Looking through the lens of relativity, I’d have to say Witcher I. The fact that the fucking masterpiece that is Witcher III and not-amazing-but-definitely-worth-a-playthrough that is Witcher II both stemmed from the comically bad dumpster fire that was #1 is nothing short of a miracle.
The franchise should have died at #1, but I’m sure glad it didn’t.
I think that’s maybe a bit harsh compared to a lot of the games mentioned here. Witcher 1 definitely has a lot of problems compared to 2 and 3 but it had a lot going for it as well. Sure the combat was broken as hell once you got all the spinning moves and it was super sexist with the women as trading cards thing. But the story and world building were still fun and Geralt was well characterised. It’s not a great game but it did well enough to get them the sequels. Definitely nowhere near the worst game I’ve played.
I remember playing Witcher 1 and being thoroughly underwhelmed by it, so I’m glad to feel validated here instead of just having to label myself as a game troglodyte
There are a couple console games and one in my steam library that absolutely come to mind. As for which I think is worse is definitely up for debate because I think I dislike these 3 equally, even if I can only remember why I dislike two of them.
Don’t remember the exact entry, but I borrowed a Dynasty Warrior game from my brother (who didn’t like it as far as I’m aware) for xbox360 and something about it I just didn’t like at all. Then there’s Worms Blast. For a spin-off of worms, that from what I remember just feels like a worse bubble bobble style game, I was absolutely disappointed.
The Steam game is Macbat 64. By no means is it unplayable, add riddled, or full of annoyances preventing me from playing, but I beat it in less than 50 minutes. It’s a 3D platformer whose relatively small levels pay homage to other games, but it just wasn’t fun for me due to lack of content I was interested in (longer levels with more going on) when it comes to 3D platformers.
A bunch of early access survival crafting games on steam in the early days of early access. One was trying to be like starship troopers and it got like one update
I’m going to say Battletoads. The game was mostly pretty fun, until you got the jetski section where it was biologically impossible for a human to react in time. The only way to get past this level was to perfectly memorize the sequence of buttons to push.
This reminds me of a method of trying to evaluate art in an objective way. Basically you ask yourself 3 questions:
What is this trying to do?
Does it succeed in what it’s trying to do?
Is what it’s trying to do worth doing?
If the answers to 2 and 3 are “yes”, then it’s probably a good work of art. This helps remove the subjectivity of “do I enjoy it?” when evaluating a work.
I would say the answers for Desert Bus indicate that it is indeed a good work of art. It succeeds in being a monotonous parody of a video game which makes a political statement about what games would be if they lacked any fictional elements or conflict. And I think the statement P&T were trying to make with this game was definitely worth making. Plus, we know from the amount of people who play it as a streamed challenge game that there is some desire for a game like that to exist.
Sonic 06. This is coming from someone who eagerly wanted to be optimistic about the game, especially given how, on paper, it seemed very reminiscent of the Adventure games. I purchased an Xbox 360 and the game to try it out, to see if it really was as bad as people say it is.
It was…very sloppy. There are glitches everywhere, to the point where a significant amount of deaths will occur due to them, such as wall running physics just randomly breaking, causing you to fall into pits of lava, having to hit the jump button 10 times just so Knuckles jumps off of a wall every time, and even when not considering the glitches, the controls just feel awkward and clunky, Sonic himself is slow and the physics leave a lot to be desired. I enjoyed the story much more than what the gameplay had to offer.
Disregarding the absolutely unplayable and broken, I think it’s a toss up between the 2008 Alone in the Dark or Final Fantasy 15. I’m more inclined towards the latter because I haven’t played the former since release. It’s just a godawful RPG, if you can even call it that, the game basically plays itself, has no depth whatsoever, the open-world is meaningless and empty of anything interesting. Not to mention the story is both dogshit and a confusing mess nonsensically split between different DLCs, movies and god knows what else. Definitely the worst big budget RPG (again, if you can even call it that) I’ve played so far, it’s borderline insulting. The worst of it all? It was my first Final Fantasy and it was so bad it killed any interest I had in the series.
I also didn’t like AitD. The tank controls, static “3D” screens where you overlooked something if you didn’t walk into every corner and a new screen presented itself… Oh wait, you’re talking about a remaster? I’m talking about the original…