Numen: Contest of Heroes is a game that sits at about 50% recommended on steam. I beat it years ago and really enjoyed myself, but I knew it was a unique fit for me. I only say “bad” so that we have common ground, but I value that experience.
What are “bad” games you enjoy?
Choro-Q High Grade 2 (a.k.a. Road Trip or Road Trip Adventure) for the PS2.
Just one more in a very long line of low-budget tie-in video games for a popular line of toy vehicles for children. Most western reviewers try to play it for the racing (which I admit is buggy and middling at best) and dismiss it as trash.
But it’s not about the racing. The racing is incidental; just a bit of action to break up the rest of the game and give you an overall goal to aim for. The real game is exploring a huge open world, meeting hundreds of NPCs, getting involved in their stories, solving mysteries, and digging up every last collectible in the game.
Enter the matrix was fun as hell, at least the first mission with all the bullet time, kung-fu and acrobatics. It wasn’t a good game, but it was everything I needed from a Matrix spinoff
Kane and Lynch!
I liked it way more than Gears of War, which was also a 2 player coop cover shooter released around the same time.
I just really liked the banter, the characters, the setting, the way that you could see how one of the characters was crazy because when you play coop as him he sees different things.
Loved every second of it when I played it, even in single player.
The Matrix Online. It was not a very good game mechanically, but the community and the monolith employees that would log on to role play major characters was the most fun I’ve ever had playing video games in my life.
Alpha Protocol, a spy-themed RPG by Obsidian and probably their worst game. The gameplay was absolute garbage, but it had some of the best writing in games and your dialog choices actually affected the plot in dozens of ways. It was the first time I can remember since the old Sierra days where a minor choice you made ten hours ago could come back and screw you over.
In some ways it was the game that Mass Effect claimed to be, one that reshaped itself around your choices and let you lead the plot where you desired. It just sucks that in all other ways it was a buggy piece of crap, where everything from combat to stealth to hacking were miserable chores that weren’t fun even when they did function properly.
I bought this on a sale and never played it…
I bought a physical copy for PC cheap on sale, and never played it (my PC at the time wouldn’t run it for some reason IDR).
Now I live in Japan and it’s not available for sale here, on GOG or Steam, so I hope I can get that disc to work under Linux! I see there’s an official patch that removes the DRM, but there’s one for North America, and another for Europe, and I bought the game in Australia, so I it’s a coin flip which one I’ve got. Hopefully once I install it there’ll be some clues.
You are doing yourself a disservice.
Install and play it now.
Its a fantastic fucking game. Literally no two playthroughs are the same.
OK I installed it, I’ll give it a go
Excuse me.
The question was about bad games that you enjoy.
Not about fuckawesome games that are fuckawesome and that Sega needs to burn for not allowing us to have a sequel of.
Alpha Protocol is one of the great tragedies from Obsidian’s days of doing contract work, back when they were never given enough time or money but still put out brilliant but flawed games like AP, New Vegas, and Knights of the Old Republic 2. I would do terrible things for a remake of any of those games where the original team was given the resources to do things properly.
(Though IMO I think AP might work better as a Telltale-style game in the vein of Dispatch or the Walking Dead. The dialog is the star and all the other gameplay only detracted from it.)
Alpha Protocol being rushed was especially tragic because there’s no other game that changes the plot to such an extreme degree based on your actions. It really felt like your story. It also avoided an obvious “best” route by having every choice be a tradeoff, where helping one contact could alienate or even endanger another. It’s not like a Bioware game where you can pick the top option in every dialog and cruise your way to an ideal ending for everyone. You had to pick a side eventually, pitting you against former allies who you genuinely liked.
I remember being impressed when an NPC commented on how I wore combat armor to a clandestine meeting. There were a lot of little touches that were nice.
