Worst Games You have ever played (in your opinion)

[Cozzer]

Mentioning the RPG maker assetfips is cheating, since the thread asks for the "worst game you have ever played", and I don't believe anyone here has played one of those.

Joke's on you, since I've been in the RPG Maker scene in the past, and I played quite a few of them!

No, well, maybe the joke is on me.

(To be fair, I was looking for hidden gems and I did find a few of these )

[Brother Oni]

Darkest Dungeon tops my "hours played" record in Steam at 444 hours, beating out even the original Dark Souls.

*Sweatdrop*

*Hides Steam profile showing hours wasted farmingspent playing Warframe*

[Rockphed]

Captain Planet and the Planeteers was a stupid unfun , unplayable mess in the toilet of Gaming.

Perhaps that was on purpose to get people to stop using so much energy running their computers.

No, I don't really believe that.

*Sweatdrop*

*Hides Steam profile showing hours wasted farmingspent playing Warframe*

*looks at almost 900 hours playing CKII*

Oh, you sweet summer child.

[Tvtyrant]

Perhaps that was on purpose to get people to stop using so much energy running their computers.

No, I don't really believe that.



*looks at almost 900 hours playing CKII*

Oh, you sweet summer child.

Lets not play that game. I have over 1800 in TF2, it was a dang addiction.

[Rynjin]

Lets not play that game. I have over 1800 in TF2, it was a dang addiction.

Between Xbox and PC Versions I'm well over 2000, and I haven't even played it in 4 years or so.

On the bright side I was introduced to most of my online friends and by proxy Tabletop RPGs because of it, and I also learned playing games competitively simply isn't worth it.

[LaZodiac]

I bought the final copy of Sonic The Hedgehog 2006 for a dollar.

The only thing positive from this experience was that I prevented someone from being subjected to this down the line themselves.

[Starwulf]

Lets not play that game. I have over 1800 in TF2, it was a dang addiction.

I had over an actual year of game time in FFXI(8k+ hours). The game only measured time spent logged in, and I wasn't one of those players that left their characters logged in and idling in Upper Jeuno/Batilla Downs to sell stuff either. Not saying that some of it wasn't actually idle time, I'm sure at least a full 25% or so of it was, but that still leaves about 6k hours spent playing the game, lol. 2003-2010 spent playing that game from my couch(didn't have much else to since I don't work because of a permanent, serious back injury). I still have dreams about playing it again, just wandering around the world hunting NM's, or up in Sky hunting the gods(or Sea), or helping out linkshell mates get quests done.

Just talking about it is making me miss it. Really wish I hadn't sold my Monk to my best friend, he kept it for a week and then traded it to his cousin for a freaking bow(like, an actual bow in rl), and his cousin stripped it and turned it into a fishing bot ><. My wonderful, powerful, limit shattering Monk, turned into a lowly fishing bot :-(.

[Zalabim]

When you ask a question like this, the first game that comes to mind is Final Fantasy VIII. On top of frequently corrupting save data so I ended up repeating disc one three times, there were several points where it tried to be too clever for itself by far with interface screws and soup-can puzzles, especially in the final dungeon. There were a few points where you're given no idea how to proceed, no clue what the controls even are for the scene, and graded on how well you do, as if anyone would ever play this game a second time. One particularly poorly chosen puzzle I always remember involved a carpet that was supposed to be a clock face, but in Standard Definition graphics might as well have been another abstract "painting' like the rest of the room's puzzle, and could only be seen from a single one of the room's five or six fixed camera angles anyway. But at least I finished this game, so the worst would have to be one of the ones I didn't.

Speaking of FF8's final dungeon and games I never finished means I have to mention Myst. I couldn't make progress in this game even with a walkthrough, and have no idea why I would want to. It won awards for something, and I just have no clue.

In a similar boat is NWN. Starting with all the stupid mechanics they kept, and all the stupid mechanics they changed, from the 3.x core ruleset, but adding in grindy quest zones and a laughable misunderstanding of the core D&D experience by being a game about a solo adventurer and your choice of a single lower-leveled sidekick at a time. The single player experience was awful. I was told the multiplayer is better, but no. That was worse. Take everything bad about single-player NWN and add cliques, favoritism, and griefing.

