Any Bad games you enjoy?

[lacktheknack]

Ohhhhhhhh yes.

"Atlantis II" or "Beyond Atlantis", depending on where you live.

In a word, it's INSANE. Not that normal kind of "hurr durr, I can suspend things on bullets!" insane, I'm talking Chris Cunningham On Meth insane.

Even ignoring the horror that is Real-Faces-Superimposed-On-CGI, we're still left with a point-and-click and operates on Andromeda logic. Reconstructing a fractured skull (with no prompting) to talk to the dead man it belongs to? Check. A man who thinks he's a bird that you whistle at? Check. Stealing insects from the webs of giant spiders in exchange for ludicrously obtuse clues? Check. Going to hell, just to find out it's a bureaucracy? Check. "I would help you, but I need you to find my salmon"? CHECK. "I've fashioned my salmon into a talisman for you"? CHECK.

And this doesn't even mention the utter mindscrew that is the endgame.

Or the surreal hilarity that is clicking on an object and then being launched into space.

I just... the game is so, SO bad, guys. ;___; It's on my bottom five games I've ever played. However, it's also on the top five games I've ever played. It's REALLY fun to get a friend to play it.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Final Fantasy XIII. I can perfectly see what's wrong with it and why everyone hates it, but I couldn't help liking it all the same.

I'm with you on that. I can see why others wouldn't like it, but I still enjoy it anyway, if only because for once, a FF game has a story and they're (mostly) sticking to it instead of it being in the background while you go fight random encounter #3598 and do side-quest #50.

 

[Tenkage]

Final Fantasy XIII. I can perfectly see what's wrong with it and why everyone hates it, but I couldn't help liking it all the same.

I'm with you on that. I can see why others wouldn't like it, but I still enjoy it anyway, if only because for once, a FF game has a story and they're (mostly) sticking to it instead of it being in the background while you go fight random encounter #3598 and do side-quest #50.

That and I love the Afrobo...ok thats the only thing I liked from FF13 LOL

 

[teh_Canape]

Dead Space 3.
Make no mistake this is not a good game.

For your tense survival horror, your players should not be asking these questions:
1. Do I want to strap a rocket launcher or a lightning cannon to my chain gun?
2. Why can't I hold all these medkits?
3. Why aren't my enemies more afraid of me? considering the trail of dismembered corpses I'm leaving behind.

I found my self asking these questions through out DS3.
But it had that Borderlands feel to it.
Of finding that ridiculously overpowered combination and bull rushing through content that was meant to be scary.
I felt badass when I took down 8 slashers in 12 seconds in a rotating ballet of sniper rifle fire.

I'm glad I got it from the humble bundle, because I'm sure as hell not giving EA money for it.

I think the best part of that game in my entire playthrough which I quit a couple missions in because difficulty was more bullshit than the other two games, was just the revolver
that thing kicked enemies to fuck and beyond like it was a spartan king commanding a 300 men platoon

 

[babinro]

Diablo 3

This game has gradually become my favorite game of all time (since it's 1.0.8 patch) and it's been completely trashed by the fanbase. Critics have reviewed the game positively but if you look anywhere else online then people LOATHE this game. Especially on the Diablo 3 official forums.

I wouldn't be surprised if Diablo 3 ranked around 5th amongst it's own genre by the fan base below Torchlight 2, Path of Exile, Borderlands 2 and Marvel Heroes as current day loot hunt games. It's actually surprising an expansion ever got made.

Final Fantasy 13

Unlike the vast majority of FF fans I'm perfectly fine with the 40 hour corridor. When it comes down it, FF games have always just had the 'illusion' of an open world. You might 'feel' like you can do anything at any time and yet you typically complete all the same key events in the exact same order. FF13 gets rid of the BS and just delivers us a story. Great!

The problem? The story is shit. Yeah. It's a FF game, what did you really expect? The tutorial section of the game drags on and they open up the leveling grid to late for it to have an important impact on your build customization. Also the weapon/item leveling system is needlessly complicated for absolutely no reason.

