what not to buy

[Colif]

Here is one listing you don't want to be the top of

Bottom 100 worst Steam Games

Helping you find good games on Steam: impartial games rankings compiled from Steam gamer reviews.

steam250.com

I agree with Sacred 3 being on this list.

I assume BF 2042 doesn't want to be in top 20 of all time so soon.

Glad to say I don't own any of them.

 

[Frag Maniac]

Glad to say I don't own any of them.

After looking through the whole list, I do actually have one of them, Wolfenstein Youngblood. I can't believe how much bashing this game got. That said, I wasn't sure I'd like it myself, but I really enjoyed it.

 

[Johnway]

*Sniff* its beautiful. This is something we really need the 100 worst games and i'm glad to see a lot of 2k's stuff being on there. just a bit disappointed none of the FIFA games are on there. Although i suspect after seeing efootball in action that would be the measuring stick for all terrible football games for a while.

When steam asked for a custom award time and time again i always suggested worst game/ publisher wooden spoon award. i know it will be abused like crazy, but damn it we should hold these people accountable when they release trash. i vote with my wallet, A lot of people don't and that saddens me.

But back to the list. mercifully i haven't bought any of those games. That said i did get viking battle for asgard for free and played it. it was pretty dull but top 100 worst games? not so sure. I see a lot of shovelware that deserves a mention. But i think there are a few real shockers on that list. deepspace DF9 was made by Double fine!

 

[Brian Boru]

Glad to say I don't own any of them

Me neither, altho I have siblings of 2 of them—Titanfall 2 and Stronghold HD.

 

[Colif]

i don't have any in the top 20 but looking down list, I see Torchlight 3 is in 72nd place...
hmm, i have to agree
TL1 hours played 236 hours
TL2 hours played 1312.20 hours
TL3 hours played 64 hours.

Shame so many part 3's are not as good as the games that preceded them.
sacred 3 and tl3 both shared feature of not being made by people who made previous games, and coming many years after previous games. Aimed at selling to people who remember old games but didn't look at any reviews by people they trust.

 

[Pifanjr]

I own Godus... At least I learned to be more careful and it wasn't too expensive.

 

[Frag Maniac]

Me neither, altho I have siblings of 2 of them—Titanfall 2 and Stronghold HD.

I have Titanfall 2 as well, and that's another game where the sp campaign was way better than I expected. I really hope if they make a Titanfall 3, they give it a good sp campaign too.

 

[Brian Boru]

Shame so many part 3's are not as good as the games that preceded them

We watch TV reruns of shows which have finished, and a standing gag for us for quite a while is "Will they ruin it in S3?".

Speculation is S1 seen as fluke or got lucky or whatever;
S2 proves show has merit and a good audience;
For S3, exec on the make slithers in and takes over—of course, must put own stamp on it with the bigger budget;
Show gets coating of violence, car chases, gore and gun play;
"What'll we watch next?"

I imagine something similar happens with games. Human nature doesn't change, especially with budgets to spend and empires to build.

 

[Colif]

it also happens with movies. Some franchises seem to be stuck, Ghostbusters can't figure out what to do next so keep remaking same idea... same applies to Terminator movies and Star Wars. There isn't enough depth to extend idea.
Its like Lost, it was a good idea until it kept going.
They can't leave some things alone, everything must get a sequel... or more. Still life in it? make it again. Only move on once its so dead no one can resurrect it again.
Space Balls Animated series sounds good on paper but didn't work in reality

 

[Withywarlock]

I can't quite believe Viking: Battle for Asgard is on the list, even in the lofty heights of 74th place. I know it wasn't particularly popular but I loved it while I was waiting for someone to come along and make Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor. I'm guessing, and this is as a fanboi of the game, that it's because it's not the Total War people expect from Creative Assembly? It's budget was showing at the time, but it did some impressive feats (especially on consoles; unending seas enemies and not a stutter.)

 

[Colif]

So speaking of how series seem to get worse as they go along?
Is that why BF/COD keep renumbering their releases? to hide fact they way over 3 now and are not going to get any better but more likely to be ground into the dust, only reason they still made is to create new ways to sell micro transactions

BF is up to game 12
COD is up to 19

Mind you, Assassins creed is up to 24 & Ubisoft keep grinding those out.

I wish there were more original ideas, and they would stop recycling ideas or merging X game into Y game because they both sell. Stop playing it safe... stop rewarding them for regurgitating the same stuff with prettier graphics.

 

[Brian Boru]

I wish there were more original ideas, and they would stop recycling ideas

I see this a lot in the media too. I don't get this fascination with having to come up with something new, as if a successful old game is somehow suddenly sub-standard.

I'm always tempted to write the following article and submit to review outlets:

You need to stay away from this open world game called Chess—there's a reason the acronym for open world is OW.

I've read about some professional players who could instantly recognize which map they were on, as soon as they saw their starting position.