A combination of bad design and bad programming put me off of Pillars of Eternity too. Every concept I tried and every character I tested ran into some bizarre gameplay or programming error so I never got past the first town, where all the awful kickstarter backstory characters are stuffed into an inn. For examples, the monk's wound resource is entirely anti-fun, the ranger's damage over time abilities did less damage with increased ability duration from intelligence, enemies would instantly and unerringly target whichever party member is in their range with the lowest defenses, the ghost type enemies would actually have 10-15 more defense than the monster stat screen said, plus auras that lower your accuracy so early combat against them was an eternal slog, druids were allowed one transformation per battle with actually a limited duration but the tooltip says the transformation lasts the whole battle, and the behavior of melee engagement that makes it impossible for your party to leave melee but does nothing to stop the enemy. This one takes some explanation. Basically, it had opportunity attacks and if you were hit by an opportunity attack, your order to move would be canceled, but if you issued the order again quickly enough, you could get away before another opportunity attack could be made. The AI naturally spams move orders if they really want to move, but the player has to do it manually and if you're too slow you'd just take infinite attacks. On top of broken mechanics everywhere I looked, I accidentally completed a quest in that first town just by talking to the guy who starts the quest, in a way I didn't want to complete the quest because I hadn't even started a quest and it wasn't clear there was a quest to start. Some kind of land dispute or something. I couldn't really follow it because it was started and competed in about two dialog choices. My final impression? Pillars of Eternity: Low-effort plot; broken ivory tower mechanics; laggy, unresponsive controls.

There's a further game that probably takes the cake for worst game I've played by combining all these issues and more. Azurik, an action adventure game for the X-box with the gameplay gimmick of enchanting your weapons and armor with one or more of four different elements to fight enemies and navigate the world. The core is 3D platforming. Problems start with the basic combat, which is simple hit-and-run, then each element has a limited pool of energy that you have to get pickups from defeated enemies to refill, enemies that you have to use enchanted attacks to hurt, and basic navigation abilities like double jump and light being tied to an expendable, barely renewable resource. I think you could travel all the way back to the center of the world map to recharge, but areas to explore were huge and enemies would respawn behind you. There are no other people once the game starts. Just you, a world, and vague hints like "now you can glide, go to the fire land." Despite all that, I still really tried to beat this game but got stuck beyond further progress, even with a walkthrough. And I really tried, because I liked the idea of combining elements for different effects. There's a reason this game is nicknamed Assurik.

To play the time played game: Steam has me with 438 hours on FF14, and I only played for the free period. Honorable mention goes out to Dungeon Defenders at 372 hours plus 69 hours on Eternity as games I still like the idea of, and FTL with 66 hours since I bought it on steam, which is impressive considering the kind of game it is. Runner up is Dota 2 with 528 hours and at least I like some heroes even if I can't do the controls ever again, and Smite with 992 hours and battle passes make me never want to play the game. I completed one, barely, by forcing 5-10 games a day, so the next pass was twice as long. Not touching that ever again. The winner is Warframe's 1707 hours and counting.

As far as games I’ve actually played to completion, it’s probably Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. A couple friends and I managed to get the requisite link cables and gameboy advances together a few years ago and did a play through of it. The gameplay and plot are entirely forgettable, the soundtrack is admittedly nice, but a game seemingly focused entirely on multiplayer requiring so many peripherals is awful.

Irony, thy name would be crystal chronicles, if I hadn't had my memories sucked away by the last boss and starting going by the name Hurdy. I tried to come back to an old save file and rush to the end of the game but the final battle showed no signs of ending after half an hour and I only had about 40 memories going into it to begin with. I always got the impression there was something really interesting going on behind the scenes with all the memory stuff in this game, so it's a shame I can't finish it myself.

[factotum]

Speaking of FF8's final dungeon and games I never finished means I have to mention Myst. I couldn't make progress in this game even with a walkthrough, and have no idea why I would want to. It won awards for something, and I just have no clue.

Myst came out in 1993. For the time, its graphics were absolutely stunning, and the "click a lever somewhere to affect another location" gameplay wasn't actually that far away from the usual point-and-click adventures that were still popular at the time. Nowadays, yes, it's absolute trash, but seen as a product of its time you can understand why it got those awards.

[Zalabim]

Myst came out in 1993. For the time, its graphics were absolutely stunning, and the "click a lever somewhere to affect another location" gameplay wasn't actually that far away from the usual point-and-click adventures that were still popular at the time. Nowadays, yes, it's absolute trash, but seen as a product of its time you can understand why it got those awards.

Well, I tried to play it when it was the new hotness and I did not get it. At least other adventure games had, like, characters, and a setting I was interested in exploring. Yes, I'm old.

