The 10 Worst Games Made For The PSP and DS

VonSnouty writes "With the DS and PSP now out of their 'early years', handheld specialist Pocket Gamer has taken the innovative approach of warning readers off of the 10 worst games for the PSP released so far, as well as the and 10 worst games for the DS. The latter piece notes that: 'The DS has suffered from as many bad games as its Sony rival. Indeed, according to this unbiased evaluation of the PSP and DS game reviews on MetaCritic, DS has played host to even more dreadful, money-sucking stinkers. The reason? Probably the same things we love the DS for — its unique features, such as the dual-screens and the stylus. A lazy PlayStation 2 port might at least result in a mediocre game on PSP, but DS games done on the cheap are likely to be pure evil.'"

Game library size

[Sciros]

I think the DS also has a more extensive library of games. This almost guarantees that there will be more poorly designed/developed games available for it than for the PSP. It's the same as with the PS2 -- that console has *a lot* of games out for it, so it's much easier (and funnier) to put together a "worst PS2 games" list than a "worst Gamecube games" list or whatever.

DS...

[n00854180t]

The DS also has a far greater chance of "bad" games due to improper or poorly thought out use of the touch screen, where as the PSP doesn't need "innovation" or specific concern put to such a feature. Also, games that are classic in style (and thus use the touch screen for maps or something equally lame) might also be judged poorer due to lack of input use of the touch screen.

Re:Subjective

[rootofevil]

Just don't believe what you read, try the games first.

doesnt that defeat the purpose of review sites/magazines?

The real story:

[drinkypoo]

Did you look at the ratings they gave these games? There's not a single title with a rating under 2 on either list. The median rating is 4 and the second most common rating is 5. The ten worst games ever made for the PSP and DS put together are typically 40 to 50% good? I think not. If I want inflated ratings, I can just go check out IGNorant.

Re:Subjective

[steveo777]

doesnt that defeat the purpose of review sites/magazines?

Exactly.

You can't read an unbiased opinion in the media these days. The best you will get is to find an editor or two who share your opinion and stick with them. But good luck because it's going to cost you hundreds to find out if you're right. And at $50+ a pop, it's not worth it. The only thing they're good for is showing screen shots or in-game footage. On occasion you can rely on them to tell you how well a game controls.

The only way to know how well a game will entertain you.. is to play it. So it's borrowing from a friend or renting it before you buy it if you're into that sort of thing. It sucks, but I can't afford to buy more than 3-4 games a year at full price, so if I can't borrow it or at least just know it's going to be good, I probably won't pick it up.

Re:The real story:

[AuMatar]

I noticed the same thing. If a game is really one of the 10 worst for a system, it should have a 2 tops. Thats why I don't read gaming mags anymore- the reviews are horrible.

Re:The real story:

[Wordplay]

I think most of these rating systems are from the standpoint that 0% is a total waste of bytes. The thing is that console games don't tend to get published until they're around the 30 or 40% level because of licensing and duplication costs. You see more true stinkers for the PC, where the startup is much lower.

Same goes for music and movie reviews. By the time you've gone pro, and at least have a professional production job, that's a free 25% or so right there.

Re:Game library size

[walnutmon]

While I accept anyones opinion, the one voice about Animal Crossing, is just wrong.

You seriously are left in a state of perpetual rent paying, and collecting things through VERY linear means. There is fishing, digging, and catching bugs. You can also plant things. That's it!

I'm sorry, but the amount of intellect it takes to draw pleasure from such narrow activities, which are all incredibly boring to actually do, is low.

Want to fish? Click in the water near a fish that will almost always come and bite. Then when the bobber goes down. CLICK AGAIN! You got a boot! A sunfish! A crab!

It really should say, "you have just wasted your time doing one of the 4 activities of Animal Crossing, please prepare to do the same thing over and over again". And don't give me that "LOL, but every game is the same thing!". No, there are generally the same types of thigns, but different strategies associated with them.

Your assumption that I don't like the "live in" style of game is so false it is rediculous! I LOVE those kinds of games, that is the number one reason that I hate Animal Crossing! I thought it was going to be a really cool sandbox game, which is exactly the kind of game that I want for the DS. However, to make these simulation "live in" games good, you need depth, and a LOT of it, to make it fun. Depth isn't an endless assortment of fossils or fish, that is something that should be added to the already existing depth of a game, not as the basis for one.

You took my post as a troll to piss off Animal Crossing fans... My post is not a troll, it is pure objective dislike of a game and all the mindless lemmings who piss away hours of their life enjoying it. Not because I absolutely oppose pissing away hours of life, but because I oppose it when there are so many better options. The DS has good games, Animal Crossing is not one of them.

Now if you disagree, please, explain to me WHY it is fun, and then maybe I can enjoy it. Wait... You haven't even played it?! I have it sitting right here, and IT SUCKS.