What's the most okay game you've ever played?

[ThatOtherGirl]

New Super Mario Bros Wii U. An astonishingly ok game. Almost remarkably so. It could have been good. Every piece of the game is good or even great, but they are put together to make the safest game I think I have ever played. I have a hard time even saying it was bad, because it clearly wasn't. It is middle of the road in every meaningful way, holding no significant impact.

Contrast with Mario Maker, which is deeply flawed in many ways but somehow manages to be fantastic by operating just this side of disaster. Nintendo actually released a Mario game, the flagship franchise of the company, with an editor and said "Go wild!" to the internet. I can't imagine a less safe thing to do with your most lucrative franchise, and from it we have gotten truly horrible, truly great, and perhaps most importantly, truly new Mario. It's insane and I love it.

 

[Zhukov]

Again, I'm an American and a history teacher who spent years teaching early U.S. history, so the statement "familiarity breeds contempt" definitely applies here. I actually really liked the parts that deal with how Conner relates to his tribe and the other non-historically-based characters, but whenever the story brushed up against real history it just came across as silly. How much of it is "familiarity breeds contempt" and how much is the actual game's fault is arguable.

As a non-American with only the barest knowledge of your history, my experience was very similar. So I'm saying it's the game's fault.

I'm fine with games (or fiction in general) using historical events or periods as a setting, context or background. However when they try and depict their fictional characters and stories as being important to said historical events or periods it starts to annoy me.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Hmmm.... Half Life 2.

It was alright. It was fine. It filled the space. (what do you want from me I am a banana /yatzee quote)

I mean, yeah, Ravenholm was a ton of fun and the highlight of the game. But it also had a TON of annoying driving segments in cars and boats in which you suddenly need to pull over and tediously find a handful of objects to weigh something down and solve a physics puzzle.

It was a mediocre shooter with a decent plot, and one standout chapter. Just an "ok" game.

(on dishonored)

Besides which the high chaos ending is awesome so I don't know why people try to avoid it.

When Dishonored 2 is close to release I plan to replay the game again doing a 'Punisher' playthrough, where I let the heart decide whether someone gets to live or die. Tell me something good about someone? They live. Tell me something bad? They die. It'll be fun to see how things go. Also the worse the crime, the more inventive the death I'll have to think up for someone.

I TOTALLY wish there were more Stealth Tools/powers. An ability to swarm a foe with mosquitoes to distract them as you dash past, flash bombs, the ability to end sword fights with a punch to the face to KO enemies rather than kill, actual light-and-shadow-and-sound-based stealth mechanics instead of relying almost entirely on line of sight...Those would have been a godsend, as the minimal-kill playthrough was kinda meh for me. Going full stealth assassin killing with no issue up until the final mission when I let all hell loose was a blast though.

I totally agree on the ending. The Order ending really felt out of place. All happy rainbows and sunshine? Really? The setting was all misery and problems, and suddenly they're all fixed now?! No thanks.

The Chaos ending (provided you don't fuck up the very last encounter, which is trivial since you can just stop time, dash, stab, grab, GG no problem) is a lot better overall. THAT feels more accurate to the setting. Life goes on, but it's still a wretched hive of scum and misery. Much better.

I think I might give the Punisher/Heart style playthrough a shot though, sounds like a TON of fun.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...there's a fair few on my list, but I think it has to go to 'RAGE' as the most 'ok' game I've ever played.

Fun gunplay, the world seems like a pretty interesting place to explore and the graphics are quite lovely... but it doesn't do anything with them. You just kinda get shuttled along the path, told to go kill group x of y gang for z reasons, usually after being given an entirely useless weapon or ammo upgrade. The car sections are just... there, probably to give you something to do, and you literally finish the game by pressing a button and waiting 3 minutes while 8 incredibly weak enemies attack you one at a time.

It's like the ultimate example of why writing is important to games. All the neat toys and cool locations doesn't mean much when your antagonists are 'The Authority' and they're evil... because.

 

[BrawlMan]

Darksiders.

There's nothing it does exceptionally well, but it doesn't suck hard enough at anything to be bad. It sits in the middle in just about every category I consider if a games good or not. Its world and pacing reminds me of Legend of Zelda, its combat plays like a low rent God of War, lastly its character designs are cartoony and over-sized reminding me of Warcraft.

The worst thing I can say about Darksiders is that nothing in the game feels original. Its a carefully selected mish-mash of several games put together to make something marketable. It's a product that FEELS like its just a product.

I couldn't even be arsed to finish Darksiders.

