Shit games that could have been good

I'm going with Bioshock Infinite. I immensely enjoyed the first two games and the freedoms they gave. From what I remember the trailer for Infinite was awesome and the hype was real. Then Infinite comes out.


I'd bother shitting on the game more there's really only two things I remember: They went down to 2 guns. A game series that gave the player choice on tackling situations decided it'd be a good idea to only let you have two weapons at a time. I remember also being mad at vita chambers in Infinite for some reason but I can't remember why because I always did no vita chamber runs on 1/2. I also vaguely remember gamergate getting the main love interest to have smaller boobs, so that was also a thing.

I couldn't be bothered to beat it and just watched MatthewMatosis shit on it instead:
 
Allegiance. A unique sort of space sim/RTS combo. You flew ships and each team had a commander that would order you around. It was one of the first games with built in voice chat too.

Nothing wrong with the game itself. It was actually very well designed. The problem is that the game had a very high learning curve and the devs ran an open beta before it actually released. The people who played the open beta obviously had a huge jumpstart learning the tech trees and how the game worked, and this created an absolutely incredibly toxic community where you'd get immediately votekicked if you fucked anything up.

The game essentially died because the community chased every new player off. It was worse than Natural Selection and that's saying something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.Miyagi
Fish Simulator: Agonik Lake.

Or, really, this is just a post about what a fish simulator would be in my imagination. I got this piece of shit for $2.50, knowing it was going to be a simple arcadey game, and that's okay. Not everything needs to be a deep simulation; indeed, some of the best things I've ever played were little toy games I got for a few bucks, and in part because they have such refined gameplay. But there is a difference between simple gamey gameplay and not having gameplay. I mean, I like Mitos.is and Worm.is quite a bit.

Fish Simulator's conceit is you are a fish trying to bulk up to pass arbitrary gates until you beat the lake, I guess. You have a health bar, your enemies have health bars if they're big enough relative to you to fight back. As of yet I have been unable to find skill or combat in it; it seems like there's no real relation between where their mouth is and where you are, no opportunity for hit and run tactics. If you are close enough it is just attrition and it isn't worth fighting over. Aside from that, there are eagles and fishermen that each have some tactic (button press) that deals with them, and come on suddenly like a jumpscare/QTE. It's basically a Flash game that, in this Age of Steam, had the gall to sell itself for money.

And the shame is, a fish simulation could actually be very good without requiring a ton more depth. Now, some of this depth would come from having literal depth, 3D environments instead of a 2D plane. The first thing is, take the fishermen as an example. There are tons of fishing games, even tons of fishing minigames due to the Japanese, but when have you ever gotten to play fishing from the fish's perspective? The fishermen acts as a one hit kill over a wide area, and you have a lives system and respawn in the same spot, so it's basically more like another type of health bar. Well, imagine if instead you got to fight the fisherman. If you were fast and came from the right angle you could steal the bait. If you get caught, then you could:
1) Fight him reeling in, maybe like a mimicry game or something, timing your "swim harder" button for when you need it to stress the line
2) Tangle yourself in underwater foliage and objects. The game has scenery, but no actual interactable stuff. Tangling would be a way to stress the line more.

If you want to go crazy with it, you might portray the fish as having the limited perspective of a fish. You feel a sort of sonar (I assume fish do sense vibrations in the water?), a crude sight, and a sense of smell (Ancestors did a great job of portraying smell as basically being its version of Eagle Vision/Batman vision and implementing it in a way that felt natural). You can see the lake floor in full majesty, but other critters are hidden behind fog of war. Now you have to sense out when things are hitting the water, not knowing if they're berries falling in, bugs landing, fish splashing, fishhooks, etc. I mean, you can tell. There could be learning (oh, that's cheese, so it's definitely bait, whereas worms may or may not be bait), and of course the nature of it (like a bigger splash vs a smaller splash), but mind games would be a big part of it. Imagine a multiplayer version of this with asymmetric fisherman vs fish gameplay!

