5 Games Every Self-Respecting Gamer Should Avoid.

A collection of 5 games that any gamer with their wits about them should avoid like the plague.

[Christopher]

Lats time I checked, self-respecting gamers are about experiencing the good and the bad. It's what makes them a well-experienced gamer, which leads to being respected.

[coolbeans]

What really infuriates me is the idea that the "self-respecting gamers" can't like these games in his/her eyes. Perhaps the author didn't intend for that, but perception is key.

I've had some great times in Assassin's Creed (1) and MW3 too.

[Jasmino924]

I do apologise, that's not what I intended at all, of course you can enjoy these games if you are a self-respecting gamer - I enjoyed almost all of these games, however would I willingly spend my money on them knowing what I do now? No way! It's more a playful suggestion that you'd be better off playing something else than anything.

And me too, but are either of those fantastic as a whole? Unfortunately not and the games on the list, in my opinion, contained some seriously fatal flaws, hence why they are listed.

[ReservoirDog316]

And k&l2 gets way too much flak for no reason. It's a passable game that had the nerve to make the main characters people who aren't beautiful and perfect and young. Old guys just trying their hardest to survive with the most perfect gritty art direction I've seen in most games.

Is it perfect? No. Is it kinda unpleasant in some ways? Yeah. But it's hard to deny I had a lot of fun with it and it left a mark on me.

[hellzsupernova]

i LOVED assassins creed 1 i dont haave ANY bad memories from that game!

[DragonKnight]

The first Assassin's Creed game is by far my favorite of the series. The setting is, in my opinion, the best in the series. The Third Crusade in the Holy Land is an epic setting. Altair is still my favorite protagonist because he actually seems like an Assassin. Stoic, skilled, ruthless. He just gets the job done. Ezio is too much of a playboy, and seems far too lighthearted to be taken seriously as an Assassin. I liked Constantinople better as a setting than Italy, but it's still nothing compared to the Holy Land.

I platinum'd AC2 and haven't played it since. I haven't bothered to finish Brotherhood because I got bored of it and hate online trophies. I did finish Revelations and was surprised at how short a game it actually is but it is merely a conclusion game so it's not too far fetched.

But AC1 is a game I play over and over. If Ubisoft added trophies for that game (which they won't because they suck) I'd platinum that game in a flash I love it that much. I'd still play it again afterward.

[RedDead]

My god what? Assassins creed was a majorly flawed gem in my eye's...once you got counter attack the game was all over. So I think it's not a good game, due to balance issue's and difficulty issues. As I said, extremely flawed gem..imo

[JellyJelly]

I had some great co-op experiences with Kane & Lynch 2. I must really hate myself...

[mokopa]

I enjoyed kane and Lynch 2. Try killing 20 asian men who have infinite ammos in MW3. Do you know that COD is fast paced cause it has few AIs to kill. Now take that to the bank.

[SilentNegotiator]

"And k&l2 gets way too much flak for no reason"

No reason? lol.

1) WRETCHED camera
2) UGLY graphics and effects
3) BROKEN cover system
4) POOR pacing
5) LAGGY servers

NO reason? Take that back.

[trenso1]

AC1 was so much fun. i loved every minute of it and enjoyed it more than ac2 or brother hood. playing the story was incredible with such a cliff hangar at the end. and for the repetitiveness that is brought up all the time, i never even noticed it cause' i was having so much fun. and isnt that what we are supposed to be doing having fun? not trying to dissect the game to find everything that is wrong with it?

[SilentNegotiator]

"AC1 was so much fun. i loved every minute of it and enjoyed it more than ac2 or brother hood"

Even the mandatory 10,000 minutes of traveling?

[Jasmino924]

By self-respecting, I meant this - if you are a gamer, you don't want to squander your time on a game that just isn't worth your time or money. 'Respect' yourself, by eschewing those games that waste such precious resources and play some other games instead.

You don't have to play both bad or good games to be experienced, I'm just saying that those with their 'wits about them' shouldn't spend their money on games that aren't fulfilling when there are plenty of others that are.

[Blaine]

I clicked disagree just because you used the word "eschewing". How pretentious and condescending--like your article, hey!

[kamanashi]

Then change your article to one sentence: Avoid games you don't like if you respect yourself.

Don't say someone is not a self-respecting gamer simply because they like games you don't like.

[Blaine]

@cgood

Only game I can think of that any "self-respecting gamer" (wtf?) shouldn't play is Terminator Salvation. And I platted it! Oh wait... But seriously, it's a bit embarrassing to have on my trophies list.

[Christopher]

*points and performs Nelson laugh*

[Animals_as_Leaders]

Self respect and being respected are two different things.

