Command & Conquer: Sole Survivor was a multiplayer spinoff of the original Command & Conquer game. It featured a deathmatch-style game in which each player controls a unit of the original Command & Conquer game and travels around the game arena collecting crates to increase this unit's firepower, armor, speed, attack range and reloading speed. Sole Survivor was often compared to a first-person shooter, however played with a top-down perspective of the arena. It featured no single-player mode and the multiplayer had no hints of a storyline, and was omitted from inclusion in the Command & Conquer: The First Decade compilation pack.
Disagree. Tastes are certainly one thing. And tastes might determine whether you like CoD more than TF2. However, tastes will not dictate the worst game you've ever purchased unless, throughout your entire gaming history, you only purchased games rated 90% or better. And by purchased, I mean in any fashion (I assume stealing them as well).
It doesn't matter if you like CoD more than TF2, because if either of those games is your worst game, hell not even game, worst FPS (specific genre), then you haven't played about 95% of that genre (and about 99.7% of all games).
This is what makes a lot of the poorly thought out responses in this thread so damned ridiculous.
I think you're not factoring in the money/insult ratio. If I spent $2.50 on SpaceChem and hated it, and then spent $60.00 on MW3 and hated it, the latter will definitely be the worst game I payed for. Heck, I could hate SpaceChem ten times as much as MW3 and still consider MW3 the worst game I paid for.
(Disclaimer: Games above are examples only. SpaceChem is awesome and everyone should own it. I've never played MW3)
Games that people bought at full price on release day are going to be on this list more often than stuff you bought in the bargain bin two years after release. Even something mediocre could be the 'worst game ever paid for' if you paid too much for it at the time.
Agreed. FEAR was the veritable Crysis of its time in graphics and was a generation ahead in shaders (important for a horror FPS I would think). If you wanted all the eye-candy from that game at release, forget running at native resolution unless you had a cutting-edge PC. Its sequel was a disappointment.
It doesn't matter if you like CoD more than TF2, because if either of those games is your worst game, hell not even game, worst FPS (specific genre), then you haven't played about 95% of that genre (and about 99.7% of all games).
This is what makes a lot of the poorly thought out responses in this thread so damned ridiculous.
Technically your definition is not the worst game, but the one with least value. I agree that I wouldn't be as upset for getting a bad game for $2.5 than for one I paid $60.
I'm pretty sure that's what the thread is about. The worst game ever would probably be something like Desert Bus or Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. From the title of the thread, I assume that the amount of money you had to part with is part of the equation here.
Disagree. Tastes are certainly one thing. And tastes might determine whether you like CoD more than TF2. However, tastes will not dictate the worst game you've ever purchased unless, throughout your entire gaming history, you only purchased games rated 90% or better. And by purchased, I mean in any fashion (I assume stealing them as well).
It doesn't matter if you like CoD more than TF2, because if either of those games is your worst game, hell not even game, worst FPS (specific genre), then you haven't played about 95% of that genre (and about 99.7% of all games).
This is what makes a lot of the poorly thought out responses in this thread so damned ridiculous.
Hmmm I expected more people to say 'Outpost'; I consider myself lucky that my friend ended up buying it before me and saved me from making a terrible mistake.
I actually liked Outpost lol. But then I was pretty young when I played it. I'm assuming we are talking about this right?
I try to only buy good games. I don't know why anyone would do differently. There are enough quality games to spend all of your time with. Purchasing low quality games only happens because of lack of research.
Saints Row 2
Rent before purchase....simple. No excuse to not at least own a used console for rentals.
Rent before purchase....simple. No excuse to not at least own a used console for rentals.
No excuse? What? Really? You can't think of any reasons that someone wouldn't own a used console to rent games?
I don't think owning one just to rent games so you know whether would would want to buy it for the PC is a good reason to own it at all. I don't own a console (other than the Wii), but I couldn't imagine playing a game on a console playing the same on the computer, since the control method is completely different (controller vs. mouse and KB).
I bought Audiosurf for $5.
I bought Dragon Age 2 for $50.
I had more fun playing Audiosurf than I did Dragon Age 2. Factor in the price difference, and DA2 ends up being even worse in retrospect. Cost most definitely matters, this is a thread about bad games you've purchased, not just "What is the worst game ever?"
Terrible example... Audiosurf is better than Dragon Age 2 regardless of price. Why does it matter if you paid $5 for Audiosurf and $50 for DA2? What if you paid $5 for both? DA2 would still suck, the game sucks! Cost doesn't matter - only that you purchased the game and that it was the worst game you played.
If Audiosurf's price tag was $50 it would be the worst game I have ever purchased (actually, I wouldn't have bought it if that were case). How do you not get it?