The game also has a dodge button that's fucking useless except on the fisherman, which doesn't make sense. Suppose instead if you could hide yourself in foliage to avoid predators or lay ambushes. If it was 3D (basically small-scale Maneater, then) you could have proper chases.

Finally, layer on some basic ecology like fishing games do with different biomes (by a beach, shore underneath tree cover, deep ditch in the middle of the river) with different animal and fisherman patterns for different biomes at different times of day.

Overall, a fish simulator would be awesome if thought and care was put into making it, basically make it be about being the legendary folk hero fish that town lore has given a name - the 50 billion pound catfish that eats Boy Scouts or whatever - as a clever subversion of the fishing genre. To, rather than chasing that "great white whale," to be that great white whale after clawing your way to the top of the food chain.

I also would like a Maneater game about being a whale in the golden age of whaling, but that will never happen.
 
Or, really, this is just a post about what a fish simulator would be in my imagination.
Tangentially related, but I think there is a market for animal simulators. Like actual simulators, not joke ones like Goat Simulator. I was watching some waterfowl once and reflecting on the fact that a game based on being a bird like a swan would be neat. Have you ever seen a swan taking off and landing? It's cool as shit.

I like the idea of a game where you take off and land, use birds' ability to see polarized light to orient yourself in the air and just do whatever it is that birds do.
 
Feel free to rate me :optimistic: for this one but I think, if certain events that caused the game to such a flaming-hot pile of shit didn't happen, Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly could've been a serviceable entry in the franchise. Not at the same level as the OG trilogy but pretty damn close.
Spyro_-_Enter_the_Dragonfly_Coverart.jpg
To put it in layman's terms a combination of factors (inexperience at the hands of developers Equinoxe Check Six Studios and Equinoxe Digital Entertainment, disagreements between them and Universal Interactive, and Universal Interactive forcing major revisions to the project mid-development whilst pushing for a holiday 2002 window with no extensions) turned the game in to a buggy, ugly mess that feels like it's held together with chewed bubblegum and rusty paperclips.

The game also failed to meet the public's expectations, the game's PS2 version got mixed-to-average reviews whilst the Gamecube version was negatively reviewed. To add insult to injury, Insomniac's Ted Price slammed the game as well, comparing the Spyro IP to an abused stepchild and called the game a travesty. Stewart Copeland, who worked on Enter the Dragonfly's soudtrack, actually left the IP until the Reignited Trilogy when he was shown an advert for Enter the Dragonfly (which I've included below for you viewing displeasure) and felt that it didn't feel like Spyro.

Hell, look at this gameplay video (it's done via emulation so there even more bugs) and tell me with a straight face there's a God.

If you ask me the GBA's Season entries do a better job of capturing the OG trilogy's magic despite hardware downgrade. After that point the IP kind of goes into a bit of an identity crisis with the next GBA entry adding more collect-a-thon elements and fetch quests, a minigame collection that crosses over with Crash Bandicoot, a home console game that slightly retools the IP, an RPG game for the DS, a full-blown reboot in the form the Legend of Spyro series, and a second reboot in the form of the Skylanders IP until the Reginited Trilogy comes out.
 
Last edited:
To put it in layman's terms a combination of factors (inexperience at the hands of developers Equinoxe Check Six Studios and Equinoxe Digital Entertainment, disagreements between them and Universal Interactive, and Universal Interactive forcing major revisions to the project mid-development whilst pushing for a holiday 2002 window with no extensions) turned the game in to a buggy, ugly mess that feels like it's held together with chewed bubblegum and rusty paperclips.
I think my favorite part of Enter the Dragonfly being such a buggy mess is that the game starts you out right next to the portal to the final boss, and you can just ground pound straight through the earth right into it. So you can beat the game in just one minute. I think Ripto's also supposed to use different spells that require you to use the different elemental attacks to beat him, with different boss phases, but since you only have fire, he just... doesn't. You just roast him a few times and it's over. It almost feels like a developer prank.
 