Back 4 Blood. It was a zombie game marketed as “made by the same people who made Left 4 Dead” but they really didn’t have any of that talent left after 15ish years and just seemed to be pretty unpolished all around. However, they had a card system where you make a deck of bonuses you want and after each mission you get one that you keep until the end of the campaign. But the devs, Turtle Rock, had a habit of nerfing any cards that were strong or fun into the ground even though the game was mostly PvE. Also they made a change halfway through the game’s lifespan so that you get the entire deck at the start of the first level instead of building up to it. I still don’t know if that was a good change or not, but they never rebalanced the game so the first couple levels of every campaign were just ridiculously easy. Unpolished game, horrible devs, but I had fun while it lasted
The card thing made it a game that was fun when you play all the time instead of the once a month your busy adult friends are free at the same time, so a lot of people that had previously loved l4d couldn’t really get into it
I had a beta. And all I remember is that on easy game is truly easy. But once you up difficulty by 1, game becomes terribly difficult. Makes it impossible to play with bots and even with real people and voice chat it was quite a challenge.
Card system should be better and they shouldn’t nerf all the fun cards. They shoul’ve taken inspiration from Dead by Daylight. But again, for a PvE game, nerfing fun stuff to the ground is dumb and a way to distance from the community.
As a 1k hours L4D2 veteran, I really wanted to like B4B. Not sure how could they fumble the formula that they participated in creation of. Sad to see it fail.
I definitely enjoyed my time with B4B. I don’t think it’s a really good game, but it also wasn’t as bad as everyone was saying.
Haven’t played in forever though so maybe it has gone to shit in the meantime.
A couple of buddies and I still play this. It is definitely unbalanced but thats part of its charm to us. Plus when you start getting a groove as a team its just tons of fun
Bioshock Infinite. I wouldn’t call it bad, but it gets a bad rep for not being the game that Bioshock superfans wanted. I hadn’t been infected by the immersive sim brain worm when I played it and didn’t judge games based on their box-stacking mechanics, nor did I care about how it fit into the lineage of *shock games. Evaluated on its own, It was a fair shooter with great visual style and okay story.
There are other cheap shot meme games that I enjoyed for how bad they were, like Mystery of the Droods.
It’s the #72 highest rated game of all time on Metacritic with a 94/100. I don’t think BioShock Infinite really fits this thread.
It’s a funny case where it was pretty widely panned by diehard fans of the previous games, but it was extremely popular with basically everyone else. So there was a very vocal minority who shat on the game right after it released. But it hit a broad enough audience that the new/casual players overwhelmed the diehard fans.
Bioshock Infinite is basically the Fallout 4 of Bioshock games. If you played Fallout 4 first, you’d probably think it’s a great Fallout game. The gameplay is decent, you have roleplay choices for the story, there is lots of world building, etc… But if New Vegas is already your favorite game, you probably hated FO4 for not being enough Fallout. It doesn’t mean people enjoying FO4 are wrong. It just means the game didn’t deliver what existing fans were hoping for.
Speaking of FO4, my biggest gripe is just the loss of durability of everything, but power armor. That, and power armor becoming something anyone is able to wear and is all over, removing any speciality to it, IMO.
It’s kinda unfair to compare FO4 to FONV, IMO, but it’s still a decent game on its own.
New Vegas will always be superior to Fallout 4 in everything but graphics.
Fallout 4 is a great looter shooter. But its an absolute ass awful fallout game… Like they bought someone elses half finished shooter, and threw super mutants and a fucking horrible RPG system into it awful.
in everything but graphics.
And stability. I’ve recently replayed the main Fallout games and the crashing and bugs in the vanilla New Vegas experience is inexcusable.
Cant help you, it was indefensibly buggy on launch, but its long since been fixed and been shockingly stable for me, even when modded out the ass.
I genuinely can not remember the last crash I had.
FO4: Welcome to Fallout! Here’s your nuclear war, here’s your vault, here’s your wasteland, here’s your wacky robots, here’s your dog, here’s your Good Guy Faction, here’s your power armor, here’s your first Deathclaw, now either go find your son or fuck off.
It really tried to cram the entire setting into a playable E3 demo, made most builds nonviable, not to mention how half-baked the modding system and settlement construction tools are.
Forgot how if you follow the main story in the beginning you face a deathclaw early. Forgot how they scale most every enemy down to your level. Yeah, not a big fan of that for deathclaws since they are supposed to be terrifying and strong.
I’d say the modding system is okay and dies it’s job well enough, but the settlement system? Oh boy, is that just an underwhelming thing. It’s a cool concept, but it’s done in a boring manner.
