Worst Games You have ever played (in your opinion)

[Lord Torath]

Homeworld 2 was one of the biggest disappointments for me. When your biggest claim to fame is "Sequel to the 2000 Game of the Year", you know something's gone wrong.

Homeworld was a beautiful game with an intriguing story. The graphics were really amazing for their time (and still hold up fairly well). Gameplay was fun, the interface was pretty good, and overall it was a joy to play. Granted, it didn't obey real world physics (ships had maximum velocities, and would stop if they turned off their thrusters, projectile weapons had maximum ranges at which their shots just disappeared), but it was still a fun game. And it was easy to mod. There were several fan-made "real world physics" mods you could use if you really wanted to (I never tried them). Camera control was intuitive (and contagious - I found myself trying to rotate my view in other games and even in straight windows).

Homeworld: Cataclysm expanded on the GUI, allowing you to issue combat commands in the Sensor (zoomed WAY out) view, adding waypoints, and allowing the option to Speed up time to make after-combat resource harvesting less boring. They also removed fuel burn, which was a thing for fighters and corvettes in the original (and frankly, something I kind of liked. It was fun to watch your fighters come in and dock with a Support Frigate. Less fun when they ran low on fuel when they were in the middle of luring enemy Ion Cannon Frigates past your salvage corvettes, but still fun.). The story was great, although the dialog was a little clunky at times, and you couldn't get certain upgrades without capturing certain ships in a certain mission, and there was no indication you needed to until after the fact. But overall, a very fun game.

Homeworld 2 was absolutely gorgeous to look at. And crap to play. In the first two games, attacks were handled by the physics engine. If your shot was decently aimed (most were - your ships had an accuracy rating, where they'd only fire if a target was within x degrees of your line of fire) and the target didn't move out of the way, you'd hit. If they did move out of the way (say, fighters changing formation), your shots would miss. Projectiles had mass and speed. In HW2, it was all RNG. Your ships had a percent chance to hit other ships. This made fighters, bombers, corvettes, and any other ships that relied on speed to avoid getting hit useless.

And the story. Urg! In the original, your mothership's hyperdrive was reverse-engineered from one found on one of several colony-ships you discovered on your planet (hence, seeking out your Homeworld - this is not a spoiler as it's spelled out before you even start playing). In HW2, they changed this to there somehow being three "legendary" Hyperdrive Cores, one of which you had had all along. Yes, one of the three most powerful cores in the galaxy was built into (okay, minor spoiler here) one of 20-30 identical colony ships you took into exile 4000 years ago. The Bentusi have one of the others, and the third is in the possession on the bad guys. These Legendary Cores somehow give you mystical hypderdrive powers or some such nonsense. Or maybe you can only move large ships if you have one of the cores? Forgetting the fact that literally every ship bigger than a corvette has its own hyperdrive core. The bad guys have a super weapon that can only be damaged by another ancient ship that's been lost in the center of the galaxy for tens of thousands of years or something, so after you acquire all three Legendary Cores, you have to go into this non-man's zone of neutron stars or whatever and reclaim this ancient relic, bring it back and beat the bad guys. The whole thing made no sense, even if you ignored the first two games.


Unrelated, I also really enjoyed Lords of Magic - once they patched it sufficiently so you didn't wait 5-10 minutes for the transition from overland to combat and back. The Special Edition re-release helped immensely, including a somewhat clunky world builder and alternate worlds/quests/stories to explore. Now there's a fan-modified version which is even better.

