The “Don’t Play This Game” Roundup

Back in the days before Metacritic’s ubiquity – where every relevant critic score is now handily collected for the almighty “Aggregate” – netizens were expected to remember in their heads the domains to the hundreds of different game-reviewing outlets around at the time, and to do the maths themselves if they wanted something like an average review score for the latest releases. With this in mind, most folk simply couldn’t be bothered, and settled into the habits of swearing by a single online outlet. And in most cases, your allegiance would likely come down to one of the two major sources for gaming news: GameSpot or IGN. Sure, you could go on telling folk that ‘Old Man Murray’ had you covered; but at the end of the day, you still ended up relying on one of the big two when it came to the latest breaking and most all-encompassing coverage.

Of course, I was one of those odd cases who didn’t really vibe with either at the time: I actually got most of my news by way of GameSpy in the mid-to-late 1990s, before getting sent in the direction of GameTrailers in the early aughts. That’s my knack for betting on winning horses. But despite my best efforts to “stand out from the crowd” and pledge myself to “less conformist” gaming news outlets (or whatever my dumb young reasoning was), I would still find myself drawn to GameSpot’s doorstep for some particularly special ocassions: Namely, whenever the review team saw fit to score a game as something lower than a 2.0 out of 10. For in the cases of these spectacular duds, there was the chance that you might see a special sort of video review attached — a break from the traditional format and presentation they had established.

In these rare reviews, you could witness the GameSpot staff engaging in what felt like uncharacteristic goofiness: Smashing eggs against their foreheads, speaking in over-the-top trucker vernacular, or even going entire minutes staring into the camera without saying so much as a word. The purpose behind these videos wasn’t to provide in-depth game reviews, but to instead focus solely on entertainment [at the expense of some truly terrible software]. There was no telling what strange directions they might decide to take these skits in, as each installment allowed for the reviewer’s unique personalities and comedic sensibilities to shine through. But across them all, there was in fact a singular constant — a shared refrain which could come to link and to canonize this unofficial “series.” Four one-syllable words which – when said in sequence – harnessed the power to forever damn a game to infamy:

“DON’T PLAY THIS GAME.”

Needless to say, I was a huge fan of these reviews: Partially for the comedy stylings, but perhaps more so due to a developing fascination with video games of questionable quality. Each title to receive the dubious distinction has been forever burned into my brain, to the point where I can actually recall all their names in the order they were reviewed! Which gave me the idea: “Why not do exactly that for the purposes of an article?” Which brings us to the here and now. This article will list and briefly review the reviews for / contents of every game to receive the “DPTG” branding by GameSpot. In this way, I hope to provide a catalogue for this unsanctioned game collection, and to pay homage to what was surely an influence on my perspective of bad games. Eventually, all these listed titles should receive the full article treatment on this website. But for the purposes of this article, we’re just here to list them.

Arthur’s Quest: Battle for the Kingdom

Released: August 26, 2002 | Reviewed by Andrew Park: September 17, 2002

Windows release (ValuSoft / 3LV Games, 2002)

A wise writer once wrote, “Sometimes, four words are all you need to tell a whole story.” Perhaps in the case of Arthur’s Quest: Battle for the Kingdom and its video review, though, no one could simply be bothered to write any more than just four words? After all: Reviewer Andrew Seyoon Park had already penned a full written review prior to filming his video companion, and probably decided that this piece of budget software didn’t deserve scribbling so much as a single letter more when it came time to prepare a shooting script. Or maybe understanding that the gameplay more than spoke for itself, Andrew realized that he could rest his weary mind come camera time, and let the truly tedious footage do the talking for him? Whatever the thought process might have been, the result we ultimately received is a one minute and twenty-four second video; in which only the “Don’t play this game” disclaimer is spoken, and which is otherwise comprised of close-ups on Andrew’s face intercut with gameplay B-roll.

When it comes to rating all the video reviews in this collection? I definitely have a soft spot for this largely silent endeavor. It’s a trick / gimmick which the editors were only going to be allowed to pull off once (or maybe twice, as time might prove), and I think it’s used to solid effect here. With a game like Arthur’s Quest where you can nearly tell how bad it is from just a cursory glance at it – where only a second or two of footage is needed to convey just how empty the whole experience is – you can get away with just cutting to the reviewer’s mostly blank face — almost as if trying to evoke some sort of “Kuleshov effect”-type experience.^[?] You could even argue that Andrew’s obvious lack of on-camera experience is to his benefit in this particular context. All in all, the video serves as a fine kick-off to this informal series.

As for the game itself? We’ve actually already gone and written a whole article on the subject matter, describing how the game most certainly deserved its DPTG status / disclaimer in its time. That being said, it’s also a game that scratches several of those “so bad it’s good” itches, and is well enough worth playing on that merit now.