The modding has the same problem blacksmithing/enchanting in Skyrim has: You have to invest a lot of advancement in the system to get any benefit out of it. Older Bethesda games let you sidestep that by throwing money at the problem which is a totally valid way to let players have more freedom but all the good stuff is locked behind feats and high stats now. Why can’t my character be an emotionally stunted moron with a skilled mechanic on retainer to access the good shit? Instead I am completely reliant on farming raiders of various factions and hoping for good drops. (This is the “looter shooter” thing the other guy brought up but I don’t think it’s a great version of that either.)
Maybe my memory is different, but I recall Infinite being extremely well-received at the time. Much better than Fallout 4 was. Like, it was talked about as being one of the greatest games of all-time.
Rather, I think its a rare case where public opinion sours over time. Part of that is because the game itself really doesn’t hold up to being replayed. The best part of the game is the story, and mostly because of the sense of mystery that pulls the player forward and leads up the the big twist reveal at the end. In a lot of media like that, its really fun to go back and are all of the little pieces of foreshadowing that you overlook or misinterpret the first time. Or heck, maybe some people pick up on it and predict the ending, and that can also be incredibly satisfying. But Infinite doesn’t have any of that. When I replayed Infinite a couple years ago, I got to the ending thinking “yeah there was absolutely no way I woukd have been able to figure that out on my own the first time”, which was really unsatisfying.
Not only that, by parts of the story are actively bad when you stop to think about it. There was the whole arc where they go to a different dimension where Daisy is leading a revolt against Comstock and she just kind of decides for no reason that Booker is an enemy who has to die. It really felt like they just ran out of ideas to make the enemies you had been fighting up until then visually interesting so they tried to cram in a different faction somehow. The scene where Elizabeth sneaks up on Daisy and kills her with a pair of scissors to the neck felt incredibly out of character and unearned. There were moments during the revolt sequence when Booker acts sickened by the violence against Comstock’s soldiers, though he never reacted like that to those soldiers oppressing civilians earlier in the game.
Some of it is cultural context too. Fascism has been on the rise globally since the game has come out, so I think a lot of the audience (myself included) is less interested in condemning the oppressed for violence against their oppressors than they may have been at the time of release. When you put it next to BioShock 1, it seems like Ken Levine is just using political extremism in general as a narrative device for conflict rather than actually trying to make any particular statement about politics. That kind of centrism has not aged well.
Without that, the rest of the game falls apart. The peaceful segments are good additions for the sake of pacing, but the NPC’s don’t really interact with you much and are more just scenery. They aren’t people that you ever care about, so changing the world state to the violent one where you’re shooting enemies never feels all that meaningful.
The action sequences are okay, but not good enough to stand the game up on its own like some of its contemporaries did. Games like Uncharted and Assassin’s Creed have their own issues of course, but it was really fun to just run around as Ezio or Drake in most of the games in a way that it never was for Booker. The enemies in Infinite feel repetetive, almost every “arena room” area feels the same. The guns aren’t that interesting and the gimmick of the vigors wears off quickly. Elizabeth isn’t all that interesting in combat, just an occasional extra source of health or ammo. The time rifts are basically the same. The sky hook was cool, but wasn’t used often and there wasn’t usually much of a benefit to being airborne vs grounded anyways.
So the only thing left to really enjoy is the spectacle. It still looks good. The art style is a great balance between realism and stylized that looked great at the time and has aged well. The sound is all good- voice acting, sound effects, music, all of it. The setting and environments are creative and interesting.
So I’d say it is worth playing once for most people, but doesn’t live up to its Metacritic score. In tier terms, it seemed upon release like an S-tier game but has aged into more of a B-tier.
I was a huge fan of the previous games. My friends were huge fans of the previous games. We all loved Infinite. Fallout 4 is another great example of that game being way better, and way better received, than the tone that you tend to see on forums. Perhaps because those people were so burned that they can’t help but talk continually about how upset they were with it? I see this all the time in fighting game circles around Guilty Gear Strive. That series never broke 1M copies sold of a game before Strive, and Strive has sold like 4M+ by now. Not only that, but tournament entrants are consistently healthy at every major. If competitors weren’t happy with it, they’d stop playing, and we know that from plenty of other fighting game scenes. Even if everyone who played a prior Guilty Gear also hated Strive (which isn’t the case), it should be extremely rare to come across those legacy players’ complaints, but even 5 years into Strive’s success, those voices are quite loud in forums.
