Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Games so bad, boring or ridiculous they should never been released
Comments
-
Ah, rebranding! I still can't believe they did that.
Gryzor nes-
Contra nes
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 51225
Hardcore Gaming 101 had this to say about Dino Rex in their Primal Rage article:The idea's not entirely original, since Taito made a game about battling dinos a couple of years before called Dino Rex, which was pretty much worthless in every way.
I'm now campaigning for this contributor to be fired since he obviously doesn't know a classic when he see's one! :P
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 51225
The beginning of that 3D era with the jaguar, 3DO and even the early PS1 and Saturn isfull of games that got highly rated and going back to them now are just awful since the fact that they are in 3D was all they had going for them. Stuff like Toshinden, Cybermorph, Lone Solider, even the godawful 3DO Fifa, and other such horrors all got highly rated despite being absolute gash.
Must have a go of your 3DO if there's another meet up in your house, only really played a small bit of it in Clerys when they still sold games.
Still got my old nokia with it's amazing monophonic ringtones. The AK-47 of phones.
0 -
this was "amazing" back thenRetr0gamer wrote: »Stuff like Toshinden, Cybermorph, Lone Solider, even the godawful 3DO Fifa, and other such horrors all got highly rated despite being absolute gash.
0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »going back to them now are just awful
But that's the whole point, how were they percieved back then? Do you berate old films for their aged special effects in the same manner? I just play the game for what it is, if it's cr@p it's cr@p, if it's great it's great. I don't see why time needs to play any part in my judgement of it.
Retr0 watching Jaws - "Lulz, you can clearly see its not a real shark, its eyes didn't roll over when it bit down, it's too big, why is the shark holding a grudge against Brody???"
Everyone else - "Shut up!!!!"
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51225
Even back then I'd rather have been playing ISS on the SNES. Still even then with the novelty of the 3D graphics I played crap like adiddas Power soccer and Actua Soccer even though I hate football games. Actua Soccer is another funny one. It wasthe first with adaptive commentry, I think, and one of the first games with mo-cap. Looking back at it now the commentary was awful and you can't tell it was mo-capped it looks so bad now.
Still it was a very interesting time for gaming. 3D brought so much new to the table and even if most early titles were terrible it was very experimental until about 1996 when they got it right. At least racing games worked really well and we got some great racers while developers got their heads around this new fangled 3D thing. And then there's Sony arriving to bring about a change of gaurd.
0 -
I never forget this,go to 1.05But that's the whole point, how were they percieved back then? Do you berate old films for their aged special effects in the same manner?
0 -
Waylon Obedient Gipsy wrote: »I never forget this,go to 1.05
Lol I was watching AVGN's review on Game Of Death last night actually and watched all about that. It's hillariously funny 0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51225
But that's the whole point, how were they percieved back then? Do you berate old films for their aged special effects in the same manner? I just play the game for what it is, if it's cr@p it's cr@p, if it's great it's great. I don't see why time needs to play any part in my judgement of it.
Retr0 watching Jaws - "Lulz, you can clearly see its not a real shark, its eyes didn't roll over when it bit down, it's too big, why is the shark holding a grudge against Brody???"
Everyone else - "Shut up!!!!"
It's not about graphics as I've said dozens of times before it's about gameplay. Lets use the movie analogy. Basically stuff like Battle Arena Toshinden was like Avatar or Armageddon. People are blown away by the specialeffects and it got grwat reviews. People are now looking back on it and realising that without thte sheen of the special effects it's not a great film. Same with Toshinden, looked amazing but it actually played kind of crapin retrospect.
Old games might look crap now but if the gameplay stands up it's still a classic. Robotron looks like crap but I'd regard it as one of the best games ever made. Similarly Terminator has some rope stop motion effects but it's still a great film.
A true classic is timeless. You can pick it up and still have as much fun as you did all those years ago. A janky old gameon the other hand is one you play and say 'I can't believe I thought this looked good and wasted so much time on it'. If it plays **** now I'm going to say it does because basically it's the plain honest truth. People do get caught up in the hype, we all do and new and inventive things can look like the future but sometimes don't turn out that way.
0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »It's not about graphics as I've said dozens of times before it's about gameplay. Lets use the movie analogy. Basically stuff like Battle Arena Toshinden was like Avatar or Armageddon. People are blown away by the specialeffects and it got grwat reviews. People are now looking back on it and realising that without thte sheen of the special effects it's not a great film. Same with Toshinden, looked amazing but it actually played kind of crapin retrospect.
Old games might look crap now but if the gameplay stands up it's still a classic. Robotron looks like crap but I'd regard it as one of the best games ever made. Similarly Terminator has some rope stop motion effects but it's still a great film.
A true classic is timeless. You can pick it up and still have as much fun as you did all those years ago. A janky old gameon the other hand is one you play and say 'I can't believe I thought this looked good and wasted so much time on it'. If it plays **** now I'm going to say it does because basically it's the plain honest truth. People do get caught up in the hype, we all do and new and inventive things can look like the future but sometimes don't turn out that way.