Also...if people respect you for being so stupid as to buy obviously broken/cookie cutter games...then what an honour it must be to be respected by such a high calibre of pocket money earning pre-teens with no concept of value.

[Christopher]

Games I play != Games I buy at full price

Note the part where he said "avoid like the plague". Nowhere did he say "never buy". And even a gamer with some self-respect would not have much if he just threw out the option of playing a game ever just because someone else tells him it's not worth his time.

I get what the author is trying to do, but it's an opinion piece that really doesn't make too much sense, IMHO.

First, games don't need to be avoided. Perhaps held off until they hit a price or rented, but outright avoided without any chance to personally try it out? Ridiculous.

Second, what measure of self-worth is there in refusing to play a game and snubbing it as opposed to actually giving it a chance? Again, no one says you have to buy the game at full price or even buy it, but somehow it's more self-respectful to snub a game as opposed to trying it yourself? Yeah, not getting that at all.

[Animals_as_Leaders]

"what measure of self-worth is there in refusing to play a game and snubbing it as opposed to actually giving it a chance?"

You realise a game is a product...and not a person with feelings? I have no problem with 'snubbing' ( not wasting money on ) blatantly poor games.

All consumers should research a product before buying it. If you think it looks good in your research and it turns out to not be, then that is simply a mistake. But buying a game for the sake of 'not snubbing it' is just stupid consumerism.

If you have more money than brains, that's fine, but 90% of games released aren't worth buying, it's brand loyalty and blind consumerism that has kept the industries trend of releasing mediocre games flowing.

I only buy games that look exceptional. Nothing wrong with that. You can't trust games based on a series name or history. How many times do series have to turn to $#!+ before people stop throwing down money on a cash in?

As for self respect, I have self respect because I value the time I put into earning my money. So not wasting my money is respecting my time, which is self respect. Simples.

@Below.

You think renting a blatantly poor game in the name of 'giving it a go' is somehow less foolish? If a game looks bad enough for you to question it's value as a purchase, then it's safe to say you are settling for mediocre games.

[Christopher]

***But buying a game for the sake of 'not snubbing it' is just stupid consumerism. ***

Again, you're erroneously thinking that playing requires buying. Get that out of your head and then think about the concept.

[Christopher]

***You think renting a blatantly poor game in the name of 'giving it a go' is somehow less foolish?***

D E M O S
D E M O S
D E M O S

*** If a game looks bad enough for you to question it's value as a purchase, then it's safe to say you are settling for mediocre games.***

And that is completely opinion based in that regard. I question the value of almost all of my purchases, all of them. Does that make it safe to say I'm always settling or mediocre games?

Even then, I questioned Alpha Protocol as a game (and am EXTREMELY surprised it doesn't make this sort of list), but even through it's faults I loved it. I didn't pay full price, but having skipped it and never played it...

[ChocolateGiddyUp]

"90% of games released aren't worth buying"

Jesus Christ, man...

[Ravenor]

@Anamials_as_leaders

Lots of NES or SNES/Genesis games were horrendously awful/broken. 90% would probably be pretty steep percentage of bad games every generation but I would say it's probably been in that neighborhood with each generation.

I should clarify when I say "Bad" I mean games that don't appear to fit within our high brow N4G box of what a good game is and isn't. NFL Blitz, or Crazy Taxi aren't "good" games in the same way that Uncharted or Skyrim are, doesn't mean that Blitz or Crazy taxi aren't any fun though.

[Amplitude]

What is this?

Kane and Lynch 2 was so good. I don't even care, that game was great minus the BS ending. I just pretend that it never ended.

Actually, so was Modern Warfare 3. The single player for MW3 was insanely and surprisingly fun, especially compared to a lot of other FPS shooters. It was insane and unrealistic, but really fun.

And so is Assasins Creed...

What is this article? lmao. This is terrible.

Haven't played Brink or Civ. Though i have heard bad things about Brink

[Daver]

A self-respecting gamer can make his decisions by himself

[calibann]

1 Article Every Self-Respecting Gamer Should Avoid.

[MWH]

wisely and very well said cgoodno.

[Ionvein]

The key thing to remember this is an "opinion" piece, and although I 100% disagree with it and think that personally as a "self-respecting gamer" I own these games and do enjoy playing them. This article made me laugh (no offence) and I consider it flamebait to even put it on here as you listed a few successful and great games that I'm sure everyone will agree aren't a waste of time to play or own.

[Jasmino924]

I suppose a good game is in the eye of my beholder, as is how you respect yourself, as it were.

