The Shining Source

Ever buy a game, and find it's disgusting horrible? (Grom knows what I'm talking about.)  Of course you have, but what is the most horrible game you ever played?  (I know this is a good place to ask such a question, considering all the game fans here never judge a game totally on graphics)

i never bought this game, but I have played it a lot, which is strange because I don't own the game!  Ok, .hack//whatever was one of the worst games I have ever played.  It is boring, and the battle style is very stupid.

Also, teh story line is stupid.  You character is playing an Internet game while you are playing the PS2.  IT IS SO AMAZINGLY STUPID AND LAME.

Overall, 2 out of 10 for graphics and for a man that got put in the hospital (violence always spruces things up)

I don't mean to bash your opinion, but your opinion sucks.  You didn't like that game cause you sucked at it and died like 20 times in a row.

Just because that is true, does not mean the game is good.  

Anywho, to change the subject, another terrible, and i mean terrible game is Dragonball Z: Budokai.  The second one was decent, but let's not talk about that one.

First of all, all you do in the game is fight.  You can choose story mode, but all you do in taht is watch a video taht tells teh story, then...guess waht?  Yes, fight.  teh game is so boring.

Although you dont have to pay for it, I'd say every single bloody Dragon Ball Z game on BYOND. Theres so many in the unpublished section that it hides most of the others for ages.

I guess because it sucks so bad, that is the reason you do not have to pay for it   .  Another crappy game I have played is Spyro the Dragon: Season of Ice for GBA.  I know it is GBA, but the camera view and the graphics are so terrilbe, that it is hard to play and to see what is going on.  This game is soo bad.  Not only waht I have mentioned above, but the whole series of Spyro is bad just because of the storyline and faggot characters  :lol:

Or maybe legal reasons.

No offense to you Acebloke, (since I know his game is based mostly on Shining in the Darkness) but I found Shining in the Darkness to be very disappointing.  I guess it was because I had played the original shining games for so long before I played that one, that I just felt that the change from strategy in SHF1/2, to mazes and the traditional rpg style battles in Shining in the Darkness to be frustrating.

Another example of this is Shining Soul compared to Shining Force.  Though they are based mostly on the same idea, their battle systems are very differant.  Though Shining Soul (or Shining Soul 2, since everyone said SS1 bombed) might be a good game in its own right, I hate it because it is, in my opinion, no where near as good as SHF.

Well it is unfair to compair those games. Simply kick the shining from the title and then think again about the game. It's even more unfair when thinking of Shining In The Darkness because SITD is actually older than SF1 and without SITD there would be no SF.
Next to that I still find it amazing that a game with so few story and so few different places to go (one town, one castle, one maze (those different areas don't count) can motivate you for such a long time to play it. IMHO SITD is a perfect example for the gameplay beats mass of content beats graphics chain  of design

Never knew SITD came before SF.  Thanks for enlightening me. But I'm not saying I didn't like SITD, I'm just saying I didn't like the idea of it being related to SF.  I just don't understand how SF could derive from a game like SITD, which is differant from SF in almost every way.

I've always thought it helps to keep the Shining and Shining Force games at a reasonable distance. Something like Shining the Holy Ark, which is more like Shining in the Darkness than a Force game, is a fantastic game. As a superlative Saturn magazine once wrote;

"Camelot tend to experiment with the former [Shining games] and excel with the latter [Shining Force games]"

So there you go. That's all I have to say about that, actually. Draw your own conclusions.

As I said - they are completely different games in the same universe - it's like comparing C&C Renegade (a FPS in the C&C universe) with the strategy games of the C&C universe, similar examples happen to many successful series (Warcraft (strategy, never released adventure, MMORPG), Fallout (RPG/Action game),...).

Probably Camelot just decided to add a Shining to their games as some kind of coporate identity

thats cause I was lazy

nah its cause I stupidly started the BYOND version of DSC the first day I started coding in it, and at the time I desided that a SF battle system was too big to handle in something I could just create npcs in. I could quite easily make a SF battle system on BYOND now ( but I wont ).

C&C had a FPS ? Wow I live in the dark. Was it any good ?

Actually Reneagade (which is the C&C FPS name) rocked... well mostly at least - it had a really cool multiplayer mode in which you actually played C&C including buildings and vehicles - you earned money and with that money you could by vehicles/buildings. Then you may enter the vehicles and kill the enemy - when you destroy the enemies constructor you've won.
Maybe you could describe it as Battlefield C&C (if you know Battlefield 1942 or Battlefield vietnam) - not sure which one was first.
The graphics were quite nice (caused especially by the hight differences between vehicles and soldiers - that was impressive) but some parts (especially several indoor levels) just sucked and looked like being timewarped from 10 years ago.
Nevertheless the game is for sale here for less then 10 Euro and if you find it and want a new FPS (or if you like a new good LAN game) you should grab it.

Resident Evil : Outbreak

Im so dissapointed in this game, It was a good idea to have an online RE game but this thing just dosent work.  because of these 3 reasons

1)You cant really communicate. You hit the right analog stick in a differnt direction and your character will say somthing like "Help" or "Come on" or "Thanks" The [] button works for a couple of areas but still if you could talk into your mic or type it'd make the game 100% better

2) Sections are long. They are really long and its hard to find players that will stay for the hours that are needed to beat that area.

3)The players. Most people in the beginning don't have a clue of what to do which is understandable but it makes the first level supremely hard to beat. After you beat it though there are so few players that have it makes the game hard because you're pretty much soloing it. Also once a member dies they're gone for good and there are alot of areas that they can fall off cliffs and such for instant deaths.

I made it to the second area and it just got too hard to find someone.