Sniper: Path of Vengeance

Released: September 19, 2002 | Reviewed by Erik Wolpaw: October 7, 2002

Windows release (Xicat / Mirage Interactive, 2002)

Remember that Old Man Murray website I mentioned earlier? Well, one Erik Wolpaw was one of the two writers for said site (alongside Chet Faliszek). And after the project wound down in 2002, he would end up serving a brief stint as a reviewer for GameSpot. During this time, he got saddled with having to write about a few fairly wretched Windows titles; including Mortyr 2093 – 1944, its sequel (Mortyr 2), Primal Prey, and the PC conversion of some hunk of junk called ‘Grand Theft Auto III’? A sorry lot, to be sure. Anyhow, the developers behind those Mortyr titles had also put out a game by the name of Sniper: Path of Vengeance, which would also wind up landing on Erik’s desk for review. And boy howdy, is this game a doozy: Maybe one of the most sloppily-assembled first-person shooters I’ve played, with some of the most despicable dialogue and characterization you’ll ever encounter. In a word? It’s bad. So bad, in fact, that it would be due to receive the DPTG video treatment… albeit, not with the review’s original writer appearing in front of the camera. Notably – across his two reviews appearing in this list – Erik would choose not to appear in either of the video accompaniments to his writing. I’m sure he had his reasons.

Instead, we get to see Craig Beers (then ‘PC Video Editor’) appear in front of the camera on a shot of a city street – presumably right out in front of the GameSpot offices – opening with an particularly awkward line read: “So, y’know, I enjoy games. I really enjoy games.” He then proceeds to describe this video you’re watching as a “public service announcement,” before stepping into a nearby deli and placing an order for a single uncooked egg. Shortly thereafter – having cut to a second location further away from said deli – Craig reapproaches the camera in order to stage a brief visual demonstration. Pointing to his head, he explains “This is your brain”; before smashing the egg in his other hand against his face, and further explaining “This is your brain on Sniper: Path of Vengeance. Don’t play this game.” For those of you maybe born after the year 1997: This is meant to parody a series of television commercials / PSAs / scare-mongerings produced by the ‘Partnership for a Drug-Free America,’ where the visual of an egg cooking is meant to somehow represent the effects of drugs on the impressionable young mind. Any questions?

While certainly not my favorite video review of the lot, Erik’s written word is definitely one of the funnier reads you’ll find on this list. Still, said video might still be worth a view; if only to hear some of the fumbling script read, to see some of the background pedestrians realizing they’re on camera, and to watch a man crack an egg against his forehead on account of a budget PC game. Better yet though, the game itself is absolutely worth playing (or at least watching someone else play), as it represents something like a masterpiece of flawed FPS design.

Gravity Games Bike: Street Vert Dirt

Released: June 27, 2002 | Reviewed by Jeff Gerstmann: October 11, 2002

Xbox release (Midway Games, 2002)

Gravity Games Bike: Street Vert Dirt is a game so nice, GameSpot had to review it twice! Which is to say: A first review posted for the initial PlayStation 2 release would go up on July 10th (2002) – as written by Jeff Gerstmann – and proceed to tear the game to shreds. It came paired with a disclaimer that readers “[should] not, under any circumstances, buy, rent, or look at this game.”^[1] A fair request for this fairly awful extreme sports title, to be sure. A strange case would occur soon after, however; where the game was meant to release conversions on Nintendo’s GameCube and Microsoft’s Xbox, but where nothing ever seemed to materialize of it. For a time, it was believed that Midway may have gone and cancelled both conversions outright, and simply decided to keep mum on the subject rather than admitting to such. However, as Jeff would go on to recall some years later (as part of an episode of Giant Bomb’s ‘Demo Derby’ series)**, the Xbox version of the game had been subject to something like a “stealth” release — a situation where the game had been finished, printed, and left the publishers with no choice but to quietly hide their resulting product within the stock of a certain wholesale distributor:

“This is a Midway joint that was supposed to come out, and I remember calling for review copies of this game. And they kept putting me off, putting me off, putting me off… and then I found a zillion copies of it sitting in a Costco. Like, Midway had apparently dumped all of its copies at Costco: No other distributors wanted it, or whatever the situation was. It was like, rather than cancel it, it had come off the assembly line and they were like, ‘Fuck it.’ I don’t know what the situation was, but you could find this game at Costco and nowhere else. This game sucks shit.” ~ Jeff Gerstmann^[2]

In addition to writing a new written review for the Xbox version of the game, it was decided that Gravity Games Bike should also be subject to a video review at this point as well. Said video is presented in black and white, with a fake vintage film grain filter / projector sound effects playing in the background — playing to a sort of old-timey 1940s “educational film” presentation (the sort you might find riffed on in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000). The premise of the bit is a narrator [played by Jeff] providing commentary, as an on-screen Jeff is made to decide “which is more fun” between a copy of the game and an empty cardboard box. Needless to say, Jeff eventually settles on the box, which also just so happens to have “DON’T PLAY THIS GAME” written on its underside. The narration also reiterates the line, to additionally drive the disclaimer home. While the sketch premise here is pretty basic, it’s Jeff’s exaggerated mannerisms and goofy voiceover which help to sell it all, and make it all [at least somewhat] memorable.

