Dogs. I didn't think it was as bad as people have made it out to be. It's a solid game it just wasn't as good as it could have been. Or people were just expecting it to be some kind of GTA killer or something. Clearly it was never going to be.
I think you could say a game is bad if stuff technically is busted, i.e. online functions, fuq'd UI/menus, game breaking bugs/glitches.
Stuff like graphics/resolutions, gameplay and length are all subjective when used to decide if a game is "bad"...
Broken gameplay for me. As an EA NHL gamer since day one (Genesis hockey), this series has been hit and miss in terms of gameplay. NHL 09's EASHL was awesome until people learned cheese goals and attribute boosting, and the "99 attribute glitch" where you could max out your player's stats to 99 online. Absurd.
Genesis NHL 94 or 95 (I forget which) was no different, My brother and I shared a season. We'd win every game against the cpu easily, but the 4 head to head matches were for bragging rights. We knew it would all come down to playoffs.
Turns out when your team reaches 128 pts in the standings (back then the max games in a season was I think 82 so the max pts your team could have is 164), the game glitches and makes your team last place so you would miss the playoffs. It ruined the integrity of the standings.
Playing a lot of games and top scorers getting 5-10 pts a game was easy as pie. There was sometimes a glicth where if your player reached 256 pts it would stat glitch too.
Goes to show nobody tested playing an entire season.
And talk about shoddy work. I rented Homefront for a week and returned it after 3 or 4 days. In those handful of days, I was literally able to connect and complete maybe 3 games. The rest were disconnects, unable to connect, and glitchy online games. Online was broken 90% of the time.
Genesis NHL 94 or 95 (I forget which) was no different, My brother and I shared a season. We'd win every game against the cpu easily, but the 4 head to head matches were for bragging rights. We knew it would all come down to playoffs.
Turns out when your team reaches 128 pts in the standings (back then the max games in a season was I think 82 so the max pts your team could have is 164), the game glitches and makes your team last place so you would miss the playoffs. It ruined the integrity of the standings.
Playing a lot of games and top scorers getting 5-10 pts a game was easy as pie. There was sometimes a glicth where if your player reached 256 pts it would stat glitch too.
Goes to show nobody tested playing an entire season.
And talk about shoddy work. I rented Homefront for a week and returned it after 3 or 4 days. In those handful of days, I was literally able to connect and complete maybe 3 games. The rest were disconnects, unable to connect, and glitchy online games. Online was broken 90% of the time.
Last edited:
For me it usually ends up one of or more of these 3...
Bad Graphics 3 - A solid frame rate IMO is a must. I do not care if it is 30 or 60, I just want solid framerates. Most of the time the fluctuations are not to bad, but sometimes they can be terrible.
Broken Gameplay - Obviously the biggest issue a game can have. Having games like Battlefield not work due to online issues is simply unforgivable, and in this day and age really should not happen.
Boring - Obviously never good. A lot of games today seem to suffer from this, IMO. Ryse Son of Rome Would likely be the latest, and Assassins creed 3 and up till Black Flag also suffered the same fate.
Bad Graphics 3 - A solid frame rate IMO is a must. I do not care if it is 30 or 60, I just want solid framerates. Most of the time the fluctuations are not to bad, but sometimes they can be terrible.
Broken Gameplay - Obviously the biggest issue a game can have. Having games like Battlefield not work due to online issues is simply unforgivable, and in this day and age really should not happen.
Boring - Obviously never good. A lot of games today seem to suffer from this, IMO. Ryse Son of Rome Would likely be the latest, and Assassins creed 3 and up till Black Flag also suffered the same fate.
A bad frame rate made SOCOM 2 alot less fun than it could have been. 90% of the time you were battling frame rates in the high teens and 20s.
For me it's control and camera. A great example is Crimson dragon. I couldn't force myself to play beyond the first level, and I loved the Panzer Dragoon games.
Thankfully look sticks are the norm.
If I am thinking more about controlling than playing, they have failed, imo.
Thankfully look sticks are the norm.
If I am thinking more about controlling than playing, they have failed, imo.
That tiny little skunk that someone from the manufacturing company snuck into various game cases.
True.
If I bought a game and online didn't work I'd be peeved. What a rip off.
Homefront was a good example where it barely worked in the first week (at minimum). Worst rental I ever did from Blockbuster. They patched it later and it supposedly worked well after, but by that time the online community died off. It even sold decently well, but to prove it killed the game I don't think it even cracked Major Nelson's top 20 online chart. And it it did, it maybe lasted a few weeks tops. Then gone. Brink was another shooter that somehow sold ok, yet poor online killed it.
When I use to play WaW in it's final years when it was still lingering in the 15-20 spot, it still had about 3,000 people online at any given time. So if a game can't even hit the top 20, you're talking a game with probably less than 1,000 gamers playing.
Last edited:
I find most games boring anymore. Not to say there aren't quality games out there, but sequel after sequel, one company copying another or itself to another franchise. It's like a needle in a haystack anymore. Good thing I know what to look for!
I rarely end up with games that are bad. I rarely buy games on launch day anymore. I sit back and wait for real player opinions for a few days. The only recent game I got burnt on was BF4 which was basically broken.
For me it's the feel of the controls. If I buy a game, I'm already interested and want to like it, but if it's a chore at all to control your character that really hurts lasting value.
Poor design is also a huge one. Cheap or uneven difficulty is the most common, but lots of things can make a game feel too much like work.
Poor design is also a huge one. Cheap or uneven difficulty is the most common, but lots of things can make a game feel too much like work.