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?
I didn't think Battlefield BC2 was all that great of a game, but I only paid $5 for it and because of that I thought "not bad". If I had paid $60 it would likely replace DA2 as the worst game I have ever purchased. The monetary cost of a game is a big factor, and this applies to everything, not just video games.
Actually, I'm gonna have to agree with Skace here. If Audiosurf were $50, it wouldn't be the worst game you've purchased; rather, it would have the worst value of any game you've purchased. Audiosurf certainly isn't a bad game. The pricetag doesn't affect that.
Price =/= quality. The former has no bearing on the latter. A good game is a good game, regardless of whether or not you over-payed for it.
It goes the other way too: Just because it's free, doesn't make it good. Look at all these mediocre, inane "Free 2 Play" games coming out. Yes, they don't cost anything. But they're also mostly shit (TF2 being the only one that's decent). People try to rationalize them by saying "Well, it's free, so there's no loss." Of course that's not true. You're still wasting your time playing a shitty game. A bad game is a bad game is a bad game, and the price doesn't change that.
You guys are ridiculous. Just look at the Skyrim thread for proof of how much people will eat up hype without any proof of whether a game is good. Gamers especially make impulse purchases all the time. And no I don't think the cost of the game matters - since pirating a shitty game does not make it any less shitty (nor does getting it for 3 dollars).
I am not expecting every person to have purchased every Barbie game ever made, however I am expecting that they made at least 1 really bad purchase over their gaming career - and that purchase was most likely significantly worse than HL2, Witcher, Stalker or Halo.
Seriously, this is not a lot to expect.
In fact, I'm pretty sure I could trace several of your names to several of the Humble Indie Bundles and you are honestly going to try to sell me that every game in the Humble Indie Bundles was better than HL2 or Stalker then I'm going to laugh in your face.
Price =/= quality. The former has no bearing on the latter. A good game is a good game, regardless of whether or not you over-payed for it.
How good or bad a game is does not have a bearing on its price. What you are judging is a games value. A bad game for $50 is a horrible value, while a bad game for $5 isn't as bad value wise because you didn't spend much on it. It doesn't change the fact it is still a bad game.
Two equally bad games. One is $5, the other is $50.
Common sense tells you the $50 game is the worst, because it cost you 1000% more money.
A worst value while quality being equal.
And overall the worst, which is the point of this thread.
No, the point of this thread is simple like its title. Worst PC Game you've ever purchased.
That says nothing about amount spent. Using your scale, games that I found bad that I paid $50 are worse games then games I found horrible I paid $2 for.
Okay whatever, there's a few of you who must not have to deal with money being a finite resource. Just remember that there are others in the world who judge products based on how much they cost as well.
A game that is only $25 has to be more than twice as bad as a $50 game to be "the worst". Otherwise you could count QWOP as worst game ever just because you spent 30 seconds of your life and bandwidth to play it.
Except QWOP is nowhere near the worst game ever. It's actually really fun.
It's fun watching other people fail at it. I wouldn't be too happy if I had to pay actual money to play it though. :hmm:
Homeworld 2 has got to be the worst PC game I've purchased. Not bad, but whatever made Homeworld addictive, it didn't have it. After replaying Homeworld to make sure it was still fun, it has collected dust.
Most of my bad game purchases have not been PC games. With the dearth of available user reviews, it's easy to steer clear of bad games, and set expectations for potentially average games. Yet, it often takes months for reviews of some quality to get out for console games, and then they are often drowned out by masses of players giving glowing reviews to piles of refuse, as if they can't face up to having wasted the money, or so as to advertise having very low standards. Rayman DS, FI, was orders of magnitude more disappointing than any PC game I've ever bought, being pretty much unplayable.
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).
does renting games before purchasing make too much sense? controls have nothing to do with whether or not you'll enjoy a $60 or whatever game regardless of what platform you buy it on.
no excuse in paying a bunch of money for a game you realize afterwards you do not like when you can try it before you buy......That concept is simple and its true. deal.
Last time I rented a game was easily 15 years ago. Not disagreeing with you, I just associate renting games with being a kid.
Has to be Fuel front lines. I'm still pissed
I might of misspelled the game's name but I don't give a fuck. Hate the purchase, the game, the devs who the made game and never will buy a game from them. Don't even want to google Fuel front lines. I think it was THQ who made the game.