Worst Games You have ever played (in your opinion)

[Arron Oberon]

Be nice to me, please.
I'm going to have to say Tetris
Sure It's fun but it won't really keep me hooked for that long a close second would be 2048

[Rynjin]

I genuinely and sincerely envy you that the worst game you've ever played is one you even admit is fun.

I think the worst game I've ever played is still the Van Helsing game for the PS2, which was a tie-in to the Hugh Jackman movie that came out around that time. It's one of those games that actively fights your attempts just to PLAY it, with constant crashes, a camera that just does whatever it feels like doing at the time, and nut-crushingly tedious levels filled with damage sponge enemies you can't even see half the time due to the aforementioned terrible camera.

Honorable mention goes to Hitman 2: Silent Assassin for being a game where you play a genetically engineered super-assassin whose base walking speed is slower than your targets' and who gets spotted at the drop of a hat. It's the only Hitman game I beat by just going in guns blazing and killing everything in every level from start to finish because any attempt at stealth or nonlethal takedowns ended in abject disaster.

Honorable mention 2 goes to Dragon Age Inquisition for being literally non-functional on release and having a plot that seems to exist to systematically eliminate everything creative and interesting about the setting laid out in the first game.

[factotum]

Battlecruiser 3000AD. Even if you ignore the UI that looks like a keyboard threw up on the screen, the game itself was buggy as all heck and borderline unplayable. Which is a crying shame, because I remember once getting into a fighter and watching my main battlecruiser slowly move past like something out of an SF movie, and thinking how awesome it looked...

[veti]

Battlecruiser 3000AD. Even if you ignore the UI that looks like a keyboard threw up on the screen, the game itself was buggy as all heck and borderline unplayable.

Hah. At least you got to play it. The damn game wouldn't even run for me.

I'm going to nominate Heroes of Might and Magic V, mostly because I loved the whole series up to then but V was tedious and soulless. Even on its own terms it sucked, its interminable cutscenes combining jjuvenile writing with middle-school-level artwork. In a similar vein, Neverwinter Nights 2 deserves some kind of award for most crushingly disappointing sequel.

[houlio]

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.

[Eternal Dharma]

Conan Exiles was one of the worst games that I have ever played. I know there was some that were worse, but I can't remember their names. I had unrealistically high hopes for Conan Exiles due to being a fan of the old comics and the Schwarzenegger adaptations for them. Apart from some nice physiques and bodily aesthetics, there wasn't really too much going on. The controls were clunky, the crafting system was lackluster, combat felt like you were hitting jello people with balloon animals because of the lack of impact physics and visceral sound effects, and I fell through the world about ten times and ended up right back at where you first spawn into the game. It was a horrible experience.

Fallout 76 is right behind Conan Exiles though and only ranks slightly higher because at least the gunplay felt decent. That game is still one of the worst things ever and, if I were a particularly superstitious man, all of the things happening with things even tangentially-related to that game, like the power armor helmet recalls, would lead me to believe that it is cursed.

The worst AAA title I have ever played though would be, hands-down Mass Effect Andromeda. All you need to do is apply some Google-fu and you can see why that game was awful. Plasticine faces, bad combat, lifeless worlds, unlikable characters, and a really disjointed story all made the game something Bioware should be ashamed of.

[Dienekes]

Honorable mention 2 goes to Dragon Age Inquisition for being literally non-functional on release and having a plot that seems to exist to systematically eliminate everything creative and interesting about the setting laid out in the first game.

Interesting take. Out of curiosity what makes you think this. Honestly I felt that it expanded some of the things I found interesting. Especially pointing out the mage problem was an eternal repeating occurrence. Something it always should have been portrayed as.

Anyway, worst game I’ve played was Superman 64, but I played that to experience the horribleness so I’m not certain I should count it. I mean sure it’s the worst but I knew what I was getting into on that one.

Worst game I was hoping to enjoy and play but just found terrible was Godzilla for the gameboy. I bought a Godzilla game. I wanted to play Godzilla fighting monsters, shooting atomic breath, destroying cities. What is this boulder moving crap? Why can I only punch? I can’t even fight Ghidorah? I have to run away the whole game? What Godzilla movies were these people watching?