[Rodin]

And the story. Urg! In the original, your mothership's hyperdrive was reverse-engineered from one found on one of several colony-ships you discovered on your planet (hence, seeking out your Homeworld - this is not a spoiler as it's spelled out before you even start playing). In HW2, they changed this to there somehow being three "legendary" Hyperdrive Cores, one of which you had had all along. Yes, one of the three most powerful cores in the galaxy was built into (okay, minor spoiler here) one of 20-30 identical colony ships you took into exile 4000 years ago. The Bentusi have one of the others, and the third is in the possession on the bad guys. These Legendary Cores somehow give you mystical hypderdrive powers or some such nonsense. Or maybe you can only move large ships if you have one of the cores? Forgetting the fact that literally every ship bigger than a corvette has its own hyperdrive core. The bad guys have a super weapon that can only be damaged by another ancient ship that's been lost in the center of the galaxy for tens of thousands of years or something, so after you acquire all three Legendary Cores, you have to go into this non-man's zone of neutron stars or whatever and reclaim this ancient relic, bring it back and beat the bad guys. The whole thing made no sense, even if you ignored the first two games.

The backstory (including the first few missions) of the first Homeworld remains one of the most incredible for any game I've played. A people deeply divided on a hell-world where only the polar region is habitable, and they live in constant conflict for thousands of years over the scant resources. Then one day archaeologists discover the wreckage of the colony ship, along with a marker for where "home" is.

The wars end overnight. The entire planet unites, and makes great sacrifices to research the hyperdrive and commit to the colossal undertaking of building the mothership. Hundreds of thousands of people volunteer for deep sleep to go on board the ship in order to leap into the unknown, all for the chance at a better life.

...And then on the first hyperdrive test, they break an ancient law that they didn't even know existed. The mothership returns to find the planet glassed by orbital bombardment, and the stasis pods being systematically eradicated. The entire planetary population is lost, and most of the colonists are too.

That's just the backstory for this game. Adagio For Strings still gets me tearing up sometimes. To say the plot of subsequent games doesn't compare is an understatement.

[Rockphed]

I haven't gotten past mission 4 in Homeworld 2. But if Lord Torath's description is accurate, then that explains a lot of my problems with it. It is just too frenetic and fast paced for me.

And with all the endorsements of Lords of Magic, I guess I have to give it another go. Can anyone suggest a good strategy guide?

[spectralphoenix]

As far as games I actually remember playing much of, I'd probably say Deus Ex 2: Invisible War. I loved the original, but pretty much every new idea that went into 2 was a bad one.

Remember Me is probably in second place. Interesting idea, bad combat and stupid story.

Final Fantasy 8 is probably objectively better, but it's probably the game that's frustrated me the most - I've tried it twice and both times I just couldn't get past the terrible mechanics, obtuse story, and deeply obnoxious characters.

[Magic_Hat]

There was an Aqua Teen Hunger Force golf game. Anyone remember that?

[danzibr]

Very unsurprising. I LOVED Undertale but it is not a traditional game. It is a neat little story with gameplay in between interactive cutscenes.

While I can see people not liking it, especially if they haven’t gotten very far, worst of all time? I imagine it’d be subpar at worst, not worst at worst.

I really didn't like Undertale either. I kind of hated the gameplay and the story, at least in the beginning, was too weak to make up for it. I can't stand bullet hells and I'm terrible at them, and the sort of top down Zelda type stuff was far too easy to be engaging and just tedious to get through. People tell me if I suffer through more of those beginning parts, the story gets really good, but if it did, I never saw it. Closed the game after... less than an hour certainly and never went back to it.

I never bought Undertale, because I saw videos of people playing it and it just looked horrifically ugly. It's the usual thing--people will use a pseudo-8-bit art style but without doing any of the stuff that the actual artists on real 8-bit games did to make their graphics look good. I've seen better and more detailed graphics on 1984 ZX Spectrum games than Undertale has.

I feel like a broken record, but again I can understand people not liking it who haven’t beaten it.

Graphics though, that’s hard to argue. It is rather ugly.

[Rodin]

There have been a few games I've refunded on Steam because the gameplay style appeals to me but they went SO primitive with their graphics that I can't tell what's going on. It feels like an excuse to skimp on graphics in the name of being "retro", especially when there are one-man developed games with gorgeous graphics.

[Olinser]

Lands of Lore III (from the 90's).