These games all have good aspects to them of course, they aren't completely shoddy, though having owned them and played them and yes even enjoyed them for a time, I can see that actually based on what common factors make gamers dislike games (e.g repetition of gameplay, lack of strong single player etc.) these games would fall short in many gamers' eyes and therefore they'd probably want to avoid them.

[Ionvein]

I'm not saying these games I still play or that they are the best games ever made, but the common factor of gamers hating repetition I still don't understand as gaming for me in the late 80s and early 90s was all about repetition, not every game is going to be nonstop excitement and something new around every corner.
I'll give you this though Kane and Lynch 2 was crap.

[HarvesterOSarow]

I agree with you on Assassins Creed actually. If the pre-playthrough me met end-game me, I most likely would have told myself not to bother. It was a fun game, and there were some good achievements and what not to strive for, but afterward I felt let down. Like the only way to kill targets was with my blade after going through the same initiation of pick-pocketing? I really wondered where my creativity as a gamer could have went if I was given more options and less routine. I hear the second one is great, but I haven't played it yet.

[Knightofelemia]

I actually had fun playing Civilization Revolution both on PS3 and 360 and i loved the first Assassins Creed. MW3 isn't bad after you mute the annoying 12 yr olds.

[MoreRPG]

love assassins creed and yeah it can be repetitive but it still a great game

[Fatty]

I disagree with him completely on Civilization Revolution. It's not nearly as in-depth as the main Civ games, but it's still a really fun game and just about as easy to waste an entire evening on as the regular ones.

[ShiranaiJittai]

Well Jasmine you just drew the short straw. As a journalist myself I really try to defend an individual who writes a piece giving their opinion as they are attacked by their readers. I really can't do that here though, as every comment you have received appears to be an entirely justified response to your article.

I can't tell if you are really this ignorant about your own subject matter or if you are just trolling for views. Though it is true that negative attention is still a form of attention why would you want it?

The name of your article itself speaks volumes about your misrepresentation of the community of gamers. That is only the beginning though is it not?

1. "any self respecting gamer" Your title basically says agree with me if you wish to respect yourself, and consider yourself a "self respecting gamer." This isn't an "opinion" piece, you write your "opinion as if it is a fact.

Not to mention both within your article and in your responses you write here you have contradicted yourself, and acted as a hypocrite on more then one occasion.

You cite Modern Warfare 3 in a "how dare they" sense. How dare they claim their game offers the DEFINITIVE MULTIPLAYER experience? Right back at you, how dare you claim that your "opinion" holds so much weight so as to discredit any who disagree?

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the type of things you wrote in this article? Were you not working on your own site could very well get you removed from a team of writers. You more or less state (and then take back and or contradict) MULTIPLE times, agree with me if you are how did you put it? Assuming you are smart, and have excellent taste. Which also says agree or you aren't.

You make some interesting points in the article, the content isn't what discredits you, it is the way in which you present it as if your opinion is a fact, and the offensive (though possibly unintentional unless you are just trolling for views again I can't tell for sure) nature with which you do so.

You need to be called out on a few things as well, only because since you consider yourself a self respecting gamer, and wouldn't make these kind of mistakes were you truly in tune with your community you claim to represent so strongly.

Assassins Creed (1) - What the heck is this supposed to mean? Is Assassin's Creed 2, Brotherhood or Revelations called just Assassin's Creed? Why bother mentioning the 1? That is it's actual name it is apparent enough without it. Furthermore why put Sid Meier's name in ( ) is there another Civilization Revolution you fear we may confuse the title with? Finally Kane & Lynch 2, the only reason I bother mentioning this is that nothing I have said in this paragraph would bear any relevance whatsoever without pointing out that when mentioning every other title you gave very specific additions to titles that didn't require them, yet left them off here in Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days.

This comment isn't meant to rag on you but to inform, thus I also find it necessary to point out an obvious unfortunate bias here. To the half dozen people who have commented on how you disagree with him, or he is wrong or whatever. The writer is a girl. Though I disagree with her representation of "gaming criteria" or whatever this article is meant to imply. It is unfortunate that a video game journalist is automatically assumed to be a man. I apologize for that on behalf of my fellow gamers.

Again you make some good points in the article, but the way you went about doing so, destroyed any good points mentioned. Everyone got heated about your opinion as fact generalizations, and you lost all credibility.

[CoLD FiRE]

You seem to have too much time in your hands and I have a 1,117-word essay due today. Would you be nice enough to do it for me?

[Brownghost]

although assassins creed 1 was repetitive its still a great game and one of my favorites of my collection

[MrBeatdown]

Wow.

