Your favourite 'worst' game of 2011


Recommended Posts

I actually liked Red Faction: Armageddon. That game seems to get a lot of unfair hatred. Good graphics, decent story, destroying **** and maybe rebuilding it (which was cool) with the awesome weapons they give you, not to mention some of the things you get to drive to really obliterate everything in your path.... What more could anyone ask for? :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious Sam 3: BFE was nearly uniformly panned by critics. I blame the fact that Croteam is a small euro studio without an ability to bribe them. After all, user scores shove the truth in these 'critics' faces.

I seriously enjoyed it. Pure oldschool run backwards and gun with contemporary graphics. The start was slow and spider-horror levels might not have been that fun, I give that. But the final level with seriously huge waves of enemies and the final boss made the game as such and fulfilled the "no cover, all man" promise. And, hey, we can see a seriously huge sandworm battling an insect-robot in ME3 trailer, let's just guess who "inspired" whom there; I would deny any coincidence. Lastly, Duke, eat your d* out. It was all the fun Duke could ever hope to be. Well, except boobs, that I can frankly do without these days. Seriously serious.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinect Sports: Season Two is insanely fun despite getting worse reviews than the original. Really don't understand why it didn't get better scores.

And although it got rated well, a lot of the gaming community felt like Crysis 2 wasn't as good as the original. I thought it was just as good, if not better, just chose a different style of gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may get a lot of flak for this, but Sword of the Stars 2. The game was released in a horribly broken state, but much like Sword of the Stars 1 i'm starting to see the gem shining through after the fixes. Once they get this all fixed up (most major bugs are now gone) i can see it being one of the best 4x games of all times. I played a match on the 24th of December, and actually had a lot of fun when it was working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rock of Ages. Currently got a score of 74 on Metacritic. For how much it costs, I'd personally give it 9/10. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Crysis 2 is another one that got panned by users but critics praised. I honestly don't get how people can say it's a worse game than the first, or even complain about the controls. The controls are the best part! Using the nanosuit in the pc version of Crysis was very clunky. So, I was glad to see they had adressed that, and even went as far as to use it in the console version of Crysis. The single player was nearly flawless despite the human based A.I. acting like I wasn't even there at times. EA and Crytek have a chance to add more life to the game by fixing the remaining issues and more importantly integrating the DLC into the main playlists. Despite those issues, I still have a blast with the MP even to this day.

The sad part about it all is that Crysis 2 was completely ignored by any awards. Not even a nominee for best graphics anywhere.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke!!!

yes i knew it was going to be bad when i bought it but i just wanted the same ol cheesy lines and Dukism's :D i even bought the collector edition for the Duke Bust :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alice: Madness Returns

Got a 70 on Metacritic, so not horribly reviewed. But I love it. It's not a perfect game, or very complex, but I find it extremely interesting and fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Alice: Madness returns, too. Mainly because there's just not too many platformers anymore. The graphics could've been better, a lot better, but for a platformer there's definitely plenty to like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Crysis 2 is another one that got panned by users but critics praised. I honestly don't get how people can say it's a worse game than the first, or even complain about the controls. The controls are the best part! Using the nanosuit in the pc version of Crysis was very clunky. So, I was glad to see they had adressed that, and even went as far as to use it in the console version of Crysis. The single player was nearly flawless despite the human based A.I. acting like I wasn't even there at times. EA and Crytek have a chance to add more life to the game by fixing the remaining issues and more importantly integrating the DLC into the main playlists. Despite those issues, I still have a blast with the MP even to this day.

The sad part about it all is that Crysis 2 was completely ignored by any awards. Not even a nominee for best graphics anywhere.

Well, compared to Crysis 1 the graphics in Crysis 2 were inferior (although still not bad) and the story doesn't really have anything to do with the first game other than Prophet being in the start of the game. That's why so many pc gamers were disappointed with it and why it didn't get any awards. Also the complete disaster on the multiplayer side of things.. Crytek can't blame anyone but themselves for that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What disaster? Outside of the DLC, there was nothing wrong with the MP. I'd love to know what game you played.

To say it was because of the graphics being "worse" or the story not having "anything to do with the first game" the reason why it didn't get any awards is absurb. It's the same bs as to why no one liked Red Faction: Amargeddon, no one likes change. It's why CoD keeps selling like hotcakes while they keep everything the same. Gamers are spoiled and want to keep paying $60 for the same pile of crap. I love that SOME companies aren't afraid to take their games to a different route. Both Crysis and Crysis 2 are great games, yet have different approaches to how you explore each games world that happen to work well with each one. There just simply was no reason to complain about the game as much as gamers did, and as far as I'm concerned on PC the game with looks just as good or better than Crysis from the videos I've seen. IMO, it doesn't even matter since both games look fantastic. On the console side, it should have been a toss up between Rage, Crysis 2, and Batman: AC. BF3 shouldn't have even been an option.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, compared to Crysis 1 the graphics in Crysis 2 were inferior (although still not bad) and the story doesn't really have anything to do with the first game other than Prophet being in the start of the game. That's why so many pc gamers were disappointed with it and why it didn't get any awards. Also the complete disaster on the multiplayer side of things.. Crytek can't blame anyone but themselves for that one.