The term 'unfinished beta' exists to describe games like this. Initially decent but not great game. Standard excuse plot about being cursed, must gather 5 McGuffin parts to remove your curse and finish the game, choose your classes by signing up with a guild and completing a pretty decent opening quest which then lets you gain levels in classes and has 3 'ranks' to unlock abilities, do some quests, find a portal that takes you to another world, and you go through it and explore and finally kill a boss to get the piece.

Then you go to a different world with somewhat of a story that actually has a couple options, then the game just effectively ENDS. The last 3 worlds have effectively no story (two of them have about a 10 second splash cutscene and the other one doesn't even have THAT) so all you do is wander around, kill mobs, until you finally stumble upon the boss. There are literally zero quests at the 2nd and 3rd rank of the guilds (despite it being very obvious there were SUPPOSED to be quest requirements to rank up), and the 3rd rank of every guild is literally useless because there are no actual abilities or stat bonuses unlocked, there are multiple closed-doors that never open (but you can actually pretty easily get behind), that were very clearly MEANT to hold quest features and content, there is a game-breaking bug that you can't actually remove spells from your quickbars so it was actually possible to fill up quickbars with low-tier spells and NEVER be able to cast more powerful ones, and there was a persistent glitch that had a chance of corrupting and invalidating the entire save file at any time. Oh and the alleged 'helper' familiar that you get has such ridiculously bad AI as to be functionally useless, and constantly flits annoyingly all over the screen.

[Son of A Lich!]

I think there was an Addams family JRPG for the NES or Super NES that was literally unplayable. You boot it up, have dung beetle cookies in your inventory and literally couldn't do anything to progress.

I was somewhere around 9 at the time, so maybe I was just too dense to figure it out but I had a friend that stormed through every JRPG he put his hands on and he didn't see a way around the starting area either. Dung Beetle cookies became Jargon for useless stuff you carry around with my friends because of that stupid game, and is the only reason I remember it as the item.

Snag-afritz-en-waste-of-allowance....

[Lord Torath]

I haven't gotten past mission 4 in Homeworld 2. But if Lord Torath's description is accurate, then that explains a lot of my problems with it. It is just too frenetic and fast paced for me.

You're not missing much, trust me.

And with all the endorsements of Lords of Magic, I guess I have to give it another go. Can anyone suggest a good strategy guide?

I personally like playing Life. My typical combat strategy involves having twice as many archers as cavalry, and mage, warrior, and thief. Put the cavalry up front, and have each horseman defend themselves (adding half their offense to their defense) while the mage casts Bless and the archers pepper the foe with arrows til they die. If you can trade for an air thief, you can send it in solo to any troll encounter, park it over impassible terrain, and level it up quick. Then park it in your thieves' guild to level up your archers.

Overall I think (other than Death) that Water, Life, and Order are the strongest faiths. Air has some powerful spells but it takes forever to get to them. Their melee and ranged units are only meh. Life and water both have very good healing, which is important because you take a lot of damage. Order's cavalry is the best in the game, with Water's right behind. And always try to fight enemies on your preferred terrain. You'll be faster, and they might be slower.

Somewhere online I found a guide that broke each faith down pretty well, but my google-fu is failing me.

[danzibr]

You're not missing much, trust me.

I personally like playing Life. My typical combat strategy involves having twice as many archers as cavalry, and mage, warrior, and thief. Put the cavalry up front, and have each horseman defend themselves (adding half their offense to their defense) while the mage casts Bless and the archers pepper the foe with arrows til they die. If you can trade for an air thief, you can send it in solo to any troll encounter, park it over impassible terrain, and level it up quick. Then park it in your thieves' guild to level up your archers.

Overall I think (other than Death) that Water, Life, and Order are the strongest faiths. Air has some powerful spells but it takes forever to get to them. Their melee and ranged units are only meh. Life and water both have very good healing, which is important because you take a lot of damage. Order's cavalry is the best in the game, with Water's right behind. And always try to fight enemies on your preferred terrain. You'll be faster, and they might be slower.

Somewhere online I found a guide that broke each faith down pretty well, but my google-fu is failing me.