Someone missed the whole point of Brink. Comparing the multiplayer to the single player? They were intended to be the same thing. Knock the game for being short on content, but it's kind of stupid to knock it for implementing an idea, that in itself, isn't bad.

I didn't think the game was that bad either. I got the platinum trophy and had fun along the way. I probably had more fun with it than some of the "good" shooters out there. It's biggest problem was that nobody played it. If it had a decent community, it probably would have been a lot more fun.

As for this...

"I most certainly did not pay £40 notes on a game that is essentially team deathmatch with an offline mode tacked on as an afterthought."

Let's just call the multiplayer mode which has more features, content, replayability, and modes than practically every other multiplayer game out there "essentially team deathmatch." You don't have to like it, but give it the credit it deserves. Few games come close to matching Call of Duty content-wise.

While we're at it, why do people seem to always ignore the co-op missions and survival mode? That's my favorite portion of the game.

Wait... does this mean I shouldn't respect myself as a gamer? Aw dang.

[TooTall19]

Very well said.

[Ravenor]

Quake Wars and RTCW Enemy Territory were both better put together and far better realized versions of the type of game that Brink wanted to be. The sad thing is all 3 come from the same dev.

Honestly, if you had any love for Enemy Territory, Brink was disappointment on a stick.

[TooTall19]

The author and I have different tastes in games, cause in my opinion none of those are bad games.

While I wouldn't recommend Brink to anyone cause it seems a majority of people hate it, I will say I really enjoyed it and have no buyer's remorse after getting it day 1.

It's only 1 of 4 platinum trophies I felt like it was worth getting.

[Relientk77]

I disagree with Assassin's Creed 1, but agree with the fact that the 3 to follow are all better than it.

For MW3, I enjoyed the Single Player campaign, but the multiplayer player didn't really do it for me. I'm back to playing Black Ops for multiplayer

[pandehz]

Sweet, another author, article and website off my list.

Next!!!

[MySwordIsHeavenly]

Blocked the site. -_-

[CrzyFooL]

Disagree.

[Rockstar]

Can't say I agree with any of those choices.

[Tommykrem]

I have tried four of them and own two of them.
And what self-respecting gamer skips the first Assassin's Creed? I'll just keep playing whatever I want... Battle-Cars and Prinny.

[Lord_Sloth]

If you should ignore or skip any Assassin's Creed, it should be Revelations. Revelations was just boring to me. Ezio didn't have anything to do with the city he was in, he was just kind of there while the struggle belonged to somebody else.

AC1 was a great game. Sure it pales in comparison to 2 and Brotherhood but it still shouldn't be skipped.

[CanadianTurtle]

I don't know about you but I'm having a lot of fun with MW3. Just because I play MW3 doesn't make me less of a gamer than the next guy. I also play Mario, Tetris, WarioWare, Final Fantasy, all oldschool and new. Heck just recently I bought and played the "first" Mario Kart on the SNES.

Some people just have to understand that, just because you play CoD, doesn't make you less of a gamer. Real gamers have fun with what they're playing rather than being fanboys.

Besides, when I respect people, I base them on what their personality is like, and what they do. Not what games they play. Sheesh

[Mondayding]

This article would be number one in an article entitled 5 Articles Every Self-Respecting Gamer Should Avoid.

[ZippyZapper]

lol fail

[SirNintend0]

This article is "controversial" just for the sake of site hits. Let's not lie to ourselves.

[Dowie]

Ugh...I'm so bored of the bashing on MW3.

We get it people you don't like the game but millions of others do. Can we move the fuck on?

[gypsygib]

There are much worse games than all the ones liste on there.

[byrnezy]

I seen Assassins Creed in the tag and didn't even bother clicking link

[irokster]

Wow. Just another site I will add to the "Not a chance" list as far as interesting content and unbiased opinions...

[young7yang]

assassins creed is one of my favorite games.... screw this site..

[gamer1232]

I know, I had to double take when he ripped on Assassin's Creed!

[Ser]

I've played ALL of those games.

[spektical]

revolution was awesome on the consoles.. i thought it would be a mess, but its a solid 8-9 game. very well done. m

[Braid]

So should we just skip the first AC game that builds the context and the main foundations through which the sequels were developed and jump right into the second game without having absolutely no idea about the origin of the story?

It's true that the second game and the following sequels are better than the first game in terms of variety in gameplay but they still owe their success to the first game as it established the bare basics and the outline of the story which was quite unique and intellectually challenging, and thus the first one, not only for introducing such a creative and complex story and paving the way for some of the best games in the video games history but also for being one of the first true next-gen games in terms of graphics and overall world desing, needs to be well respected and acclaimed.