[Vinyadan]

Arma (Operation Flashpoint CWC). As it is now, it's prone to bugs, and I believe they did some odd updates that made the game difficult to the point of being unplayable in single player.

Beyond Divinity. Game made in 18 months with the only purpose of quick money to keep the studio afloat. You lead a party of two. If one dies, both die. Even choosing what skill to upgrade after you go up a level is, interface-wise, sluggish. Impossible fights early on if you aren't geared for combat. Monsters were made in 3d to be able to reuse the same animations across different creatures.

[Narkis]

I have heard talk that there exists a game called "Command and Conquer 4". That's a lie. Such a game has never been made. And if it were, I'm sure Westwood would have created a great game, a proper ending to the Tiberium war and Kane's story, and not at all a soulless moneygrabbing thing with little in common to one of the best RTS series ever made. And it would have definitely not been the worst game someone had played.

[The Glyphstone]

I have heard talk that there exists a game called "Command and Conquer 4". That's a lie. Such a game has never been made. And if it were, I'm sure Westwood would have created a great game, a proper ending to the Tiberium war and Kane's story, and not at all a soulless moneygrabbing thing with little in common to one of the best RTS series ever made. And it would have definitely not been the worst game someone had played.

Similarly, I'm glad the Red Alert series ended with Yuri's Revenge. Someday they'll make Red Alert 3, and I'm sure it won't be a warped parody of its own franchise that kills off/retcons the only entertaining characters, hires big-name actors and criminally underutilizes them, and grafts the whole thing into a frustrating system designed to force online/co-op play in a single-player campaign.

[Keltest]

Personally, Dungeon Siege 3. Its not a terrible game in and of itself, but as somebody who enjoyed the gameplay of the first two, it really dropped the ball completely. The plot also hinges on a particularly unexplored (and therefore rather weak) aspect of the setting, the metaphysics, and doesn't really mesh with what was established by the previous games very well.

[Antonok]

I think the worst game I've ever played is still the Van Helsing game for the PS2, which was a tie-in to the Hugh Jackman movie that came out around that time. It's one of those games that actively fights your attempts just to PLAY it, with constant crashes, a camera that just does whatever it feels like doing at the time, and nut-crushingly tedious levels filled with damage sponge enemies you can't even see half the time due to the aforementioned terrible camera.

This.... scarily summarizes to my playthrough of Mass Effect: Andromeda. Console release of that game was just straight up bad.

[Yora]

Star Wars Episode 1.

I was 15 and loved all the Star Wars I could get, so I completed this game at least once, possibly even twice. But it's just so horribly bad.

[Vinyadan]

Star Wars Episode 1.

I was 15 and loved all the Star Wars I could get, so I completed this game at least once, possibly even twice. But it's just so horribly bad.

This reminds me of Star Wars Rebellion, a grand strategy game with the clunkiest interface ever devised by Man.

[Yora]

I actually really liked that one.

[Narkis]

Yeah, me too. The interface was really bad, no doubt, but the game itself was pretty good.

And on the bright side, that experience was invaluable when I later got into Paradox games. They were a stroll in the park in comparison.

[Tvtyrant]

Naruto ultimate warrior for the ps2. It stands out for its terrible plot and having one completely broken move that you just spam the entire time, being explosive note tosses.

[Zevox]

Hm, that's hard to say, honestly. One that comes to mind quickly for me is Final Fantasy 13, as that's a game where I legitimately feel like I've gotten more entertainment out of complaining about how bad its story was with friends who also played it than I did actually playing it. And yet I wouldn't even call that the worst Final Fantasy game I've played, as its gameplay was at least decent enough that I did play it all the way through, something I can't say for Final Fantasy 8, which was just so bad all around that I did not get far before giving up on it entirely.

