what are your least favorite games?

[jawathehutt]

Wow I agree that the whole cakes a lie thing is getting kinda old, but based on your logic, I should hate cats because lolcats have gotten old.

[Astor]

I know it's a bit shallow, but I don't see the whole interest in it, to be honest.

[Boba Rhett]

Well give it a shot and find out why, exactly, the cake is a lie. Portal is amazing.

 

Also, even if you the Half Life story isn't your cup of tea, the gameplay is superior to almost all other shooters.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Hate

 

The Half Life Series: - I've found them to be overrated, and pretty boring. Nothing special, in my opinion.

 

[...]

 

Halo Series - See half-life's description, whoop-de-doo, it's identical to pretty much any other shooter i've seen.

 

Half-Life's comment I can even understand. Counter Strike was the reason it got famous for. That and Day of Defeat, Team-Fortress and every other mod made from it.

 

Halo's, however, I can't. I don't know if you played it when the first was released, but if you didn't that may be why you find it just another shooter, since pretty much everything on it defined the path modern shooters take this day and age. Swap two weapons, vehicles, AI, etc.

[Inyri]

There are a variety of games that had those types of innovations before Halo was released. For instance Red Faction had vehicles and dual weapons (and any shooter has AI) and was released several months before Halo (not to mention it had a lot of features Halo lacks). GoldenEye for N64 played very similarly to Halo, but came out 4 years before it. I'm sure you could come up with a dozen more games that had all the features you claim were innovated by Halo.

[Astor]

Halo's, however, I can't. I don't know if you played it when the first was released, but if you didn't that may be why you find it just another shooter, since pretty much everything on it defined the path modern shooters take this day and age. Swap two weapons, vehicles, AI, etc.

 

I did play it a few weeks after it's release, and I didn't like it. I don't often play shooters, so that may be part of it, but I disliked it mostly. I gave the sequels a chance, and disliked them more.

 

Especially seeing as 3 seemed to be an online game with a single player add-on, and I don't play online.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

There are a variety of games that had those types of innovations before Halo was released. For instance Red Faction had vehicles and dual weapons (and any shooter has AI) and was released several months before Halo (not to mention it had a lot of features Halo lacks). GoldenEye for N64 played very similarly to Halo, but came out 4 years before it. I'm sure you could come up with a dozen more games that had all the features you claim were innovated by Halo.

 

I'd partly agree, Inyri. The vehicles, for example, had their importance so uplifted that some stages were basically all about controlling and fighting them. And they're varied. Dual wield isn't really an innovation - and it was just introduced on the franchise at the second installment anyway - but the restriction of carrying just two weapons at a time is.

 

I find Halo's AI to be one of the finest around until today. It didn't only consist on the enemies shooting you and avoid getting shot at all costs. They'd actually cover each other and fall back/press forward whenever they see fit. The distinct alien races also required different behaviors. The Grunts for example would retreat disorderly when their commander was killed. While the Elites would most likely go rogue and try to knok you out using whatever means necessary.

 

Quite frankly, Red Faction did seem more worried on showing it's destructible scenarios rather than on the game itself. And while Goldeneye was obviously a fantastic shooter, I don't see the relation.

[jawathehutt]

I'd partly agree, Inyri. The vehicles, for example, had their importance so uplifted that some stages were basically all about controlling and fighting them. And they're varied. Dual wield isn't really an innovation - and it was just introduced on the franchise at the second installment anyway - but the restriction of carrying just two weapons at a time is.

 

I find Halo's AI to be one of the finest around until today. It didn't only consist on the enemies shooting you and avoid getting shot at all costs. They'd actually cover each other and fall back/press forward whenever they see fit.

Ghost recon's ai demolished halo's ai

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Ghost recon's ai demolished halo's ai

 

A tactical shooter is a different genre altogether, the "shooter" part notwithstanding.

[Rogue Nine]

Half-Life's comment I can even understand. Counter Strike was the reason it got famous for. That and Day of Defeat, Team-Fortress and every other mod made from it.

Uh, the original Half Life was a pretty damn good game in and of itself. The number of accolades it garnerned far outstrip that of its sequel and CS. So to say it got famous on account of the third party mods for it is erroneous and unfair.

 

And Astor, it's like every other shooter you've seen because almost every other shooter out there emulates Half-Life's gameplay. That's how good it was.

 

Halo's, however, I can't. I don't know if you played it when the first was released, but if you didn't that may be why you find it just another shooter, since pretty much everything on it defined the path modern shooters take this day and age. Swap two weapons, vehicles, AI, etc.

As Inyri mentioned, GoldenEye 64 is the grandpappy of all console-based FPSes. Dual wielding? Yup. Vehicles? Yup. Smart AI? Yup. Split screen multiplayer? Yup. Zooming sniper scope? Yup. I could go on and on. GoldenEye pioneered almost everything that is in modern console FPSes today. To give that honor to Halo is, well, erroneous and unfair.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Uh, the original Half Life was a pretty damn good game in and of itself. The number of accolades it garnerned far outstrip that of its sequel and CS. So to say it got famous on account of the third party mods for it is erroneous and unfair.

Any kind of critic opinion and awards lists are mostly - excuse me- crap. The players' are the ones that matters. To say that those pretty medals make the game good is erroneous and unfair.

[Rogue Nine]

Any kind of critic opinion and awards lists are mostly - excuse me- crap. The players' are the ones that matters. To say that those pretty medals make the game good is erroneous and unfair.

Well okay, if you want to go at it that way... eight million people obviously liked it enough to buy it, and that figure is from 2004. Now, whenever you sell a million of something, it's obviously well-liked. When you sell eight times that...well, you tell me.