I think I see what your saying (finally, a breakthough!). Your saying that some games are sold on hype, & reputation etc, whereas when you analyse them, it's obvious a lot of them are lemons?
I fully agree with that, but why is the passage of time needed to analyse that? Why couldn't BAT be analysed and seen for what is is, on day 1?
Also, I liked Avatar, it may be the same story retold again and again, but what film isn't? The point is that it brings that same stoey to a newer generation. Star Wars did the same thing too. 3D had no bearing on how I rated the film.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 51225
I think I see what your saying (finally, a breakthough!). Your saying that some games are sold on hype, & reputation etc, whereas when you analyse them, it's obvious a lot of them are lemons?
Yep and it's mostly early 3D games that fall into this category since then developers were only finding their feet.I fully agree with that, but why is the passage of time needed to analyse that? Why couldn't BAT be analysed and seen for what is is, on day 1?
See then you are getting into the games legacy there, not whether it's a good game. Take goldeneye. I don't think it's a good game but I will admit that it had a huge effect of shaping how the FPS genre developed.
Although Goldeneye is a weird one. I did think it was great when it came out although stuff like Doom 2, Quake (multiplayer) and Duke 3D were better. Goldeneye was a different type of FPS game and at the time very new and nothing better than it as a semi realistic shooter. I just seems old and hackneyed now that the formula it presented got refined and perfected by games like Half Life and CoD.
Perhaps it's like the film Nosferatu. You'll find young people at the time think down dated it looks now because everything in the film seems so cliche. However people don't realise it's not cliche because these things only became cliche when subsequent lazy filmakers copied nosferatu and made it clishe. Even then the analogy doesn't really hold up since videogames and film are still quite different and it;s gameplay we are talking about whish is absent from film.Also, I liked Avatar, it may be the same story retold again and again, but what film isn't? The point is that it brings that same stoey to a newer generation. Star Wars did the same thing too. 3D had no bearing on how I rated the film.
Well I don't think Avatar is necessarily terrible. It's more that it's thinks it's something far cleverer and epic than it is while it's really just derivative and shallow. Stars Wars on the other hand knows it's schlocky space opera fair like the old serials but it pulls it off amazingly well. Which is where the prequels fail when they try to be something different from the original... well that's only a small flaw with them.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51225
deathrider wrote: »I have to dissagree with you there, lads. It was back in the day when I owned it, and still thought it was awful. I think I might have wound up swapping it for Warhawk instead, which was much much better, in my oppinion.
Could have been a lazy port from 3DO to PS1 though?
0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51225
Just looked up some videos of it. Doesn't look half bad and the cutscenes are surprisingly well done. Looks fantastic for a 3DO game. What I saw of the PS1 version seems like a good port. Might have been a bit dated when it came to the PS1 or when you played it? It looks decent, although that's going by youtube footage.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 51225
Waylon Obedient Gipsy wrote: »An oldie,but the conversion is an work of art-
Lobotomy did some amazing stuff on the Saturn, probably the best coders for it. I played through exhumed and it's ok but what's interesting is that it plays like a proto metroid prime. Their duke and quake conversions, especially quake since it was built from scratch and was better than the N64 one, were excellent. Think Duke even had online play.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51225
Maybe that's my problem, I don't tend to analyse a film as I'm watching it (unless it's really dog poo), I just tend to get immersed in the story & rate the film afterwards on how involved I felt in the story. In that sense, Avatar I felt was very involving, for over two hours. If a fim is poo it will only come to my attention if it is actually poo, not because how I've analysed it against other benchmark greats.
Or else maybe it's that I can be overly harsh or prone to hyperbole which I definitely can be
Goldeneye wasn't really benchmarking it against other genre greats though, it was more a case of 'wow I'm really not enjoying this at all, and I used to love this?'. Maybe I was benchmarking subconciously.
0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51225
Well I'm not saying all polygon games suck. It's just that at the start of the 32-bit era there was an awful lot of bad games and quite a few mediocre games that reviewed well until about 1996. Of course there's exceptions to this, usually racing games but not limited to them. There's quit a few experimental games that really shouldn't have worked but ended up really good like jumping flash.
Deathtank really is great. Would love to get the controllers and adapters to play 10 player bomberman and 6 player deathtank zwei.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51225
I think it's to do with the type of game and if the framerate will effect the gameplay. OoT and Blas Corp are games that are less affected gamelay wise by framerate than goldeneye. It's also a lot worse in Goldeneye.
Another goodd example is the difference between FF7 and the satan spawn that is Legend of Dragoon. The battle scenes in FF7 run at a disgracefully slow 15 FPS but since it's tunr based it doesn't affect the game. Legend of Dragoon on the other hand is 15 FPS as well but there's lag on the battle menu. But even worse is when you attack the game goes all rhythm action adn you have to press the action button when a square overlaps another square in the centre. There's about a half second of lag meaning you have to time it so that you press the button before the squares overlap which is just stupid.
0 -
Hehe wasn't long before Goldeneye reared it's head again eh. It must surely rank as one of the most mentioned games on this forum.
