Of the few I remember to have poor ratings, <span class="bold">Robotron 64</span> and <span class="bold">HyperBlade</span> are quite fun to play.

Redneck Rampage

Redneck Rampage is so stupid and crude that it hurts... but for love of all that is holy, I stupidly enjoyed that game. I will admit though, Redneck Rampage is a bit nostalgic for me which helps a lot in my enjoyment factor of it. I didn't play it in its respective time frame but instead, played it in 2004 when I pretty much found out my computer was complete crap and couldn't join in on all the fun new PC games that came out at that time. I was lucky enough to find a copy of it at a local drugstore that was still selling old games (I live in a small town, some things about it seem like it is stuck in the nineties) and the game was my first exposure to DOS since up to that point, my knowledge of computing only involved Windows. It was at that point where I started to learn how to use DOS and have an interest in DOS gaming that steadily grew from then. Redneck Rampage has some pretty poor design decisions like bullet sponge enemies, pretty nasty hitscan issues, and levels that at times seem to drag on for far too long. I overlook those those issues since I learned to adapt to its difficulty and I enjoy its theme/style, I mean honestly, what other action game allows you to play as a Redneck and go on a completely moronic action fest in Redneck inspired locales? It is just how ridiculous that premise is that happens to appeal to my fancy. The game is not for everyone and I can understand if someone says that the game is complete garbage, but for me, it was a fun little reminder of my teen years where my love for retrogaming and retrocomputing initially started.

Usually when I get to the point where I can't run new games I say "THAT'S IT! NEW COMPUTER TIME!" . The year 2004 was when I bought my awesomesauce Alienware, albeit overpriced powerhouse with a ginormous chassis and glowing green alien on the front. It could run Half Life 2 on max settings with ease (or pretty close), which then was pretty spectactular. It's also when I got the first Chronicles of Riddick, and it ran World of Warcraft with no problems whatsoever (seeing that game was out of date to begin with, graphically speaking). It also happened like this in 2000 when I jumped onto high speed without any more hesitation. Couldn't take slow speeds any more, especially since I played so many online games and downloaded anime music videos incessantly.

I did the similiar upgrades in 2007 for my fiance and I, and again in 2010, and got full-out gaming desktops again (much more affordable) this past December. I plan to make this my last hurrah for a new computer for at least five years. Especially with my GTX 660 and i7 processor I hope to be able to run all old games and most new games for a while. Gives me time to focus on plenty of games I missed. Some of the games recommended here sound interesting.

Star Wars: Rebellion

I guess a lot of people hated it but I enjoyed the game. Perhaps my young love for Star Wars blinded me.

In recent memory it should be Mercenaries 2 for me. The game was full of bugs and glitches on the 360 version, but I loved to play that game, even if Just Cause stole the show. The vehicle hijacking mechanic was awesome in that game.

Star wars Force Commander a game that failed on many levels but being it was star wars i wanted to play and i did enjoy it eventually.

When is about 7 or 8 i liked playing Star Wars Masters of Teras Kasi.
i still play it sometimes.

I really wished I was able to have that power, but I was pretty young at that point and even if I were to have a small job to obtain money for a new computer, still wouldn't work out since I knew next to nothing about computer hardware at that time. Not only that, but my parents aren't exactly as knowledgeable in computers as I am and thought the PC we had in the house at that time was good enough so they pretty much weren't convinced that we needed a new machine.

Whaat? AOE = Age of Empires?

I recall it got glowing reviews, but to me the reviews made it sound extremely dull, like "A historical RTS? Is it some edutainment title for primary schools? What next, a cleaning simulator?".

But when I finally played it (and the sequel) myself, I was very surprised I didn't find it dull at all, and I even enjoyed learning little tidbits here and there about history. The RTS part was very good too.

I just checked it, and yeah, it seemed to get good reviews:

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/90380-age-of-empires/index.html

For some reason, GameSpot seemed to give it pretty poor review, 6.8/10? I have to read that... but others were 9/10 and so.

http://www.gamespot.com/age-of-empires/reviews/age-of-empires-review-2537895/

Another lukewarm review:

http://www.gamevortex.com/gamevortex/soft_rev.php/316/age-of-empires-pc.html

Gamespot in general, especially these days, is very questionable in their reviewing of many games, console based or PC. Their main attention is ofcourse AAA games. For a mainstream approach, that makes sense; review what the market wants the most; the most visually pleasing games in most cases at the time of review, or the most innovative.

I've been reading Gamespot reviews since 1998 or so. For over a decade I was naive to most other reviewer sites, hardly ever visiting any other. I found their info to be informative and complete...I was dead wrong! The last couple of years has seen a lot more biased opinion creep into the site, to the point it brings down games that aren't bad at all, sometimes even before launch. While this isn't only regarding gamespot, they used to never have such biased reviews. Greg Kasavin I found to be an exceptional editor but he left for game development, mostly indie games nowadays. Kevin Vanorn (might have the spelling wrong) is probably the better of the batch of editors there. I sat through over 100 episodes of their Start Select show only to feel episodes repeat, as I only really remember them talking about (go figure) a few AAA titles, such as Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, or Skyrim, with some gossip, rumors, and lawsuits thrown in the mix.

The more games I play before I read reviews the better. "Professional" reviews as they're called only hinder sales in most cases. People would be wise to do their own research, cross-reference reviews, videos, and pictures, but not too much. You don't want to spoil the experience, but you don't want to become biased based on what someone else thinks.

Excuse the rant, but gaming reviews are just too partial to one side most of the time. Some of the worst games out there in Gamespots eyes, especially JRPG's, are some of my favorites, and my fiance's.

Mobile Forces... Single Player!

I don't mind Final Fantasy XIII, but maybe that's just because I think Lightning is pretty. Makes me look forward to her new game with the *ahem* "jiggle physics."

http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/star-wars-masters-of-ters-ksi

I recall hearing that game title before... and what was the big idea by LucasArts with that? Maybe they had some Finnish team member who got to decide the name for the game, as "Teräs Käsi" is Finnish for "Steel Hand".

The way they mix English and Finnish like that in a game title makes it sound like a joke, a parody or something. But apparently they were fully serious with that game? Is "Teräs Käsi" some real part of the Star Wars lore, beyond just this one game?

In this case, the reviewer apparently hated Age of Empires, because he was expecting it to be a Civilization clone, not "Warcraft with togas". So apparently he was still reviewing it as a Civ clone, not a resource-gathering RTS that it really was.

I used to like reading the annual "Best Games Of The Year" or similar from GameSpot. They gave me lots of tips which gems (some unknown) to look for on retail game shelves. That's mainly how I ended with all the rare classics that are also constantly requested in GOG wishlists.

Diablo 2 - really bad game in many ways, but it had me hooked for a long time. It still had some Blizzard magic in there.

Postal 2 - hardly anything in the game could actually be called good. The best bits were merely adequate. But the combination of all these sub par elements results in a game that embraces the kind of chaos most games have to over-utilise boring scripted sequences to come even close to representing.

Incubation - Some great Space Hulk-ish tactical gameplay save what is otherwise a very average game with more than its fair share of faults. But again, I love it for its strengths. What it does well it does really well.

Me too. Got it as an extra in a video game magazine and loved it. So satisfying, one gets stronger and stronger.