So what's the absolute worst game you own? (Gaming)

by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 09:46 (2187 days ago) @ stabbim

It occurred to me that I could/should expand more on the "why."

There's only one game I actually own that I really hate, and that's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. The first time I played it was some multiplayer matches at a sort of LAN party. It was a few years after it had been "a thing" and everyone else there was nostalgic for it (read: they were people who had played it a lot). I kid you not, I got one kill the entire time. It was the worst gaming experience I can recall, in my life. I think that was either the beginning of, or a major boost to, my gradual realization that I didn't especially like competitive shooters anymore. Then, some time later, I bought it (used, for peanuts) because although I hadn't enjoyed the multiplayer, the controls and everything worked fine, meaning that it wasn't functionally bad. Also, it was a significant game in the industry, and since I like discussing games and design theory with people, I thought that I should play the campaign so I'd know what it was like. It was... meh. At least to someone playing it several years after it was a new thing. Much like the multiplayer, there wasn't anything functionally wrong with it, but I just couldn't find the fun.

As far as the competitive multiplayer goes, that's most likely largely due to my own distaste for that style of gameplay in general, rather than a fault with the game. Although I will note that the gap in this one between experienced players and new players appears to be MASSIVE. While I'm not big on competitive shooters, I have been playing FPS games for a LONG time, and in most games, I would be able to have a few successes here and there, even if I wasn't anywhere near the top. But in this game, at least against highly experienced players, It was virtually impossible for me to kill anyone. Typically, I was dead before I even knew another player was present. I do not have enough familiarity with the game to say exactly WHY, but I'd wager the VERY quick kill times have at least something to do with it.

On the single player/campaign side, there were more than a few spots where it wasn't clear what to do. I remember one spot where I fought the enemies for a while, and they kept coming out of a spawn closet. Nothing new there, lots of games have spawn closets, but this went on for an awful long time. I finally just tried running past them, and it turned out that was what I was supposed to do all along. But there was nothing that TOLD me I should charge past the enemies, and in many parts of the game prior to that, killing all the enemies was required to proceed.

A similar thing happened again in another spot. I was trapped outdoors in narrow streets with absolutely zero cover, and many enemies were present. After trying and failing repeatedly to survive combat, I finally just ran through them (yes, they were directly in the only path forward - I probably touched a couple of them on the way past). This wasn't a strategy, I was just so frustrated with the situation that I started screwing around. Charging directly at them seemed like the dumbest possible tactical decision, in fact. But, naturally, it turns out that was what I was supposed to do. I know this probably sounds like I'm just an idiot, but if I could SHOW you the spot I was in... It just should be clear to anyone who knows how guns work that running at these guys should have been the LEAST survivable option.

I hate Need for Speed: Underground almost as much, but it would be inaccurate to say that I own that one, since I intentionally destroyed the disc and threw it in the garbage, reckoning that would be more fun and satisfying than actually playing the game any more (I wasn't wrong).

There is a concept in some racing games that players refer to as rubber-banding. A more technical name for it is "catch-up logic." The idea is that when there's a certain gap between racers, the game will artificially speed up the lagging racer(s) in order to bring the pack closer together. The theory being, of course, that it's more interesting when the racing is close (that theory is sometimes true and sometimes not, depending on how far to the sim or arcade side a given game leans). Need for Speed: Underground failed massively at doing this properly. It would speed up cars that were behind 1st place (it's worth noting that this didn't just apply to SPEED in a straight line, but also to cornering grip), but it would leave them at that pace for way too long even after they had caught up. The result of this was that you'd be in 1st place, and some AI car would come rocketing past you at a ridiculous speed, and they would just keep going until there was a several-second gap. Sometimes they would almost get out of view before they returned to normal speed. I actually adopted a policy of intentionally staying in 2nd place until very close to the end of the last lap. Because if I tried to just race properly and stay in 1st, inevitably someone would come hurtling by, and if that happened in the last lap there was a very good chance that there wouldn't be enough time to catch up.