Games you consider overrated

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Trine: I absolutely hate this f*cking game. I'm sorry, but an action game with puzzles? Fine.
A 2D platformer with puzzles WITH physics? F*CK THAT.

Magicka: I have no problem with friendly fire. I do have a problem when the game is designed I can only complete it with 'friends'.

Dragon Age: Origins: I have a review on GameSpot somewhere but I can't seem to find it right now. Anyways, I hated it.

GTA IV: Same.

half life, its just not that good, half life 2 especially, thought it was pretty meh tbh

TerribleAssassin:
Halo.

The story and gameplay just feel generic, there's nothing that sets it apart from the next Space Marine FPS.

i think the part that sets it apart was when there were no other Space Marine FPS games available ie When it was released.

Neaco:

TerribleAssassin:
Halo.

The story and gameplay just feel generic, there's nothing that sets it apart from the next Space Marine FPS.

i think the part that sets it apart was when there were no other Space Marine FPS games available ie When it was released.

Yes, but now there are loads of them and there's nothing majorly outstanding from them all.

KingofMadCows:

Treblaine:
I presume you object to other emotional manipulation by works of fiction? Do you not like any drama or tension in games, books and film? Would it be better if the Little Sisters were replaced with just something like emotionally neutral like a ball of light. yet at the same time it has to have meaning that Little Sisters supposedly lack.

So it has to be meaningful yet without much emotional significance.

As you can see, you can't get away with dissing my favourite game without your logic being challenged, you are contradicting yourself or asking for a game of cold rational significance.

I don't object to emotional manipulation. I don't like it when it's so obvious. I don't like it when they use little kids or cute animals that most people are obviously going to care about. I also don't like it when you're given a choice between two extreme options of either saving her or killing her.

I would have preferred it if either you were asked to care about characters that have a bit more development so you like them because of their personality or their backstory instead of just their appearance, or if the choices you were given concerning the characters weren't so extreme. How about making the Little Sisters look more like mutated monsters and less like little girls so that your attachment to them is more based on their backstory and development rather than physical appearance? How about instead of immediately having to choose between either saving or killing the first Little Sister you meet, you have a choice of either curing her or keeping her that way so they could gather more ADAM for you? How about adding some elements to give more credence to Atlas's assertion that the Little Sisters aren't really humans anymore?

And how did I "diss" your favorite game?

There is A LOT in between Blade Runner and the worst sci-fi. It is't really saying much to say that it's too much to say it's up there with Blade Runner. It's like saying "Well, it's not Citizen Kane".

Except the whole point of this topic is about games that people think are overrated. If everyone else thinks that this game is as great as Blade Runner and I don't, then that means I think it's overrated. If every critic gives a game a 10/10 and I think it deserves a 9/10 then that means I think it's overrated.

"I didn't do that for my complaints against..."

So far you've hardly even complained, you've just stated and reaffirmed your personal opinion... for all it is worth.

I'm not expecting an essay, 5 or 6 bullet points would do with brief issues. If you can't even do that I'd have to wonder if you have any genuine criticisms to give or if Bioshock and other games simply aren't to your personal tastes. I mean I don't like girly rom-com but they aren't exactly targeted at me, maybe if Fallout 3 and bioshock aren't your think maybe this is like selling NASCAR to a Formula 1 fan

So you don't judge games based on personal opinion? You have carefully standardized measures and operationalized terms with which to weigh the worthiness of a game objectively? You use the scientific method to judge a game and submit it for peer review?

Of course, my complaints are based on personal opinion. I don't like it when a story uses such transparent methods to manipulate me emotionally but I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't mind. After all, movies like "Patch Adams" and "Avatar" have done extremely well in the box office.

The move toward more realism and a more serious(depressing) story in GTA IV created too much of a disconnect with the previous GTA games for me to like it as much as the other games. The "heaviness" of the controls compared to previous games also hurt my enjoyment.

FO3 abandoning the more realistic and logical elements of the franchise in favor of the wackier elements made it much less of a Fallout game to me. Sure it was still fun, but it lacked the substance of previous games.

In the case of GTA IV and FO3, it's not a matter of selling NASCAR to a Formula 1 fan since they're the ones who changed the formula from previous games. It's more like if NASCAR suddenly became Formula 1 for no reason and they expected their former fans to just follow along.

Ok, but you forgot the third option: leave them. Don't either Rescue or Harvest any Little Sisters. You have that option but you'll have to scrape by on very few plasmids, the few you get for free. I have seen speedruns of bioshock where no little-sisters are harvested nor rescued.

And what would you propose as a middle ground between either greedily taking all the Adam and killing them or taking a little and saving them. Many choices DO boil down to such an extreme binary decision in REAL life. Buy or sell. Run or fight. Invest or spend.

Look, with such a free game as Bioshock where you can run around and look anywhere most of the time you can't afford to be subtle, it has to be obvious and added to that it is profound and iconic.

