There are games that you buy and you want to alert other people to not buy them, because the games are really bad for one or more motives.

I have 2 games to not recommend for everyone:

- Tower Wars: Really tedious (and I like tower defense games); very few maps; and just one type of faction.

- Unmechanical: Wasted opportunity in creating a good game; very easy to beat; and very short.

Call of Duty Ghosts

As someone who buys it every year because they like the multiplayer, this game's multiplayer was so much of a time sink and so just.......unfun that I literally put in last year's game and play that off and on instead for my yearly fix. They "fixed" things people have complained about by trying to hide them instead. In reality they made the multiplayer even harder to do things in, the gameplay got noticeably worse, and it became three times the grind with half the fun involved due to them f'ing up the unlocks system on purpose too. And......... the actual maps suck. Like really bad. There are 2 or 3good ones that you will be lucky to see out of ..... a lot.

Black Ops 2 was actually an improvement over every other game in the series. Ghosts is a leap backwards to........... I don't think I can think of a worse multiplayer in the series right now. I'm trying to decide if COD 3 (the original not mw3) was worse, and I'm not sure.

I'm not too sure how I feel about a topic that highlights negative points on games. Gives a good window for some rather...unpopular opinions and subsequent arguments.
Just know that I'll be watching the topic unfold.

It seems a real concern to me. It must be the reason that I never found a thread like this at any forum (despite wanting one), but this is not my intention.

It could work as long as people don't engage in verbal battles and remember that opinions may vary from person to person. In other words if people makes proper motivations to why they don't like a game, there isn't really much to argue about, this thread could work as a guideline if people make good statements as to what they think is bogus about a game. For instance I do not agree with Mjack on Ghost but that's his opinion and there are most certainly people who agrees with him so there isn't really much to discuss.

Breath of Death VII and Cthulhu Saves the World I found to be really fun stories, but the gameplay made me want to throw my computer out a window. I'm a big, big fan of turn based RPG's, but these were tedious and the whole experience was off-putting.

~SE++

Oh, don't worry. I was not directing it at you.
It's just that I have seen topics like this in other forums and it's easy to devolve. So I figured a quick public announcement may help prevent stuff

Anyway, the only really bad game I remember playing are terrible arcade ports like Crazy Taxi for the Gamecube and stuff. I tend to be a bit more careful with my gaming research before buying ever since.

I didn't get to try Tower Wars out for real, because the game processed stupendously slowly. I spent a good half hour trying to start a game with my brother, if not more.

Clive Barker's Jericho

One of the most...... "interesting" horror games I've played, I'm glad I only wasted 3 bucks on it. Without the use of cheat codes, the gameplay blatantly sucks and the difficulty is too extreme to be fun even on the easiest difficulty. But it's not hard because you have little life or something that people can deal with. It's the gameplay mechanics actively getting in your way combined with every other enemy being the 2 hit kill explode in your face swarm variety. The actual gameplay mechanics actively interfere with your ability to deal with these dudes efficiently, which means a ton of cheap deaths and restarts even on the easiest difficulty for no good reason. It's just a...... the game is very bad gameplay wise. Visual wise it's scary and awesome. But gameplay wise I can't stand it.



Duke Nukem Forever

I am one of the biggest fans of duke nukem 3d you will ever find ever. I bought and finished this game day one, which I very rarely do. And the gameplay sucks. Do you remember sticky aim? This game has none of that, and me aiming directly at an enemy at point blank range doesn't guarantee a hit with a shotgun. The gameplay mechanics once again get in the way, and the shooting mechanics are so bad that the shrink ray, which is a 5 second over time and melee the person afterwards weapon, is the most reliable weapon in the multiplayer.

On a second note, the game took some jokes way too far. There is being clever with pop culture references but a little crass too far, and then there is plain flat out awkward too far. This game is the latter in way too many of its jokes, to the point where it's one of the few video games I won't ever touch the singleplayer ever again.

I played and finished Jericho years ago and I have to say I think it's not as bad as you say. It was a pretty interesting game and even the gameplay was good BUT it was all brought down by the abysmal Ally AI. And in a "team shooter" it just got in the way far too often.