All told, I felt the game had some decent characters / moments and a great combat system. I'm not saying FF13 is an amazing game just that I enjoyed it FAR more than the average gamer. I consider it to be a worthy entry in the franchise.

 

[josemlopes]

Frontlines Fuel of War, and I know that it isnt called a bad game but I only played it when the multiplayer was dead and the singleplayer is certainly called bad but I really liked it. It was a mix of a Battlefield 2 single player game with smarter and more organized AI and a more focused mission path.

You can still aproach an objective in any way you want with any available vehicle and class while taking advantage of the mission not being entirely random and having some pace. There is a level where you invade a huge fort with tanks and helicopters to then get inside and disable a nuke, its very cool the way you are fighting in a big open area to then transition to tight corridors.

In the end its similar to Battlefield 2 Modern Combat (the console version) singleplayer where it was rather open ended but with some actual pace to it.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Frontlines Fuel of War, and I know that it isnt called a bad game but I only played it when the multiplayer was dead and the singleplayer is certainly called bad but I really liked it. It was a mix of a Battlefield 2 single player game with smarter and more organized AI and a more focused mission path.

You can still aproach an objective in any way you want with any available vehicle and class while taking advantage of the mission not being entirely random and having some pace. There is a level where you invade a huge fort with tanks and helicopters to then get inside and disable a nuke, its very cool the way you are fighting in a big open area to then transition to tight corridors.

In the end its similar to Battlefield 2 Modern Combat (the console version) singleplayer where it was rather open ended but with some actual pace to it.

...so why is it called bad exactly?

 

[FPLOON]

Sonic 06, just to name thew first game that came to mind... The fact that I was willing to try to get all S ranks on all of the story-related levels must say something about me, I guess...

Other than that, Virtua Quest comes a decent honorable mention, only because of how the game's more repetitive than bad... with the exception of a couple of just plain bad control choices overall... (Seriously, who though not having a manual-moving camera was a good idea?)

 

[scorptatious]

Just downloaded Facade. Pretty fun to screw around with the game's rather dumb and limited A.I.

I can kinda appreciate what the devs were trying to do, but the execution is so hilariously bad.

 

[josemlopes]

Frontlines Fuel of War, and I know that it isnt called a bad game but I only played it when the multiplayer was dead and the singleplayer is certainly called bad but I really liked it. It was a mix of a Battlefield 2 single player game with smarter and more organized AI and a more focused mission path.

You can still aproach an objective in any way you want with any available vehicle and class while taking advantage of the mission not being entirely random and having some pace. There is a level where you invade a huge fort with tanks and helicopters to then get inside and disable a nuke, its very cool the way you are fighting in a big open area to then transition to tight corridors.

In the end its similar to Battlefield 2 Modern Combat (the console version) singleplayer where it was rather open ended but with some actual pace to it.

...so why is it called bad exactly?

They say its not memorable, it feels like playing with bots and its short (most reviews saying you might as well skip the campaign and go straight to the multiplayer).

To me it certainly has some cool parts like the fort I just mentioned and at the end of the game you have to go invade a rather tall building and its great how you have to go up the stairs while taking out the opposition, ending up on a rooftop fight against an attack helicopter.

This is an example of how the level with the fort starts and ends to see how the combat rather changes in the same level.


EDIT: Also the AI while not all that smart it does enough to be more then "a match with bots" with them taking actual cover and using windows and rooftops for their advantage.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Matrix Path of Neo and Enter the Matrix.

*runs for the hills*

EDIT: Okay, okay, I guess I have to justify it.

I liked the real world sections in EtM, and I like PoN because I played it obsesively as a child.

Thing is though, I haven't played either of them in the last 5 or so years since I became a PC Gamer.

So I don't know, perhaps(most likely) they are tripe sandwiches, and I was just incredibly naive as a child because *OOH SHINY!*

 

[Tanis]

Maybe a Gundam game?

I love several games in the Gundam series, even though they tend to be rather...mediocre.

