inFamous: Second Son has been one of the major releases on PS4 so far. Hopefully, it's a lot better than the first game in the series, which is truly terrible. A first party "AAA" game for PS3, you play a guy with a deep voice that action stars like Jason Statham always seem to do in their films. Which is very annoying. You have special electric-based special powers, which work the same as guns in shooters. But worse. You get to climb buildings, just like in Assassin's Creed games. But worse. The graphics are poor, it handles badly, it's incredibly repetitive, the story is bad right up until near the end of the game when it picks up slightly, the dialogue and characters are terrible and the final boss battle is one of the worst in video game history; you have to shoot your basic electric shot at the baddie for about 30 minutes. None of your other attacks seem to work. It's bad all round and the worst of the worst on PS3. And a Sony exclusive lest we not forget.
I also hate Uncharted 3. There, I said it. I feel a lot better now. As one of Sony's major IPs, and being made by the same people who did The Last of Us, I was keen to try it out, but what I got was a run-of-the mill (at best) third person shooter with crappy stealth and melee mechanics, the odd lame puzzle solving bit, some poor platforming sections and some very hackneyed, clichéd dialogue spouted by some of the most annoying characters in the history of video games (which is really saying something). The graphics were excellent though, to be fair.
Brink, Aliens: Colonial Marines and Max Payne 3 are the other very bad games I've played. And all shooters. Brink has ambitions of being better than a run-of-the-mill shooter but suffers from bad design and annoying gameplay. Aliens: Colonial Marines has terrible graphics, perhaps the worst hit detection of any game I've ever played and strange story decisions (apparently Michael Biehn's character from Aliens survived and was taken away and replaced with another body for Ripley to find and be fooled by or something). Max Payne 3, from Rockstar Games (the GTA people), has good graphics and handles quite well. What it doesn't have is any kind of variation. It is just relentless and very boring; walk into an area, shoot 20 or so people, walk to next area, shoot 20 or so people. And repeat. Seemingly for ever. It doesn't help to have a very annoying voice-over throughout the whole game as well, which aims for some sort of film noir commentary insights but just does your head in.
Brink, Aliens: Colonial Marines and Max Payne 3 are the other very bad games I've played. And all shooters. Brink has ambitions of being better than a run-of-the-mill shooter but suffers from bad design and annoying gameplay. Aliens: Colonial Marines has terrible graphics, perhaps the worst hit detection of any game I've ever played and strange story decisions (apparently Michael Biehn's character from Aliens survived and was taken away and replaced with another body for Ripley to find and be fooled by or something). Max Payne 3, from Rockstar Games (the GTA people), has good graphics and handles quite well. What it doesn't have is any kind of variation. It is just relentless and very boring; walk into an area, shoot 20 or so people, walk to next area, shoot 20 or so people. And repeat. Seemingly for ever. It doesn't help to have a very annoying voice-over throughout the whole game as well, which aims for some sort of film noir commentary insights but just does your head in.
Man loads up game. Man starts game. Man gets immediately killed after spawning by a possibly invisible sniper, and there's no proper kill cam to see where they are. Man spawns again and gets killed again straight away by the same (or another?) seemingly invisible sniper. Man spawns again and immediately sprints off to the side and runs for about 5 seconds before being killed by another sniper, nowhere to be seen on screen. Man looks at scoreboard. Half of the other team have scores of 19-0 or better. Man quits game. That was my introduction to Killzone 3 multiplayer. It didn't get much more fun after that. I hate Killzone 3. There, I said it. I feel a lot better now.
Hey Uncharted 3, what are you doing on another bad list? Sony fanboys say you're the best action series ever! Well, they're all idiots. The multiplayer is every bit as bad as the single player, if not worse. There's no annoying cutscenes this time at least. Unless you play the co-op missions that is. What there is though, is lots of players running around doing forward rolls all the time and even worse controls (there is even recoil on the guns!) than in single player. The graphics were… not as good this time. The Tomb Raider multiplayer is almost the same as Uncharted 3 but worse because the makers should have known better than to copy this crap.
Hey! Listen! How is Aliens: Colonial Marines in the list for best and worst multiplayer? You weren't paying attention to what you were doing, were you? Wrong. Aliens: Colonial Marines is so bad that it is actually kind of good at times. In the multiplayer games for example, you play one round as a marine and one as an alien. The marine rounds are awful. The graphics are bad and the hit detection (as mentioned above, it's no better in mp) seems to be completely random. It's a bit of a mess. The rounds where you play as the aliens though are all kinds of awesome. The graphics are even worse than normal. It's meant to be like seeing stuff as an alien (even though it's a THIRD PERSON game!), reminding you of bad horror movies from the 70s or 80s where you supposedly see through the werewolf's eyes with hazy or coloured camera effects or something as it stalks its prey. The controls are also kind of sloppy and sometimes unresponsive, but again, it unintentionally adds to the cheap fun factor. And running around as an alien chasing after and killing marines is an absolute ton of fun. There's even special aliens hidden in the maps too. If you can find them you get to then play as them. One looks like a Triceratops. It's pretty much unstoppable.