Still, if you're a fan of Clive Barker OR you have a lot of patience I still recommend this game.

That's a shame really considering how much time they put into the game. Like when did they first announce they where doing Duke Nukem 3D? pre 2000? Anyways I didn't even know it was out, I kinda gave up on that years ago, so breaks my heart that it found its way to this thread.

......It is the only game I stopped playing due to disgust at actual content. Ever.

And I play Saints Row and Mortal Kombat. So that is saying something.

Duke nukem was always very cheezy, that's it's thing. I mean, in the originals godmode was set to a single button because the main character is just that amazing.

I don't have any specific games to avoid, but I hate bad aiming mechanics. Of note, the N64 Zelda 3d games and Jet Force Gemini. All three games were fun, like really fun, but had such bad aiming mechanics, so anti-intuitive, that I literally almost threw away all of them numerous times.

I also don't like games like the Ninja Gaiden series where you have to immediately know how to combo everything all the time just to survive the intro battle. I have short, stubby German fingers, so finger combos on a stick with buttons don't do well.

The final gripe is fighting games where the computer is given such an overwhelming advantage on priority that you might as well not play it at all. Killer Instinct was the worst offender of any I've played. "C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!" my butt! The first fighter I played that started to remedy this was the Dead or Alive series. While not the best fighter, at least a character's speed priority was based on a character's size/speed using semi-real physics. Not all of the characters were well done, but enough that I loved that series. But what's up with volleyball games where you can put your players in g-strings? A novelty, I guess, but still bizarre...

I've played some really weird games, let me tell you. Some pretty bad ones, too. But there's only one game that comes to mind that actually made me angry. Super Meat Boy. Oh sure, it's a really well designed platformer. When it runs properly, it's a great game. Yes, I'm condemning an otherwise excellent game on a technical problem. What's the problem? The horrible code optimisation. Apparently whoever wrote it assumes that everyone and their pet hamster these days plays their games on thermonuclear dodecacore processors, so if his 2D platformer works on something, that's good enough. Then I try to run the damn thing and it's entirely unplayable because the low framerate makes the actual game mechanics fall apart. Dip below 20 FPS and you'll run through walls, I kid you not. On a machine good enough to finish Fallout: New Vegas (but not Fallout 3, because screw anything past Windows Vita). Good enough to thoroughly enjoy various first person shooters from all over the past decade. Not good enough for Team Meat.

I may appear to be unreasonably bitter, and about one of the most successful indie titles in recent memory no less, but here's the thing: I did experience the game in full glory and I liked it a lot. What frustrates me is that developers get away with shoddy coding. Indie developers in particular should be very much interested in making their game as light on the hardware as possible, since one of the major selling points for indie games is the low price tag. If I'm picking up Super Meat Boy over Skyrim or other super shiny blockbuster, then there's a decent chance I don't actually have a top of the line gaming rig.

There are no problems with Super Meat Boy on consoles.

Except that you have to play on consoles.


The only game that I can remember not wanting to play again is mcpixel. It's just wario ware with lots of crude jokes.

Huh; that's way different than my experience. (As far as the Zelda games go, anyway; I've never actually played JFG.) I found the Z-targeting quite smooth and easy to use. Were you using hold or switch?


As for my own non-recommendations: Risk and Monopoly. They're "classics", sure. They're also unbearably, ridiculously tedious and frustrating to the point the fact that anyone's ever willing to play them more than once astounds me. Cracked was right--these two are why so many people avoid board games.

...Okay, so I went with the easy way out with the games everyone should already know from experience are terrible. What can I say? I tend not to buy games unless I know in advance I'll like them.

Yeah, could at least have said Munchkin or something, people actually play that at board game meetups.

I'd say Battlestar Galactica, because the mechanics are detrimental to the only fun part of the game, but I'd need more playtime with it before basing a solid opinion on it, which is unlikely to happen.

True story. Most people are playing monopoly against the in-the-box rules. The rules specifically say that if you land on a property, and you choose not to buy it, it goes up for auction to everyone. This speeds the game up and adds a lot of strategy to it. It also means it isn't as tedious as #$%^ for the entire game.