This makes me want to play LoM again :P

[Eurus]

I did find LoM damn near impossible to learn without a guide, which made it feel very un-fun. With a guide it turned out to be pretty interesting, but man, it's a very opaque game and I just don't have the patience for that kind of blind exploration these days. High skill ceiling, good. High skill floor, less good. (For me, anyway.)

[Guancyto]

Gonna lock in my vote for Star Control 3. Games like Undertale or Darkest Dungeon have a niche appeal (even if those niches turned out to be a lot bigger than the authors anticipated) so if they're not your cup of tea, you're going to have a bad time. (Although if you find Darkest Dungeon too RNG or too grindy, they later added Radiant Mode which has a lot of the frustrating parts snipped out or toned down.)

I can't for the life of me figure out what Star Control 3 was even going for. Grotesque puppets and stilted dialogue, with none of the fun or whimsy or snappiness that the previous title had. A nonsensical plot that didn't fit in with the universe, with a million side-tangents that turn out to not even matter. You're given the option to join forces with the first set of bad guys (because the fabric of the universe is under threat and you ain't got time to be messing around with politics), which could have been interesting but you're instantly given a game over if you do. The second group of bad guys (the ones threatening the fabric of the universe) are convinced to go away by treknobabble and hoping at them real hard. The new ships are hilariously unbalanced, which might be fun for a bit but rapidly loses appeal as it becomes clear that they never gave a single balance pass to any of it. The new resource mechanics are a lot of Hurry Up and Wait, as you plonk down colonies and they very, very slowly build themselves into something that's useful to you - but endure that tedium long enough and you'll end up with nigh-infinite resources.

And to make it worse it sets out to knock down all the tantalizing mysteries of Star Control 2 and manages to make every single one of the answers incredibly dull. The legendary ancient precursors turn out to be cows, and the mysterious question that consumed them was "do extradimensional gribblies periodically show up and eat everything sentient" and the answer was "yes." The creepy mysterious UFO guys that have influenced the entire course of human history turn out to just want to steal human bodies. The race that's an extension of some kind of other dimensional horror basically just cusses you out and goes away when you beat enough of their ships. The mysterious artificial worlds turn out to just be really ancient landfills.

I'd be willing to call it worse than an RPGMaker asset flip, just because RPGMaker asset flips only ruin the Steam recommendations page instead of something that was actually good.

[warty goblin]

Worst is hard. I played a number of only vaguely functional Eastern European games about a decade ago that are by most sensible standards the worst things I've played. On the other hand it's also an entirely uninteresting answer, because you don't pick up budget Eastern European games on the assumption they're good; you pick them up thinking they're probably terrible, may be interesting, and every once and a while are actually pretty solid in a super niche sort of way.

Most disappointing, or something along those lines is probably a much more useful answer. To that end:

Skyrim Skyrim is clearly not a bad game. It's basically a slightly tweaked Oblivion, and I quite liked Oblivion. The problem is that I played enough Oblivion that I didn't really want more of it, and Oblivion got an enormous boost in my eyes for being the first game like that I'd ever played. By the time Skyrim rolled around, I'd played games that had first person melee combat that didn't control like a drunken giraffe, and had writing that was actually good, so the mere novelty of stabbing fantasy dudes in the face couldn't cover for just how utterly basic the systems were. It didn't help that it released right at the same time as Saints Row III, which was goofy and funny and just, well, fun.

Minecraft I made it ten minutes. Before me stretched an eternity of punching stuff to get blocks to build stuff so I could craft stuff so I could punch higher level stuff so I could repeat the whole cycle. The ennui broke me on the spot.

Dragon Age 2. I wasn't a fan of Dragon Age 1, and went in with fairly low expectations. I wasn't exactly in love with DA1's art style, but DA2 managed to somehow be one of the most visually unpleasant games I've ever had the misfortune to inflict on my monitor. Even if the writing hadn't turned me off, the idea of looking at the game for hours would have.