Bioshock Infinite is basically the Fallout 4 of Bioshock games. If you played Fallout 4 first, you’d probably think it’s a great Fallout game. The gameplay is decent, you have roleplay choices for the story, there is lots of world building, etc… But if New Vegas is already your favorite game, you probably hated FO4 for not being enough Fallout.
I think that every Fallout game other than New Vegas and maybe 2 is like this. There are things that people like, but there are also changes that fans of prior games are really upset about.
Fallout 3 came out, and it was shifting a much-loved isometric game with fully turn-based combat into a pausable 3D shooter. Part of Fallout and Fallout 2 was that it had good world-building. I believe that “Fallout” was originally a play on words, referring not just to the radioactive fallout, but to the societal fallout. It showed a post-apocalyptic society. In Fallout 3 and on, a lot of that world-building made a lot less sense in favor of building little mini-stories.
Fallout 4 shifted from a tradition of being able to drastically affect the world to having dialog paths that almost entirely had no effect other than reputation with one’s companion. Fans complained because the game felt like it was on rails. The skill system went away, which a lot of people didn’t like.
Fallout 76, aside from being buggy at release even by Bethesda’s standards, took a series with lots of characters to interact with and basically eliminated them until later updates brought them back in. It had a weaker plot (especially at launch). Fallout 76 had a bunch of design decisions around being a multi-player game that made it a rather weaker single-player game — in a series with an immersive world, constant reminders about multi-player events and such kind of don’t fit in well. There was very limited ability to mod the game, whereas prior entries in the series had been extremely moddable.
There was also good new stuff that came with each, but if you went into the game wanting prior game in series but with just what you considered to be improvements and expansion, you were likely to hit some things that you didn’t like.
The best Fallout Experience in the 3d era is New Vegas. Which is fitting, since it was the only one made by the actual fallout creators, that had actual love for the setting that they created.
Fallout 3 was like a collection of short stories all bound into a single hardcover. Because nothing you did in location X, affecting anything out of location X. It tried, but I think the reason it got as much praise as it did in the early days, was simply because it was like muddy water in the desert to people dying of thirst, it whet their lips and throat and as a result was the sweetest thing ever tasted. . Until you got back home and drank proper, clean water again and realized how your desperation was making something bad into something grand.
Fallout 4 is a great looter shooter. But thats all it is, its not a fallout game… Its like Bethesda bought some half finished game and threw super mutants and butchered/ruined the RPG system to enable infinite growth in a system where no one is going to get to level 200 under even egregious gameplay circumstances
No way, FO4 would be mediocre even if I had never played any of the first person Fallout games. Bioshock Infinite just didn’t feel like a Bioshock games, but I honestly thought it was quite good as a stand alone game. It was definitely better, more fun than Bioshock 2 for me.
I agree that infinite didn’t feel like a BioShock game, but I still enjoyed it for what it was. But FO4 was pretty good. Writing could’ve definitely used work, but the gameplay was pretty tight. I remember having issues with the new skinny murder bot event even mid game. I didn’t experience that in New Vegas. As much as I will always love New Vegas, it had some balancing issues that 4 did well.
I try to enjoy games apart from their predecessors.
FO4 just really didn’t click for me. Maybe it was too over shadowed by FO3 and FO:NV, but the writing/story was bad, the dark humor didn’t land, and the choices you were given didn’t seem have any real consequence. I guess mechanically it was OK, but I think it just didn’t live up to the expectations I had from Bethesda. In fact, I am not sure I have truly enjoyed a game they released since then.
FO4 was also up again a massive list of great games that came out around the same time. Just from memory I know that the Witcher 3, GTA V, Metal Gear Solid V, Bloodborne, and Shovel Knight came out around the same time. I am not sure which exact game it was, I am positive that I blew off FO4 once one of the others came out.
It seemed widely decried at release, but it really stood up in the end.
Apparently imsimmers really hate it for not being Bioshock 1 But More.
Bioshock Infinite had a wildly good reception. It’s 91% positive on Steam with 47k reviews.
I don’t get how game that has 94/100 on metacritic and only lost to GTA5 on it’s release year calling it “not bad” is an understatement to say the least.