Bullestorm- The game had some unique ideas (the first-person version of Mad World), but was held back by the whole "let's make of fun a modern FPS genre, but play most of its conventions straight. Such as getting to cover, limited weapon wheel (at least with that you could have up to 4 weapons), and narrow corridors. Though the corridors weren't as bad as you see in COD, yet still an issues none the less. What they should have done was ditch the regenerating health, have a lot more wide open areas, and a little longer single-player. If a sequel were to implement all of these, I would play it in a heartbeat, but that is never gonna happen.

Conan (360/PS3) - Not a bad game, but nothing worthwhile unless you're a huge fan of the original stories. Although many fans saw Conan using magic as blasomphemy to the mythos and character himself. That's what happens when directly mirror God of War.

Ninja Blade - Generic Ninja Gaiden clone meets God of War clone. This game had too many QTEs up the ass.

Need for Speed Carbon - After the original Most Wanted, Carbon just felt like an expansion pack that didn't have much going for it.

El Shaddai - Pretty looking game with (below) average combat, average platforming, and a great soundtrack. Otherwise a forgettable experience.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Most recently probably Enslaved: Odyssey to the West. I like the characters and their interactions a fair bit and I enjoyed the setting, but ultimately the gameplay was at best a meh and the story ended on an unsatisfying note.

Verdict: It was alright I guess. A sequel would be neat since there was lots of room for improvement that could elevate it from alright to great, but otherwise it'll probably just end up being forgotten and I'm fine with that.

I guess maybe Dishonoured? I still go back and play it again sometimes and the DLC is actually pretty damn good but the emphasis on non lethal playthroughs being the "correct" way to play the game killed it for me.

How so? I've played through dishonored twice once on a murderous frenzy and a second time ghosting it Thief style, both times were a blast and I never felt discouraged from either playstyle. If anything I wish the game had given more non-lethal and stealth related tools as it often felt the killing path was the one with far more options. Meanwhile if it's the ending you're worried about you only get the high chaos ending if you've done a lot of killing. You can safely murder your targets and still get low chaos, just try not to also murder every guard and servant on your way as well. Besides which the high chaos ending is awesome so I don't know why people try to avoid it.

When Dishonored 2 is close to release I plan to replay the game again doing a 'Punisher' playthrough, where I let the heart decide whether someone gets to live or die. Tell me something good about someone? They live. Tell me something bad? They die. It'll be fun to see how things go. Also the worse the crime, the more inventive the death I'll have to think up for someone.

The game bitches at you in a kinda passive aggressive way about how you might want to stop killing people because you probably want the good ending then gives you all these sick ass toys that exist solely to kill things. Mixed messages much? I'll totally pick up the sequel if it's as good as the first game though, don't get me wrong.

The combat is fun but I feel like the game doesn't want me to have that fun because of story reasons. It would be perfectly fine if the non lethal tools were as fun and numerous as the lethal ones cuz then i'd be having fun AND get the good ending. Seriously about 90% of the powers are lethal focused and all of the weapons are too aside from the chokehold and the sleep darts (maybe there was a sleep gas bomb?) You might as well just not pick up that sword in the first place in a full non lethal run and just pour points into Blink, jump height and move silently. I found out you could bypass the entire start of the party mission by doing a upgraded jump into upgraded Blink straight over the huge ass spiked fence into the garden. It's nice how they weren't really bullshitting about the multiple options thing.

I've done the whole ghost run, Blink is fuckin' crazy OP once you upgrade it and get used to it and while that's fun in its own way you still miss the entire combat engine side of the game. Lethal runs let you experience the entire game I guess?

Oh but the game does have a super good collection minigame in the Runes and Charms, probably one of the best. I actually wanted to get them since they were super useful and finding an Outsider shrine was cool as hell.

The high chaos ending was cool though. I remember Sam the boatman going like "you asshole, this is the last time I do anything for you and if I see you again i'll fukkin rek you scrub" I stood there for a sec then shot him in the back when he was sailing away. Piss off the relentless killer then slowly sail away in pistol range. Nice going.

 

[F-I-D-O]

Honestly, most Tom Clancy stuff from recent years (barring Rainbow Six).
Currently, it's The Division.
Shooting is functional, but individual enemies stay up for far too long.
Abilities are interesting, but uninspired.
Progression is great, but uninteresting.
PvP is amazing, but people are too scared to fight each other.
The world is cool, but under utilized.
Customization is practically nonexistent.
Missions are fun, but repetitive.
Collectibles are interesting, but overly abundant.
The graphics are great though.

