What is the most objectively universally objectionable game?

[DarkTone | 984]

James has said multiple times AVGN is a character, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Clearly people won't listen. 

Also, a lot of review sites rate games as they are released. If its a state and needs a day one patch, they rip into them (sometimes, gamergate, etc). 

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

1 minute ago, DarkTone said:

James has said multiple times AVGN is a character, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Clearly people won't listen. 

Also, a lot of review sites rate games as they are released. If its a state and needs a day one patch, they rip into them (sometimes, gamergate, etc). 

I remember in the earlyish days of NA, James popped in to find more shit games to do vids on.  He was VERY clear on being completely separate from his character even then, and even said how much he loves some of the games he's slagged on.  As much as I hate the character, that interaction also led me to respect the man behind it.  Sadly most people don't have enough in their head to figure out the difference between parody and actual journalism.

[obnoxious | 107]

On 10/23/2021 at 6:17 PM, GPX said:

I think the AVGN is somewhat misunderstood as a genuine reviewer as opposed to him being a parody of a reviewer, focusing mainly on the shitty aspects of the games that he touches. He needs to find things to get him angry about to live up to his title.

You got to take his reviews with a grain of salt, as I reckon half of the games he reviews aren’t necessarily all that bad (for the 80s). Still, he is an absolute comic genius!

 

I don't understand how people can't understand it's a damn character. It's for comedy and entertainment.

The character may review a good game as if it was a bad one. And that's fucking ok.

my god.

[GPX | 1,369]

22 hours ago, obnoxious said:

I don't understand how people can't understand it's a damn character. It's for comedy and entertainment.

The character may review a good game as if it was a bad one. And that's fucking ok.

my god.

I can see how some casual gamers can take short cuts - judging on a game without ever playing them.

eg. “AVGN making a bad review on a game. It has over 1 million likes, therefore 1 million people agree with his reviews”. 

Well no, 1 million likes may have been there because they enjoy his entertainment value, the ugly facial expressions and the abundance of profanity that he provides. Perhaps nothing to do with agreeing on how good/bad the game is. 

[T-Pac | 7,541]

I assume that the worst games and the most hated games are completely different.

Games that garner widespread hate had to get big enough for people to care in the first place (meaning they were at least interesting enough to get on the public radar); whereas utterly broken, unredeemable games are tossed-aside too quickly and definitively to ever get any extensive acknowledgement of their poor quality.

I might be overthinking this...

-CasualCart

[RH | 4,903]

Anyone bring up Duke Nukem Forever? I'm going to throw that one out there because it was a 12 year hype train to Mehville.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

4 hours ago, RH said:

Anyone bring up Duke Nukem Forever? I'm going to throw that one out there because it was a 12 year hype train to Mehville.

I haven't played it yet, so I have to ask - was it an okay game that didn't live up to the hype, or a shit game that made the wait not worth it?  Because if the game isn't horrible, it may still be fondly remembered down the line...but if it was crap independent of the hype, then it's irredeemable.

[Tulpa | 3,493]

12 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

I haven't played it yet, so I have to ask - was it an okay game that didn't live up to the hype, or a shit game that made the wait not worth it?  Because if the game isn't horrible, it may still be fondly remembered down the line...but if it was crap independent of the hype, then it's irredeemable.

I don't know about "fondly remembered", as it's pretty unmemorable, but it's not horrible.

[Tanooki | 4,933]

I didn't' care about the hype, and I didn't even buy Dookie there when it first came out either primarily because of all the whining and complaining because it was more confusing than defining.  I found it fell into those who rode a dozen year plus hype train which meant their expectations were so skewed nothing would match.  And the other types fell into a mix of sheep who rode the dumpster fire of complaining all the while an equal if not maybe larger amount were just as you say it now snowflakes and triggered because of his 1990s style misogynistic and teenage like stupid behavior, treatment of women, and quips.  Duke acted like Duke, and how he behaved in the 90s or even early 00s(GBA game) was a period where people still had a sense of humor and didn't get offended by everything.  By the time that one came out people started looking for reasons to get upset and offended, pre-cancel culture era still but not by much.

As such I did grab it when there was a decent sale.  To me, it's actually only a good game, but largely not excellent and not great.  It's just good, ok maybe... not average, definitely not crap or trash.  They could have done far far worse to really set that thing into a development hell cycle that could have made easily for utter garbage.  I'd suggest watching Steam or whatever for some $5 dumpster dive sale and trying it with an open mind.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

29 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

I'd suggest watching Steam or whatever for some $5 dumpster dive sale and trying it with an open mind.

I'll just wait until I move my stuff over here.  I have both the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, just never got around to booting it up

[Sumez | 2,950]

I couldn't even drag myself through the demo for Duke Nukem Forever. 

[RH | 4,903]

9 hours ago, the_wizard_666 said:

I haven't played it yet, so I have to ask - was it an okay game that didn't live up to the hype, or a shit game that made the wait not worth it?  Because if the game isn't horrible, it may still be fondly remembered down the line...but if it was crap independent of the hype, then it's irredeemable.

 

4 hours ago, Sumez said:

I couldn't even drag myself through the demo for Duke Nukem Forever. 

I'll be honest, I never played it.  My reference, however isn't 100% about that game but the whole 12-14 years of experience to get to that point.  I don't entirely agree with @Tanooki on one point--those of us who were fans back in the 90s weren't on a hype train that long.  We were frustrated with a dev studio that had historically made amazing games that simply couldn't get their act together.  I know they restarted the project once after a few years, and if memory serves me correctly, they may have actually restarted the project twice.  There were discussions, easily half way into the wait, of people openly knowing that there was no way the new game would live up to the hype.