Other pros apparently can very quickly tell the likely make-up of their side's forces, just from looking at the first few starting maneuvers.

Loads of good amateurs who post online say the game hasn't been innovated for quite a while now, just repeated offerings of the same underlying gameplay.

Graphics. Don't get me started on the graphics! Honestly, I've seen better graphics in the 90s, they sorely need an update—if not a remake, then at least a remaster, please.

So yeah, stay away from this Chess franchise, it'll be a mere gaming footnote by next decade.

 

[Colif]

Not all of us want to play the same games every year, with slightly different graphics and characters.

That is why I want new ideas, not the same all the time.

 

[Brian Boru]

I want new ideas

Understood, of course. But do you think it's realistic for companies to invest $100m and upward into new ideas? It's a huge risk, which could bankrupt all but the few largest.

My point is there's also room for chess, a placeholder for games which are tried and proven, and they should get the respect they're due for giving their players what they want. That is a good thing, just as new ideas are a good thing.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

@BrianBoru It's not really fair to compare competitive games where the field has to be equal and rules known for a game to be a measure of two peoples skill against each other. Chess is more comparable to LOL or CSGO.

@Colif I get where you're coming from, but guess how Far Cry 6 sold despite getting only OK reviews? When they stop selling they'll change the tooling in the factory. Until then they'll keep churning them out year after year with a new coat of paint.

OTOH there's plenty of room these days for everything in the market, I think theres a wider variety of games then theres ever been, its not like we are starved for other options!

 

[Brian Boru]

Chess is more comparable to LOL or CSGO

Not at all. The point about chess is it's a game which has lasted hundreds of years. They keep churning out the same 8x8 world map and the same 32 units, and the playing public continues to lap it up.

The competitive player base for chess is tiny compared to the general public player base, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

there's plenty of room these days for everything in the market

Exactly my point. There's no need for derogatory or arrogant comments just because it doesn't meet reviewers' personal preferences. I'll be buying FC6 because it's a FC game—if it had gone off on some tangent, I'd be disappointed.

How many times have I read in these forums something like that version 3 of a series lost the feel of the first 2 and disappointed the player base?

If a game flops, then sure you need new ideas for the next one. If it succeeds, why disappoint the base by changing it significantly?

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Not at all. The point about chess is it's a game which has lasted hundreds of years. They keep churning out the same 8x8 world map and the same 32 units, and the playing public continues to lap it up.

The competitive player base for chess is tiny compared to the general public player base, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

The nature of the game is competitive, unless you want to tell me people spend a lot of time on their own playing Chess against themselves ? But if people are still playing Far Cry like games in 1000 years, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.

Anyway as I say, plenty of other stuff to keep people busy if its not what they're into.

 

[Zloth]

I can't quite believe Viking: Battle for Asgard is on the list, even in the lofty heights of 74th place.

It's based off of Steam reviews. Overall reviews, by the look of it, though maybe it's just English speaking? I didn't see any explanation of what they were doing.

Steam reviews are voted on by people that get the game. That doesn't mean the people have clue 1 what they are buying - they could be buying because the name sounds cool or because the trailer looks cool, then they find the game isn't at all what they expected. Down vote. Or they don't bother to read the system specs and buy a game they can't run. Down vote with a vague reference to optimization. Or maybe it's a game that came out in bad shape but got fixed up down the line. Many down votes followed by not quite as many up votes.

Also keep in mind that, by the time you're down in the 70's, the percent that up vote is starting to get near 50%. Nearly half the people buying the game liked it! (Or some form of half - they really need to say how they are doing these.)

Not all of us want to play the same games every year, with slightly different graphics and characters.

So? Many do. Enough that companies can make a lot of money if they expand on what has worked before. DOTA and Counter Strike continue to top the Steam playing lists and they barely change at all.

 

[Pifanjr]

I would also like to add that these big game franchises have incorporated many new ideas and mechanics. It's just that between every significant change they release 2-3 more games that change very little.

 

[Brian Boru]

you want to tell me people spend a lot of time on their own playing Chess against themselves

The most competitive players do that all the time for hours per day, or those learning the game, or those who just love it—or those a week before the annual company chess competition starts

The nature of chess lends itself to solo play. It doesn't need a story or new ideas to mask its deficiencies, it is pure perfect gameplay. There are even no twists or secrets, each player has 100% information all the time. So playing against yourself is no different from playing against another human or computer—apart from you're guaranteed that your opponent is exactly the same level as you, and there's no waiting in the lobby

Of course, if you must have a story, there's the excellent The Queen's Gambit—but be warned, there aren't any new ideas in that

But that's the beauty of gaming, there are plenty of offerings for all kinds of different tastes. Those who need constant change are likely to be less served tho, given the risks involved in developing and publishing for that taste.

There is however no need for those with one taste to disparage the offerings for those with other tastes.