"How about making the Little Sisters look more like mutated monsters"

image

They hardly look like Shirley Temple as it is, is it that they look in ANY way like a little girl that is the problem? If it was an ewok that tried to tell you its life story and connect with you in a one-sided conversation that is just obtuse and ineffective. The whole game of bioshock is violently killing men and women, the Little Sisters have to be something the average person would instantly connect with as vulnerable. A child is that but not a lovely child, but a creepy zombie one, so it's not THAT obvious.

Also the little sisters are part of the artistic vision of juxtaposition; a little girl escorted by a walking tank resembling a giant armoured diving suit is part of the Rapture vision, it is totally consistent and if you don't like that that's like objecting to Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks being cast in a romantic-comedy... maybe you just shouldn't be watching a romantic comedy. Maybe you shouldn't be playing Bioshock.

"How about adding some elements to give more credence to Atlas's assertion that the Little Sisters aren't really humans anymore?"

Uhh, because there ISN'T ANY more creedence to the assertion they aren't human any more! I hope you have finished Bioshock and you know the whole deal with Atlas, then you'll understand why he says what he says, you are told everything about the Little Sisters and it's up to you decide what to do and ultimately there is no ambiguity, they ARE little children its just others may like to delude themselves otherwise for personal gain.

"you have a choice of either curing her or keeping her that way so they could gather more ADAM for you?"

Pay ATTENTION when you play these games! Number 1, Little Sisters will only gather Adam for their Big Daddies, they are psychologically programmed to be that way, they will not collect Adam for Jack. Number 2, this IS done in the Sequel, Bioshock 2, as you actually play as a Big Daddy so this is possible.

If every critic gives a game a 10/10 and I think it deserves a 9/10 then that means I think it's overrated.

You don't seem to understand statistics, as critics are never that consistent, even if the average score rounds up to 10/10 a significant proportion will still give it a 9/10 and some even give it an 8/10, a personal 9/10 score would be well within the range that found the average. Individual scores are worthless anyway, only in aggregate because of personal inaccuracy in quantifying their judgement of a game, and THEN said metascore is only worth anything RELATIVE to other games and it doesn't mean anything about its true reception, only the overall reception of a minority of people; games journalists.

"So you don't judge games based on personal opinion?"

I did not say that.

I say you SHOULD judge based on personal opinion but that MUST be backed up with reason to let us know if your opinion is a genuine criticism or if it comes from prejudice. If a food critics says "I hated the dessert" but failed to clarify that they don't like ANY ice cream which was the desert then it's quite a worthless opinion as it says nothing about the quality of the food, just the critic's personal tastes. Or something like saying an ice cream is too creamy when the entire point of ice-cream is to be creamy and most people order it for that.

You still need to clarify your opinions of Bioshock to give them any weight.

One thing that would help is instead of moaning about what you don't like tell me what you like. If you say Top-down RPG games with very deep character c

"It's more like if NASCAR suddenly became Formula 1 for no reason and they expected their former fans to just follow along."

So you've pretty much admitted it is a NASCAR vs Formula 1 type of difference in taste but you are putting the blame on the developers for changing with the sequels rather than just appreciating each game by itself for what it IS... rather than what you want it to be. Looking at the games for what they actually are, are they really over-rated?

Bioshock is what it is, most of the "it's over-rated" accusations I hear come from those who have the idea that Bioshock should be something that it simply is not and never intended to be.

Mass effect 2. Mass effect 2. Mass effect 2.

Catherine comes immediately to mind for being a poorly written, poorly designed puzzle game that proves once again that Japan just hates women(shocker). Another equally execrable, equally Japanese, equally overpraised monstrosity would be the absolutely horrendous, unforgivable hellscape that was The World Ends with You, which I consider to be the worst game of this generation by a considerable margin and, notably, is headlined by the single worst video game character of all time. There's also The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword to consider; it's just kind of sad to see slobbering Nintendo fanboys chomping at the bit to defend something like this.

That's just from recent memory, though. My pick for the most overrated game of all time is Final Fantasy VI, a slightly above-average game with a fan base consisting almost exclusively of people who try to pitch it by explaining why its successor, Final Fantasy VII, is the worst game ever made. This leads me to believe that the vast majority(or at least the vocal majority) of the Final Fantasy VI fan base is comprised of "noncomformist" little kids who will oppose anything that they think is popular, because they want to look cool to their friends on the internet.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't say what you wanted me to say, did I? Let me rectify that.

*ahem*

OMG CALL OF DTUY IZ SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OVERRTED OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG IM THE ONLY PRSON WHO DSNT THNKI ITS DA BETS GAEM EVRR!!!111!1!1!1!

Mostly Half-Life.
I just don't understand the mass amounts of love |:

Freelancer.

I'm still fairly certain the main reason people gush over this massive letdown of a game is because they don't know it's a sequel to a much, MUCH better game, Starlancer.

Skyrim comes to mind. I love the game, don't get me wrong, but people act likes it's the best damn thing since sliced fucking bread. It's really not.

oops, double post.

Treblaine:
*snip*

This is a thread specifically made for people to share what games they think are overrated. Lord knows threads like annoy the crap out of me. The negativity and the trolls baiting...