If you should happen to play the game for yourself (in either its PS2 or Xbox variety), you’ll quickly come to a conclusion that its conversions were probably better off being cancelled. It may well be the worst in the roundup of Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater rip-offs; pairing its wholly unoriginal structure with some of the absolute worst control seen in a wheel-based sport game, and hosting a litany of bugs and glitches which range from “laughable” to “intensely frustrating” (depending on how seriously you’re committed to completing the game). The only other extreme sport game I can recall as coming close to this level of badness might be MTV Sports: Skateboarding featuring Andy Macdonald? Maybe one day, I’ll be able to make an informed determination as to which is truly worse.

** The original GameSpot review for the Xbox version of the game also goes on to describe this same scenario, but I decided to go with quoting Jeff’s re-telling of the events for Giant Bomb here, on account of it being a bit more “colorful” of an explanation.

Demonworld: Dark Armies

Released: January 13, 2002 | Reviewed by Craig Beers: January 29, 2002

Windows release (Xicat / Ikarion Software, 2002)

And here we have something of a fringe case. Chronologically, Demonworld: Dark Armies should be the earliest game (in terms of release date) to earn the DPTG distinction, but it’s an anomaly in that it only earned it during GameSpot’s end-of-year ‘Best and Worst of 2002’ awards — long after the above DPTG alumni had since released and already been given the more typical treatment. When its initial written review was published on January 29th of 2002, it didn’t actually come paired with an accompanying video review in the same fashion as its peers — instead being made to wait until appearing in a segment of GameSpot’s video revue for the worst games on PC released that year.

Which brings us to a further quandary here, as the video which would’ve commemorated Demonworld: Dark Armies’ place as the ‘Worst Game on PC’ [for 2002] – as well as presumably have a presenter speak aloud the catchphrase of the day – has since become lost media: No longer available through GameSpot’s website, or seemingly archived elsewhere online. All that’s left to solidify the game’s place on this list / in the DPTG canon is the fact that the line itself still appears in the text for its induction into GameSpot’s awards:

“There have been a handful of games this year that are so bad that all we can do is warn you to stay away from them. Far away. Any of our nominees for Worst Game on PC would make you quake in fear at the mere sight of them, but one game especially stands out: Demonworld: Dark Armies, a real-time strategy game that’s so incredibly bad that it truly must be the work of the devil. […] So please, take our word for it: Don’t play this game.”^[3]

Whether or not the game truly deserves this dubious distinction? I’m not really too adept at the best of RTS, and so I haven’t dug quite deep enough yet into the game myself to reach a full determination. What I can tell you is that the interface is hella clunky, the half-baked ‘RPG mechanics’ don’t seem particularly depthful or well-implemented, and that unit control and pathfinding are probably some of the worst I’ve encountered in the genre… for as limited a field of peers as it may inhabit, in that context. Perhaps one day, I will brave the whole of the Empire’s campaign and the bonus scenarios, and provide a full report from the battlefield. Until that day, it’s probably for the best that the rest of you take GameSpot’s hot tip.

The Sum of All Fears [on GameCube]

Released: May 28, 2002 | Reviewed by Ryan MacDonald: February 11, 2003

GameCube release (UbiSoft / Red Storm Entertainment, 2002)

GameSpot’s review for the GameCube conversion of The Sum of All Fears would be posted on February 11th, 2003 — some nine months after the game’s release. As such, this is another review way out of chronological release sequence. With the initial written review being penned by Ryan MacDonald, he would go on to present the game’s accompanying video review as well, and deliver a fairly standard (if not highly critical) script in line with the traditional GameSpot format. However, in breaking from the template, Jeff Gerstmann would also appear in the video — performing an odd, silent performance within a picture-in-picture portion of the screen. This is, until Ryan ends his summation with the “Don’t play this game” line, prompting Jeff to begin enthusiastically shouting “OOHHH, OH NO YOU DIDN’T.” And that’s a wrap on that.

To say that this particular video review feels out of place in this collection might be something of an understatement. In addition to sticking mostly close to traditional review format, the picture-in-picture gag just isn’t particularly funny — at least by my wholly subjective comedy opinions. More pointedly: It feels like Jeff’s part was thought up / added in after all the rest of the video had already been shot and edited, and is thereby disconnected from the rest of the audiovisual presentation. My hypothesis? The review team may have been pressured by management to deliver a more traditional video review for the game, given the nature of the publisher involved and the pedigree behind the Tom Clancy branding.

Of course I’m not claiming that Ryan MacDonald would’ve been pressured to rate the game higher than he felt it deserved, or to hold back any of his rightful criticisms of it: The proof of that should be in the fact that his 2.6-scoring review is still appropriately scathing, and that the video version still goes so far as to include the DPTG disclaimer. But perhaps in trying to prevent relations between GameSpot and UbiSoft from dissolving completely, Ryan and Jeff were maybe given the directive to not reduce the video review to the level of complete farce? And so, they submit their fairly standard video review to be approved by management, and maybe later get the blessing to add at least some comedy flourish to it. It’s either all this, or some other scenario where adding Jeff’s bit is still a complete afterthought / last-minute edit.

