It's all in the title, what is your least favourite game(s) and why? What about what type?
Personally I really hate first person shooters as far as style goes. I don't like Call of Duty and I really, really do not like Halo (mainly because I can't get the hang of it and I'm always that idiot people camp on because they figure out creative ways to kill me, I never see it coming because unlike Joey, a close friend of ine, I do not fucking screen peak to see where someone else is and blow them to hell with an RPG and laugh when the game glitches so I can't fucking respawn).
It has the usual gimmicks and lack of creativity of a lot of FPS *cough*COD*cough* but then messes up the gameplay by dividing your attention between your character's ass and what you're actually doing.
Now, I don't mind this nearly as much when the combat is secondary (Mass Effect). But if you're combat is your primary purpose? Then I rarely see third person being a benefit rather than a con.
If I had also pick from those outside of the poll options though?
Genre
Platformers. I can't stand platformers, at all.
For me it's a game design that we had to work with in the past cause of technological limits, but because people have such a Nostalgia boner for stuff like Mario people feel forced/required to keep the genre today when from what I can see we've evolved past the need for it unless if you're making a poorly funded/cheap game.
It severely restricts your ability to explore, forcing you to go only left or right (and usually, only right) so it becomes the most railroaded genre ever. And because of the lack of free 3D movement, being turned based or anything you're only real reaction to danger is to either spam attack or jump. That get's tiring real fast.
Once again, I can forgive this a lot more if the genre is just a means to tell a story. Because at that point the gameplay is secondary and the story is priority.
But if you don't care to tell a story, and just want something for the gameplay... Then the odds of me liking it as a platformer is next to zero cause of all the unnecessary restrictions it comes with.
General Style
Players should be Psychic.
The most recent example I can think of this is the Visual Novel "Long Live the Queen".
In it you play as a 15 year old girl who through family deaths is thrusted into the role of Queen, and she's given one year to be trained in the art while guided as Queen before she's let off the leash to rule full out.
As a result there's a very limited amount of time to invest in raising skills, forcing you to prioritize. This would be fine if it was just a basic build, like say "I'm going to be a social queen, or a magic queen" etc. But that's not how it works.
The Visual Novel is filled with events, scene's, challenges etc. that outright require a set amount in a certain skill to unlock (and the requirements are usually at least a months worth of training).
And these aren't just bonus side quests, these are things that will severally impact the main story. Even to a point where
to beat an invading kingdom in a magical duel you need to have mastered the art of dancing! Dancing! What the hell clue do I ever get that DANCING is something a Queen should prioritize!?
which basically shits on you for daring to make a decent Queen rather than just making gimmick Queens.
Now, there's other games like this in further back history (mainly Older games that didn't care for any tutorial, guide, FAQ or anything and simply placed you somewhere with zero explanation and just 'expects' you to know how to play). But Long Live the Queen is the one I most clearly remember.
Regardless though, any game that doesn't bother to help the player learn to play at all and/or throws in surprise curve balls that require the person to be completely idiotic to surpass is just lazy design in a half-assed effort to either extend playtime with retries, or they simply couldn't be bothered to explain their creation to people.
Chose table top. Thats how I classify those point-and-click games like LOL. They're just boring. I don't see how.pointing repeatedly at one spot makes anything fun.
Close second to least favorite was third person, although Fallout and The Division are really fucking fun to play.
Out of those options I'd go with games that don't allow you to create your own OC. I play a lot of RPGs, and it is so boring to be forced to play generic tough white guy which too many seem to have. I don't really bother playing those games because of it.
I would pick MOBAs in general though. Most genres do have some good games that I can enjoy, but I would say MOBAs are the exception. I don't like playing with others normally, and MOBAs pretty much takes a bad experience and makes it the worst it could possibly be then prides themselves on it. I was so disappointed when Gearbox seriously announced they were making a MOBA rather than Borderlands 3.
Eh... Out of this I'm going to say FPS, because that's the only option describing a game. Therefore it is the only valid choice. I would only ever play Call of Duty couch multiplayer. However, take something like Metroid Prime or Mass Effect, games that do use shooting and/or first person perspectives, and I am completely content with those mechanics because of all the other elements they provide.
Third person is a camera perspective, that ranges from Mario to GTA. Tabletop likewise, describes everything from monopoly to D&D.
On character customisation you could argue the worth of projection versus the worth of a defined character, but I don't think this topic aims to be that complicated (well that and the answer is personal preference.) For me both have their merits, it just depends on what you do with them. Like for example, if you as a designer give your character this huge scar, you can use this to invest it into some kind of story drama. Like, one of the villains put that scar on your character and so the player will have a constant visual reminder to compliment the backstory, so you can use it for build-up for a conflict to only feel so much more satisfying when you beat their ass. Also, a more stylized choice of graphics makes players more inhibited to design their own character because they are unfamiliar with the style. Conversely, I spend hours in character creators in MMO's or Mass Effect, as these thrive on saying "So this character? This is you."