But there are definitely more poorly made games out there than FF8, some of which I've played. Sonic and the Secret Rings comes to mind, for instance, as one that had such terrible motion controls that I very quickly gave up on it as basically unplayable. That one might take the crown for games I can clearly remember playing, honestly, just because of how fundamental that issue is.

But I also know that when I was a kid I used to rent games (NES, Sega Genesis, and N64) from a local video store regularly, and I'm sure I must have run across some awful games back then; I just largely don't remember them at this point. I do know that at times I considered renting the infamous Superman 64, for instance, but I don't think I ever did, as when I've seen videos of that game's first levels they don't look familiar. I did rent Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero at least once, though, and when I've seen that played on youtube in recent years, wow, I did not remember how terrible it was, I just recalled having enough trouble with it that I never got far into it. That one might be a top contender for the crown of worst I've ever played personally, at least that I can remember playing.

[DarthArminius]

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

[Rynjin]

Interesting take. Out of curiosity what makes you think this. Honestly I felt that it expanded some of the things I found interesting. Especially pointing out the mage problem was an eternal repeating occurrence. Something it always should have been portrayed as.

Dragon Age Inquisition and to a lesser extent 2 suffers from the "both sides problem".

In Origins, you have very clearly oppressed groups: Elves and Mages. The former is oppressed due to simple bigotry and a clear disdain for their traditional way of life. The latter is due to a slightly more understandable fear of the power they wield, and ingrained religious intolerance. It's a complex world where sometimes bad things happen because people suck; strip out all the fantasy elements and it's pretty true to life. Life isn't fair.

Inquisition decides that this is too nuanced and interesting. Elves need to be oppressed as some sort of cosmic karma for what they were like thousands of years ago, and mages deserve to be oppressed because "look, see? Look away from them for FIVE MINUTES and they commit atrocities against god and man! Get 'em!".

It goes from "this is ****ty but understandable" to "**** worldbuilding, I need a plot".

[DarthArminius]

Dragon Age Inquisition and to a lesser extent 2 suffers from the "both sides problem".

In Origins, you have very clearly oppressed groups: Elves and Mages. The former is oppressed due to simple bigotry and a clear disdain for their traditional way of life. The latter is due to a slightly more understandable fear of the power they wield, and ingrained religious intolerance. It's a complex world where sometimes bad things happen because people suck; strip out all the fantasy elements and it's pretty true to life. Life isn't fair.

Inquisition decides that this is too nuanced and interesting. Elves need to be oppressed as some sort of cosmic karma for what they were like thousands of years ago, and mages deserve to be oppressed because "look, see? Look away from them for FIVE MINUTES and they commit atrocities against god and man! Get 'em!".

It goes from "this is ****ty but understandable" to "**** worldbuilding, I need a plot".

Eh, I disagree. I never got the idea that Elves were blamed for what their ancestors did by the developers, and the mage problem, while still there, was introduced by Dragon Age 2.

[Keltest]

Eh, I disagree. I never got the idea that Elves were blamed for what their ancestors did by the developers, and the mage problem, while still there, was introduced by Dragon Age 2.

Agreed. Inquisition also runs with the idea that maybe mages wouldn't be so quick to fly off the handle if they didn't have an army of religious devotees out there dedicated specifically to killing them. And Inquisition doesn't really touch on the plight of city elves at all, even if the Dalish come out looking like gits.

[Kitten Champion]

I don't know how I'd measure "worst" in terms of games. There are quite a lot of games which I've played which were barely functional or downright broken, games which might've been passable at the time but are excruciatingly dated, games which left such little impact on me that I've forgotten I played them, games which I had actual expectations for that failed to meet them, games that have punishing difficulty that merely serves to frustrate after a point, or games which have online communities so rancid that they fill me with existential despair.

But even with those, I can appreciate the effort some have put into making a thing on some level... so I'd pick several mobile games I've tried - the specific one doesn't matter as they generally have the same mechanics and failings - where the "game" is mostly waiting and largely plays itself. With heavy advertising, constant attempts to connect me to the game via social media, an intentionally confusing UI and in-game economy to disorient me, and even if I did theoretically spend money to get through the paywall mechanics... it's not much of a game in the first place. A lot of games I've disliked playing over my lifetime have failed somewhere in the process, but they still try to be games to begin with. These start from the idea of conning people out of money using now well-established psychological tricks and then the rest of the game exists as as excuse to justify any of it.