Overwatch I played this at the height of one of my occasional flirtations with multiplayer gaming. The hero shooter thing is sort of a turnoff for me because for some reason my ability to engage with a game is crippled when my super-unique hero ends up shooting a clone of themselves in the face, but whatever. That's just a gimmick wrapped around a class based shooter, and I generally like class based shooters; Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is one of my all time favorites. But I rather disliked all the classes in Overwatch, the guns all felt bleh, and charging up ults felt like a poor man's version of actually building an engaging combat sandbox. And as is the case with basically every Blizzard game I've tried, it felt like literally everything vaguely interesting about the game had been sanded off in the name of balance and polish.

[Amechra]

Spyro: A Hero's Tale is probably the worst game that I've ever actually sunk time into - I loved the earlier Spyro games, but A Hero's Tale just felt... soulless.

Also, put me down in the "I don't see where all the fuss about Undertale comes from". I picked up the demo when it first came out, played up to the tutorial fight with the flower, then put it down because I wasn't having any fun. And everything I've heard about the characters and plot just leaves me entirely cold. I thought Space Funeral had better music, anyway

[LaZodiac]

Spyro: A Hero's Tale is probably the worst game that I've ever actually sunk time into - I loved the earlier Spyro games, but A Hero's Tale just felt... soulless.

Also, put me down in the "I don't see where all the fuss about Undertale comes from". I picked up the demo when it first came out, played up to the tutorial fight with the flower, then put it down because I wasn't having any fun. And everything I've heard about the characters and plot just leaves me entirely cold. I thought Space Funeral had better music, anyway

Not for nothing but you... that means you didn't play the game. That's the first thing you do in the game.

[Keltest]

Not for nothing but you... that means you didn't play the game. That's the first thing you do in the game.

I think that's the point. The game wasn't fun/interesting enough to make them want to play. And I feel the same way. If I want a good story, i'll read a book so I don't have to subject myself to gameplay that makes me roll my eyes out of my head.

[warty goblin]

Not for nothing but you... that means you didn't play the game. That's the first thing you do in the game.

That tends to be what people do when they don't like the demo of a game? I don't think I'm alone in not playing large amounts of games I don't like, and thinking my dislike is entirely justified based on what I did play. It may not be an Ultimate Completely Informed Criticism, but operationally it's enough to be getting on with.

[Amechra]

Not for nothing but you... that means you didn't play the game. That's the first thing you do in the game.

I'm perfectly aware of that¹, but eh. If I bounced off it hard enough that I wasn't willing to get past the tutorial... I don't think experiencing more of something I just plain didn't like would change my opinion of that thing. I mean, when I heard that a full-pacifist run was possible, I was intrigued, but then I quickly lost interest again when I learned that the whole bullet hell + dragon quest combat stuff was still going to happen regardless.

¹ I mean, there was some walking around and tutorializing before that in the demo. Not much, but it wasn't the literal first thing .

EDIT: I think I should clarify. The reason I lost interest wasn't just because I didn't enjoy the combat system. It's because I feel that games where fighting is mandatory shouldn't get to say that they have pacifist/peaceful/whatever runs. Because I very much disagree with the idea that violence is A-OK as long as no-one dies.

I can't have a relationship founded on lies, Undertale!

[LaZodiac]

I'm perfectly aware of that¹, but eh. If I bounced off it hard enough that I wasn't willing to get past the tutorial... I don't think experiencing more of something I just plain didn't like would change my opinion of that thing. I mean, when I heard that a full-pacifist run was possible, I was intrigued, but then I quickly lost interest again when I learned that the whole bullet hell + dragon quest combat stuff was still going to happen regardless.

¹ I mean, there was some walking around and tutorializing before that in the demo. Not much, but it wasn't the literal first thing .

EDIT: I think I should clarify. The reason I lost interest wasn't just because I didn't enjoy the combat system. It's because I feel that games where fighting is mandatory shouldn't get to say that they have pacifist/peaceful/whatever runs. Because I very much disagree with the idea that violence is A-OK as long as no-one dies.

I can't have a relationship founded on lies, Undertale!

It... fighting literally isn't mandatory.