I enjoyed Infinite as well. The story was good enough to keep me hooked, and despite you having to escort Elizabeth or the majority of the game, she didn’t feel like a burden.
Surprised to see this in the thread. Agreed it’s a fun game!
As someone who didn’t particularly enjoy the first two, I was very grateful that Infinite was different. The only really bad part IMO was the ghost fight. On the higher difficulties, she tanked more ammo than existed in the area.
Not sure if this counts because it’s not that bad, but Final Fantasy 15.
I can’t even begin to explain how much of a complete mess this game is. The combat consists of mashing buttons and teleporting away when you’re low HP, the open world is very big and isn’t that interesting, it’s a mess of systems that don’t work together because this game had a very troubled development, and the story is borderline incomprehensible - the last third of the game felt like I was skipping cutscenes. The few dungeons included were also terrible. Oh and there are parts in the game where you literally have to wait entire minutes in a car waiting to go from point A to B.
And yet, I played through the whole thing, it was weirdly relaxing. Whenever it wasn’t trying to be a final fantasy game, it was actually pretty fun. Fishing, doing menial tasks, chocobo racing (and riding chocobos in general) were great. The game also has some of the most beautiful towns I’ve seen in gaming, and boy is that soundtrack perfect.
I enjoyed it a lot, but by all accounts I’d still call it a bad game.
Agree, it’s a spectacular world to bop about in on your boys road trip. But a pretty junk final fantasy game outside of that
Gonna agree with you for opposite reasons. The combat in the postgame dungeon, Costlemark I think. The one where you can’t use any healing items, it was a worthy challenge.
The other postgame dungeon, the platforming one was, was way better than many final fantasy challenges like jumping rope and dodging lighting.
Special mention for the incredible soundtrack, the Matoya’s Cave remix especially.
But ya everything before the postgame, the umm main game I guess, was ridiculously short. Imagine FFIV ending when you drill into the underworld, or FFVI ending when the the world breaks, that’s what the story in FF15 feels like. As soon as you depart to the next continent you get rug pulled by a time jump that takes you to the final boss 🫠
I too loved the first 85% of FF15, even did all of the sidequests.
I don’t know how it ends and I’ve completed the game.
Something key to remember is that when a game gets “Mixed” on Steam, eg 50/50, that still means half the people who play it enjoyed it. Half is not nothing.
For instance, Aliens: Colonial Marines. To my knowledge, AI was kinda shit, but could be fixed in a text file, but apparently a lot of people still enjoyed it otherwise.
So there’s probably a lot of these that have niche appeal to people.
Something key to remember is that when a game gets “Mixed” on Steam, eg 50/50, that still means half the people who play it enjoyed it. Half is not nothing.
No, it means half the people who can be bothered to review it enjoyed it.
For every review theres probably several hundred/thousands of people who play the game and dont review.
Good point. Personally, I basically never review games on Steam (love OR hate).
Same. The people who review are a very very small minority.
Hmm.
eehhh
deleted by creator
Yes but there is no reason to think that they wouldn’t fall roughly in the same distribution.
Fallout 76
The game was a fucking dumpster fire on release, but honestly, I really enjoyed the item grind with nuclear bombs and the build system. I was building some really cool houses back then and I probably spend a vast majority of my time with that.
Haven’t touched it in years tho. Idk how it is today.
I know it was broken as all hell at release, but a buddy and I had a blast playing it. I still love playing with a friend, going around, then after a big fight looking at my friend, looking at a corpse, back at a friend… “You gonna eat that?”
I played for awhile a couple years back and it was fun. I owned it for awhile before but didn’t put serious time till then for whatever reason. I think the general consensus is that it definitely improved over the years since release. I never did anything but solo things too so the harder content was still nothing I checked out.
I think they got a lot of the major bugs out but given it’s a fallout game there’s plenty more I assume.
Last I played storage sucked without the subscription for the gathering box which is a big downside cause I love to pick up crap.
Ultima 3 Exodus for the NES. Few games incentivize you to wait to level up as much as this one does, not to mention the drudgery.
I forgot about the “not leveling” thing. I thought I was so clever as a kid when I realized it was better.
These might be closer to mediocre than BAD bad but I don’t expect too many people to mention them so why not.
