It’s been a long time, but I’ve still gotta go with Pac-Man for the Atari 2600. I begged my mother to show up at the mall first thing, certain that there would be a mad run on the cartridges and I’d miss out. I gave her $50 of my hard-earned cash, a princely sum for its time. School was a blur; I daydreamed of mazes and monsters, fruits and keys. The bus couldn’t get home fast enough, and I sprinted from the stop to our home. Barreled through the door, panting and sweating, to hear—not the familiar “wakka-wakka” of consumed dots, but instead a dull, monotonous beeping. “Bong bong bong ba-bong bong ba-bong bong.” Then I saw the screen, and my world collapsed into bitter anguish.
A close second would be “Mole Attack” for the VIC-20. Around $40, and even at the time on that system it was a piece of shit.
The early Budokai games were… interesting to say the least. Budokai 3, Budokai Tenkaichi 2/3, and (to a much lesser degree) Burst Limit are considered about as good as anime games get, bastard AI notwithstanding. The only ones that have come to the forefront of beating them are the […] of Ninja games coming out for Naruto, which I find incredibly hit/miss personally.
I never got this. What’s so bad about World at War? It’s practically the same as Modern Warfare, just with a different skin. I argue that the sub-machineguns are a little overpowered and the bolt-action rifles are a little underpowered, but outside of that, I actually find it to be the superior game.
I’m pretty sure I got it as a Christmas present, which is the only reason I can say it isn’t the biggest waste of my gaming dollars. On the cosmic justice level, however, Atari still owes me a decent prezzie.
I guess that’s just it: it felt too similar to Modern Warfare. WaW could have been a mod offered on the PSN for $19.99. The jump from CoD3 to MW was quite big - the graphics were sharper, the gameplay was more polished, the multiplayer was spot-on, and the modern setting was refreshing.
WaW saw no vast improvements. It went back to the tired WWII theme, and although some of the levels were inspired (i.e. the PT boat stage), the rest felt repetitive and mundane (shoot at an endless stream of enemies until a game timer runs out, move on to a new area, lather, rinse, repeat).
The graphics were nothing special, but they weren’t terrible for the day. The cutscenes were fantastic. The soundtrack was one of the best I’ve ever heard.
I’m not. It was a great fucking game. I’m not saying it was better than Goldeneye, because I never played Goldeneye. But it was a hell of a lot of fun, and it broke a lot of ground in new game developments. I still play it occasionally today.
Many of mine have been said, but just to reiterate:
Master of Orion III - I literally destroyed my game discs rather than sell 'em or give 'em away, it was that bad.
Imperium Galactica II - This was the one that made me wait for reviews before I bought a game (which led to me dodging a bullet with Battle of Britain II)
Battlecruiser 3000AD - Oh how I wish this game did 10% of what the box claimed.
I had ET for the Atari and it wasn’t as bad as the first or third items on this list.
I was forewarned of this one, mercifully. But people who bought it owe it themselves to soothe their space 4x souls with Sword of the Stars. I know I wander through and plug it every so often, but it’s hard to pass up a chance when you hear people lamenting their MOO3 purchase.
I may have another: I just got Feeble Files from gog, and it’s been a lot of fun and interesting for a decade old game.
But now I’m in a spot where I have to win games to proceed! I hate that shit! I didn’t like it in Leisure Suit Larry, and I don’t like it now! I need 240 tokens to proceed, and I can win 5 tokens about 1/3 of the time. Fuck this shit. Developers who insist on making a game of this sort unwinnable without a long and consistent streak of luck or a tedious series of tucking away five tokens and saving 48 times should be shot without trial.
You do know that Goldeneye had about six different methods of controlling Bond, right?
I always did want to become proficient using two controllers for one character. First and last time I saw it as an option, to use two controllers, was Goldeneye. Bad assery at its finest if I do say so myself.
They could have made the control schemes more explanatory though. I used the default from release, thinking it was the only useful one after frittering with each of the others for about 20 seconds. Two years ago I had a friend over and we got out the old N64. He showed me you can change it so you aim with the control stick and move with the yellow buttons. That’s so much easier than aiming with the yellow buttons! He wiped the floor with me, but it was well worth that bit of information.
Oh, gods, I think I had blacked out memory of that game. I didn’t think of it once as I was sifting through my memory while reading this thread. Now I’m having flashbacks of having enemy lawyer units paralyze my cities by “filing injunctions” with impunity. shuddershudder
Master Of Orion III was indeed a huge letdown. It played like a clone of Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain, which had come out about five and a half years earlier and was also terrible. Having to live up to the Master of Orion name made it that much worse, though.
Similarly, Civilization III was pretty bad. In particular, the corruption and waste mechanic just wrecked everything. It would totally cripple a globe-spanning empire, and you’d actually end up weaker if you’d conquer your enemies. Using the world editor to remove corruption and waste would make the game halfway playable, but it really wasn’t balanced around having little or no corruption/waste. Oh, and the way they implemented unit hit points was pretty crummy, too.
Imperialism II also failed to capture the feel of its excellent predecessor. Shifting to an earlier time period was a huge mistake IMO. The changes they made to terrain improvements, research, and resources in general were all steps backward, too.