Everything you just said makes me think you'd like it if you actually bothered to give it a try.

Anyway, this doesn't matter. We're talking about games we've played that are bad. I have one, but I cannot for the life of me remember what it's called which sucks. It was an indie game where you play as a lady bounty hunter sort of person who is depressed and bored with life, and hates the "woman rule" dystopia she lives in. The twist is that she's trans. The game played horribly and the writing was actually horrendous.

[danzibr]

This came up earlier in the thread iirc.

I think it’s fine to say you didn’t like a game enough to continue past the first few minutes, but another thing to say it’s one of the worst games you ever *played*.

That’d be like saying you read the first chapter (or shoot, first page) of The Hobbit, didn’t like it, then said it’s the worst book you ever read.

Also, put me down in the "I don't see where all the fuss about Undertale comes from". I picked up the demo when it first came out, played up to the tutorial fight with the flower, then put it down because I wasn't having any fun. And everything I've heard about the characters and plot just leaves me entirely cold.

I wonder what you heard.

[Amechra]

This came up earlier in the thread iirc.

I think it’s fine to say you didn’t like a game enough to continue past the first few minutes, but another thing to say it’s one of the worst games you ever *played*.

That’d be like saying you read the first chapter (or shoot, first page) of The Hobbit, didn’t like it, then said it’s the worst book you ever read.

I never said that it was the worst game I've ever played. I've played much worse (mostly garbage small-studio games), but I've never bounced off a "really good" game like that before, other than the time where I was hyped to play Shadow of the Colossus for literal years... and then couldn't actually handle the controls. I'm sorry if my mild disappointment and joking exaggeration came off as "worst game evar".

I wonder what you heard.

I asked a few of my friends who were crazy into the game after it came out. Apparently they gave me faulty information or whatever. Eh.

It... fighting literally isn't mandatory.

Everything you just said makes me think you'd like it if you actually bothered to give it a try.

It isn't? Apparently Wikipedia is also lying to me. Maybe someone should fix that? (I'm actually being serious here - if that's faulty information, it probably should be fixed.)

I also rather dislike internet-style humor. Quite literally the only reason why I was intrigued by "there's a pacifist run" is because I was curious to see how that'd be handled in an RPG.

Anyway, this doesn't matter. We're talking about games we've played that are bad. I have one, but I cannot for the life of me remember what it's called which sucks. It was an indie game where you play as a lady bounty hunter sort of person who is depressed and bored with life, and hates the "woman rule" dystopia she lives in. The twist is that she's trans. The game played horribly and the writing was actually horrendous.

Nothing is showing up on the Google. Hopefully you dreamed it up, and you didn't actually play something that poor?

I'm reminded of all of the RPG Maker Ume Nikki clones that I've... experienced ("played" is too strong a word). There's this weird idea that "but it's art" excuses terrible game design, and that making your star a poor, sad, abused child suffices to make it deep and emotionally resonant. Again, I sometimes doubt that they actually exist.

[Manticoran]

It isn't? Apparently Wikipedia is also lying to me. Maybe someone should fix that? (I'm actually being serious here - if that's faulty information, it probably should be fixed.)

People try to fight you, and you talk them into not fighting you, is basically the tldr there. There isn't a route without fighting, but there is a route where you don't fight back.

[Amechra]

People try to fight you, and you talk them into not fighting you, is basically the tldr there. There isn't a route without fighting, but there is a route where you don't fight back.

Ah, fair enough.

[LaZodiac]

It isn't? Apparently Wikipedia is also lying to me. Maybe someone should fix that? (I'm actually being serious here - if that's faulty information, it probably should be fixed.)

Nothing is showing up on the Google. Hopefully you dreamed it up, and you didn't actually play something that poor?

I'm reminded of all of the RPG Maker Ume Nikki clones that I've... experienced ("played" is too strong a word). There's this weird idea that "but it's art" excuses terrible game design, and that making your star a poor, sad, abused child suffices to make it deep and emotionally resonant. Again, I sometimes doubt that they actually exist.