[Rockphed]

Well, I tried to play it when it was the new hotness and I did not get it. At least other adventure games had, like, characters, and a setting I was interested in exploring. Yes, I'm old.

Myst has a fairly interesting setting. Myst is also an exercise in frustration with musical cues, cryptic messages, and puzzles that are only hard because the controls are obtuse. So is the sequel Riven, though Riven at least starts with some exposition. I ended up having to use a walkthrough with both because some of the puzzles were not just tedius, but took 5 minutes to test each time I tried them.

[Brother Oni]

*looks at almost 900 hours playing CKII*

Oh, you sweet summer child.

I'm on over 2900hrs and counting (Kuva liches soon!). That said...

I had over an actual year of game time in FFXI(8k+ hours).

I bend my knee to the master.

[Yora]

Now you are talking about games that you really loved.

[Rockphed]

Now you are talking about games that you really loved.

I'm trying to think of the worst game I have ever played more than once, and I don't mean a stupid pay-to-win MMO that I logged in to more than once in order to get an achievement.

It might be "Lords of Magic", which is a cross between an RPG and a turn based strategy game, only it has real time battles with obtuse controls. Also, magic units have to use the same pool of magic for in-battle and strategic spells and healing takes way too long.

Or maybe it is one of the obscure entries in the sim universe, like sim park or sim safari. They weren't horrible, but they were trying too hard to be educational to be fun.

It might be a game for consoles called, if memory serves, "Fantavision", where you were supposed to get points by exploding fireworks. The problem was that it was not well designed, so the game turned into a mashfest.

Then there is "Jak X: Combat Racing", though that might have just been the disk I was playing on. It would bug out seemingly after every race. The game was a not very good mariocart clone with guns.

[factotum]

I'm trying to think of the worst game I have ever played more than once, and I don't mean a stupid pay-to-win MMO that I logged in to more than once in order to get an achievement.

Why do you need to have played it more than once? Surely if the game is that terrible you wouldn't have wanted to play it even once, much less multiple times!

[DarthArminius]

I'm trying to think of the worst game I have ever played more than once, and I don't mean a stupid pay-to-win MMO that I logged in to more than once in order to get an achievement.

It might be "Lords of Magic", which is a cross between an RPG and a turn based strategy game, only it has real time battles with obtuse controls. Also, magic units have to use the same pool of magic for in-battle and strategic spells and healing takes way too long.

Or maybe it is one of the obscure entries in the sim universe, like sim park or sim safari. They weren't horrible, but they were trying too hard to be educational to be fun.

It might be a game for consoles called, if memory serves, "Fantavision", where you were supposed to get points by exploding fireworks. The problem was that it was not well designed, so the game turned into a mashfest.

Then there is "Jak X: Combat Racing", though that might have just been the disk I was playing on. It would bug out seemingly after every race. The game was a not very good mariocart clone with guns.

Yikes! Someone thinks Lords of Magic is a candidate for worst game they ever played! I've never met someone with such a different taste in video games from me.

[danzibr]

Mentioning the RPG maker assetfips is cheating, since the thread asks for the "worst game you have ever played", and I don't believe anyone here has played one of those.

Joke's on you, since I've been in the RPG Maker scene in the past, and I played quite a few of them!

No, well, maybe the joke is on me.

(To be fair, I was looking for hidden gems and I did find a few of these )

I’m with Cozzer on this one. I’ve played (like actually played) some extremely janky RPG Maker games.

Yikes! Someone thinks Lords of Magic is a candidate for worst game they ever played! I've never met someone with such a different taste in video games from me.

Seconded.

FFVIII: I can see this. FFVIII had some really bad design choices IMO. Bad guys leveling up with you. The junction system. The main antagonist. Granted this is just imo.

Undertale: This... kind of surprises me. I really enjoyed Undertale. One of the few games I beat then immediately did a second playthrough. Still, I can understand how it’s not for everyone.

[Rockphed]

Yikes! Someone thinks Lords of Magic is a candidate for worst game they ever played! I've never met someone with such a different taste in video games from me.

More like it was the game I enjoyed the least compared to how much I wanted to enjoy it. At some point I will have time to try to get good enough at it to beat the game.

As to my caveat of "that I played more than once", it is because only games I played more than once have any chance to stick in my brain.

[Narkis]

Joke's on you, since I've been in the RPG Maker scene in the past, and I played quite a few of them!

No, well, maybe the joke is on me.