Kentucky Route Zero.

It's most famous for a delayed release schedule. Kickstarted in 2011, KRZ was released in five parts, with developers stating that the entire series would be released in 2013.
  • January 7, 2013
  • May 31, 2013 - few months, so far so good
  • May 6, 2014 - a year, that's weird, but maybe life happened
  • July 19, 2016 - two years, this is a bad trend
  • January 28, 2020 - what the fuck
This is not someone's magnum opus. It's a ten hour walking simulator. The game was hyped by the gaming press when the first few episodes came out. Like any shit game, when true and honest gamers asked why the last part of a piece of interactive fiction with mouse clicks as gameplay took four years to develop, toxic defenders said it was the Citizen Kane Of Video Games and indie developers naturally take longer. In reality, the developers made all their money during the hype years of 2013-2014, and Steam wasn't granting refunds, so there was no rush.

No, it isn't even a good game. It's just pretentious.
So I started playing that today. I bought it something like ten years ago on a big discount, started it, had some intense emotional reaction for whatever reason to the first song scene with the band, and then kind of forgot about it, never bothering to actually get it out and play it until today. And I quickly gave up in disgust.

I had this phase in high school and maybe early college where I was a vidya snob, I didn't play a ton of indies but I did listen to games journalists, sought out obscure stuff, stuff like that. And this just seems like piss. It reminds me an awful lot of a similar shitty game, Where the Water Tastes Like Wine. The problem I see it is that age old problem, video games have no standards when it comes to writing. They have no standards when it comes to prose. The only thing a game needs to do is put in any effort at all into dialogue and presentation and it will be given accolades. That's how Rockstar's rambling, incoherent messes (from either RDR to LA Noire) get praised to high heaven like they're storytelling masterpieces. When a game is successful storytelling it's almost always because it plays into the actual strengths of its artistic medium (and then gets wankers bitching about it, see Undertale) or because it rips off a successful movie (like LA Noire did).

So here you have mAgIcAl ReAlIsM. A genre that I thought I liked but have started questioning. You wander up and down a pitch black map, occasionally with some light thrown in (what do they call that, expressionism?), and go through choose-your-own adventure novel meaningless text options. It's structured as a play script (how cute), a medium that is not intended to be read at all because it cuts out prose. A hack's medium, when used as a substitute for prose. (Contrast to Disco Elysium, which was written by an author and has book-quality prose for that reason.) It's all vaguery and implied ghosts. Dialogue talking in circles. There's random shit in there thrown in to be so magical realist (tree on fire, well that sure is weird and probably a Biblical allusion).

The worst sin of it is probably that it's stylized graphics stylize right away everything interesting about its own setting. You have the Appalachian Mountains of Kentucky, an environment that is notable for its feast of colors and nature, and it's removed. Something like Night in the Woods (never played it, but seen photos/clips of it) looks like it does that much better.

I hated it so much that in about a half hour I uninstalled it and put in on my "hide" list to never look at again.
 
Not quite a shit game that could have been good, and more like a mediocre game that could have been groundbreaking at the time.
32e458d3-bd85-46b0-ae0e-97fb0bda179d.jpg
Digimon Championship is ultimately just a Monster Rancher game but with Digimon. However, lying behind being a ripoff game is actually the skeleton of a settlement management game like Rimworld.

It never really matters for beating the game but every single digimon has personalities and it makes them interact with other Digimon differently. In the end, it only affects stress buildup, but even then each personality combination has different stress multipliers, so they really could have played with it more.

Other than that, Championship actually has a finite number of Digimon in it. If you raise up a Digimon and then sell it to someone, the next time you fight that person in a tournament, one of their Digimon will be replaced with the Digimon you sold to them with the same stats. This also stretches to Digimon you release to the wild. Even after one evolves, you can find them again near the same place you caught them the first time and they'll have the same stats and relationship levels as when you released them.