It's a fun game that I'm enjoying, but everything has a "yeah, but" quality instead of a "yes, and" element.

 

[F-I-D-O]

I'm sure that quite a few are slipping my mind, but that XCOM shooter whose name is incomprehensible, you know the one, does come to mind. It doesn't do anything terribly but it doesn't do anything noteworthy either. If it were released ten years earlier it might have been considered good, but it didn't release ten years earlier than it actually did.

...there's a fair few on my list, but I think it has to go to 'RAGE' as the most 'ok' game I've ever played.

Fun gunplay, the world seems like a pretty interesting place to explore and the graphics are quite lovely... but it doesn't do anything with them. You just kinda get shuttled along the path, told to go kill group x of y gang for z reasons, usually after being given an entirely useless weapon or ammo upgrade. The car sections are just... there, probably to give you something to do, and you literally finish the game by pressing a button and waiting 3 minutes while 8 incredibly weak enemies attack you one at a time.

It's like the ultimate example of why writing is important to games. All the neat toys and cool locations doesn't mean much when your antagonists are 'The Authority' and they're evil... because.

I had completely forgotten about Rage and Xcom: The Bureau.
Those were aggressively average. Both of them being immensely anticlimatic didn't help.
I still really like Rage's animations and Bureau's art style, but they had just vanished from my mind even when thinking of okay stuff.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

This might as well just be called Ubisoft, The Thread. Actually, if Ubisoft was naming it, it would probably be - Ubisoft: The Thread, because what is a modern game without a colon and a sub title to differentiate it from the many sequels?

Making "okay" games that aren't bad, but are sufficiently bland so as to appeal to the broadest demographic possible (and then milking the DLC as hard as possible) has pretty much become their entire business model. There is a legendary mock review of all Ubisoft games that captures the Ubisoft formula perfectly that was originally posted at games.on.net (sadly defunct), but you can find a copy here - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=830647

 

[Wrex Brogan]

I had completely forgotten about Rage and Xcom: The Bureau.
Those were aggressively average. Both of them being immensely anticlimatic didn't help.
I still really like Rage's animations and Bureau's art style, but they had just vanished from my mind even when thinking of okay stuff.

I'll be entirely honest, the only reason I remembered Rage was because it's still in my Steam Library and that was open at the time of posting.

 

[Elfgore]

Tough time remembering them, since like others said, they don't stand out too much.

I'll second Watch Dogs as my most okay game. It was alright playing it, but it got very old, very quickly. Far Cry 4 as well would go into this category... and so would Primal. Man, this really is "Ubisoft: The Thread", eh?

 

[Ironman126]

Undertale

No, no, no, no, no! You can't say that out loud! They'll find you! You need to hide, man! Get someplace safe! Hurry!

OT: Borderlands 2. It was fun exactly twice. After that, the veneer of newness had been rubbed off and all that was left was a reasonably competent shooter with some nicely thought out RPG elements and a cast of insufferably sarcastic, annoying characters who keep referencing shit from 2011-2012 for some inexplicable reason.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Enslaved: Odyssey to the West.

I have exactly 0 memory of this game other than it was okay.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Honestly, most Tom Clancy stuff from recent years (barring Rainbow Six).
Currently, it's The Division.
Shooting is functional, but individual enemies stay up for far too long.
Abilities are interesting, but uninspired.
Progression is great, but uninteresting.
PvP is amazing, but people are too scared to fight each other.
The world is cool, but under utilized.
Customization is practically nonexistent.
Missions are fun, but repetitive.
Collectibles are interesting, but overly abundant.
The graphics are great though.

It's a fun game that I'm enjoying, but everything has a "yeah, but" quality instead of a "yes, and" element.

I am just praying they don't turn Splinter Cell into an open-world collectathon too. Please Ubi just leave that one franchise alone. Blacklist was a great return to form.

 

[Hawki]

Well, I can think of a few:

Command and Conquer: Generals

Yeah...no. Thing is, I actually enjoy the Generals sub-series for its gameplay, but in terms of content? We had the Tiberium series (sci-fi, near to far future, serious storyline), Red Alert (pulp sci-fi/red scare, hammy storyline) to...this. USA, China, and GLA, a.k.a. "the terrorist faction" whose motives are...kill Westerners and Chinese? Yeah, the story's pathetic, the characters are non-existent, and for a series that always had a strong worldbuilding component, this just came off as generic. Fun to play, but the Generals setting is easily my least favorite of the CnC settings.