Crysis 3 had a lot of potential for being good online due to the nature of the game and the powers available (invisibility, big jumping etc) but makes the worst mp list for three main reasons: (1) it suffers VERY badly from online lag (2) hardly anyone plays it; six months after the game was released, the most players I ever saw online was 250, and most of them just played the team deathmatch mode; (3) of those who did play, I reckon about a quarter of them were aimbot hackers.
Modern Warfare 3 is also on here due to the amount of hackers. The reason it's worse than Crysis 3 is because, as well as the aimbots, there is a huge amount of players who have a so-called "god mode" hack. They are invisible and invincible. Almost every game seems to have at least one player like this making games unplayable and unfair. On top of this, the game is very unstable (lots of games time out or freeze up, maybe caused by the hackers?) and people quit games all the time once they realise they're up against a god mode hacker. MW3 was never one of the best CoD games anyway, but it was never this bad when I played it on the Wii.
What's worth noting is that probably the three worst games on PS3 are all Sony first party exclusives: Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 and inFamous (not necessarily in that order). Given how strong Nintendo's exclusives are (Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Kirby, Pikmin, Smash Bros etc etc etc) and how much Xbox fans rave about their (admittedly few) exclusives, it's a bit strange how the PS3 eventually outsold the Xbox 360 and how the PS4 is now racing ahead of the Wii U and Xbox One. The PS3's success is even stranger given that most multiplatform and multiplayer games are considered to perform better on Xbox 360 than on PS3. Reasons for the PS3's success? I really don't know. The success of PS1 and PS2 must have something to do with it, maybe people who grew up with them consoles feel more connected to Sony than Microsoft. Maybe it's the unreliability of the Xbox 360? The console was plagued with problems and supposedly has a failure rate of 24% compared to 10% for PS3 and 3% for Wii. Or maybe it's that PS3 offers free online services while Xbox 360 charges money for Xbox Live Gold, and if you do pay for PS Plus you get free games every month (which Microsoft have only just got around to doing). I don't regret getting a PS3 at all, but I think I was swayed by having had a PS1 and PS2, how Xbox 360 fans were so annoying in comment sections on gaming sites (they were much worse/angrier/more arrogant/more offensive than Sony or Nintendo fans) and the free online; I don't really agree with having to pay for online play for games that cost up to £50 on a console that already cost several hundred pounds. That said, you now have to do this on PS4 as well as Xbox One. Still free on Nintendo though.
Modern Warfare 3 is also on here due to the amount of hackers. The reason it's worse than Crysis 3 is because, as well as the aimbots, there is a huge amount of players who have a so-called "god mode" hack. They are invisible and invincible. Almost every game seems to have at least one player like this making games unplayable and unfair. On top of this, the game is very unstable (lots of games time out or freeze up, maybe caused by the hackers?) and people quit games all the time once they realise they're up against a god mode hacker. MW3 was never one of the best CoD games anyway, but it was never this bad when I played it on the Wii.
What's worth noting is that probably the three worst games on PS3 are all Sony first party exclusives: Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 and inFamous (not necessarily in that order). Given how strong Nintendo's exclusives are (Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Kirby, Pikmin, Smash Bros etc etc etc) and how much Xbox fans rave about their (admittedly few) exclusives, it's a bit strange how the PS3 eventually outsold the Xbox 360 and how the PS4 is now racing ahead of the Wii U and Xbox One. The PS3's success is even stranger given that most multiplatform and multiplayer games are considered to perform better on Xbox 360 than on PS3. Reasons for the PS3's success? I really don't know. The success of PS1 and PS2 must have something to do with it, maybe people who grew up with them consoles feel more connected to Sony than Microsoft. Maybe it's the unreliability of the Xbox 360? The console was plagued with problems and supposedly has a failure rate of 24% compared to 10% for PS3 and 3% for Wii. Or maybe it's that PS3 offers free online services while Xbox 360 charges money for Xbox Live Gold, and if you do pay for PS Plus you get free games every month (which Microsoft have only just got around to doing). I don't regret getting a PS3 at all, but I think I was swayed by having had a PS1 and PS2, how Xbox 360 fans were so annoying in comment sections on gaming sites (they were much worse/angrier/more arrogant/more offensive than Sony or Nintendo fans) and the free online; I don't really agree with having to pay for online play for games that cost up to £50 on a console that already cost several hundred pounds. That said, you now have to do this on PS4 as well as Xbox One. Still free on Nintendo though.
No comments:
Post a Comment