The timing would have been lightning in a bottle. Digimon Championship came out in 2008 for the Nintendo DS, only 2 years after the first alpha of Dwarf Fortress.
 
I'm going with Bioshock Infinite. I immensely enjoyed the first two games and the freedoms they gave. From what I remember the trailer for Infinite was awesome and the hype was real. Then Infinite comes out.


I'd bother shitting on the game more there's really only two things I remember: They went down to 2 guns. A game series that gave the player choice on tackling situations decided it'd be a good idea to only let you have two weapons at a time. I remember also being mad at vita chambers in Infinite for some reason but I can't remember why because I always did no vita chamber runs on 1/2. I also vaguely remember gamergate getting the main love interest to have smaller boobs, so that was also a thing.

I couldn't be bothered to beat it and just watched MatthewMatosis shit on it instead:
I don't think anything could make that game good. It was definitely, for lack of a better term, a Reddit Game. The kind of thing that gets spammed by idiots calling Elizabeth their heckin wholesome fantasy gf, or whatever. Soyfacing over developer commentary saying they modeled her after Disney princesses to tug at your nostalgic heartstrings, because everyone totally all watched the same Disney movies as kids.

The actual gameplay was really boring. Run into a room, shoot some dudes, then run into the next. Hangglide on these pre-crafted sequences that aren't challenging at all. And of course, the plot that goes "racism bad lol" and then "what if multiverses!!!", which aged as well as a banana over the years. I don't think too highly of the other Bioshock games, they're pretty ugly and unremarkable, but at least they don't manage to make ziplining through the sky a boring chore.

I should have taken the hint that Yahtzee was a hack when he gave Bioshock Infinite his top ranking game of the year when it was new.
 
Tangentially related, but I think there is a market for animal simulators. Like actual simulators, not joke ones like Goat Simulator. I was watching some waterfowl once and reflecting on the fact that a game based on being a bird like a swan would be neat. Have you ever seen a swan taking off and landing? It's cool as shit.

I like the idea of a game where you take off and land, use birds' ability to see polarized light to orient yourself in the air and just do whatever it is that birds do.
You play Maneater? I knew of it even when I got Fish Simulator, but now that I've tried Maneater it's clear that, while it's not the kind of thing you can run any junker of a computer, it does that same very basic level of gameplay while doing it properly. Utterly mindless, over the top, but otherwise a reasonable depiction of "being a shark" in a way that makes sense gameplay wise.

Besides the birds, the two critters I really want to be able to simulate are cats and coons. There's Stray, but that's not the same. You may be a cat, you may have cat-like movement ability, but it's not a game abut being a cat. And coons have everything delightful about cats combined with everything delightful about monkeys, able to manipulate objects. In a more fantastical setting, a coon game would be a game of burglary.

Something you might find interesting is acorn woodpeckers. If you haven't heard of it, they have this thing where they stockpile acorns in the hollows of trees, called "granaries," and fight "tournaments." They actually get together in groups (related males form a tribe) and ritualistically fight each other in a round robin until the victors claim the tree.
 
download.jpg

My dudes. I love this trash fire of a game. Power bombing a villain out of the sky with The Thing or vaporizing Magneto with Iron Man or watching Storm in a skimpy outfit BBQ Wolverine. It is not deep, but fuck is it fun. The finishers were brutal. The Thing smashing his opponent into the ground over and over was my favorite. Not all the Imprefects are interesting, but the Marvel roster makes up for it. If EA wasn't such greed cocksuckers. I honestly believe it had potential.
 
Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly, as much as it pains me to admit it, as it's a childhood game of mine. So much left out potential...

I also felt underwhelmed by the second Marvel Ultimate Alliance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Backpack Knight
Dawn of Man.

I love colony sims and one set in the prehistoric era is very appealing to me because there aren't many games like that, but this one didn't work for me.

The AI is terrible. You can have all the provisions you need and they will still starve to death. You also don't have good control over what tasks they will perform and the priority system seems more like a suggestion than a command since they will often do the opposite.