As for whether or not the game in question truly deserved the DPTG treatment? Well, while the GameCube conversion certainly doesn’t represent the best way to play what is already a fairly lacklustre Tom Clancy title, it’s also not the worst tactical first-person shooter I’ve ever played? Simplifying the tactical elements to the point of literally drawing an intended line for you to follow on an on-screen map might constitute sacrilege to more die-hard tacticians, and there are definite issues with AI scripting (on the part of both enemies and teammates alike) and HUD design (where objective notifications can obscure your entire screen), but the game is at least functional at the end of the day. That’s more than can be said of the likes of an FBI: Hostage Rescue or Takedown: Red Sabre — or perhaps even another title due to appear in this list soon enough.

Gods and Generals

Released: February 18, 2003 | Reviewed by Andrew Park: March 18, 2003

Windows release (Activision Value / AniVision, 2003)

In commissioning a video game adaptation for one of 2003’s biggest flop films; no expense was spared, and only the finest names in the software business were brought on to bring the product to fruition. This is to say, Activision immediately delegated the game to their ‘Activision Value’ label, and to a developer known only for a single previous title in a barely-supported online racing game (Indy Net Race Live). The result is a first-person shooter so dangerously close to being categorized as “unplayable,” it is frankly incredible that it was even allowed to release in the first place. But so it was, and so appeared GameSpot’s Andrew Park to deliver another classic DPTG video review.

The theme / gimmick this go-around is narration in the style of a Ken Burns-type documentary,^[?] as intercut with some particularly shocking gameplay footage. We’re talking deathly bad framerate drops (demonstrating the game’s complete lack of optimization for then-current computers), the game’s audio engine absolutely failing to function, and artificial intelligence breaking down entirely; all as Andrew mumbles total nonsense about how the Civil War was fought by “two great armies of brave, brave clones.” It’s another bit where his unintentionally (?) dry performance proves absolutely perfect for the plan at hand. And so, while his commentary may not serve to reflect some of the more egregious criticisms of the game – such as the idea that developer Anivision had planned to charge an additional five dollars for access to a multiplayer mode [which never materialized] – it’s perfect in its comedic capacity, while the gameplay footage should do more than enough to scare any potential consumer away from the game.

Make no mistake: Gods and Generals is genuinely one of the worst first-person shooters ever sold, and it certainly deserves a full teardown treatment on a website such as this. But for what GameSpot was looking to achieve in this case – in looking to entertain viewers with an accompaniment to a more pointed written review – the video is allowed to be almost entirely uninformative. Leave it to masochists like me to pick up where they left off, and to do the dirtier work of having to take the game “seriously” / describe all its specific design flaws. “War, at the best, is terrible, and this war of ours, in its magnitude and in its duration, is one of the most terrible.”

Charlie’s Angels

Released: July 8, 2003 | Reviewed by Alex Navarro: July 25, 2003

GameCube release (Ubisoft / Neko Entertainment, 2003)

A twenty-one year old Alex Navarro would be hired on to GameSpot in early 2003 as an ‘Assistant Review Editor’ (marking his first steady job in the games industry), and be put to work almost immediately covering the sorts of games that none of the other review team at the time wanted to touch. In his own words: “I was reviewing a lot of very bad video games. I tended to get a lot of the chaff that was sort of left over when all the people who mattered at the site had taken the games they wanted to review.”^[4] With this in mind, Alex would soon establish himself as the go-to reviewer for some the worst games passing through the GameSpot offices, and be the one to render the DPTG verdict on no less than four of the six remaining games on this list. It was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it — especially during this time in company history, where one of the website’s objectives was to aim to review every new video game being released:

“This was also an era of game reviews where we were trying to review pretty much everything. That was part of the arms race between IGN and GameSpot: ‘Who has the most reviews?’ […] It lead to some things like this, where we would occasionally review very bad video games. And when they were truly awful, we would do video reviews for them that were usually somewhat comedic in nature — to varying degrees of success.” ~ Alex Navarro^[4b]

Alex’s DPTG debut is a short and humble affair. In parodying the structure of the original Charlie’s Angels TV show; Alex sits at his desk until receiving a phone call from “Charlie” (as voiced by Jeff), who he puts on speakerphone so that he and the viewer can both be informed that “This game sucks!” Smash cut to a “DON’T PLAY THIS GAME” titlecard, with a bit of background audio from the game — complete with one of the characters exclaiming “You go, Alex!” (For reference, Alex is the name of Lucy Liu’s character in the 2003 film / game) At just 30 seconds in length, this makes for the shortest video review on our list. At the same time though, it’s not a gag you’d want to see dragged out for too long in the first place.

