The WORST Game Ever

[Vindekarr]

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PUT YOUR HANDS TOGETHER FOR THE HEAVYWEIGHT FAILURE CHAMPION ON THE WORLD, ALIENS, COLONIAL MARINES!!!!!!!

 

ACM... heh. At first I thought it was a hideous hardware failure of my system, then I thought it was a joke, a sick joke. But then as time passed, I came to realise that what I was seeing was infact truth, an that Gearbox had really taken the Aliens licence and given us... ...this. For the sake of fairness I won't compare this to a modern Sci-Fi shooter like Halo 4 or Borderlands 2 because frankly, it would be such an caning as to be genuinely painful to read, rather, I've picked out a game from my collection to compare it to, on a more equal footing. Quake-2 from 1998.

 

Overall, Quake 2 and ACM, are pretty much deadlocked on graphics with a minor lead to ACM. ACM DOES have better graphics, but in the context of when they were released, Im going to have to hand the graphical victory to Quake 2; Quake shocked the world with it's modern 3-D graphics and strong art style, ACM shocked the world by giving it a game in 2013 that looked like something off the PS2.

 

Gameplay: Even against old-school competition, ACM loses horribly on Gameplay. Quake's AI is slick, a good shot, is excellent at anticipating your movements, and gives a good fight. Decent boss designs and sprawling levels big enough to get lost in, and seals the deal with a decent length campaign-Quake wraps you up in first-gen 3D nostalgia and still has pretty decent dodge N gun fights. ACM's combat is a joke, you spend 80% of the game fighting unexplained, identicle humans(all of whom are African American) and the few times you meet a Xenomorph, the AI gets hopelessly lost, and can infact be tricked into pacificsm by moving rapidly past. Campaign is only 3 hours long, and it's 3 hours of pure misery; jolty, badly written, and with some of the most horrendous voice acting in gaming history(worse even than Q'2s)

 

Multiplayer: Quake. It's a classic. Early-era tourney-style multiplayer and a strong formula, good rock-paper-scissors gunplay and rocketjumps, this is a fun game, and I had a lot of fun playing it. Infact I'd actually rather dust off my Q2 discs and set up a LAN on my old PC, than play ACM's abysmal multiplayer. There's only one decent mode here, in which a team of Marines players must fend off alien players while moving to an extraction, and here it's only better because players replace the utterly braindead AI. Alien controls are so inconsistent and buggy, that it feels pointless to even try.

 

Verdict: Quake 2. Even against a game over a decade it's senior, ACM's gameplay, graphics, and lack of feel are so shocking, that it can't triumph even over a geriatric first-gen 3D shooter, add in the fact that it shipped without DX10 support(in 2013) and WITHOUT THE (your chosen expletive here)ING EXE FILE on PC, and you've got the worst FPS since Rogue Warrior.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Vindekarr

[AceShooter001]

My worst game ever? The Dukes of Hazzard: Return of the General Lee for the PS2. A game I got exited for till I got to playing it. The cars were unstable, The town was smaller than it should have been and the missions were... Lacking. I regret playing that game.

[hybridial]

Right

 

This choice is pretty much personal, it's subjective, it's all about what game gave me the worst experience and there's a lot of of nuance to this, but when you ask this question, the only game that immediately pops into my head is...

 

Bioshock Infinite.

 

The writing makes me angry. The shoddy execution of the gameplay does as well to a lesser degree. Levine spat on his legacy with this game. Hell, I can't say I loved Bioshock all that much but Infinite makes that look like a masterpiece.

 

There's no game I can think of that made me feel my time was more badly spent. but then, I kinda don't make a point of playing bad games just because they're bad.

[AceShooter001]

I am surprised I found someone who did not like Bioshock Infinite. I see it as well put together and intriguing. Well, to each their opinion. I am glad to have helped in the understanding of this topic.

[Rennn]

I'm going to say Infestation: Survivor Stories.

 

It attempted to capture the appeal of the DayZ mod in a standalone game (before the official DayZ was announced). It started it's life called WarZ, but had a name change shortly thereafter because of the initial caustic reviews.

It's a multiplayer zombie game set in an open world, and you generally survive in the sandbox. It sounds hard to mess up, but... omg... There are so many flaws the game is barely playable.

 

First, the graphics. I know graphics aren't usually a big deal, but this game wasn't even compatible with anisotropic filtering, not even forced in your drivers. The max object LoD setting was about 10 feet in front of your character, and the textures were so poorly made it appears the developers just pasted stock photos on top of their models. Despite the fact that it released on 2013 and looked worse than most games from 2005, it required a GTX 680 to keep it above 30 fps everywhere, it's possibly the worst optimized game to ever exist. Furthermore, you didn't have any warning about how bad the graphics were, because the developers literally advertised with screens from a different version of the game than the players had. Their version actually looked good, and used entirely different models, textures, and lighting. It's anyone's guess why they never implemented those graphics in the real game. Possibly because with their horrific optimization, the good looking version of the game would have required a couple GTX 780s in SLI to run above 30 fps.