(To be fair, I was looking for hidden gems and I did find a few of these )

I’m with Cozzer on this one. I’ve played (like actually played) some extremely janky RPG Maker games.

I am surprised, though I should probably have expected I was being too absolute. You also have my sincere condolences.

[DaedalusMkV]

I've played some bad games in my day. I rented Superman 64 when I was young, having no idea of the awfulness that was to come. I actually played quite a bit of that game, because damn it I paid for it and I'm going to get value out of it in the time I've got it, but it's notorious for a reason. Similar circumstances for Mario is Missing for the SNES (it's a Mario game! It must be good!) and several god-awful NES games (of which Friday the 13th was probably the least enjoyable). The video and game rental store in my hometown was one of the last of its kind; I've rented terrible games for every system from the NES to the Playstation 3 (remember Haze?). I also had a bad habit a bit later into my childhood of stopping by the Zellers near where I lived and buying some $5 PC game off the discount rack, just on the off-chance it would be good. Got some absolute dreck (good old Blacksite: Area 51, for example) out of that as well, though I did probably get enough good games as well to balance it out.

All of those were bad. I've played disappointing games, too. Star Control 3, for example, or Command and Conquer 4 (which is probably a strong contender for 'worst feature-complete sequel' I've ever seen). There's one worse, though. A game that was so bad, disappointing and unplayable that the company that made it doesn't acknowledge that it exists, and only barely survived it. A game which, on release, shocked and confused an entire community. I'm talking about Sword of the Stars 2.

Now, if you go looking for SotS2 now, you'll find a crummy sequel to a fairly well-loved niche game. Sword of the Stars started a little bit bland, but by the end of the development cycle was pretty much the only good space 4x/RTS hybrid out there; Total War with space ships, if you will. It's one of my favorites, and I still go back and play it when I get the urge to build some space fleets and conquer a galaxy. Expectations for the sequel were high; it was going to be bigger and better than ever, with more depth and tactical options than the original ever had! Pre-order numbers were very high for a relatively obscure PC exclusive, and the forums were abuzz with excitement as the launch date came. We all hopped on Steam, installed the game and... At best, made it to the title screen. Most people couldn't get the game to launch at all, and those that could certainly couldn't get it to do anything. A few hours later, they made an announcement that the wrong version of the file had been uploaded to Steam, and the development team was gone for the weekend. Apologies were made, and promises that once the devs got back on Monday they'd have everything fixed and we'd have the game we were promised.

Monday came, and with it a new patch. There was... Kind of a game there. A lot of people still couldn't launch it, and you had a good 60% chance of crashing on attempting to launch a campaign. Multiplayer was disabled, and most of the game just wasn't there yet. Placeholders everywhere, many missing assets, all that jazz. Loading saved games was impossible; attempting to do so crashed the game. The game suffered from a severe memory leak that made turn timers take exponentially longer as the game went on, to the point that the longest anyone was ever able to make it was about 12 turns. It was, by any definition, unplayable. More apologies followed, and promises of further patches to come. By the end of that week two more patches came and went, and it became clear that what we had was at best an early alpha. Most of the game just wasn't there, and what was there was glitchy, unstable and imbalanced. Another announcement from the Devs: Yeah, the game's not ready yet. If you want, you can keep playing it and we'll continue to keep the Steam version updated with our internal build every week. For everyone else, have patience. We'll keep working on it, and we'll let everyone know when it's done.

Months passed, and they made an announcement: The game's done. Come back and play it. I did. It was... Technically complete. Still glitchy and poorly optimized, with no tutorial, limited or useless tooltips and primitive in-game descriptions. I played for a few hours, had no fun and shut it down in disgust. It now rests in the dustbin of history, rightfully forgotten.

SotS 2 is the game that made me institute a policy of 'no pre-orders, ever, no matter how much I like the developer'. I trusted Kerberos to give me a good experience, and what I got was one of the worst video-game launches of all time (you think Fallout 76 was bad? Try 'there is no game, and there won't be for months'). While what exists now is probably better than Superman 64 or Friday the 13th, it is and likely always will be the worst game I have ever played.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I've played tons of utterly forgettable games, like, well, none really come to mind at the moment.



That's kind of funny in and of itself. There are absolutely movies I loathed, laughed at for all the wrong reasons, was utterly annoyed by or just couldn't switch off because I was amazed in horror. Barbarian (2003) is a good example of most of those categories. But for games? Nothing on that level. A few titles that were just plain not really finished, but I tend to just put those down after one or two sessions and move on.