 

But if you want actual player feedback, then sure, here you go.

 

GameFAQs

GameSpot

GameRankings

IGN

 

And for the record, you misconstrued what I meant. I pointed out the accolades because Half-Life earned them as results of being an excellent game. Having all those awards doesn't make it good, yeah I agree. The fact that it's a damn fine shooter makes it good. The awards are just gravy.

[Corinthian]

You know what my theory is? Ctrl doesn't like Half Life, Halo, and Portal because they're popular. I mean, I don't like Halo either, but that's because I find the plot irritating and the gameplay unimpressive, especially since I've seen everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, done before and better in Tribes II.

[Rev7]

I don't really like Halo all that much. I have definately played better shooters. I think that the Halo series is a little over-rated. I still play the game sometimes though....

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Onto Halo you guys proved me wrong, I'll admit this time.

 

Many of the features I thought new weren't all that new.

 

If you allow me a new assertion, I'd say that Halo perfected the characteristics found on modern shooters and successfully transported them to a new generation.

 

Well okay, if you want to go at it that way... eight million people obviously liked it enough to buy it, and that figure is from 2004. Now, whenever you sell a million of something, it's obviously well-liked. When you sell eight times that...well, you tell me.

An astounding, undeniable success. Sure, I never denied that, I merely pointed out that a fraction of those people might have actually bought the game thinking on their mods (I religiously believe that CS is more famous than Half-Life itself, partly due to it's terrorist vs cts premise).

 

Showing it's sold units is of not much use, however, since I simply can't do the same with it's mods.

 

But if you want actual player feedback, then sure, here you go.

 

GameFAQs

GameSpot

GameRankings

IGN

The same sites you mentioned now with the reviwed game being CS.

 

GameFAQs

Gamespot

Gamerankings

IGN

 

I can't help but notice a lot of people will comment that it's definetly make buying HL on the first place rewarding.

 

You know what my theory is? Ctrl doesn't like Half Life, Halo, and Portal because they're popular.

Your theory is wrong. Firstly, I like the three. If we restrict ourselves to HL2, though.

 

Secondly, I'm a Revan fanboy, so I'm obviously not on this trance of "let's hate everything people love!".

 

I don't really like Halo all that much. I have definately played better shooters. I think that the Halo series is a little over-rated. I still play the game sometimes though....

Overrated? When any game becomes an icon to non-gamers as something that summarizes games at it's finest, then you bet it's overrated. It's still a great game and there's no shame(?) admitting you play it.

[cire992]

If you allow me a new assertion, I'd say that Halo perfected the characteristics found on modern shooters and successfully transported them to a new generation.

 

Right on, Ctrl. Halo is the best of what is good in shooters. Same can be said of WoW to mmos.

 

I love shooters and rpgs. Combine the two and you get Mass Effect, which was awesome. But that doesn't always work for some reason. One of the worst games I ever played was the Godfather for pc. It's a relatively recent title from EA games, and in theory should have been great. Put GTA and its do anything at any time free-roam rp mentality and put in a great setting with plently of action gameplay and you'd think I'd love it. I paid full price for that game, played it for about a half hour and was truly bored to tears. I just could not get into this game. Least favorite, by far. It was such a let-down.

[Rogue Nine]

The same sites you mentioned now with the reviwed game being CS.

 

GameFAQs

Gamespot

Gamerankings

IGN

 

I can't help but notice a lot of people will comment that it's definetly make buying HL on the first place rewarding.

Could you point out the reviews in which they say these things? I am having trouble finding them...

 

And Counter-Strike was released under the Valve license in 2000, a little over a year after it first debuted in beta. While it was certainly popular in that time period, CS was available as a standalone product from 2000 onward, negating the need for a retail copy of Half-Life.

[Serpentine Cougar]

My least favorite games would have to be MMOs. They eat up oodles and oodles of time, and don't offer the same depth of story (one of my favorite parts of a game) as some shorter single-player games do. While I understand the need for monthly subscription fees, I'd rather not have to pay them - and non-MMOs never have subscription fees. Also, I have a bandwidth limit on my internet service, and I'd rather use the bandwidth for other things, such as watching game trailers. Single-player doesn't use up any bandwidth.

 

EVE Online is probably the only MMO I'd ever consider playing, because it embraces the "Massively Multiplayer" part and puts the politics and future of the game world in the hands of the players. Other MMOs seem to me like single-player games with poor stories that you complete with the help of some other people. Just doesn't float my boat.

[DeadYorick]

My least favorite games would have to be MMOs. They eat up oodles and oodles of time, and don't offer the same depth of story (one of my favorite parts of a game) as some shorter single-player games do. While I understand the need for monthly subscription fees, I'd rather not have to pay them - and non-MMOs never have subscription fees. Also, I have a bandwidth limit on my internet service, and I'd rather use the bandwidth for other things, such as watching game trailers. Single-player doesn't use up any bandwidth.

 

EVE Online is probably the only MMO I'd ever consider playing, because it embraces the "Massively Multiplayer" part and puts the politics and future of the game world in the hands of the players. Other MMOs seem to me like single-player games with poor stories that you complete with the help of some other people. Just doesn't float my boat.

 

I completely agree with you. MMO's are just a way to eat money up from the rich gaming public and eat time out of their lives. Though games do take up a ton of time if you think about it

 

The reasons for poor storylines are due to the fact that you have over 1 million other players with you. So it seems odd if your all of the sudden the only person able to destroy some sort of evil. Then when you get there you see 1000 other people already destroying it. It leaves very little to the story department. Gameplay is primarily the main concern when developing an MMO.