I don't even remotely agree with that. The DX11 Crysis 2 graphics blow out the original Crysis. I also thought the multiplayer was far, far better than the original's, but to each his own (Y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rage on PC. I loved the action, maybe even more so than top performers like BF3 (which was a better game overall). However, it did have a couple of mistakes and could have been a lot better without those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What disaster? Outside of the DLC, there was nothing wrong with the MP. I'd love to know what game you played.

To say it was because of the graphics being "worse" or the story not having "anything to do with the first game" the reason why it didn't get any awards is absurb. It's the same bs as to why no one liked Red Faction: Amargeddon, no one likes change. It's why CoD keeps selling like hotcakes while they keep everything the same. Gamers are spoiled and want to keep paying $60 for the same pile of crap. I love that SOME companies aren't afraid to take their games to a different route. Both Crysis and Crysis 2 are great games, yet have different approaches to how you explore each games world that happen to work well with each one. There just simply was no reason to complain about the game as much as gamers did, and as far as I'm concerned on PC the game with looks just as good or better than Crysis from the videos I've seen. IMO, it doesn't even matter since both games look fantastic. On the console side, it should have been a toss up between Rage, Crysis 2, and Batman: AC. BF3 shouldn't have even been an option.

Really?

Here's a short list:

  1. Progress for perks and unlocks resetting for months after release (pretty sure this happened on consoles, too)
  2. No anti-cheat to speak of so hacking was rampant, more so than in any other game I've ever seen
  3. Pirates being able to use pirated cd-keys to play online with legit customers for weeks after launch
  4. Bad weapon balance, if you weren't using the scar you were being left behind
  5. Ground textures were black in every single map, not fixed for months after release
  6. Aimbot hackers..
  7. Invisible hackers...
  8. Unlimited ammo hackers....
  9. Unlimited armor hackers.....
  10. Unlimited power hackers......
  11. Flying hackers.....
  12. Due to #3 hackers that were banned could instantly create a new key and get right back into the game
  13. Severe server connection/stability issues

You get the idea. Worst multiplayer experience ever. If you try to deny any of this happened or that it only happened in small scale you didn't play on the pc version.

I don't even remotely agree with that. The DX11 Crysis 2 graphics blow out the original Crysis. I also thought the multiplayer was far, far better than the original's, but to each his own (Y)

Yes but that didn't come out for at least 5 months after the initial release of the game, at which time most people lost all interest in the game. Personally I didn't think the dx11 stuff really improved all that much over the dx9, but you could definitely feel the impact to performance. Also, you misunderstand me. I said the multiplayer had serious problems, I did not say I hated it. In fact liked it quite a bit and I had 60 hours into it before I got fed up with all the problems (see above). And on top of all that they still wanted to sell people dlc at $15 a pop.

The technical aspects of the game (at launch) are why the game wasn't recognized as it could/should have been. Crytek are the only ones to blame for that. Had they waited to release the game for 6 months they could have fixed 80% of the problems the game had, released it with hi-res textures and dx11 graphics, proper graphics configuration (for the pc) and the game would have been recieved much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't experience not one of those issues. Then again, I never played on the PC, only 360. Stats and whatnot were never once reset, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't experience not one of those issues. Then again, I never played on the PC, only 360. Stats and whatnot were never once reset, either.

Well, like I said, the game was released about 6 months too early. I don't know if that was Cryteks choice or if EA forced them to stick to that release date, either way the technical side of the game was just lazily done (pc version, and no offense intended) but the consoles are the reason for that.

Anyways, one game I enjoyed from 2011 that most considered bad was Dragon Age 2. Disappointing that it didn't have much to do with Dragon Age: Origins/Awakening but it still wasnt bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rage, I feel like ID made it as a tech demo as they were told months before release the same problems reviewers had with the game. But for $20-30 its worth a play through if you like the setting. I get the under 80 thing but I hate the praise Skyrim is getting in its buggy state. Including bull**** like in Gameinformer where it takes GOTY over the only perfect 10s Arkham City(my pick) and Skyward Sword(2nd pick). I enjoy Skyrim, its a top 10 game of 2011 for me maybe top 5, but those bugs should not be excused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.