BUT I mean, that's the thread. That's the nature of this thread. He doesn't think Bioshock was all it was cracked up to be. Hell, I agree. There was for one, a lot of big talk about this whole morality system with the little sisters, but in the end it's fairly boring the way it's implemented. You can tell me that the real world has binary choice making all the time, or how there's not really much room with the little sisters for anything other than a binary choice, but I'll still think that it was weak sauce. Black and white choices in gaming has been done to death, and when the game actually rewards you in equal measure for either choice (albeit with the altruistic choice having a delayed reward) then there's no weight to it at all.

I would've actually liked it if you were heavily penalized for not harvesting. For one, it would be a difficulty control emerging organically from the game. For two, it would add real temptation to make the 'wrong' choice. I had no temptation to harvest cuz I realized pretty quickly that I'd be hooked up sooner or later for saving them. But if the game was getting harder and harder to get through? Yeah I'd definitely be tempted to follow the dark side. That'd be interesting for me, because it would actually mirror why people make such choices in the real world a lot of the time. Because the 'wrong' choice may give you an easier road than the 'right' choice.

This isn't even mentioning the whole respawn mechanic which broke the game for me. Completely ruined the tension of preparing and implementing a blitz on big daddys when I realized I'd be spawned again with no real penalty, and having to manually load my last save every time I died (cuz that's how I wanted to play) was a chore.

But blah blah, I digress. The point is this guy is using this thread as it was intended. He's backing up his issues with the game, whether you find his backup valid or not. Maybe you simply shouldn't wander into one of these threads if criticism of one of your favorite games would bother you so much?

One Word...

Minecraft

Seriously, what the hell is up with the popularity of this game, it perplexes me, it really does.

It has ugly and lazy graphics, and I'm not what you call a graphic whore, I still play early psone games.

It has the worst example of skinner's box Gameplay ever (which boils down to pretty much, mine this, and that, and build stuff), and considering how many people bash World of Warcraft for that sort of thing, it's ridiculous, because at least that game has an objective and goals to aspire to. What are you going to do with your spiral tower you made that took you forever to build, nothing that's what.

The guy who made it (Notch) is a complete and utter tool, and he has pretty much abandoned updating it in favour for another crappy game. If it had a few more updates to improve the half finished game mechanics, I might of bought the game.

Treblaine:
Ok, but you forgot the third option: leave them. Don't either Rescue or Harvest any Little Sisters. You have that option but you'll have to scrape by on very few plasmids, the few you get for free. I have seen speedruns of bioshock where no little-sisters are harvested nor rescued.

And what would you propose as a middle ground between either greedily taking all the Adam and killing them or taking a little and saving them. Many choices DO boil down to such an extreme binary decision in REAL life. Buy or sell. Run or fight. Invest or spend.

Look, with such a free game as Bioshock where you can run around and look anywhere most of the time you can't afford to be subtle, it has to be obvious and added to that it is profound and iconic.

"How about making the Little Sisters look more like mutated monsters"

http://images.wikia.com/bioshock/images/c/cd/BS2LittleSister.jpeg

They hardly look like Shirley Temple as it is, is it that they look in ANY way like a little girl that is the problem? If it was an ewok that tried to tell you its life story and connect with you in a one-sided conversation that is just obtuse and ineffective. The whole game of bioshock is violently killing men and women, the Little Sisters have to be something the average person would instantly connect with as vulnerable. A child is that but not a lovely child, but a creepy zombie one, so it's not THAT obvious.

Also the little sisters are part of the artistic vision of juxtaposition; a little girl escorted by a walking tank resembling a giant armoured diving suit is part of the Rapture vision, it is totally consistent and if you don't like that that's like objecting to Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks being cast in a romantic-comedy... maybe you just shouldn't be watching a romantic comedy. Maybe you shouldn't be playing Bioshock.

"How about adding some elements to give more credence to Atlas's assertion that the Little Sisters aren't really humans anymore?"

Uhh, because there ISN'T ANY more creedence to the assertion they aren't human any more! I hope you have finished Bioshock and you know the whole deal with Atlas, then you'll understand why he says what he says, you are told everything about the Little Sisters and it's up to you decide what to do and ultimately there is no ambiguity, they ARE little children its just others may like to delude themselves otherwise for personal gain.

"you have a choice of either curing her or keeping her that way so they could gather more ADAM for you?"

Pay ATTENTION when you play these games! Number 1, Little Sisters will only gather Adam for their Big Daddies, they are psychologically programmed to be that way, they will not collect Adam for Jack. Number 2, this IS done in the Sequel, Bioshock 2, as you actually play as a Big Daddy so this is possible.

If every critic gives a game a 10/10 and I think it deserves a 9/10 then that means I think it's overrated.

You don't seem to understand statistics, as critics are never that consistent, even if the average score rounds up to 10/10 a significant proportion will still give it a 9/10 and some even give it an 8/10, a personal 9/10 score would be well within the range that found the average. Individual scores are worthless anyway, only in aggregate because of personal inaccuracy in quantifying their judgement of a game, and THEN said metascore is only worth anything RELATIVE to other games and it doesn't mean anything about its true reception, only the overall reception of a minority of people; games journalists.