[Dienekes]

Dragon Age Inquisition and to a lesser extent 2 suffers from the "both sides problem".

In Origins, you have very clearly oppressed groups: Elves and Mages. The former is oppressed due to simple bigotry and a clear disdain for their traditional way of life. The latter is due to a slightly more understandable fear of the power they wield, and ingrained religious intolerance. It's a complex world where sometimes bad things happen because people suck; strip out all the fantasy elements and it's pretty true to life. Life isn't fair.

Inquisition decides that this is too nuanced and interesting. Elves need to be oppressed as some sort of cosmic karma for what they were like thousands of years ago, and mages deserve to be oppressed because "look, see? Look away from them for FIVE MINUTES and they commit atrocities against god and man! Get 'em!".

It goes from "this is ****ty but understandable" to "**** worldbuilding, I need a plot".

Ahh. You see I find I’m drawn to the opposite thinking. “Here are oppressed groups!” I found honestly pretty boring. Especially when placed as part of decision based rpg. Who are you going to side with? The oppressed group. Always the oppressed group. There’s nothing really interesting for me there.

I actually greatly prefer where the decision is an actual difficult decision. Especially since for the mage problem all the way back in DA:O the setting is set up to make mage dominance so easy. The quickest and most efficient ways for Mages to gain power are to side with demons and sacrifice other people with blood magic. In that setting the question then becomes “why don’t a small cabal of supremely powerful blood drunk mages rule the world?” To me, exploring that specific question is good world building, since the magic system designed by the world should directly reach that conclusion.

This can then be leveraged into the decisions of the player. How can someone find a way to avoid mage dominance without becoming oppressors yourself? And I’ve found that question fascinating.

In the same way I found the king of the dwarves question fascinating back in DAO. Can you stomach putting a murderous backstabbing little sociopath on the throne if he’s the best chance for social reform?

But honestly the games themselves only kinda allude to that question and instead just gave a bunch of stupid or evil people to untangle. That’s what I’ve always thought to be the weakness of the DA series. It presents the outline for these brilliantly complicated philosophical questions. But answers them with storytelling logic instead of exploring the systems created.

[Wardog]

Oh, you young-uns, with your modern, sub-standard games, with mere bad gameplay and poorly-thoughtout plots. You should see what we oldies had to suffer through back in 8-bit days.

Behold: the horror of Roland on the Ropes, on the Amstrad CPC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6bJnZkNSQ8

And yes, that flickering is original, not an artefact of the recording. I never even got out of the first level, because the graphics and sfx always gave me a terrible headache before I could find my way out.

[factotum]

The problem is, the entry point for writing a game was far lower back then, so naturally you got a lot more dross. It's actually harder to write a truly dreadful game nowadays because it takes a lot more effort to do so, assuming we're not talking about crappy Unity store asset flips.

[Kesnit]

Heretic Kingdoms: The Inquisition

I tried to play this a little over 10 years ago and maybe got 15 minutes in. That includes the time I spent looking for a way to heal after a bear attacked me and left me at 1/4 health. I never did find a way to heal, meaning anything I encountered after that would one-shot me.

[Hunter Noventa]

Sword of Hope 2 for the Gameboy was...aggressively mediocre. Didn't help that you could softlock in the first dungeon, from what I recall. I beat it, but it's still an awful game.

[DeTess]

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

[Keltest]

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

Divinity pretty clearly expects save scumming, and they ran with it. I can see why it wouldn't be to somebody's tastes, especially if they want to get a "perfect" playthrough without using a guide, but its definitely a feature, not a bug. If you lose in a fight (say, one where you get ambushed by a bunch of earth-and-fire-immune monsters, cough cough) when you die the first time, they want you to be able to go back and train your fire wizard to blast ice instead, and then win the fight that way.