- Drakengard 3 - action adventure game with dated graphics (even at the time of release), terrible performance on the original hardware, huge amount of asset reuse (including whole levels) and writing that can range from childish, crass and annoying to extremely emotional. It’s rough but it’s also my favourite Yoko Taro game.
- Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (2004, PS2) - alright gameplay, decent voice acting, meh story and levels. It’s not terrible but based on the opinions I’ve seen it seems like I enjoyed it a bit more than most. Pretty cool drum & bass soundtrack.
- Kane & Lynch (both games) - most people didn’t like these games due to rough feeling gameplay and presentation (especially in the first game), I can’t help but love it. I feel like all of the elements combine in a coherent and extremely raw experience which might not be “fun” or “polished” but for me it just works.
- Kao the Kangaroo (2000) - extremely basic mascot platformer with (mostly) dated visuals, linear levels and some annoying enemies. Sequel might be an improvement but I still prefer this ugly duckling over anything that came after.
- Oni (Bungie’s action game from 2001) - it has huge empty levels, basic presentation, pretty mediocre story and uneven difficulty curve. It also has a great hand-to-hand combat system which makes those issues easier to swallow. Pretty good Ghost in the Shell game.
- Scarface: The World is Yours - GTA clone set after an alternative ending to the 1983 movie with Al Pacino. Pretty ugly and rough around the edges but it also has some fun mechanics (empire building, customisable mansion, money laundering, ability to bribe cops and more). A competent experience, even if it didn’t reach the heights of GTA or Saints Row titles.
Edit: I remembered another one!
Trespasser - physics based action-adventure game from 1998, intended as a sequel to The Lost World: Jurassic Park movie. It has extremely weird and wonky control scheme where you interact with the world by moving your hand - as in, you physically move it with your mouse, no simple “press button to do things”.
- You want to open the door? Cool, use your hand.
- You want to make yourself a ramp using a plank? You know how physics work so go ahead.
- Interacting with keypads? Just push the buttons.
- Want to attack something with melee? Pick up an object and swing manually.
- You want to aim your gun? No crosshair, move the barrel in the general direction of your target and pray it’ll work.
It’s not super intuitive but it does work pretty well once you get the hang of it. Heck, I even managed to throw a 3-pointer at the court in the residential zone! Man, I wish I still had my Twitch account…
The game also went with a “no hud” approach so no ammo count (only vague call-outs by the character like “about 5 shots”) and to check your health you had to look at the tattoo on your chest (it changed depending on your HP). Also no gun reloading cause your other arm is broken and your character can’t do it one handed, I guess.
It was unfinished, extremely ambitious (both in terms of planned features and implemented technology) and has a bunch of problems. It’s an interesting and very unique experience, worth a try even today in my opinion. It’s also the only piece of Jurassic Park media I actually care about and I wish it was easily obtainable in official distribution again - come on GOG, you can do it!
Oni was fun, but did not age well. By the time I finished the game I had enough combat moves to make it feel interesting, then the game ended.
Absolutely! It’s a very flawed game and a pretty rough experience, even with the Anniversary Edition fixes and mods. I’m still not sure what makes me go back to it but for some reason I end up doing just that every few years. It’s one of a few titles I’d like to see in a remastered or (slightly) modernised form. Not that it’s going to happen but one can dream, right?
You know, now that I think of it, Mirrors Edge Catalyst kinda scratched that Oni itch a while back. Another underrated game that I thoroughly enjoyed.
Still waiting for Oni 2
Catalyst missed the mark for me. Between locking the moves behind skill tree, larger focus on combat and slightly reworked art style it just didn’t grab me the way the original did. It’s not all bad and I still want to play it to completion some day but it was kind of a disappointment nonetheless.
Still waiting for Oni 2
Best I can do is the leaked early build of the project attempted by Angel Studios. It’s rough, obviously unfinished and Konoko looks a bit different but it has a somewhat working combat system you can play with and a bunch of levels to run around in. It’s also prone to crashes but that’s to be expected.
Oni - a certified classic/hidden gem. Bungie cooked there. Just not with the level design and plot of the game.
I think the general idea for the plot and world at large is pretty good (there are some interesting and rather grim details in the background), it’s just that Bungie missed the mark with how to write and present these things to actually hit the mark. It was also rushed out the door due to business shenanigans which cemented the end result.