Gears of War: Judgement

Ask GoW fans which is the weakest game of the series and Judgement will usually get nominated. And personally, I heartilly agree. Again, it's not a bad game, and it does add new weapons and enemies, but something about Judgement feels...off, compared to the other games. I know it had a different developer, but apart from that...it's hard to say. But it felt unnecessary from a story standpoint, and...I dunno. Gears is a weird mix of over the top (chainsawing enemies) and under the top (melencholia as one wanders through the ruins of human civilization), and that's not even diving into its EU. But Judgement felt less like a Gears game, and more like a cover shooter with the Gears logo slapped onto it.

Doom II: Hell on Earth

Oh boy, this is going to cost me. But yes, I do think Doom II does meet the definition of generic, taken in the context of its predecessor. But first, I think I need to give some context. I do like Doom at the end of the day. I rag on it a lot, I consider Marathon the superior version of this shooter in a lot of ways (more story, dual-weilding, reloading, the survival aspects, etc.), but Doom does win out in the end. I played Doom back in the day, but only fully completed it with the BFG edition. So, that was fun, I thought, let's try the sequel.

It's the same. The exact same. Oh sure, you get a new demon here, a new weapon there, but it's the same. Damn. Game. And, IMO, weaker than the first. It doesn't have the same sense of progression that Doom did, where Phobos, Deimos, and Hell all had their own feel. No, we have spaceport, city blocks, and Hell. Doom II seems to be going for more realism than Doom I, and I've heard it speculated that a lot of Hall's old designs were recycled for the game, hence the disconnect in look. Oh, and the story's still bollocks. Yes, Doom I didn't have much of a story either, but I can at least give it credit for storytelling techniques (e.g. the environmental design of Deimos). Here, while Doom II adds material, it feels less tightly designed, less interesting, and for me, a chore to play through. Games get flak today for recycling concepts, but this is one of the worst cases of recycling I've seen. And even for the era, I can't help but think of the jump between STH 1 & 2, and all the advances that carried with it. I can't help but compare Marathon: Durandal to Marathon, which, while I enjoy the former more, the latter at least provided a new setting, continued the story, and provided new weapons as well. What can I call Doom II bar more of the same?

There's probably others, but I guess by definition, something that's generic isn't going to stick out in your mind much.

 

[Hawki]

Doom II: Hell on Earth

Oh boy, this is going to cost me.

Eh, not really. Or yes. There aren't much people who remember the differences.
Yes this is the same game. No, there's nothing wrong with that. People are bitching about big fat lazy publishers churning out iterative sequels - that's right. I don't see how can this logic be applied to several guys pioneering a new genre.

I also think that Doom 2 is better. I always felt that Doom was a little bit too safe in what it did.
Doom 2 is where it went all-out. Now, they are different. And they are different because they are meant to be different.
Doom went more for the horror feel, Doom 2 went more for the action feel. Horror needs to be controlled more tightly, so you never get these situation where you sit in some closet counting bullets, listening to the horde of demons outside and wondering how you would deal with them. I still remember my first time exiting map16. There was a big corpse-ridden field which Doom never gave me. I walked slowly through it to the exit. I had four health and three bullets, wondering how am I going to proceed further. I managed.

I disagree that Doom is the horror game (haven't played it, but surely that distinction would go to Doom 3?), while Doom II is the action game. Personally, I never got a sense of horror in Doom. Caution, yes, but caution isn't the same thing as fear. One can argue that Doom II has a wider scope than Doom in that it's set on Earth rather than moon bases, but there's not really anything to convey that scale bar a few exceptions (e.g. there's a wide open temple-like level which I could imagine Hell setting up shop on Earth), but even then, I'm left to ask whether this is an intentional transition, or done simply because it looks "kewl." Doom has an efficient, distinct aesthetic in that each of the three main locations has a distinct feel to it which help with the transition from normality (Phobos) to the insane (Hell) whereas in Doom II it feels far more haphazard.

Doom II feels like more of the same, but a less well designed, less interesting "same." And per the above paragraph, I'm not sure if D2 really counts as iterative. To use another example, consider the leap between Warcraft I and II, where, like Doom and Doom II, only one year separated the two games, and they came out in a similar time period.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Most of the Assassins Creed series. They are long, not massively interesting, but they hold my attention long enough for some low-thought collectable grabbing. That, and the fact they look pretty, is the reason I keep returning.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The 7th gen Ratchet and Clank games.

They're still fine games, but they lack the more adult wit and toilet humor that the PS2 games had. At this point it also doesn't feel like the series is going anywhere -- It's just meandering within the same gameplay mechanics without any refinement or change.