As people have said, you don't have to fight. You talk people out of hurting you. I'd argue that's not fighting, but to each their own. I also don't really "get" the idea of "internet comedy". It's all jkust comedy, if it's funny it's funny.

I went through the steam game list name by name. It's Aerannis.

[halfeye]

This came up earlier in the thread iirc.

I think it’s fine to say you didn’t like a game enough to continue past the first few minutes, but another thing to say it’s one of the worst games you ever *played*.

That’d be like saying you read the first chapter (or shoot, first page) of The Hobbit, didn’t like it, then said it’s the worst book you ever read.

I wonder what you heard.

I think that's unfair. The first chapter of a book can be entirely enough to tell you that it's very, very bad. The Hobbit isn't one of those books, but there have been some where through bad spelling, bad grammar or (and/or) bad English (supposing it's written in English) you could tell that it was bad from the first page. Publishers don't usually publish books like that, but they have occasionally existed.

I will mention again Anco's Jump Jet (Wikipedia doesn't have a page for it that I can find). It was released before 1990, because that's when I bought my Atari ST and it was one of the first games I bought. The controls were terrible, and the simulation wasn't a simulation. I was that cross with it that I formatted the floppy.

There have been dozens of games that I liked a lot that I didn't fully finish. I don't think it is in any way reasonable to demand that people only rate games that they have fully completed.

[factotum]

As people have said, you don't have to fight. You talk people out of hurting you. I'd argue that's not fighting, but to each their own.

The problem is, from what I've seen taking the pacifist approach doesn't actually prevent you having to play the bullet-hell thing that Undertale has for a combat system--the monster will still attack you until you've managed to figure out the thing to do to make it back off. So, if it's the bullet hell combat that's putting him off, playing pacifist doesn't fix that in the slightest.

[Amechra]

As people have said, you don't have to fight. You talk people out of hurting you. I'd argue that's not fighting, but to each their own.

I was hoping to not have to engage in the combat system at all, perhaps through a cunning series of dialog options and/or kind offerings of knitted goods. I'm the kind of person who kinda wants to play Pokemon again, but wishes that they could skip all the fighting stuff and just do the dog shows Pokemon Contests. Because why do I want my little friends to get hurt?

In any case, I'm reminded of a game that I (thankfully) haven't personally played, but I did watch a full playthrough of. Let's just say that it was a point-n-click adventure game that was lightly concealed Christian propaganda. It had a Jesus-powered mech. It wasn't very good. It wasn't very good at all.

[danzibr]

I never said that it was the worst game I've ever played. I've played much worse (mostly garbage small-studio games), but I've never bounced off a "really good" game like that before, other than the time where I was hyped to play Shadow of the Colossus for literal years... and then couldn't actually handle the controls. I'm sorry if my mild disappointment and joking exaggeration came off as "worst game evar".

Oh yeah, I wasn't meaning you did. I picked up the I-don't-see-where-all-the-fuss-about-Undertale-comes-from bit.

I think that's unfair. The first chapter of a book can be entirely enough to tell you that it's very, very bad. The Hobbit isn't one of those books, but there have been some where through bad spelling, bad grammar or (and/or) bad English (supposing it's written in English) you could tell that it was bad from the first page. Publishers don't usually publish books like that, but they have occasionally existed.

I mean more like... people play a game for the first few minutes and say they, well, played it. Makes it sound like they actually played it.

Man, typing that makes it look weird. Maybe it's all in my head.

[Amechra]

I mean more like... people play a game for the first few minutes and say they, well, played it. Makes it sound like they actually played it.

Man, typing that makes it look weird. Maybe it's all in my head.

Do you mean... "I mean more like... people play a game for the first few minutes and say they, well, played it. Makes it sound like they actually played it (to completion)."

Because that would explain it - I'm not really much of a gamer (I might play a couple hours of videogames once a month, if that). I could, if I felt bothered, list all the games I've ever actually completed, and it would take me, like, a minute. Maybe two. Your belief that I am able to finish things warms my heart, though.