 

[LobsterFeng]

I got this One Piece: Pirate Warriors game. It's pretty bad, but I like One Piece. It's kind of like Dynasty Warriors but with One Piece.

 

[Superbun]

For me it's Sword of the Stars 2. If you know anything about the game at all, you know why this is considered a 'bad' game by many.

The original Sword of the Stars (released in 2006) was a space 4X game, that mixed turn-based strategic play, with RTS fleet battles (confined to a 2D plain). I've never played it, but I gather it was pretty well received, with a metacritic score of 68.

The sequel tried to make everything bigger and better than it's predecessor. However, to say the game was let down by a problematic launch would be an understatement. I didn't pick the game up until a while after launch, but as I understand it, the game was released in a pretty much broken, alpha state. Thankfully, the developers were quick to provide patches after launch, and continued to improve the game, but it took them until almost a full year after the game's release for them to announce the 'all-clear', that the game was in an acceptable, release-worthy state. Around that time, they also released an expansion, free for early adopters of the game, that added a seventh playable race to the game.

These days, the game is in a mostly playable state, however there are still a few bugs and crashes here and there, and even on hard difficulty, with a starting advantage over the player, the opponent AI is still kind of useless. Unfortunately, some time after the 'all clear' the publishers, Paradox Interactive, pulled funding to the developers, so the flow of patches has dried up (game was last updated November, 2013).

After all that, Why do I think it's a good game? There's obviously something in there that I like, as it's currently my most played game on steam at 228 hours total playtime, beating my second most played game, Skyrim, with only 156 hours total.

It's not a feature unique to the game, but I'm a sucker for games that let you customise your units. And SOTS2 scratches that itch very nicely, you chose from three sections to build your ships (command, mission & engine), and then customise it's armament, down to what weapon is mounted in each individual turret.

Again, randomized tech trees aren't unique to this game, but the way the game does it is quite interesting. While there are certain core technologies available to every race, most of the more interesting and powerful techs only have a % chance to be available to you in a game, with the chance determined by your race. However, you don't immediately know whether or not a tech is available to you or not, you have to unlock it's prerequisites on the tech tree, and then perform a 'feasibility study' on it, to see if you can research the tech or not. Which helps keeps games interesting, by forcing you to change up your strategy, for example: Maybe in one game you use Phasers very effectively, then in the next game, you go to research phasers again, and you fail the feasibility study. What do you do now? Maybe try Heavy Combat Lasers? or perhaps torpedoes?

While it's not really part of the game itself, and most of this info is found in the lore forum on the developer's website, or in the in-game 'sotspedia'. I really like the lore of the universe that they created, they try to do something different with all the races, rather than just following science fiction tropes. Take, for example the insectoid Hiver race, rather than just being another alien hive-mind, they are actually ruled by an absolute monarchy, with a complex political and caste system. If that's not your thing, maybe you'd prefer the tribal meritocracy of the Morrigi Confederation (who also happen to be a race of telepathic space-dragons). Or maybe the psionic cetacean species, the Liir. Yes, this game has whales with psychic powers, in space. Don't laugh, they're bad-ass. I always end up slightly role-playing the leader of my chosen race whenever I play a game of SOTS2.

Yeah, so, the game's by no means perfect (in fact, far from it), but it's definitely a diamond in the rough. Go check it out if space 4X is your thing.

 

[Steve Waltz]

Oh God, so many...

First and foremost, I loved Lost Kingdoms 2, to death. As a kid I thought it was the coolest game in the world, and as an adult in a different decade I have gripes, such as minuscule levels and that the cards burn too fast. But I really enjoyed it as an experience, even as an adult. I loved running around with a pack of 3 elves and a tree archer card and seeing those arrows fly. But this is where I can see the game from the critics' perspective. The arrows move slowly, the elves are slow to shoot arrows and the tree archer card burns out quick (just like every card). Because of that, these experience were a little far between. Running out of cards is common if you're clumsy or just not conservative enough (despite the maps being small). However, From Software has so much more experience right now, I bet they could make a new Lost Kingdoms that could extend those short, wonderful experiences into hours. I mean, the most fun I had in the game wasn't in story mode, but was actually post-game when going deeper and deeper in the final dungeon. It was a test of endurance and strength. I always wondered whether I should turn back or if I had the strength to keep going.

