What are the worst PC games you own in your collection?

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

Both games are, at there cores, shooters. Crysis is far, far better in every imaginable way than Bioshock other than story. If you really put a games story ahead of gameplay, then you should not be gaming, you should be reading. Bioshock didn't even have competent gameplay, it was simply broken. The difficulty curve was more like a difficulty straight line. The gunplay surpassed by shooters 10 years older than the game. The atmosphere was cartoonish and silly. The game had no replay value whatsoever.

Crysis had variety, razor sharp gunplay, graphics, perfect difficulty (the difficulty setting you chose was just right; just what it said it would be). It has huge replay value and modability. It is still the best looking game on the market. It catered to all kinds of different play styles.

so how exactly is Bioshock a better game than Crysis. Bioshock is a better narrative. Crysis is a better game. I reject your opinion.

8BaLLCB

I disagree with you, and fundamentally Crysis really wasn't much more than a tech demo for a vanilla FPS game. Some people go crazy over graphics i suppose, not me. I liked Crysis but it wasn't special, to me Bioshock was. Bioshock was MUCH more interesting.

Far Cry (the original) is easily Cryteks best game, its the real deal.

Enough of calling Crysis a tech-demo. It is NOT. It is an a amazing game. Take away the graphics and what do you have? Solid controls, awesome weapons, nano-suit gameplay, a mix of enemies, a mix of night/daytime action, huge level of interactivity, and a story. yes a story, a good one at that. Sure the story is similar to stories that have been done but I don't care who you are Crysis has a cool story.

This whole tech-demo argument is a bunch of crap. Sure Crysis does give a taste of graphical superiority, but just cause it's graphics are so good doesn't mean it lacks in actual gameplay. If you say Crysis is just a tech demo and lacks in gameplay than you lack in brains.

The Gameplay is plain vanilla, and yes, i've beaten the game, there is nothing special about the game other than Graphics.

I believe you lack the brains if you find Crysis' gameplay so extraordinary, its nothing special. A good game, but nothing special.

Graphics are quite good, but if they were less than top-notch, the Atmosphere of the game would be affected negatively and the game could be seen for what it is, a straightforward FPS with nothing special going for it.

Far Cry and Bioshock are both better games than Crysis. Heck, DOOM 2 from 1994 was better than Crysis!

Don't get me wrong, I liked Crysis, but I wonder if you guys have played enough FPS's to realize its nothing special. I guess you thought Halo's single-player was great also, if you've even played that.

True Crime: Streets of LA

Far Cry 2 for me, its rare my gut instincts point me to a game I really dislike, but this game takes the price, I have NEVER playied a game that was less enjoyable.

Robot Wars: Arena of Destruction. By far.

[QUOTE="8BaLLCB"]

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

I disagree with you, and fundamentally Crysis really wasn't much more than a tech demo for a vanilla FPS game. Some people go crazy over graphics i suppose, not me. I liked Crysis but it wasn't special, to me Bioshock was. Bioshock was MUCH more interesting.

Far Cry (the original) is easily Cryteks best game, its the real deal.

AFBrat77

Enough of calling Crysis a tech-demo. It is NOT. It is an a amazing game. Take away the graphics and what do you have? Solid controls, awesome weapons, nano-suit gameplay, a mix of enemies, a mix of night/daytime action, huge level of interactivity, and a story. yes a story, a good one at that. Sure the story is similar to stories that have been done but I don't care who you are Crysis has a cool story.

This whole tech-demo argument is a bunch of crap. Sure Crysis does give a taste of graphical superiority, but just cause it's graphics are so good doesn't mean it lacks in actual gameplay. If you say Crysis is just a tech demo and lacks in gameplay than you lack in brains.

The Gameplay is plain vanilla, and yes, i've beaten the game, there is nothing special about the game other than Graphics.

I believe you lack the brains if you find Crysis' gameplay so extraordinary, its nothing special. A good game, but nothing special.

Graphics are quite good, but if they were less than top-notch, the Atmosphere of the game would be affected negatively and the game could be seen for what it is, a straightforward FPS with nothing special going for it.

Far Cry and Bioshock are both better games than Crysis. Heck, DOOM 2 from 1994 was better than Crysis!

Don't get me wrong, I liked Crysis, but I wonder if you guys have played enough FPS's to realize its nothing special. I guess you thought Halo's single-player was great also, if you've even played that.

What do you mean the gameplay is vanilla? Its one whole hell of a lot better than the gameplay in Bioshock, which is repetitive and very bland. story does not equal gameplay. The gameplay in Crysis is very tight, very well polished, and very fun, great graphics or no. The gameplay in Bioshock is bordering broken, with terrible gunplay, enemy ai, no difficulty, and illogical minigames. I think you must be confusing what gameplay actually is, because there is really no way to argue that the gameplay is better in Bioshock than it is in Crysis. You could argue about other aspects of the two games, but not the gameplay. Its not my opinion, it is literally a fact.