Most underrated games this gen

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Dalisclock:

erttheking:

Also I'm going to say Battletech. It kind of got slammed in the Steam user reviews, but damn was it a great intro to the Battletech verse for me.

All the reviews I've seen made it sound pretty good. A fair bit of management because you're running a Merc company(something that would have been interesting for MGSV to have had) and apparently taking too much damage during a mission can be as bad as losing considering how much time/money is lost. Not that either of those are bad, just more challenging.

Professional reviews, maybe, but it's being raked over the coals in user reviews, even to this day.

Casual Shinji:

Zeraki:
Gravity Rush 2 (and the series in general) is a big one for me.

Sony finally makes an exclusive IP that is experimental and unique like games were in the PS2 era and nobody buys them, it's a damn shame since those games are probably my favorite new Sony IP in well over a decade. It didn't help that Sony didn't really promote it at all.

It also didn't help that the developer doubled down on some of the worst aspects of the original, hardly put any effort into making the gravity combat less frustrating, and actually added even more mistakes. The only real improvement were the visuals and the music -- most everything else was a downgrade.

I wouldn't say the entire sequel was a downgrade gameplay-wise. Some of the new gravity modes had some fun mechanics, the world was bigger and had an interesting vertical design, some of the side-quests were more varied and entertaining, you had a picture-mode to play around with, etc.

But I do still prefer the first Gravity Rush in several ways. Even if the story was more all over the place and abruptly ended on a bunch of unanswered questions, there was something about the charming and surreal nature of it all that kept me hooked from start to finish. GR2 is bigger and has its highlights, but it has a bit more chaff to deal with as well. More awkward stealth missions, needle-in-a-haystack scavenger hunts, etc. Plus compared to the first game, which started out with you fighting supernatural super-villains and falling through time and space, the whole rich vs. poor setup at the start of GR2 was kind of one-note. So I feel like things didn't really pick up until nearly halfway through the game.

Overall I do think both games were very underrated though. The soundtrack's great, the world and the way you explore it's creative, and Kat's one of the best game protagonists I've seen in years.

I started playing Mad Max last night, and get the feeling its Meta was heavily influenced - or more accurately negatively impacted - by the movie Fury Road. I've only played a couple hours so far, but barring any future technical falloff the game to me is even more fun than Mafia 3 and GTAV combined. The combat feels weighty like a more grounded Arkham game which makes sense, and the driving is smooth. There is also some excellent sound design and detailed levels of destruction. Chumbucket is an oddly charming sidekick of sorts, and from the looks of the options menu there's a pretty healthy selection of character/car/lore building to be discovered.

My main gameplay/control-centric gripe to speak of is Max feeling kinda floaty while running or jumping, which isn't a big deal once adjusted to it.

It's of course heavily subjective as to what qualifies as a "fun" game, but the gameplay loop of scavenging parts to build my twisted dream car, fighting goons on foot and behind the wheel in a way that combines the best aspects of several car combat games, and generally just exploring a vast wasteland is exceptionally gratifying here. I love the harpoon usage; feels so good to topple large structures with it. It doesn't hurt that I'm a bit of a sucker for games that use Havok well.

Given how the game is technically and artistically competent and at times excellent, it makes the current 69 Meta seem unjustified even when compared to other supposedly better games. Worst would probably be Jim Sterling's review, which further and definitively proves he has no clue how to assign numerical scoring in a cognitive, rational manner. I mean just read the headline:


When it comes to simply chewing through yet another open world game, Mad Max does suffice. It's a substandard but largely competent "AAA" game in a sea full of them, and those who do value the idea of content above all else will find more than their money's worth here...There's simply no reason to pick it up, however, if you've yet to try The Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor or Batman: Arkham City. There are tons of better games that go for what Mad Max went for and do so in a superior manner.

Yup, that's a solid "4" sure. I'm also enjoying it more than The Wither 3 or Batman in terms of gameplay, and I paid for at least one of those (Mad Max and Arkham City were through monthly PSN+ deals). Never played SoM, but I did enjoy the LotR movies. Right now though, I'm inclined to say Mad Max is the best movie licensed game I've played since Goldeneye.

hanselthecaretaker:
I started playing Mad Max last night, and get the feeling its Meta was heavily influenced - or more accurately negatively impacted - by the movie Fury Road.
*snip*

My main gripe with it was that what should be in its proverbial meat and potatoes in its unique car combat mechanic (err, more or less I guess, RAGE did exist), was rather woefully underused. Enemy variety was at minimum, actual challenging car encounters were few and far between, most of the upgrades for it, and indeed, most of the cooler seeming gadgets were ineffective to the point of being a waste. Coupled with the very out of place region-securing mechanic rapidly eliminating even the mediocre encounters.

Also the survival mechanics that're introduced and thrown away within the hour prettymuch. Not that such things tend to make for great game additions anyways, but why even bother having them at all then.

hanselthecaretaker:

Given how the game is technically and artistically competent and at times excellent, it makes the current 69 Meta seem unjustified even when compared to other supposedly better games. Worst would probably be Jim Sterling's review, which further and definitively proves he has no clue how to assign numerical scoring in a cognitive, rational manner. I mean just read the headline:


When it comes to simply chewing through yet another open world game, Mad Max does suffice. It's a substandard but largely competent "AAA" game in a sea full of them, and those who do value the idea of content above all else will find more than their money's worth here...There's simply no reason to pick it up, however, if you've yet to try The Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor or Batman: Arkham City. There are tons of better games that go for what Mad Max went for and do so in a superior manner.