You probably don’t need me to tell you that the Charlie’s Angels game is every bit as bad as is claimed (if not worse). It’s maybe one of the most plodding 3D beat ‘em ups ever designed, with a presentation like a particularly primitive animatic for the film it’s made to tie into. It’s definitely more on the “boring bad” side of actual execution too, so it’s hard to recommend it as even an ironic romp. Gonna have to reiterate Alex’s advice on this one, and simply suggest that you Don’t Play This Game.

RoboCop

Released: April 30, 2003 | Reviewed by Alex Navarro: August 8, 2003

Windows release (MGM Interactive / Titus, 2003)

Titus Interactive had gotten their grubby little paws on the RobCop license in as early as 1999, but took until 2003 to finish developing a console release based on the titular robotic officer. Of course, if you’re up on your bad games history / are familiar with Titus’ back catalogue, you can reasonably guess how their RoboCop title ultimately turned out: Perhaps not their personal worst license-based game, but still not a particularly compelling offering in any other sense. Unfortunately for Alex, he would be the GameSpot staffer left once again with the short end of the stick, and made to turn in a thorough written review on this software. Luckily, he would at least have the additional outlet of a video review in which to let a little more loose — which he seemed to approach with at least some excitement and aplomb.

Alex’s primary point that he seemed to want to drive home in the video review was the fact that the game was originally being sold at full retail price — a proper $49.99 price tag. “This is not just some budget game that they threw out there. They expect you to pay full price for RoboCop on the Xbox.” Demonstrating a concern for fans of the larger RoboCop franchise who might pick up the game on its branding alone, Alex instead begins to suggest a series of alternative goods and purchase options for those in search of an “infinitely better RoboCop experience.” These items include a copy of the original film on DVD (valued at approximately $13 at the time), an airsoft replica model of RoboCop’s custom Beretta ($20), and a meatball sandwich (estimated value of $8). Alex then provides his final cost-value analysis: “41 bucks, you get these three things, and you’re having a great RoboCop time. [Buying the game] for 50 dollars? You’re having a terrible RoboCop time.” After concluding by verbally warning viewers away with the DPTG disclaimer, there’s a bit of gameplay footage tacked onto the end for some additional reference; as well as a text overlay added to mimic RoboCop’s internalized ‘Prime Directives,’ where the new fourth directive now reiterates the DPTG line for a second time.

I think this might be my platonic ideal for what a DPTG video review should constitute: A simple and straightforward sketch at the top – where the game can be mocked without needed to get into any of the specifics – followed by some brief bit of particularly embarrassing gameplay footage to help drive the point home. And if a viewer is so inclined, they can handily check the original written review for all the sordid specifics as to where the game went wrong. And in the case of RoboCop – boy howdy – it goes wrong in more than just a couple of spots. I hear that Titus’ earlier Game Boy Color take on the license is at least passable, for whatever that’s worth?

Navy SEALs: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Released: July 18, 2003 | Reviewed by Erik Wolpaw: August 11, 2003

Windows release (Valusoft / Jarhead Games, 2003)

Erik Wolpaw returns once again, to cover another historically bad contemporary-themed first-person shooter. Navy SEALs: Weapons of Mass Destruction is the long-winded title for a game serving as sequel to 2002’s Elite Forces: Navy SEALs — with both games sharing the same developer and publisher combo (Jarhead Games and ValuSoft), the same game engine (some unspecified branch of LithTech), and similarly lacklustre gameplay. That being said, Weapons of Mass Destruction certainly represents some marked steps backward, toward the direction of near non-functionality. While Erik’s written review serves to highlight several of these downgrades, the video review in this case… Well, it’s definitely a video, at the very least.

Again, not wanting to appear in front of a camera (or perhaps unable to due to the limitations of his freelance nature), Erik doesn’t appear in the video review. In his place: Nobody. As a matter of fact, this is the sole video review on this list to consist entirely of gameplay footage, with nothing in the way of commentary or performance. Granted, the gameplay footage on display definitely paints an amusing picture of the game’s inaction, but that only brings it so much closer in line with the rest of the DPTG series. If not for the tagged-on titlecard at the end though, it might as well not even be counted in this lot. A disappointment, considering how staggeringly bad the game in question is, and how much more recognition it deserves / it may well have earned had it been given a more memorable treatment. I can only promise to give the game its due spotlight on this site at some point, and to highlight just how low the military sim can sink.

For those of you who are unaware / may be wondering where Erik Wolpaw eventually landed career-wise: He’s only wound up serving as writer for games including the likes of Psychonauts, Portal, Left 4 Dead, and the Half-Life 2 episodes. As it turns out, his Old Man Murray days made such an impression on one Gabe Newell in particular, it effectively scored him “job for life” status at Valve. Cozy gig if you can get it, I reckon. So while OMM might make for a bit rougher of a read these days, and where Erik’s GameSpot reviews represent something like a wasted potential (in terms of not being paired with potentially more memorable videos), I somehow doubt the man is wallowing too deeply in regret over any of it.