"So you don't judge games based on personal opinion?"

I did not say that.

I say you SHOULD judge based on personal opinion but that MUST be backed up with reason to let us know if your opinion is a genuine criticism or if it comes from prejudice. If a food critics says "I hated the dessert" but failed to clarify that they don't like ANY ice cream which was the desert then it's quite a worthless opinion as it says nothing about the quality of the food, just the critic's personal tastes. Or something like saying an ice cream is too creamy when the entire point of ice-cream is to be creamy and most people order it for that.

You still need to clarify your opinions of Bioshock to give them any weight.

One thing that would help is instead of moaning about what you don't like tell me what you like. If you say Top-down RPG games with very deep character c

"It's more like if NASCAR suddenly became Formula 1 for no reason and they expected their former fans to just follow along."

So you've pretty much admitted it is a NASCAR vs Formula 1 type of difference in taste but you are putting the blame on the developers for changing with the sequels rather than just appreciating each game by itself for what it IS... rather than what you want it to be. Looking at the games for what they actually are, are they really over-rated?

Bioshock is what it is, most of the "it's over-rated" accusations I hear come from those who have the idea that Bioshock should be something that it simply is not and never intended to be.

OK, you're just twisting my arguments and focusing on the little details rather than the basic reasoning behind what I'm saying.

I've played BioShock and I know the story, I understand why you can't let the Little Sisters harvest ADAM for you and I know that Atlas is the main villain, but that's not the point. The point is that the story could have been written in such a way where you are offered less extreme choices concerning what to do with the Little Sisters. They could have also written Atlas in such a way that his lies are less transparent.

Also, you keep making false dichotomy fallacies. Just because the Little Sisters is not more adorable than Bambi, Woodstock, Winnie the Pooh, Nemo, and Tweety put together does not mean they're suddenly horrifying to look at. They may not be on the level of Kirby or Yoshi but they're at least the equivalent of Sackboy or Nordom. Just because I want characters that I can connect with because of their personality or backstory does not mean I want to hear a ten minute monologue about a character's life story.

And yes, there are many extreme choices in real life but how can you possibly compare buying something and not buying something to killing someone and not killing someone? That's an obvious false equivalence fallacy.

And you're completely missing the point of the thread. This is a thread about games that people think are overrated. Do you know what that word means? It does not necessarily mean games that everyone else likes but you hate. It could simply mean games that everyone else loves but you like a bit less.

Notice how I never actually said that I dislike or hate BioShock, Fallout 3, and GTA IV. I like those games. I like BioShock for its gameplay, atmosphere, fun weapons, and interesting enemies. However, I do not find the story to be as good as other people say it is and that is why I think it's overrated.

As for appreciating a game for what the developers intended it to be, how is the audience supposed to know what exactly the developers intended the game to be, especially if it deviates from previous games in the franchise? If Terminator 5 was made into a crime drama, are you going to be able to appreciate it for what the director intended it to be and completely ignore previous movies in the franchise? And how do you know any problem in a game, with the exception of glitches and bugs, wasn't the intention of the developer? The controls are terrible? Well, that's what the developer intended and if you can't appreciate that kind of control, maybe the game isn't for you. This comedic film wasn't funny? Well, that's what the director intended and if you don't get that kind of humor, then the movie isn't for you. Is there any time when "Looking at the games for what they actually are, are they really over-rated?" can't be used as an excuse for problems in a game?

Battlefield series - it can be fun at times but there is nothing that I'd call truly spectacular when compared to all the other 'realistic military shooters' out there. Actually, add all the COD titles past World at War to the list as well, just to be fair.

AgentNein:

Treblaine:
*snip*

This is a thread specifically made for people to share what games they think are overrated. Lord knows threads like annoy the crap out of me. The negativity and the trolls baiting...

BUT I mean, that's the thread. That's the nature of this thread. He doesn't think Bioshock was all it was cracked up to be. Hell, I agree. There was for one, a lot of big talk about this whole morality system with the little sisters, but in the end it's fairly boring the way it's implemented. You can tell me that the real world has binary choice making all the time, or how there's not really much room with the little sisters for anything other than a binary choice, but I'll still think that it was weak sauce. Black and white choices in gaming has been done to death, and when the game actually rewards you in equal measure for either choice (albeit with the altruistic choice having a delayed reward) then there's no weight to it at all.

I would've actually liked it if you were heavily penalized for not harvesting. For one, it would be a difficulty control emerging organically from the game. For two, it would add real temptation to make the 'wrong' choice. I had no temptation to harvest cuz I realized pretty quickly that I'd be hooked up sooner or later for saving them. But if the game was getting harder and harder to get through? Yeah I'd definitely be tempted to follow the dark side. That'd be interesting for me, because it would actually mirror why people make such choices in the real world a lot of the time. Because the 'wrong' choice may give you an easier road than the 'right' choice.

This isn't even mentioning the whole respawn mechanic which broke the game for me. Completely ruined the tension of preparing and implementing a blitz on big daddys when I realized I'd be spawned again with no real penalty, and having to manually load my last save every time I died (cuz that's how I wanted to play) was a chore.