[Zevox]

I've played some bad games in my day. I rented Superman 64 when I was young, having no idea of the awfulness that was to come. I actually played quite a bit of that game, because damn it I paid for it and I'm going to get value out of it in the time I've got it, but it's notorious for a reason. Similar circumstances for Mario is Missing for the SNES (it's a Mario game! It must be good!)

Oh right, Mario is Missing, I rented that once or twice as a kid. I barely remember anything about it besides that I don't think I ever figured out what exactly I was supposed to do in it though, so it's kind of hard to even judge how bad it may have been at this point.

[Vinyadan]

Spoiler: Divinity OS 2

Show

Hmmm, I've got an odd one. Not counting any games that where so 'meh' that I just can't remember them, I think it has to be Divinity: original sin 2. Now, please, hear me out here before jumping down my throat about why I feel this way about such a generally well-liked RPG. I think Divinity's story was absolutely great, and the basic loop of its gameplay could be pretty nice as well. However, its combat and overall world design is so damn punishing that it sucked a lot of the fun out of the game for me. You're basically required to find and do every last side-quest to remain on-level, even if some of those side-quests are things your character really wouldn't want to be involved in. Even then, a lot of combats are ambushes where the opponents go first and if you hadn't spread out the party to the most optimal positions beforehand, you'd just die before even getting to have a turn. Playing Divinity is like playing DnD with a killer DM whose only claim to fairness is that the DMG technically doesn't forbid sending CR10 encounters at level 4 parties without any warning or foreshadowing.

Now maybe I should have just gotten good. However, Divinity presented itself as a story-driven RPG about making choices and going on quests, not as a difficult grind requiring endless repetition and reading of guides to 'git gud'. When I want to play a game like that I'll just pick up a soulslike, most of which are designed for that loop and at least feel fair while they kill you over and over and over again. Divinity: original sin 2 just never felt fair to me, and that's a shame as it has a really nice story and tries to do some really nice things with freedom of choice and consequence in an RPG.

/rant

For me, D:OS1 had similar problems. You have to do things in the right order, or be destroyed. The problem is that combat takes its sweet time (animations cannot be skipped), so mistakes mean hours of attempts. And there is so much combat! After 60 hours, I was just exhausted and left the game. It's not that it's bad. But it is too long for its own good. And then you have bosses like The Guardian in Boogie Winterland, who was simply too weak to be a menace, but was an insane bullet sponge. It was the equivalent of having to defeat a tree by hitting it with a pair of shoes. You are bound to win because the tree can't fight back, but it's a long and tiresome process. I later discovered that the game gave you two ways to insta-win, but I think that, if you have three ways to win a fight, all three should be fun. I also couldn't get over how such a fairly polished game could have interface problems like how, if you had an ability selected, it would ignore the interface if you clicked on an icon and just fire off the spell. Some things that were theoretically optional, like knowing how to speak to animals or the tornado spell, were actually pretty damn important.
And you don't just have lots of combat, you also have lots of items. Now, I remember feeling a dreadful hate towards the inventory system, but I don't remember why. For me, the problem was when the game reduced itself to having to constantly check the merchants to see if I could build something out of an immense crafting list, between an endless stream of fights. It felt overtaxing, and I was rather tired of the fights, so I wasn't very motivated.
Past experiences with heavily front-loaded games also made me wary of going on. It's not just Divinity (although it was true for DD and D2), it's that the earliest levels are usually the first to be programmed and the ones most players will see, so they are given time and care, while it isn't unusual to cut corners on the final ones.
And all the voiced-over, unnecessarily long dialogues. Ugh. There's nothing worse than clicking on an answer, already knowing the reaction, and seeing it written six times longer than needed. Okay, there's a lot of things that are worse, but that's not how you write dialogues. Also, "party face" skills should apply to the whole party, no matter who you have selected.
The spaces also feel too large and movement too slow.

I don't think that the original Divine Divinity lasted that long (I guess around 30-40 hours), and it offered a lot of freedom in what you wanted to do (until you did a certain thing). Divinity 2 with its expansion was fairly long (still much shorter than Original Sin, less than 60 hours), and had pacing problems, but, while far less ambitious, I think made a remarkable job with characters and factions (except Zandalor); your home was also quickly navigable, while in OS it's oversized, making everything take a lot of time. OS is super big, super deep, but I just don't think they added enough padding (setting) to make it sustainable as single player. Divine Divinity is still the best of those I have played (I think it's an exceptional game).

