What game have you played with the worst multiplayer?

[nicholaxxx]

blacksite: area 51, it was my first multiplayer FPS so I thought it was the shit, but then I played around and now i realize, it sucks

 

[ActualOvaltine]

In my experience? Hmm....

Titan Quest (Large concentration of assholes. More than usual I mean.)
Battlefield 2142 (I don't know why I did not like it. Just didn't feel right)
Hellgate: London (What a pointless game)

About all I can think of right now.

 

[quack35]

GTA4 it was just so boring everyone would drive around waiting for new players to run over.

Hah, I thought it was fun.

Because I was one of those people.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

consider yourself lucky. i assume thats for pc, in the wii version there is no such thing as 'saving up and buying guns' which may have made it better. quantom for wii is just shocking.
literally, i actually mean this, youll have about 3 people in the entire world wanting to play, and you have to find that server which theyre all in, or wait for a few hours until someone else joins the game you started up. then the gameplay is the worst i've ever seen. absolutely shocking. mind you i didnt buy it. it was given to me as i hate the wii.
quantom sucks balls

 

[Jamous]

GTA4 it was just so boring everyone would drive around waiting for new players to run over.

Hah, I thought it was fun.

Because I was one of those people.

Heh, I'd just get on a rooftop or teeny tiny chest-high wall and pick those people off. Assault rifle or sniper. So satisfying to hear them shout at me over headsets.

 

[Jamous]

CoD:WaW.

I played CoD4 to death, and still do, but they absolutely ruined WaW in general. The only reason that game EVER gets played anymore for me is Nazi Zombies.

Why is there so much hatred for WaW. I can't really notice the difference that much multiplayer-wise.

 

[macatombe]

Dark Sector there's like 5 people online to play the ridiculous maps and game types with. (and the single player gets old after about 4 hours)

 

[Raiha]

Jeez, where should I start?

Resident Evil: Outbreak (can't talk to teammates, only macros)
Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy (sloppy, buggy, tacked on for extra sales)
Soul Calibur 4 (or should I say, Soul Calibur: Mitsurugi)
Multi Theft Auto (who can out-hack who?)
Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops (because only about five people own that game)

i own mgs: po. haven't played it in about a year and a half, but i still own it.

worst multi-player would probably have to be MGS 4. i loved the single player, but i was bored to tears with the multi-player

 

[Juraz]

Superman 64 had some pretty ugly multiplayer.

That game never happened.

 

[Thimblefoot]

Recently, it would have to be Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Lost Planet's multiplayer sucked. You can't use your weapons if you're beign shot.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

... I'm sorry but you are comparing SSB to ET for Atari? Something is wrong with you and I think sales show that. % is used as a way to show damage, IF you chose so, you can play in stamina mode where you do in fact die after an amount of damage taken (just like master or crazy hand)
Maybe you mistook button mashing for wavedashing? In any case I play any char and can beat any random button masher or someone who has been playing for a while thanks to experience and control over the game itself.
Now take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBhBYNwChU0 I only took a few seconds to find it, and its a great display of how controlled the game is. (Ignore the fact that fox and falco are similar so you don't start blabbering on about using the same moves)

If you can't see the major (gameplay) differences between SSB SSBM and SSBB then I believe I'm wasting my time arguing.

Oh and the free card of playing a retro or indie game (I know what Dwarf Fortress is) is really just a lame excuse for hypocrisy.

The only comparison I made to ET for Atari was to show where I rate the game in quality. Clearly they are not at all the same in any way aside from the fact that, in my opinion (which is what the OP of this thread asked for) both are horrible games.

I will grant you that I forgot about the fact you can indeed change the life system to a true life bar, which does help gameplay in some degree. However the fighting system is still subpar beyond just the health gauges default setting being ridiculous.

Even that video isn't that impressive to me. Those players seem to have some control over their characters, but ultimately there isn't anything complex going on. The system just feels watered down and with no depth.

As for my reference to Dwarf Fortress, I'm not playing some Indie card as you put it. It was a simple point to show that I agreed that graphics weren't everything (or even that important) in a game, as with my first post you seem to think I felt it was important. Either that, or you need to look up the definition of hypocrisy.

Ultimately, the point of the thread was to post what games we felt had the worst multiplayer which I answered, and you apparently have taken great insult by this. If you like it, by all means play it, and rest assured you will never have to worry about crossing paths with me at any gaming event with this game. I'll play the games I view as fun, you can stick with your Smash Bros. titles.

 

[cardinalwiggles]

i have to choose simply frontlines fuels of war due to the simple fact that no-one played it it had such potential to be great it had all the ingredients it just seemed to burn them as apposed to make a nice stew

 

[devildog1170]

I AM ABOUT TO MAKE ALL OF YOUR COMPLAINTS LOOK LIKE KITTENS

THE DARKNESS

now go cry in your corner!

The single player was epic and had one of the best storylines in any game. It's kind of funny that the online is the complete opposite, a pile of shit lol.

i agree, the story was amazing, but then that multiplayer..........what a shame...

Not to mention about half of the achievements were for multiplayer. God I feel sorry for achievement whores on that game. To put it simply, multiplayer in The Darkness, does not work.

 

[Lowbreed]

*snip*

*allthesnippingintheworld*

Tempted to call you out on the fact that it may seem basic to outsiders but really it isn't (look at the ridiculous reasoning for map bannings), but lets just leave it at that.

Uh and to add something on to the list WaW, I have both WaW and MW and for me the obvious reasoning of its lack of quality would be the WW2 weapons, the unconventional maps and horrid split screen graphics (if PxDn reads this, it's at the point where you can't tell what's what not because I don't like bad graphics.)...

 

[PxDn Ninja]

Uh and to add something on to the list WaW, I have both WaW and MW and for me the obvious reasoning of its lack of quality would be the WW2 weapons, the unconventional maps and horrid split screen graphics (if PxDn reads this, it's at the point where you can't tell what's what not because I don't like bad graphics.)...

Nono, I agree with you on this point. WaW had a LOT of issues with online. There was a texture quality issue with much of the level, and from a design point, the levels were too flat and didn't have enough differentiation of textures to really help mask that fact.

 

[TheTygerfire]

Saints Row 2 or GTA 4

 

[Optimus Hagrid]

Myst.

The lag is so bad it even appears in single-player.

 

[LogicNProportion]

The Darkness', definitely.