As for story vs. no story, again; does the storyline add anything? Take the story out of say... Chrono Trigger, which already is fairly minimalistic to begin with, and you've pretty much ruined one of the greatest RPG's of all time. Conversely, I play something like Mario and am completely content with 'Save the princess!" Because let's be honest, the pacing of the experience in a platformer is far more rooted in it's level design than an RPG's pacing. If you add story to that, you want to keep it really short to not throw you out of that pace the game has set. IMO the best approach to this is, well, environmental storytelling. Use your visuals to convey the kind of place you're in and what might have happened. The Metroid Prime trilogy did a fantastic job at this, albeit very different from the Mario-style platformers and pacing here is key. The point of the Metroid series has always been a lonesome atmosphere in a dangerous alien world, so you move more conservatively and take in your surroundings. You could scan objects to obtain logs with information about the world you were in as to understand your surroundings and the civilisations that had once lived in them and their daily lives.
Also multiplayers can get away with ignoring story altogether when you have friends to play against.
tl;dr I find it difficult to answer this question.
Storyline based. They all seem so pretentious while being showered with praise it feels like they don't deserve. Looking at Gone Home, Last of Us, etc.
That and the gameplay tends to suffer for it. Without at least decent gameplay for a game it's a big killer of my attention.
There are other, better reasons, but I can't think of them currently.
I'm not very fond of FPS games for reasons that should be obvious. The only shooter I enjoy is Splatoon. I'm sick of COD and Halo taking up the market with their shitty fanbases.
They're pretty much all trash and you'd get a lot more out of family bonding by just playing a card-game or *gasp!* talking to each-other.
T .V./Movie Licensed Games.
These are just made to make an additional buck after the release of a movie or given the populatiry of a T.V. show. There are occasional good ones, but they drown in an ocean of sewage.
Anything heavily dependent on motion-capture or other features.
Innovation is great, but when you base your entire game around the gimmick of one feature you're not trying at all.
Mobile Gaming
Microtransactions ho!
Anything made by EA in the last 5 years.
First-day DLCs, pay-to-win, games getting more expensive with a constant drop in content.
Anything made by Nintendo in the last 5 years.
This is coming from a guy who would have refused to play anything but Nintendo 10 years ago. They've stopped caring, they lean on their name recognition to sell lazily-made games. Why cater to the fan-base with quality games when they've built an empire upon casual gamers looking for a cheap thrill.
Really anything on the Wii;
pls make it stop.
Normies get out!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Super involving games such as Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Also, puzzle games. It's not that I don't like these games, they're my least favorite because I suck at them. XP Or just can't muster up the enthusiasm to so much as press the play button. I think it's because of my stressed out life. My brain is over-active as is, so I like to play video games that don't require it to work as hard. Which seems to make me one of the few who favors FPS games. lol
I think the only people who pay attention to sports games are the guys who flood GameStop with year old copies of Madden and NHL and FIFA because they like paying full price for a game that will not be played by anyone in a year that has minor gameplay improvements and slightly updated rosters that could have easily been taken care of as DLC, or god forbid the developers are cool, a patch.
Also, Gwazi, one game that bucks the 2D platformer woes is Super Mario 3D World. It's friggin' great, and 4 player coop is the stuff of hilarity and nightmares.
Also, Gwazi, one game that bucks the 2D platformer woes is Super Mario 3D World. It's friggin' great, and 4 player coop is the stuff of hilarity and nightmares.
It looks cool, hopefully next time I'm at my friends house who has a Wii U (only one person I know has the console) this could be an option.
Not sure if he ever grabbed it or not though.
I think the only people who pay attention to sports games are the guys who flood GameStop with year old copies of Madden and NHL and FIFA because they like paying full price for a game that will not be played by anyone in a year that has minor gameplay improvements and slightly updated rosters that could have easily been taken care of as DLC, or god forbid the developers are cool, a patch.
Also, Gwazi, one game that bucks the 2D platformer woes is Super Mario 3D World. It's friggin' great, and 4 player coop is the stuff of hilarity and nightmares.
MOBAs. Partly because I find the genre boring as shit to play (and only slightly less boring to watch), and partly because everybody is making one. They're wasting time and money making games that no one will play in the vain hope that their game will somehow be the one that unseats LoL as the reigning king of MOBAs when everybody knows that will never happen, much less they even get close to getting LoL's sales numbers.
Most shooters made after 2008: Of all the shooters made in the last 5 years, I enjoyed Shadow Warrior, Hard Reset, Serious Sam 3, Rise of the Triad and Splatoon. That's it. The rest either copy games that I despise (Halo and Call of Duty) or have other, major flaws that ruin the games. Shit, even Doom is ripping off Halo, when it has no reason to.
Mobile games: Most aren't even genuine games, they're gambling apps. Mobile developers even use gambling terminology to describe their highest rollers (whales).
