I can normally find something redeeming about most games (although I never tried that Big Rigs Game), but there are two that were just inexcusably awful:
Hegemonia (PC):
Space-borne real time strategy game. I found it awfully, awfully slow placed (even for a strategy game), and the controls interface to be clunky. I just couldn't play it, for fear of dying of bordem.
Star Trek: Starship Creator (PC):
Good idea. Woefully limited execution. Aside from the fact that the missions were boring, you got very little freedom in designing your ship.
You could pick different hull configurations and you could... uhm... and... okay that's all you could do. Seriously, there was a limit to the 'number' of each thing that you could put into the ship. Since that's an awfully unclear sentence I'll exemplify:
1. You could have a max of 10 or so science Labs.
2. You could have 300 photon torpedoes.
etc.
That's understandable because of limited space aboard a ship, but the problem was that even if you didn't max every system out, you couldn't fill the empty space with other stuff, ie. you couldn't leave out 5 science labs and use the space to have an extra 50 torpedoes. It just remained as empty space on board the ship.
If they weren't able to/prepared to develop the game so that you could, they really should've left it until they were going to do that.
Finally, an honourbale mention
Ghost in the Shell: StandAlone Complex (PS2):
This game isn't bad when you play it first. It's a decent third person shooter. Then you finish it and discover that it has no replayability value at all. And then you realise that there's considerably more scope for better game based on this series first-time around to.
Cyber hacking is a non-event, and there's not nearly enough political intrigue, and problem solving considering what it's based on. It's not one that you think "God, why did I pay money for this!?" But it's damned close.
|