Your colony sits on a massive map yet the game isn't designed for expansion. If you try to do this then the AI freaks out and nobody performs the proper tasks.

The game feels fun at first but then it gets very repetitive and because of the terrible AI you have to micromanage everything.

Eventually you leave the stone age and can progress as far as the Iron Age but these ages are even less interesting because all of the cool prehistoric mammals are gone and the enemy raiding mechanics are lame as fuck.

The game is also dead. I think the last update they made was cheese making and that was awhile ago.

I still feel like playing this sometimes because it's not like I'm spoiled for choice with prehistoric games, but there is so much missed potential with this one.
 
"racism bad lol" and then "what if multiverses!!!",
If multiverses are a thing then doesn't that mean there are universes out there where racism is not only good but the most moral thing one can do? This is why I don't think infinite multiverse plots can be taken seriously.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pissmaster
A couple of games:
Mass Effect in general. While it had good and even exceptional parts, it really fails to come together as a whole. ME2 with its large roster of characters doesn't fit in the middle. ME1, while having a lot of good ideas and a lot of potential is simply too bare bones, has shit combat and lacks team-mates. ME3 has a shit overall story and a contraction of the number of characters. And in general, the writers did a poor job at the story. Too many plot threads were unexplored, the story was not pre-planned from the start, but was slapped one mission to the next, Cerberus went from "literally who" to "kinda important" to "superpower" in the cannonical span of what? 3 years?
Minecraft - Mojang keeps shitting it up, the bedrock edition shouldn't have existed, recent updates are pointless, the game is getting into a needless and unwanted identity crisis due to bad game design and wannabe cultural warriors in the company, too many subsystems are being added that don't fit the style.
 
Cossacks.

I started playing them a while back and they're shit, which is unfortunate because the basic concept could be good.

Think of Cossacks (old franchise) as being like Age of Empires with a focus on very historical pike and shot Europe (instead of 3 being about colonial America) and with somewhat more emphasis on realism (like formations and massive armies). However, the two games (Cossacks 2 and 3, 3 is just a remake of 1) feel extremely different.

Cossacks 3, the more traditional one, is a typical AoE-like. I've had a dream for a long time of a game that combines Rise of Nation's use of capturable cities (more constrained building options to encourage actively fighting over strategic targets) with Total War-style units and tactical mechanics. The game kind of does that. The weird thing is that both games simulate the individual soldiers, and force you to recruit the individual soldiers, but just so that you combine them into formations that maneuver as one. Which raises the question: why? If you want me to fight at the unit level, why not just get rid of all the bullshit with printing up 120 musketeers and not just have one full-formed regiment train at a time? Fuck this.

As for the buildings, it comes down to that there's maintenance costs (not a terrible idea), consequences if you run dry and most resources come from buildings that can only be built over sockets, and that are capturable. That all sounds nice. The campaign so far has been rather dull (a shame, because it has a million historical campaigns) and the AI seems totally inept even on Medium in the random matches, but maybe that was just bad luck on my part. Just has this air of unresponsiveness and cheapness about it.

What about Cossacks 2? Well, it's odd in that it feels more like Company of Heroes. Which is a banger concept: Company of Heroes, but gunpowder warfare. Where it goes wrong is in many places. Jankiness. Having a camera that is heavily zoomed in for no good reason. Forcing you to fight for every single village (resource deposit). Swingy combat. What it adds to make it more tactical is that your formations genuinely matter, you have fatigue and morale, and you manually fire. Which I'm not a huge fan of. I had high hopes for it initially as it reminded me of Battle Cry of Freedom, but the problem is that BCOF only made you command one at a time and it did offer a continuous fire option. Likewise, Empire allows you to do cycling fire by rank. Basically, I don't want to have to babysit every fucking unit on the map and micro it when in most circumstances an automatic cycle of fire at whatever comes across would be better.

I think someone could do this game much better today.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Foltest and Jarch6
Back