But blah blah, I digress. The point is this guy is using this thread as it was intended. He's backing up his issues with the game, whether you find his backup valid or not. Maybe you simply shouldn't wander into one of these threads if criticism of one of your favorite games would bother you so much?

Hey I'm not saying he can't share his opinion, I'm just saying he SHOULD elaborate on his opinion to give it any kind of discussion value.

It's nice to speculate on what would have worked better... but what if the developer didn't feel like hugely punishing the player FOR NOT BEING A CHILD MURDERER! The game is EXTREMELY hard without the ADAM you get from rescuing just a few little sisters, maybe Ken Levine didn't want to have said about him "Hey, you made that game where you are FORCED to kill children". Doesn't that kind of support objectivism? That it is right and proper to be selfish?

Being FORCED to harvest the little sisters because the game is just too hard, that isn't a moral choice. You aren't trying to balance your greed against your empathy. You are just trying to survive. And greed, the selfishness for personal excellence, that DEFINES objectivism! What could be a more poignant example of selfishness than to kill a child not for survival but to simply be better.

The lesson with the little sisters is the folly of Objectivism's selfish ideal, that empathy and altruism need not lead to ruin but can be rewarded and you will find yourself doing almost as well but have a greater non-material reward. The decisions DO have weight but they are not weighted in loot and material gain, but in emotional significance.

That's why I think a lot of people may say Bioshock is over-rated, they are simply under-appreciating the significance of the aspects of it. I think part of that is the ending, the ending could have reaffirmed this point but it kinda failed in that.

PS; complaining about vita-chambers is like complaining about inverted look or aim assist; you can turn it off in the option menu. I kept it on simply because it sped up loading after dying.

Treblaine:
PS; complaining about vita-chambers is like complaining about inverted look or aim assist; you can turn it off in the option menu. I kept it on simply because it sped up loading after dying.

Seriously? I had no idea I could turn that crap off. Wow.

You do make some good points here, never saw the Little Sister thing in that light.

Pleased edit your post of yours with Spoiler warnings.

KingofMadCows:

OK, you're just twisting my arguments and focusing on the little details rather than the basic reasoning behind what I'm saying.

I've played BioShock and I know the story, I understand why you can't let the Little Sisters harvest ADAM for you and I know that Atlas SPOILERS, but that's not the point. The point is that the story could have been written in such a way where you are offered less extreme choices concerning what to do with the Little Sisters. They could have also written Atlas in such a way that his lies are less transparent.

Also, you keep making false dichotomy fallacies. Just because the Little Sisters is not more adorable than Bambi, Woodstock, Winnie the Pooh, Nemo, and Tweety put together does not mean they're suddenly horrifying to look at. They may not be on the level of Kirby or Yoshi but they're at least the equivalent of Sackboy or Nordom. Just because I want characters that I can connect with because of their personality or backstory does not mean I want to hear a ten minute monologue about a character's life story.

And yes, there are many extreme choices in real life but how can you possibly compare buying something and not buying something to killing someone and not killing someone? That's an obvious false equivalence fallacy.

And you're completely missing the point of the thread. This is a thread about games that people think are overrated. Do you know what that word means? It does not necessarily mean games that everyone else likes but you hate. It could simply mean games that everyone else loves but you like a bit less.

Notice how I never actually said that I dislike or hate BioShock, Fallout 3, and GTA IV. I like those games. I like BioShock for its gameplay, atmosphere, fun weapons, and interesting enemies. However, I do not find the story to be as good as other people say it is and that is why I think it's overrated.

As for appreciating a game for what the developers intended it to be, how is the audience supposed to know what exactly the developers intended the game to be, especially if it deviates from previous games in the franchise? If Terminator 5 was made into a crime drama, are you going to be able to appreciate it for what the director intended it to be and completely ignore previous movies in the franchise? And how do you know any problem in a game, with the exception of glitches and bugs, wasn't the intention of the developer? The controls are terrible? Well, that's what the developer intended and if you can't appreciate that kind of control, maybe the game isn't for you. This comedic film wasn't funny? Well, that's what the director intended and if you don't get that kind of humor, then the movie isn't for you. Is there any time when "Looking at the games for what they actually are, are they really over-rated?" can't be used as an excuse for problems in a game?

Atlas doesn't have to be that good a liar, considering the *SPOILERS* psychological brain washing that has gone on and really he is pretty convincing and it perfectly exploits the convention of gaming in how gamers are conditioned to obey what the voice on the radio tells them to do, just like someone under mind control. Yes, by the confrontation with Ryan it was obvious, but you had crossed the rubicon, the die was cast, you had to follow through and in the end were given no choice.

Well you walked into that false dichotomy with the objection that you shouldn't care about them for their appearance when they are particularly ghoulish.

"Just because I want characters that I can connect with because of their personality or backstory does not mean I want to hear a ten minute monologue about a character's life story."