Then there's games like Alpha Protocol. I absolutely loved this game. A game all about choices and character interaction that affects the gameplay in a way that gives the game great replay value. In most games, the choices you make mainly just affect the ending of the game rather than everything you do. However, in Alpha Protocol, you can, literally, befriend anyone in the game (including the main villain) and that affects who you will fight in the next level or heck, even in the current one. The biggest thing is, the choices you make in these chatting parts will affect gameplay. For example, you meet the mercenary, Sie, at the start of one of the levels and you can talk your way into an alliance or fight her crew and the other baddies you were expecting. Oh, and you don't just "make a choice," rather, you have to charm your way around the game. Yea, there's the typical "Charming," "Professional," and "Aggressive" dialogue response choices, but that doesn't means it's a good idea to stick with one through the entire game. The game judges your character's personality on his first response, but throughout the game you'll have to change your response depending on who you're talking to. Sie likes it when you're aggressive to her, so if you want an alliance with her and her mercenary crew, then -- even if you've been suave the entire game -- It's good to be cruel to her and shoot her in the kneecap, because she likes it rough. And yea, that's the thing, you can go into that conversation with Sie and WANT to have an alliance with her, but you might screw it up with the wrong choices and end up provoking a fight (but, like I said, she likes getting shot in the kneecap so fighting her is a good thing to do if you want a good relationship with her). And of course, if you do become friends with Sie, there are characters that will hate you for it, such as Conrad Marburg. If you're friends with Sie, once you meet him he'll already have 2 negative reputation points with him from the start, but you can FIX that if you did the NSA mission without getting caught and killing any agents, and talking your way into the CIA listening outpost (and not getting caught) -- A perfect example of how choices you make during gameplay can affect the chatting bits. Yea, and I'm just scratching the surface with just a few examples and characters, there are loads more in the game. Alpha Protocol "adapts" to the choices you make by changing the game's enemies, how many enemies, and changing the gameplay. Some called the gameplay dull, but since it was the only stealthy spy game I've ever played I loved it.



ObScure II: The Aftermath. This game was looking like a Scooby Doo episode from the beginning. It had fairly dull dialogue and felt like a buddy-buddy game where, despite the world around them turning to hell, nothing bad would ever go wrong -- Boy was I mistaken. The co-op gave it a kind of "nothing bad can happen unless YOU screw up" feel. And then, about half-way through the game, things started going downhill FAST! It was a pretty interesting kind of pacing. I was able to bond with this crew of sorority sisters and frat boys for a long while, while they were going through chaos and then the first death... and the second... and third. The thing after every death was that I either cheered or booed depending on whether I liked the character or not. One way or another, the game was able to make me care about these character, in a good way or bad. I don't there was a single death that I just shrugged off as "Oh well? Sucks to be him." Only the "real ending" was the part I hated the most. To me, it felt like the writers weren't done killing the protagonists, so they decided to extend it one more level and kill off the characters with little meaning. I like to think of the final level as non-cannon because it felt more like an extension. The level before it had closure by killing off the villain and stopping the source of the problem. Then the game just extends to one more level and the writers cop out by killing almost everyone else that they couldn't figure out how to kill during the main campaign. I understand that writers like that get off by killing the characters they create, but when the deaths have no substance it just gets irritating?

Spoiler

The giant burley boss monster persuades one of the characters to kill himself instead of, you know, just crushing him under his foot? Worst of all, I kind of liked this character. Even though I hated his girlfriend, I wanted to see him avenge her, and instead the writers just cop out and he kills himself? Due to some chit-chat? And then two characters decide to take a helicopter ride and it just blows up with no reason as to why. You know, that's exactly what the last level was -- A whole bunch of unanswered "Whys?" Unanswered Whys can be good for an ending because they cause discussion, but when there's no substance to discuss it just because irritating.