Yup, that's a solid "4" sure. I'm also enjoying it more than The Wither 3 or Batman in terms of gameplay, and I paid for at least one of those (Mad Max and Arkham City were through monthly PSN+ deals). Never played SoM, but I did enjoy the LotR movies. Right now though, I'm inclined to say Mad Max is the best movie licensed game I've played since Goldeneye.

You realizes Jim used(because he doesn't do scored reviews anymore) the entire 10 point spectrum, right? Not just 7-10, where something had to be broken to rate lower then that for a lot of reviewers. 4 would make it okay to mediocre by that metric.

I personally dislike the idea of review scores for much this reason, but also because it feels fucking lazy. Is it too much to ask someone to read a 3-5 page game review to assess strengths and weaknesses before purchasing a potentially $60 title? At least scan the damn thing(some reviews include a TL;DR summery just for that reason)? Or do people really just want to see that stupid number, which apparently sends people into conniptions when it isn't high enough for their personal taste(8.8 syndrome)?

hanselthecaretaker:
Given how the game is technically and artistically competent and at times excellent, it makes the current 69 Meta seem unjustified even when compared to other supposedly better games. Worst would probably be Jim Sterling's review, which further and definitively proves he has no clue how to assign numerical scoring in a cognitive, rational manner.

Jim must agree, he gave up numbered reviews some time ago. Gave up reviews too, now he just half-asses "Jimpressions" videos.

Commanderfantasy:
Under-rated? Jeez that's a good fucking question man.

Let me think for a second here....Looking at the metacritic scores. I think I'd justfy in saying that Final Fantasy 15 was pretty underrated (being at a mid-70's score), I thought it was pretty fantastic, and it only got better with the royal edition release that improved the combat and added a lot more to the game overall. 15 is now easily in my top 3 FF games of all time and that's pretty fucking hard to do considering it had to kick 9 down to 4th overall.

I think Ignis DLC is underrated because it flew under the general public's radar. It has great music, a decent combat system, fun parkour and an alternative ending scenario.

Have you played the updated FFXV version? What do you think of the changes they did (specially in Chapter 13)?

Dalisclock:

hanselthecaretaker:

Given how the game is technically and artistically competent and at times excellent, it makes the current 69 Meta seem unjustified even when compared to other supposedly better games. Worst would probably be Jim Sterling's review, which further and definitively proves he has no clue how to assign numerical scoring in a cognitive, rational manner. I mean just read the headline:


When it comes to simply chewing through yet another open world game, Mad Max does suffice. It's a substandard but largely competent "AAA" game in a sea full of them, and those who do value the idea of content above all else will find more than their money's worth here...There's simply no reason to pick it up, however, if you've yet to try The Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor or Batman: Arkham City. There are tons of better games that go for what Mad Max went for and do so in a superior manner.

Yup, that's a solid "4" sure. I'm also enjoying it more than The Wither 3 or Batman in terms of gameplay, and I paid for at least one of those (Mad Max and Arkham City were through monthly PSN+ deals). Never played SoM, but I did enjoy the LotR movies. Right now though, I'm inclined to say Mad Max is the best movie licensed game I've played since Goldeneye.

You realizes Jim used(because he doesn't do scored reviews anymore) the entire 10 point spectrum, right? Not just 7-10, where something had to be broken to rate lower then that for a lot of reviewers. 4 would make it okay to mediocre by that metric.

I personally dislike the idea of review scores for much this reason, but also because it feels fucking lazy. Is it too much to ask someone to read a 3-5 page game review to assess strengths and weaknesses before purchasing a potentially $60 title? At least scan the damn thing(some reviews include a TL;DR summery just for that reason)? Or do people really just want to see that stupid number, which apparently sends people into conniptions when it isn't high enough for their personal taste(8.8 syndrome)?

Even if the whole spectrum is used, a 4/10 or 40% would be largely considered a commercial failure by pretty much any standards. It was well below a failing grade all through school too for example. Good on him for ditching traditional scoring systems though, as he seemed to be an odd-one-out. The problem imo wasn't that only 7-10 range was being used so much as a 7 or 8 was being interpreted as a "bad" score in the first place.

Evil Within 2. It improved upon everything that the first game did. Sure, 2 didn't have as much enemy variety as the first game, but it did not have the bullshit difficulty where almost every boss had a one hit kill. The AI was a bit wonky for the Haunted, but all of 2's flaws are minor compared to the first EW and other horror games. The story, it's world, and the characters were amazingly improved upon. Ruvik is still a top tier villain though. That said, it's best to play EW1 to get a full appreciation of EW2. I think the reason why EW2 did not sell well was due to the reputation of the first game and it's problems. Glitchy gameplay that needed multiple patches and would still crash sometimes depending on the version (it's impossible to play the 360 version without the patch), it was made trying to please those who didn't buy next gen consoles yet, and it shows in the hardware and software, and the fucking letter boxing which was later patched out within a month. From what I heard, it won't stop Betheshda from funding Tango Games to make Evil Within 3. If and when the third game happen, I want Kidman to be the main focus since Sebastian's entire story and character arc is finished.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here