It's kinda hard to do that when the very way the game is designed with many discrete stages of levelling up in any order and with minimal interaction with each agent I hope you see it would become a nightmare to create empathy by entirely non-physical characteristics. You DO need to dedicate time to monologuing and back story if you aren't going to depend on appearance. This can be done with for example Alyx in Half Life 2 but that look a LOT of time being spent with one character. Not a brief time spent with several dozen little sisters.

"That's an obvious false equivalence fallacy."

Except the buying example is not an equivalence, it is an EXAMPLE of how often there is no middle ground. No way out, you have to decide between two very extremely different courses of action. When cornered by an armed assailant, do you shoot or surrender? You better decide because if you just stand there procrastinating you'll get worst of both options. Sometimes there is another way out, but rarely and you have to be smart and daring to exploit it. The third way in Bioshock is completely ignore ALL the Little Sisters, and that's not nit picking.

"Overrated does not necessarily mean games that everyone else likes but you hate. It could simply mean games that everyone else loves but you like a bit less."

Well, no, actually I don't think you understand the term over-rated.

What does "rated" mean? Well, for video games that would mean it's critical reception amongst journalists and the wider community who would play it. OVER-rated would NOT mean ANYONE didn't like it as much as most critics (statistically that's almost guaranteed, my grandmother might say ALL video games are over rated... because she hates all of them), OVER-rated would mean the critics (and gamers) gave it higher acclaim than they really should given hindsight and being relative to other games. Like Modern Warfare 2, the critics may have over-rated that game simply because it was a true sequel to the highly lauded COD4 and made all the improvements they expected... but were blinded by this excitement to the flaws. Such as how unbalanced it was, how easily exploitable it was, how the plot didn't really make any sense and didn't have the same drive as COD4 nor such a neat epilogue. With hindsight you can see people far more reminiscent of COD4 than MW2 and talk excitedly of elements begin more like COD4.

"how is the audience supposed to know what exactly the developers intended the game to be, especially if it deviates from previous games in the franchise?"

Well for one they could play it with an open mind and see where delineations are made. Bioshock may be spiritual successor to System Shock 2... but that doesn't make it System Shock 2.5: Under the Sea, and one shouldn't go into it expecting all the aspects of System Shock 2. Similarly, Fallout 3 it is very clear (to spite the numbering scheme) to be a completely different game from Fallout 1 & 2, also Grand Theft Auto 4 was as different from GTA3 as GTA 3 was different from the early top-down 2D games. This should be obvious, but if people hold such prejudices that because they liked the jetpack in San Andreas so much then it SHOULD be in GTA4 well then they need to GET REAL! The developers wanted to try something else, something where there is no place for jetpacks. Same with Resident Evil 4, a HUGE departure from previous entries almost completely separate canon but still a DAMN good game.

Movies can HUGELY change with sequels. Alien was a suspenseful body-horror thriller. Aliens was an action-adventure war-film with Vietnam overtones. Horror to action. Everyone knew from trailers and TV spots what the new film was about but only if you willingly take prejudice into the film that it SHOULD be just like the prequel, THEN you will be disappointed for WRONG expectations.

I know it is what the director intended as I have read many interviews with the developers talking about their game. Also, other things you can figure out for yourself by actually playing out alternate scenarios in your head and thinking about how it doesn't work if it was done this other way. Like how being forced to harvest Little Sisters by extreme challenge of non-harvest isn't really a moral choice any more, your decision is forced.

AgentNein:

Treblaine:
PS; complaining about vita-chambers is like complaining about inverted look or aim assist; you can turn it off in the option menu. I kept it on simply because it sped up loading after dying.

Seriously? I had no idea I could turn that crap off. Wow.

You do make some good points here, never saw the Little Sister thing in that light.

It came with a patch, It wasn't there in the launch iteration.

I think a lot about games, books and films I consume, I also watched the Adam Curtis documentary on Objectivism (don't remember name of doc) with game further significance to this... interesting... ideology.

Thibaut:
Trine: I absolutely hate this f*cking game. I'm sorry, but an action game with puzzles? Fine.
A 2D platformer with puzzles WITH physics? F*CK THAT.

Magicka: I have no problem with friendly fire. I do have a problem when the game is designed I can only complete it with 'friends'.

Dragon Age: Origins: I have a review on GameSpot somewhere but I can't seem to find it right now. Anyways, I hated it.

GTA IV: Same.

About Magicka, you TOTALLY can, it's just hard as balls! you need to know combinations they don't tell you.

What I used was shield/earth/earth/earth/earth, cast on self (middle click IIRC). It gives you a MASSIVE chunk or armour, quadrupling your effective HP, but it does slow you down, so I would get used to casting haste and/or teleport to remain mobile. also, combining spell effects can result in massive damage/crowd control. ice is a god send. use 5 water and soak a group of enemies as soon as the fight starts, follow up with either Lightning (tons of damage to wet enemies) or ice (freezes wet enemies solid). Furthermore, frozen enemies take something like double or triple physical damage, so I like to freeze a big enemy, then hurl a 5 rock at him. insta kill. Hell, even just using the m60 on a frozen guy will get you through a large part of the game.