Regardless, when it came out it was sub-par compared to other shooters and you may call it hype, but you'd expect that after 12-14 years, they would have created more than what I was told was a rather linear shooter, you go from point-A to point-B that was barely "ok".  The guns are similar and you have Duke sound bites you'd expect and that's it.  There was more to Duke that we loved than personality.  Duke Nukem was a fast paced shooter and as was common at that time, there was a puzzle element to the game.  That wasn't the primary focus but exploration was important and I've been told that's just not in this game.

Regarding my own experience and why I didn't play it, it wasn't because I was agitated or mad.  I went from being a kid who experienced the first game to a guy who had grown up.  By the time DNF came out, I had lost interest.  I was married, working to establish my career and I basically didn't game at all back then.  So when it came out, it was just a footnote in gaming history, which I paid attention to because I waited for the game for about 8 years before my life had moved on and I just didn't care any more.  Honestly, if the game had reviewed really well and all of the reviewers stated tag lines like "old fans of the series will love this fresh paint job on what they loved 20 years ago", I would have probably bought it, or at least, picked it up when it hit the bargain bin and played it for old times.  However, it didn't even get that type of review, so I simply past and never looked back.

In my opinion, if it takes you that long to produce a game, people lose interest and you still can't meet the minimal expectations that people had waiting for your game, it's a bad game.  No, it may not be horribly buggy but when you take 14 years to write a game, it doesn't have to be a masterpiece but it should at least be rememberable.  From what I do recall by listening to the reviews, it wasn't even that and I've never bothered in all of these years to even go back and give it try.

Edited November 3, 2021 by RH

[Sumez | 2,950]

Yeah my experience was similar. I was very excited for Duke Nukem Forever for years, but by the time it finally came out it had nothing to do with the game I was originally so excited for.

[obnoxious | 107]

14 hours ago, RH said:

Anyone bring up Duke Nukem Forever? I'm going to throw that one out there because it was a 12 year hype train to Mehville.

For me it wasn't a bad game, just over-hyped. It's a perfect sequel to a perfect game. If they produced anything else they'd be bashed for "not making a Duke Nukem game".

[NostalgicMachine | 234]

E.T. or Superman 64.

[Strange | 1,700]

On 12/17/2021 at 4:03 AM, NostalgicMachine said:

E.T. or Superman 64.

E.T. might be the most hated but it’s far from the worst game ever or even on the 2600, as mentioned earlier. It was unfairly maligned for causing the video game crash.

So do we go with public perception even if that perception is wrong? If that’s the case then I guess E.T. is the answer. But if we’re looking for the objectively worst game ever, that’s a tougher conversation I guess.

[Estil | 1,264]

How about that lawyer game series where he says "Objection!" in red letters all the time?  

[JamesRobot | 5,800]

On 12/17/2021 at 3:03 AM, NostalgicMachine said:

E.T.

ET rulz!  Like so many games of the era, you gotta read the manual to know what to do.

[Estil | 1,264]

On 10/31/2021 at 4:42 PM, obnoxious said:

I don't understand how people can't understand it's a damn character. It's for comedy and entertainment.

The character may review a good game as if it was a bad one. And that's fucking ok.

my god.

Yes indeed, maybe the need this message from the Power Rangers!

There's another good related one at 4:02 (and 13:38)...with mind blowing state of the art polygonal graphics (which must've needed a tens of thousands of dollars professional grade workstation!) telling you what to do if you still can't separate real from make believe  

Edited December 18, 2021 by Estil

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

E.T. might be the most hated but it’s far from the worst game ever or even on the 2600, as mentioned earlier. It was unfairly maligned for causing the video game crash.

So do we go with public perception even if that perception is wrong? If that’s the case then I guess E.T. is the answer. But if we’re looking for the objectively worst game ever, that’s a tougher conversation I guess.

That said, his other answer, Superman 64...yeah, that was pretty damn terrible.  I don't know if it was bad enough for the topic, but it's certainly up there.

[GPX | 1,369]

3 hours ago, Estil said:

How about that lawyer game series where he says "Objection!" in red letters all the time?  

Objection and objectionable ain’t the same though.

And besides, that game is far from being objectionable. Probably one of the best on the DS, love it!

[Estil | 1,264]

Just now, GPX said:

Objection and objectionable ain’t the same though.

And besides, that game is far from being objectionable. Probably one of the best on the DS, love it!

Well, what he objected to was because he found it objectionable...doesn't that count?

[GPX | 1,369]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

E.T. might be the most hated but it’s far from the worst game ever or even on the 2600, as mentioned earlier. It was unfairly maligned for causing the video game crash.

So do we go with public perception even if that perception is wrong? If that’s the case then I guess E.T. is the answer. But if we’re looking for the objectively worst game ever, that’s a tougher conversation I guess.

I think there’s 2 types of perception: from actual experience with the games or from reading it through other sources. This topic is more about the actual hands-on experience with gaming mediocrity. With ET and Superman, no doubt they are worthy contenders, but how many people have actually played it to form a solid opinion on them? I doubt many.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

Just now, GPX said:

I think there’s 2 types of perception: from actual experience with the games or from reading it through other sources. This topic is more about the actual hands-on experience with gaming mediocrity. With ET and Superman, no doubt they are worthy contenders, but how many people have actually played it to form a solid opinion on them? I doubt many.

I've played both.  ET is nowhere near as bad as the interwebs would have you believe.  Superman 64 however, yeah, it's pretty horrid.

[GPX | 1,369]

3 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

I've played both.  ET is nowhere near as bad as the interwebs would have you believe.  Superman 64 however, yeah, it's pretty horrid.

You masochist, you!

I wouldn’t mind trying them out if those games were right in front of me. I just can’t be bothered to find them through emulation or physical copy. We live to be enlightened, not to drown in shitty games. 

Edited December 18, 2021 by GPX