That was probably it, you know? The ending was such trite that it left a bad taste in everyone's mouth and the critics had to wash it out with a nice long rant and a low number at the end. But I only played the game twice in all the years it's been out, the last time being over 5 years ago, and I can still remember every character and their deaths, and that's a sign that the writers at least did SOMETHING right.

 

[Superbun]

Dragon Age 2

I actually enjoyed the companions far more than in Dragon Age 1, didn't mind the reused dungeons that much, and I -still- don't understand why people claim that the graphics looked like "crap". If anything, they seemed to be -much- more of an improvement over Dragon Age 1 which made everything seem very... -very- plasticy and dull.

Right, so now that I've said that; I better get my flame-proof armor on.

I liked Dragon Age 2 as well,

Yeah, sure the gameplay was probably 'dumbed down' for the console players, but I was never any good at the combat in DA:O so I didn't mind that. And we all know gameplay is secondary to story in Bioware games anyway.

It may lack the world-saving scale that DA:O had, but I certainly found the storyline and characters in DA2 more memorable than it's predecessor, (although that may just be because I took like a 12-month hiatus in the middle of my playthrough and kind of forgot everything that was happening).

EDIT: In conclusion, yes, DA2 probably wasn't as good as the first one, but it's still a good game.

 

[Brian Tams]

I really enjoyed Quest 64 (Holy Magic Century) back in the day, even though everything about it screamed I should hate it. I dunno, the utter cardboard cut-out story and any lack of character deve- well, actually, just a lack of a character since the kid you play as could've doubled as a mannequin in his off time, should have made me load it up into a cannon and fire it into the sun. But there's something there that I enjoy, and I can't stop revisiting it from time to time.

Perhaps I'm just a victim of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Ok... so many of these games are NOT generally considered bad games. I mean, "Dragon Age 2"? C'mon now.

My "retro" example is far, far more topical, and I doubt many people who actually played it would disagree with the quality of it: "Batman Forever" for the Sega Megadrive. A game with "Mortal Kombat"-styled fight system where you can literally beat every single enemy in the game by spamming one move (the batarang, of which you have an unlimited supply and which both damages and stuns enemies for longer than it actually takes you to throw a second one.) And yet... it's just fun. Trying to throw enemies down pits or find all the secrets is great, and the unlockable secret weapons are actually really fun to use.

So... not a good game. Half the controls aren't even in the manual (causing people much frustration when trying to work out how to jump down from a transparent platform for example) and much of the stuff is just ridiculously unbalanced. But it has clown thugs called "Giggles" and "Koko". And I enjoyed the hell out of it.

EDIT: Oh, and add "Crude Busters". A game from my childhood that I loved seeing done in "Awesome Games Done Quick 2013". I spent so much time with that awful, fascinating game.

 

[Steve Waltz]

I really enjoyed Quest 64 (Holy Magic Century) back in the day, even though everything about it screamed I should hate it. I dunno, the utter cardboard cut-out story and any lack of character deve- well, actually, just a lack of a character since the kid you play as could've doubled as a mannequin in his off time, should have made me load it up into a cannon and fire it into the sun. But there's something there that I enjoy, and I can't stop revisiting it from time to time.

Perhaps I'm just a victim of Stockholm Syndrome.

No, I'm with you on that. Back in the day I thought Quest 64 was the cat's meow, too. Going back to play it is out of the question though; it's far too shallow of a game to hold up in any way these days. I think they made quail-head deliberately shallow so kids to put themselves in his shoes, which I know I did. There were countless nights where I went to sleep with a smile on my face imagining that I could shoot green razors of wind out of my staff, and launch monsters into the sky with giant pillars of water. Saving in that game was a total nightmare though. I think that was the only game I had owned for the N64 that needed to be saved on one of those controller memory card things. I still remember the fact that I didn't have one of those cards the first time I played it and then had to beg my parents to buy one for me because the game wouldn't work without it.