It's doable. but you have to get REAL creative on some parts.

bioshock, bioshock 2, mass effect 2, black ops, mw2, mw3.

*puts on a race car driver's suit*

*adds another layer of asbestos*

*drinks a potion of fire resist*

Diablo 2.

It's nothing but a mouse test. It's boring, even easier than Classic Diablo, not as versatile, and it eliminated the horrific atmosphere of the first one, turning it into a cartoonish light-hearted clickfest.

I was not impressed by Bioshock. After a while it just got very repetitive. I was always being sent to get something, but right as I was about to get it something goes wrong and then I have to do another task just to go back to do the original fetch quest to solve the problem that I had to fix in the first place. The story didn't blow me away either, I just didn't buy any of the twists it threw at me. I can see why people would like the game though, I was very immersed for the first couple levels and it even came back near the end of the game, it was just the parts in between that got to me for some reason. I played some of Bioshock 2 and I found that it improved on a lot of issues I had with the first game, maybe it was just that I felt that the more linear design was more fitting.

FFXIII: Boring characters and story which had to look at the index/codex/whatever the fuck it's called to understand because it didn't weave it into the narrative, bland combat, unimpressive graphics (even in it's time).

CoD: World at War: The second World War just like before.

CoD: Modern Warfare 2, a couple of nice set pieces, but as for the pacing, this game needs to calm the fuck down, also liked Spec Ops mode. Multiplayer was just plain shit though.

CoD: Black Ops: Feels drawn out and too short at the time, I saw the twist coming from the second level, BECAUSE THE GAME ITSELF SPOILED IT, Mason is outright annoying, everyone else is boring, the villain is neither threatening nor interesting, and the multiplayer still sucks.

Halo: The first one was okay, but the world and characters felt lifeless and boring, ESPECIALLY THE FLOOD, the second one didn't fix this problem, and the gameplay felt more boring as well (and no, the Arbiter also fucking sucks).

Pr0:
293 Posts full of the terminally unsatisfiable that cannot be entertained by an entertainment industry.

One should consider that if nothing meet's one's expectations, perhaps you expect too much.

Or perhaps in other words, when you're too hip to be entertained by development projects that took large groups of people that are probably smarter than any one you personally know and cost more money to produce than you'll likely ever see in a life time, perhaps you're so hip that you're no longer hip.

Its quite bourgeoisie when you consider it, how completely inconsolable and unimpressed our society can show itself to be with such grand and rich ways to spend our time, when we can simply bemoan our banquet of options when there are still people in the world entertaining themselves with the tediously prosaic pursuit of simply surviving each day as the sun rises or sets, or, when time allows, drawing pictures in the dirt with a stick.

To finalize this statement, I must simply say, whatever you personally may believe is over-rated is irrelevant, you are products of a disposable culture with no inherent reference to true value, and thus, nothing is valuable, and no experience in virtual of the imagination will carry much weight, regardless.

7/10

You're pretty good, but too many words.

Raika:
Catherine comes immediately to mind for being a poorly written, poorly designed puzzle game that proves once again that Japan just hates women(shocker). Another equally execrable, equally Japanese, equally overpraised monstrosity would be the absolutely horrendous, unforgivable hellscape that was The World Ends with You, which I consider to be the worst game of this generation by a considerable margin and, notably, is headlined by the single worst video game character of all time. There's also The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword to consider; it's just kind of sad to see slobbering Nintendo fanboys chomping at the bit to defend something like this.

That's just from recent memory, though. My pick for the most overrated game of all time is Final Fantasy VI, a slightly above-average game with a fan base consisting almost exclusively of people who try to pitch it by explaining why its successor, Final Fantasy VII, is the worst game ever made. This leads me to believe that the vast majority(or at least the vocal majority) of the Final Fantasy VI fan base is comprised of "noncomformist" little kids who will oppose anything that they think is popular, because they want to look cool to their friends on the internet.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't say what you wanted me to say, did I? Let me rectify that.

*ahem*

OMG CALL OF DTUY IZ SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OVERRTED OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG IM THE ONLY PRSON WHO DSNT THNKI ITS DA BETS GAEM EVRR!!!111!1!1!1!

10/10

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how you do it.

No judgement/flaming rule is in effect? I'm not a hipster, I just played these games and didn't like them, and couldn't figure out why other people did. There are popular games that I think are properly-rated (Portal, Half Life, Pokemon GSC) Anyways, here goes:

The N64 Zelda games; confusing, sidequests are frustraing.

Super Mario Bros 3; Levels are way too short and yet incredibly frustraing.

Psychonauts: It was Ok but not the messiah of platformers, I just thought it was average. Also I couldn't figure out how to get past that girl in the house on the "milkman" level.

Epic Mickey: No backtracking, too many fetch quests all for the same thing, not enough emphasis on forgotten Disney characters (Goofy and Donald appear in this game FFS) camera angles ARE as bad as everyone says, the morality choices don't actually have any impact on the story, and there's no final boss. That's right you just destroy the three towers and never actually confront the Big Bad.