Kane and Lynch 2 was an amazing experience with a friend. We talk about it as much as Gears of War for all of its impact. Reflecting now, I still think it has style.
It has great style! I love how much the leaned into the found footage/internet video aesthetic, as well as how they decided to go for a more naturalistic approach in regards to game ambiance (environmental sounds, diegetic music etc). It’s such a unique experience in video games, especially bigger published ones.
Yes! Plus there is the ::: naked run ::: level where we squealed our way through it. A hot take to: the online was fun and under appreciated from what I remember.
Edit: I don’t know how spoiler tags work.
They really went all in with setpieces that felt like a serious crime drama. I never got to experience the multiplayer (co-op or otherwise) but what I’ve seen looked cool. I wonder if they’re people playing it these days.
For spoilers it’s:
::: spoiler <spoiler_name>
<content>
:::I remember even back then that the amount of people playing was the issue. It had this “fragile alliance” mode where you all would do a heist, collecting money as you went. The players with the most money “won” by the end. You could turn on your allies and try to take theirs and get to the getaway, but you could also not and then split everything 50/50 from all who make it to the getaway. Pretty sure you could even bribe the driver/pilot with a 50/50 offer to leave early and abandon everyone else. Or something like that. It was a lot of fun and certainly unique in its time. I actually got inspired and just found a video. Good times.
My favorite mechanic of the online mode was that if you betrayed everyone, you were marked as a traitor for the next match you played. Teammates were always sus of one another regardless lol
By all accounts, Quest 64 ranked somewhere between runny dog shit and aggressive bone cancer, but I was just enthralled with it as a kid. Actually kind of bummed when I got a Switch and it wasn’t on the retro games subscription thing.
It’s up there with Carmageddon 64
My general rule is that if the game title ends in “64” and doesn’t start with “Mario”, it probably sucks.
Catmageddon 64 was extra special, though … not because it was a bad game, but because political decisions made it unplayable
Yeah, that’s quite true and it wasn’t the only N64 game that was made worse for the same reasons.
That was my Blockbuster rental one weekend. Coming off of final fantasy games it was a little disappointing, but not a disaster.
Two Worlds and Two Worlds 2 The first one was advertised as the “Oblivion killer”. Which is hilarious, because of how janky bug ridden pile of code it is. Yet I love it. I could create such broken OP characters, which could one shot bosses.
The second one got a bit better production quality, but its still a broken mess. Love it.
If I jumped in right now, should I just start with #2?
2nd is the better game, if you want a little more streamlined experience.
I would not worry about the story, the voice acting is so ridiculously bad in a funny way, you will not remember anything, just the presentation.
Came here to say it. I absolutely love Two Worlds games, they are so unique janky, both of them. The dialogues are so awful in a good way.
I actually enjoyed both Two Worlds, even replayed them like 10 years ago. Tbh though “janky bug ridden pile of code” also applies to Bethesda titles, especially Oblivion.
Yup, except the two words games had like 75 USD budget and 2 voice actors tops :)
I am just happy Two Worlds came into being because we got that beautiful speedrun out of it : https://youtu.be/5NeR-bT3uv0?is=F6o9i7-_Dgrm09qP
Always makes me laugh, “what a god” :D It demonstrates the game really good
Yeah, and the audience reactions make this run even better.
Oh yeah! Didn’t they give away a physical edgy dagger with ‘cool spikes’ with the special edition of one of the Two Worlds games?
Stretching the definition of “bad”, perhaps, I say Far Cry 4/5.
It’s the classic game with a map full of repetitive quests: go there and kill that guy, liberate the outpost, climb the tower, etc. It should have basically 0 replayability value, and yet sometimes I just need to switch off my brain and mindlessly do one quest after the other.
FC4 and FC5 have some structural differences. I think a decent amount of feedback was taken for FC5. It doesn’t have tower climbing puzzles and the collectathoning which had gotten way out of hand in FC4 was toned down a lot in FC5. FC5 replaced some of that with the totally optional survivalist bunkers that give rewards per bunker. It’s hard to go back to FC4 and it’s “collect 300 scraps of paper” nonsense after FC5.
FC5 even has a joke about not making you climb towers in the tutorial island