Terminator 3: War of the Machines

Released: December 2, 2003 | Reviewed by Bob Colayco: December 12, 2003

Windows release (Atari / Clever’s Games, 2003)

Color me surprised that another movie tie-in game would end up falling in Alex Navarro’s lap! The property this time around comes in the form of Terminator 3: War of the Machines, and Black Ops Entertainment’s attempt at realizing the license as a first-person shooter slash fighting game. For those unaware: Black Ops would employ a similar approach to designing another infamous cross-genre release, Fugitive Hunter: War on Terror. Though the latter would release within a literal week of T3 – where an outsider looking in might assume they are something like “sister software” to one another – Fugitive Hunter was most certainly the game which toiled longer in development, and which served as the foundation for Rise of the Machines to be quickly built upon and rushed to pass.

What I’m trying to say here is, Rise of the Machines is a lousy, no good– wait, just a minute. I’m being informed that… I’m apparently talking about “the wrong Terminator 3 game” here? How many T3 games could there possibly– you’re telling me they made three of them?! Huh. So, which one ended up getting the DPTG treatment then, if not the damned Fugitive Hunter clone? Ah, I see. Welp, let’s go ahead and recalibrate, I reckon.

The PC-exclusive release of Terminator 3: War of the Machines is a fairly shameless Battlefield 1942 clone; released at a moment in time where Battlefield’s multiplayer template was still freshly unique, and where transplanting those systems into a futuristic setting wouldn’t yet see you accused of ripping off Battlefield 2142 more specifically. Review duties for the game would fall on Bob Colayco, who would establish himself as something of a go-to reviewer for tactical / multiplayer shooters within the site’s review staff. War of the Machines definitely rates as a pretty miserable release in that particular vein, and Bob’s written review certainly reflects as much (though it does get a few key details wrong, such as claiming that there’s “no way to shut off” the red-tinted vision while playing as a Skynet soldier). As for the accompanying video review: Commentary is delivered by a so-called ‘GameSpot Trivia Robot,’ speaking in [what I presume to be] Bob’s modulated voice, in order to forewarn human viewers that “When the machines rise up to destroy you all, our robots will actually kill you.” Cue some hard-to-discern footage of some gameplay in action, before the kindly robot returns to deliver the expected DPTG warning.

Definitely not one of the stronger videos in this collection, but at least it represents some effort being put toward evoking the format. That said, I could brainstorm about a dozen better ideas over the course of just a few minutes, which would’ve been just as cheap and easy to produce. How about a skit where a Skynet / robot representative claims that War of the Machines will be what humans are forced to play under machine servitude? Or maybe have the robo-rep badly trying to hide the secret that the game is how they’re running their strategic simulations, and attempting to encourage “hu-man test subjects” to participate? The speaker in question could’ve even been Bob wrapped up in cardboard boxes and aluminum foil, for the cheapest / shoddiest-looking robot costume imaginable. Y’all reading these pitches, GameSpot? Hit me up with an offer for a sweet consultant gig.

Rebel Trucker: Cajun Blood Money

Released: November 25, 2003 | Reviewed by Alex Navarro: December 16, 2003

Windows release (Global Star / 3 Romans, 2003)

A big rig trucking game? On this list? It’s more likely than you think. Rebel Trucker: Cajun Blood Money is a trucking and long-hauling simulator, with elements of criminal enterprise present in a story mode. For the game to appear on this list, you can probably guess that it’s all pretty awfully implemented: Buggy, barely controllable, and outright offensive at points. It’s also a very strange case where the ESRB rating as indicated on the box is ‘M for Mature,’ whereas the instruction manual is printed with an ‘E for Everyone?’ For reference, it certainly warrants the former more so than the latter. In any event: Where Alex’s written word is suitably scathing – like furious testimony by a trucker scorned – getting in front of the camera again gave him the opportunity again to portray a lighter perspective on the matter.

With a trucker cap sporting a leggy lady graphic and a ‘Freightliner’ patch on his jacket, Alex delivers his spoken review “in the language of ‘truck’” (as a titlecard explains), in order to ensure that his message is received loud and clear by any truckers who might be watching at home. Luckily for those not versed in the language of the open road, the video is additionally “close-captioned for the trucking-impaired.” Of course, what this actually amounts to is Alex tossing around a completely nonsensical / unrelated string of CB radio-type jargon while the captions spell out some simple criticisms of the game. In example: The spoken line “Four Evel Knievel were riding his back pretty tight, but he wasn’t gonna stop” somehow translates roughly into “The game crashes frequently, at seemingly random intervals.” And when it comes time to deliver the series catchphrase? “We gone. Bye bye” is apparently what constitutes as trucker for “Don’t play this game.” The more you know, I suppose! I should also mention that the background music to the video is a track ripped from the game: A particularly low-bitrate rendition of “The Saints Go Marching In.”