I'm curious, when playing games (new or old) do ppl here find themselves analyzing/critiquing the game rather than just playing them for some fun? Do you notice "fps" or "tearing" or any other techie things? If yes then why? Do you do the same with a film? Or a painting (if you think games are comparable to art)? Do you feel the need to defend gaming as a legitimate pastime now you've hit your teens (sorry atavan :P)/20s/30s/40s/whatever?
I'm a programmer by trade, so details are everything to me, but when it comes to gaming I don't give a crap about FPS or anything of the like. Is this fun to play is all I'm thinking (I do realise the tech behind the game determines the answer to that but I never think about the tech while playing or after).
I'll never understand, retr0, how you can say Goldeneye is a crap game to play today yet it wasn't when it came out. We were all younger when these games came out and, assuming you liked a game back then, you enjoyed them because they were damn good fun, not because it had 1 million fps or 700 parallax scrolling backgrounds. Goldeneye is not unplayable today whatever fps is has. Games don't stop being fun because technology has moved on.
Anyway, everyone has equally valid opinions, but this comparison of old vs new and revising something from good to not good because of age is something I don't understand. My 2c. 0 -
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51225
If I play a game now and it's fun and enjoyable then it's a good game. That's all there is too it. When I mention things like framerate I'm talking explaining why it doesn't play well. You all seem to think that when I mention framerate I'm talking about how good the game looks which is totally wrong. A poor framerate makes a game feel sluggish and introduces lag and unresponsiveness to the controls. It's essential to a good FPS to have a good stable framerate or else the gameplay is really negatively affected by it.It's nothing to do with graphics.I'll never understand, retr0, how you can say Goldeneye is a crap game to play today yet it wasn't when it came out. We were all younger when these games came out and, assuming you liked a game back then, you enjoyed them because they were damn good fun, not because it had 1 million fps or 700 parallax scrolling backgrounds. Goldeneye is not unplayable today whatever fps is has. Games don't stop being fun because technology has moved on.
As I said before. I picked up goldeneye, I beat it and I didn't have a lot of fun doing it. By my rating system it's not a great game. At the time there wasn't anything else like goldeneye so to us it was the best thing in it's own little niche, especially for console gamers with no experience of PC FPS games Goldeneye was mind blowing. I think we put up with Goldeneyes failings because at the time it was the best at what it did. Then Half-Life came along and Goldeneye looked very 'quaint' as did every other FPS. Back in the good old days all my dad needed was a tire and a stick to have a golly good time. For me I'd rather have been blasting aliens in probotector. Times change, somethings can't keep up.
I'd like someone else to explain better why I feel this way about the game and clear things up. However all I really can say that are facts is that when Goldeneye came out I thought it was great. When I play it now it's not fun at all. Therefore it's a bad game. There's plenty of other stinkers like a few Doom clones I liked that are terrible now while the original is a classic.
Also Duke 3D. Used to love it but got it on XBLA and it's not as good as I remember. The first episode is a work of unmitigated genius but the non shareware levels are a bit ropey at times.
0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »When I mention things like framerate I'm talking explaining why it doesn't play well. You all seem to think that when I mention framerate I'm talking about how good the game looks which is totally wrong. A poor framerate makes a game feel sluggish and introduces lag and unresponsiveness to the controls. It's essential to a good FPS to have a good stable framerate or else the gameplay is really negatively affected by it.It's nothing to do with graphics.
No, I fully understand that for certain genres of games, technology is very important for the game to function well and hence be fun. FPS's are one example as you mention. And that this point is separate to a game's visuals.
My point is, Goldeneye's frame rate doesn't detract one bit from it being fun. If you didn't like the game when it came out because of personal preference (or it was a bad game according to general consensus) then that's cool, but if you thought the game was good when it came out but are now saying it's not good, because it's frame rate is not as high as more modern and tech advanced games, then that's wrong.Retr0gamer wrote: »I think we put up with Goldeneyes failings because at the time it was the best at what it did. Then Half-Life came along and Goldeneye looked very 'quaint' as did every other FPS. Back in the good old days all my dad needed was a tire and a stick to have a golly good time. For me I'd rather have been blasting aliens in probotector. Times change, somethings can't keep up.
Speaking for myself, I didn't see many failings with it at the time. Whether it looked "quaint" in your eyes is not the point. Half-Life didn't turn Goldeneye into a bad game in the same way HL2 didn't turn HL1 into a bad game. And you're comparison of what your dad might have found fun vs what you did is a different point altogether.Retr0gamer wrote: »As I said before. I picked up goldeneye, I beat it and I didn't have a lot of fun doing it.
....................
I'd like someone else to explain better why I feel this way about the game and clear things up. However all I really can say that are facts is that when Goldeneye came out I thought it was great. When I play it now it's not fun at all. Therefore it's a bad game. There's plenty of other stinkers like a few Doom clones I liked that are terrible now while the original is a classic.
Um, that's kind of confusing but from what I can tell, your enjoyment of old games is based on comparisons to more modern versions? If yes then that's all you had to say dude! :pac:0 -
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw23CkM0V10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWMyoNhGHbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysbzjSERMok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF5pnFalbMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bAdMrMxMm0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er_kTDqdVJY
Advertisement