Games People Shouldn't Play

MBCook writes: "I've been a video game player for years, and I must say that the average game seems to be getting worse. Exihbit 1: Games People Shouldn't Play, an article on MSNBC. This article shows what the author thinks are the worst games on the current crop of systems. You've got to agree with calling a game bad if "...the only way to get in [the minigames] is by buying hats... How do you buy the hats? Why, by picking up garbage." If that doesn't make you want to play a game, what would? I agree with the author when he says: '... who knows what kind of disease your children might get from overexposure to these games.'"

Comments

Doling out masses of crap

[goneaway]

has been standard on the console for way too many years even as far back as the Atari 2600. Games were rushed out to take advantage of movie tie-ins on a pretty regular basis. Think of the E.T cartridge for 2600. I've heard about a small landfill being created with the leftover copies of this game. That's why we read game reviews.

Re:Doling out masses of crap

[hrieke]

Execpt that 90% of the reviews are bought and paid for by the game companies, the other 10% are just raving fan muttering about how great this version is.
Objectivity is not something that I have ever seen in the game press.

It's about love, damn it

[Dark Paladin]

You can tell when a game is good or bad, and 95% of the time, it's about how much the developers love what they do.

Take a look at Morrowind, the upcoming game from Bethseda. I've spent a week with it, and while it's still beta and crashes, you can see that they give a damn if people like what they're doing. It's not about how much money you spend - the game Starships Unlimited and Serious Sam were made on a low budget - but they were both fun, entertaining games that succeeding in spite of their backgrounds. (Let's face it - who would have thought a no-name Crotian programming house would have made one of the best games of 2001, and 2002 with Serious Sam 2?)

Then look at Final Fantasy X. Basically, it's a movie that sometimes you walk from point A to point B to watch the next movie. And it tells - the designers just didn't have that same love, that same pride in what they did (except in making great movie scenes and giving a reason to make sure Lulu won so you could check her out when she bent over.)

It's true with fucking everything. If somebody doesn't care about what they make and what they do, then neither will anybody else. It doesn't always work (Battlecruiser 3000 - lots of love there, but not universally loved), but it's true with your work, your spouse, your children - and the games you play.

Of course, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.

Playability is why we own consoles

[DohDamit]

If we wanted awesome graphics, we would use a computer.

If we wanted complex story development or AI, we would use a computer.

If we wanted real tactical or strategic challenges, we would use a computer.

But we don't. We own consoles because:

• We don't want to have to read a fucking manual to start playing the game
• We want it to work in our living room
• We want to be able to enjoy ourselves immediately
• We want to have easy fun

We own consoles because the games are easy and fun to play. Any development shop that misses these points is bound for the garbage heap of business history. The article hits this right on the head. Anyone who claims this is about any one console missed the point.

I miss the good old days

[Orangedog_on_crack]

I have many fond memories of the golden age of video games from the late 70's into the early 80's. The graphics were lacking, the sound was no where near what it is now, and the premiss of most games was simple. For all that those old games lacked, they had one thing that almost all of the games today don't have....a soul. Back then gameplay was the main focus for game developers. Too many of the new games go all out for the "eye-candy" factor and gameplay seems to be a distant concern. This goes for the arcade coin-op games as well as the home games. That's not to say that there weren't some serious turds floating in the video game swimming pool back then. Anything with a movie tie-in was almost certainly a waste of time, and I'm sure that some of us old-timers, now in our 30's, remember how much of a big dissapointment the 2600 version of Pac-Man was.

All shooter games on consoles shouldn't be played

[WildBeast]

I have a hard time using shooter games on a console. It's so much harder to control. Nothing beats PC's for shooters.

Consoles however are great for racing, party and fighting games.

Re:Airworlf for 2600

[dswensen]

I've seen reruns of Airwolf, A-Team and Knight Rider. Believe me, you're better off sticking with your childhood memories, because seeing them again will rob you of them.