If it wasn’t abundantly clear at this point, Alex was proving himself to be one of GameSpot’s most comfortable performers and entertaining reviewers when placed in front of a camera. In helping demonstrate the value of allowing their editors / staffers to showcase more of their personalities – where the likes of Jeff Gerstmann, Ryan Davis, and others would soon follow in flourishing – Alex was doing a great service to the site with his video content. Leave it to a game about trucking to bring out some of the best in this fresh-faced city slicker! But of course, there was another game in the waiting for review with similar big rig theming — whose path would soon cross with Navarro’s, and converge to lead both into Internet infamy.

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing

Released: November 20, 2003 | Reviewed by Alex Navarro: January 14, 2004

Windows release (Game Mill / Stellar Stone, 2003)

This is the big one, folks: The review that would rapidly make the rounds across all the Internet’s message boards, and help establish Alex Navarro’s worldwide [web] reputation as a renowned sufferer of bad games. It’s a game that would soon cement its own legacy as contender for “worst of all time” — enduring to this very day, unrivaled by rare few. Its review score would stand as the first 1.0 [out of 10] in GameSpot’s then seven year history; representing the lowest possible score by their metric, and remaining unmatched until the likes of Ride to Hell: Retribution debuted some nine years later. We are, of course, talking about Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing: A title which has gone on to become somewhat synonymous with Alex, thanks to the inspired approach to his video review. To hear Jeff Gerstmann describe how the game made its way to Alex’s desk, it was something like a matter of chance — perhaps fate, really:

“For a while there, when we ran out of things to give to Alex, we would go to Walmart and just buy stuff off the shelves. And there were a lot of things that just got weird distribution at a Walmart and nowhere else, and [Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing] was such a game. It’s basically broken — it’s basically not a game.” ~ Jeff Gerstmann^[5]

Alex’s own testimony as to how the game came to enter his sphere does differ slightly, if not ringing consistent as far as detailing a similar sort of scenario. Here he also describes the simplicity and apparent spontaneity of his video pitch, and how unspectacular the story behind it truly is:

“Every once in a while we would just go to GameStop, and if there was just something on a shelf that we hadn’t been sent or that had come out recently – and we felt like we should at least take a look at – we would usually just buy it and bring it back to the office. [Big Rigs] was one of a stack of games that Greg Kasavin had gone to GameStop and bought at one point. He was like ‘Here, do you want this? You occasionally play trucking games.’ And I was like, ‘Yeah, sure.’ It’s the worst game I’ve ever played, by far. It is a broken pile of garbage the likes of which very few games – even the worst games – tend to be.

[The video review] was just a concept I pitched to one of our video editors. I said ‘Hey, what if I hated this so much that I just decided to go lay down in the middle of the street?’ And they said ‘Yeah, that’s a video.’ And so we did it. That’s pretty much the whole story.”^[4c]

And so it goes: One of the most broken releases to ever land in a game store bargain bin is subject to another in GameSpot’s line of gimmick video reviews, wherein Alex performs a frustrated physical / silent performance in reaction to the gameplay, before ultimately laying on his back in the middle of a city street and staring vacantly at the sky above. As a matter of fact – and as an observation which I only realized in this most recent viewing – the “Don’t Play This Game” line is never mentioned in the video — not even in the form of a titlecard at the end! Technically, I reckon it doesn’t actually meet the criteria needed to be here! Of course, even if the video might lack the linking line (it does appear in the written review), it is still a DPTG video “in spirit” — if not the very pinnacle / culmination of the concept brought to fruition. It’s only fitting that it would prove the last video review of its kind to break from the template, before GameSpot would seem to return to rigidly enforcing their in-house style for that form of content.

Of course, goofiness and sketches would continue to persist / appear on the site in the form of non-review content: Typically broadcasting on the site’s live programming, and inspiring a looser approach to the structure of GameSpot’s inaugural podcast series (‘The HotSpot’). Of course I’m not claiming that the site was entirely devoid of color and humor before the series of DPTG video reviews, as big personalities like Jeff’s and Ryan’s (and plenty of other staffers, to be sure) simply couldn’t help but shine through the otherwise rigid formalities and originally more professionally-detached facade for the site. But the popularity and reception to these non-standard videos inarguably played a role in breaking down those walls, and allowing said personalities to shine that much brighter.

With several of the site’s best and brightest eventually splitting from the company to form the off-shoot games outlet ‘Giant Bomb’ in 2008 (the likes of Alex, Jeff, Ryan, Vinny Caravella and Brad Shoemaker), you would find the most direct continuation to the lineage of “Don’t Play This Game”-type videos: Where standalone sketches (labeled ‘Video Things’), a generally more laid-back style of video reviews (‘Quick Looks’), and a slew of novelty series / recurring segments would comprise much of the core of the site’s content offerings. From there, the influence on countless other personality-driven games sites (your Escapists, Polygons, Waypoints, and whatever else have you) would be indisputable — eventually pressuring further changes to the approach of GameSpot’s own content once again.