[Yora]

The biggest disappointment that somehow stuck in my mind was Darkstone, I believe. I had been looking forward to it, bought it at launch, and then probably didn't play more than an hour or two. So I am not even sure if it was bad, but somehow I jumped ship almost immediately.

[Spore]

Undertale: This... kind of surprises me. I really enjoyed Undertale. One of the few games I beat then immediately did a second playthrough. Still, I can understand how it’s not for everyone.

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

[Eldan]

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.

[factotum]

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.

[Grif]

Now, if you go looking for SotS2 now, you'll find a crummy sequel to a fairly well-loved niche game. Sword of the Stars started a little bit bland, but by the end of the development cycle was pretty much the only good space 4x/RTS hybrid out there; Total War with space ships, if you will. It's one of my favorites, and I still go back and play it when I get the urge to build some space fleets and conquer a galaxy. Expectations for the sequel were high; it was going to be bigger and better than ever, with more depth and tactical options than the original ever had! Pre-order numbers were very high for a relatively obscure PC exclusive, and the forums were abuzz with excitement as the launch date came. We all hopped on Steam, installed the game and... At best, made it to the title screen. Most people couldn't get the game to launch at all, and those that could certainly couldn't get it to do anything. A few hours later, they made an announcement that the wrong version of the file had been uploaded to Steam, and the development team was gone for the weekend. Apologies were made, and promises that once the devs got back on Monday they'd have everything fixed and we'd have the game we were promised.

Monday came, and with it a new patch. There was... Kind of a game there. A lot of people still couldn't launch it, and you had a good 60% chance of crashing on attempting to launch a campaign. Multiplayer was disabled, and most of the game just wasn't there yet. Placeholders everywhere, many missing assets, all that jazz. Loading saved games was impossible; attempting to do so crashed the game. The game suffered from a severe memory leak that made turn timers take exponentially longer as the game went on, to the point that the longest anyone was ever able to make it was about 12 turns. It was, by any definition, unplayable. More apologies followed, and promises of further patches to come. By the end of that week two more patches came and went, and it became clear that what we had was at best an early alpha. Most of the game just wasn't there, and what was there was glitchy, unstable and imbalanced. Another announcement from the Devs: Yeah, the game's not ready yet. If you want, you can keep playing it and we'll continue to keep the Steam version updated with our internal build every week. For everyone else, have patience. We'll keep working on it, and we'll let everyone know when it's done.

Months passed, and they made an announcement: The game's done. Come back and play it. I did. It was... Technically complete. Still glitchy and poorly optimized, with no tutorial, limited or useless tooltips and primitive in-game descriptions. I played for a few hours, had no fun and shut it down in disgust. It now rests in the dustbin of history, rightfully forgotten.

SotS 2 is the game that made me institute a policy of 'no pre-orders, ever, no matter how much I like the developer'. I trusted Kerberos to give me a good experience, and what I got was one of the worst video-game launches of all time (you think Fallout 76 was bad? Try 'there is no game, and there won't be for months'). While what exists now is probably better than Superman 64 or Friday the 13th, it is and likely always will be the worst game I have ever played.

Ah. I had been scratching my head on what I would consider the worst game. SOTS2 is just that game. A highly disappointing sequel that both suffered from gane-breaking bugs, and frankly bizarre design decisions that made you wonder how this was the team that designed the original SOTS.

Yep. It was bad. So bad I actively forgot about it.

[Hunter Noventa]

Ah. I had been scratching my head on what I would consider the worst game. SOTS2 is just that game. A highly disappointing sequel that both suffered from gane-breaking bugs, and frankly bizarre design decisions that made you wonder how this was the team that designed the original SOTS.

Yep. It was bad. So bad I actively forgot about it.

That's one bullet I'm really glad I dodged. SOTS was so amazing, but I didn't have the money or hype for SOTS2 and after it launched, well...yeah.

[Eurus]

I replayed some Crash Bandicoot games (honestly don't remember which ones) since they keep getting remastered or ported or whatever, and man, even for an old platformer those games were dumb. The camera should not be your biggest enemy in a platformer. I think I liked them as a kid, but then, I didn't exactly have a lot of options back then!

Having tried King's Field as a kid, I pretty much ran around in the dark for a while and gave up in total bafflement. So that one felt like a hell of a bust.

More recently, Pathfinder Adventures. Dice and deckbuilding sounds fun, but they managed to execute it in what felt like the worst possible way. Also, glitches and crashes. So many. Maybe they fixed it eventually, I didn't care enough to check.