 

Then, you have the "open world sandbox". The "open world" was actually about 1/10 the size of Skyrim, because you could walk (not run, mind, but walk at a snail's pace) from one side to the other in a matter of minutes. There was one map in the entire game, and the developers still could not polish it reasonably well because there were vast barren areas.

 

The community was entirely awful, possibly because everyone realized that the game was boring as all hell. Almost every other player attempted to kill you on sight, and thanks to rampant lag, usually both people fighting killed each other. That's without considering the many aimbots and cheaters that populated the servers, gunning down dozens of other players in mere seconds, and making virtually every server unplayable. You couldn't just jump to a secure server, because there were no secure servers. The DRM was barely functioning. It failed to install on my machine, and then let me play the game anyway. On the forums that was not a rare occurrence. Fully 1 in 3 players was able to play without DRM simply because it failed to install properly and they could somehow launch the game and connect to servers anyway. It would, however, kick the players who did have the DRM successfully installed out of their game for running applications in the background, like Fraps, or the Windows Media Player, or the Steam overlay that came with the game itself.

 

Not surprisingly, Valve was really cool about this and started taking refunds for this POS. Also not surprisingly, the company that made the game was vindictive and banned most of the people who got a refund from ever buying the game again. Not that most of them would want to anyway.

[FinalHazard]

I'm going to say Infestation: Survivor Stories.

 

It attempted to capture the appeal of the DayZ mod in a standalone game (before the official DayZ was announced). It started it's life called WarZ, but had a name change shortly thereafter because of the initial caustic reviews.

It's a multiplayer zombie game set in an open world, and you generally survive in the sandbox. It sounds hard to mess up, but... omg... There are so many flaws the game is barely playable.

 

First, the graphics. I know graphics aren't usually a big deal, but this game wasn't even compatible with anisotropic filtering, not even forced in your drivers. The max object LoD setting was about 10 feet in front of your character, and the textures were so poorly made it appears the developers just pasted stock photos on top of their models. Despite the fact that it released on 2013 and looked worse than most games from 2005, it required a GTX 680 to keep it above 30 fps everywhere, it's possibly the worst optimized game to ever exist. Furthermore, you didn't have any warning about how bad the graphics were, because the developers literally advertised with screens from a different version of the game than the players had. Their version actually looked good, and used entirely different models, textures, and lighting. It's anyone's guess why they never implemented those graphics in the real game. Possibly because with their horrific optimization, the good looking version of the game would have required a couple GTX 780s in SLI to run above 30 fps.

 

Then, you have the "open world sandbox". The "open world" was actually about 1/10 the size of Skyrim, because you could walk (not run, mind, but walk at a snail's pace) from one side to the other in a matter of minutes. There was one map in the entire game, and the developers still could not polish it reasonably well because there were vast barren areas.

 

The community was entirely awful, possibly because everyone realized that the game was boring as all hell. Almost every other player attempted to kill you on sight, and thanks to rampant lag, usually both people fighting killed each other. That's without considering the many aimbots and cheaters that populated the servers, gunning down dozens of other players in mere seconds, and making virtually every server unplayable. You couldn't just jump to a secure server, because there were no secure servers. The DRM was barely functioning. It failed to install on my machine, and then let me play the game anyway. On the forums that was not a rare occurrence. Fully 1 in 3 players was able to play without DRM simply because it failed to install properly and they could somehow launch the game and connect to servers anyway. It would, however, kick the players who did have the DRM successfully installed out of their game for running applications in the background, like Fraps, or the Windows Media Player, or the Steam overlay that came with the game itself.

 

Not surprisingly, Valve was really cool about this and started taking refunds for this POS. Also not surprisingly, the company that made the game was vindictive and banned most of the people who got a refund from ever buying the game again. Not that most of them would want to anyway.

 

I second that! This game is a nightmare. The developers dont do s#*!.

"Oh there are major problems with cars...lets just reduce the amount of cars to the point where no one can find them, FIXED"

Or "Hey guys i got banned on your beta servers for no reason, can you please take a look whats wrong there? thanks" It took them 2 weeks to REPLY!

And all those hackers...jesus...why...it's so sad.

Zombie survival games are pretty straight forward....how can they f*#@ it up so bad.

My lads and i have palyed over 100 hours and we had good and bad times but i wont touch this game again, never again.

[JustATac0]

ive got ET for my atari 2600 but its not the worst ive played. if you mean older games id say its ET but newer games id say Crysis 3 or Medal of Honor Warfighter

[Cassie363]

I nominate Two Worlds. The so-called "Oblivion-killer".

 

Just watch a couple gameplay videos and you'll understand why that piece of shovelware should never see the light of day.

[M1GU31]

Papa Rapa the rapper and payday 1 where big disappointments for me. Also remember hating GTA III even though I love all the other ones, even the first 2 are better imo. Hate claude for some reason, his character never appeals to me.

Edited June 29, 2015 by M1GU31

[Ethreon]

Overcast: Walden and the Werewolf and The Forgotten Ones, both available on steam, one for a small amount, the other for free. Horrible games, wasn't even able to finish them no matter how much I tried.