And to think: So much might be owed to so simple a video premise. Big Rigs keep on turnin’.^[♫]

Text-Only Mentions

For all the games in that classic two-year span which used the medium of video to air the DPTG disclaimer; there have been a number of continued reviews carrying the catchphrase, albeit in text-only form. You may be surprised to find just how much restraint GameSpot staff have demonstrated in not tacking the line onto the end of every low-scoring review, and how few and far between those instances have been. While I can’t count these titles among the “official” collection – since they do lack that all-important video component – I’ve gone and listed what I believe to be the full catalogue for written reviews bearing the branding.

Unsurprisingly, Alex Navarro would continue to be subject to some of the worst games in the review pile, and find several further occasions to issue the four-word warning. One Greg Mueller would begin to pick up some of the bad game slack in the mid-aughts, and saw fit to award the dubious distinction in two of his own reviews. And as the site moved closer toward a new decade, it would be Carolyn Petit who was made to stomach some more staggeringly bad software, and who would declare three more games as sharing DPTG status. The line appears to have since retired from appearances in this capacity — or at least, been held in reserve until such a time where it might be truly impactful once again.

• Drake of the 99 Dragons (Alex Navarro: November 26, 2003)
• Tough Trucks (Avery Score: August 9, 2005)
• Land of the Dead: Road to Fiddler’s Green (Alex Navarro: December 11, 2007)
• Crime Life: Gang Wars (Jeff Gerstmann: December 8, 2005)
• Outlaw Chopper (Alex Navarro: July 26, 2006)
• World War II Combat: Iwo Jima (Greg Mueller: August 10, 2006)
• Made Man (Alex Navarro: April 6, 2007)
• Double Dungeons (Greg Mueller: April 11, 2007)
• Cyberball 2072 (Jeff Gerstmann: September 6, 2007)
• The Golden Compass (Kevin VanOrd: December 13, 2007)
• Fairytale Fights (Carolyn Petit: November 3, 2009)
• The Island of Dr. Frankenstein (Carolyn Petit: December 10, 2009)
• FlingSmash (Carolyn Petit: November 12, 2010)

A Brief Interview with Alex Navarro

As a final bonus for me to add to the end of this article: I decided to take a chance in reaching out to Alex Navarro (@alex_navarro on Twitter, for reference), and hoped to ask him just a few questions about his string of video game reviews. I was surprised and pleased to find his response, and proceeded in bugging him with a small handful of my inquiries! Needless to say, the dude has certainly served as a major influence on my writing / the format of this website, as well as an appreciated entertainer across some years of my life; so it was nice to be able to reach out to him and see him spare some of his time on what must’ve read as a strange set of questions.

Q: Was there a sort of process or criteria for determining which games warranted the goofier “DPTG” video treatment — rather than just getting the typically structured sort of video review?

Alex: Not really, at least from what I can recall. My recollection is that any game that scored lowly enough was at least worth considering for the treatment. We usually stuck to games that were reviewed in house, because that way the person who reviewed it could be in the video, but there wasn’t like a hard criteria beyond that. I think it mostly had to do with whether we had a good idea for a video to build around them or not.

Q: Was there any sense or sentiment among the review team that – by using the shared “Don’t Play This Game” refrain – you were assembling something like a proper series of videos?

Alex: Sort of? I mean I think we all recognized that there was an ongoing theme there, but I don’t think the intention was to create a series, necessarily. More like, hey, if this is the phrase we’re attaching to this game, that means it’s BAD.

Q: I get the feeling that by breaking from format with these particular reviews, it feels almost like the folk involved coming out of their shells in a sense, and maybe helping push GameSpot in the direction of showcasing their staff’s personalities. Did you have any sense of how influential these skit-based videos might have been while producing them or in hindsight? Or am I perhaps attributing too much importance and provenance to what is just a silly series of sketches?

Alex: So they started doing these before I started working there. Someone like Jeff probably could give you a better idea of what the inspiration was for breaking from the established video review format. What I do remember is that was the era where the editorial staff was starting to get a little more into putting their personalities out there a bit more. When I got there we also toyed around with some nonstandard video reviews that weren’t just bad games, too. Again, really just boiled down to whether we had an idea for something or not.

[1] Gerstmann, Jeff. “Gravity Games: Street Vert Dirt Review.” GameSpot. July 10, 2002. Web.
[2] “Demo Derby: Official PlayStation Magazine: Issue 58.” Giant Bomb. January 31, 2015. Video.
[3] “Best and Worst of 2002: Worst Game on PC.” GameSpot. December 23, 2002. Web. (Archive)
[4] ^{b c} Strunk, Trevor. “Episode 100!! The Return of Alex Navarro.” No Cartridge Audio. November 16, 2018. Podcast.
[5] O’Dwyer, Danny. “1 out of 10: The Worst Games Ever Reviewed on GameSpot.” GameSpot. August 20, 2015. Video.