Id probably say Final Fantasy 7 *arms flame shield*

Not that i hate it, it is Square's first time at a 3d game and was alright, but the pacing felt a bit too long winded...it probably doesn't help that i prefer the more modern 2D games in the series...that and FF 8 and 10. (by more modern 2D games in the series, i mean anything later than 3)

For me, the series hit a memorable point with 6, since there was quite a bit of story and Kefka was generally dark, i mean seriously, you have what can be amounted to as the Japanese version of the Joker who gets kicks out of poisoning entire kingdoms, enslaving an entire species of creatures for the sake of power and even succeeding at his plan....

How many villains can claim that they have succeeded in their plans, whilst the game continuing in a "after the end" scenario?

*Readies flame shield*
Diablo classic and 2, Starcraft
I played Titan Quest (think Diablo 2+ with good graphics) before Diablo 2, and Dawn of War before Starcraft, and I honestly felt that the games seemed old and just not very good when I played them (which, admittedly, was about 3 years ago). Diablo just seemed like a lesser version of Titan Quest,and Starcraft a less fun version of Dawn of War (although, this may just be because I prefer the way DoW plays, not into the heavy micro and unit placement in Starcraft). I understand why people loved them way back when, but after playing them recently, they didn't seem all that great, especially compared to their modern incarnations.

Misterian:
Okay, I think we all have stumbled into those games at least once. I'll list mine.

F-Zero GX; I know there are quite a handfull that do like this game, but I still declare it the worst game I've ever played, I don't know how the players that do like this game are able to get over the isues I had with it. but I've b****** about it in previous posts before, so I'll just say in short that playing this game to me was like having to solve a rubix cube blindfolded and with recently burnt hands.

Crackdown; Unlike F-Zero GX, I don't consider it a horrible game, I simply consider it a very boring game. I thought the combat had some balance issues and was somewhat generic, the driving felt obnoxious, and they give you the ability to jump several fett in the air only to still make going up certain rooftops and being in high places somewhat unforgiving, and they wasn't much to do in Pacific City aside from killing the gangs, go through racing challenges, and find hidden collectables. I've played bad movie tie-in games that had more variety than this.

Dragon Age: Origins; I know it might seem shocking, but just hear me out on this. I don't consider Dragon Age to be a horrible game or even much of a boring game, Like the Mass Effect games, Dragon Age does have an interesting story that in ways did keep me interested enough to play it through to the end, and I do like alot of the characters, especially the companions, Bioware did a great job characterizing them well enough that I do find myself caring alot about them even when I don't always agree with them in certain moments.

but here are my troubles with the game, I did find the combat a little boring, not enough that it ruins the game for me, and the game's story while the thing I had some of enjoyment of the game with is also in some ways my biggest problem with the game.

I know Bioware's approach in making the game was to make it a dark fantasy, but half the things I see from the writing seem to imply they were trying too hard in that approach, slightly in a Tastes Like Dirt sort of fashion (look it up on TV Tropes) and some elements don't seem to have reason to be put here, like what's up with writing so that Grey Wardens only live to be 30? their lives are already on the line fighting Darkspawn, especially the ArchDemon, so what's the point?

but enough about me, what games do you think are overrated?

My brother recently beat F-Zero GX 100%.

That means all of story mode on very hard, every single grand prix on every difficulty beaten, all characters and parts unlocked.....hold your applause.

The game is indeed ridiculously difficult, but I think that's a big part of why so many people like it, including me....It's very much single-player oriented for a racing game, and the difficulty gives it length and replayability.

My picks would have to be Elder Scrolls and CoD. CoD goes without saying, but the Elder Scrolls, especially Skyrim, have been lavished with an incredible amount of praise, and while I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim, my experience with the series has been less than spectacular.

I can understand that people can look past the glaring flaws in the core of the game and try to enjoy the atmosphere and the story, but the world has always felt like a computer simulation to me instead of like a.....world. Bethesda can build up their wild animal AI as much as they want pre-launch, but the bears still can't make their way onto rocks that are raised a foot off the ground, horses think they're suicide mercenaries, companions appear to be inbred, and there are hundreds of NPC's that have the same damn lines! It seems like Bethesda's attempts to impress me end up backfiring most of the time.

Everywhere I look I have a constant stream of reminders that I'm playing a game, and that's not to even mention the less subtle, more incredibly game-breaking flaws and bugs that even I, in my limited play time, ran into frequently.

In short, I have no idea why the game is so highly praised. It's good, don't get me wrong.....I can tell because I played it for a couple weeks. But after a certain point, I realized that I wasn't having much fun on a minute to minute basis....that the reason I kept coming back was not much more than the promise of new perks.

Raika:
Catherine comes immediately to mind for being a poorly written, poorly designed puzzle game that proves once again that Japan just hates women(shocker). Another equally execrable, equally Japanese, equally overpraised monstrosity would be the absolutely horrendous, unforgivable hellscape that was The World Ends with You, which I consider to be the worst game of this generation by a considerable margin and, notably, is headlined by the single worst video game character of all time. There's also The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword to consider; it's just kind of sad to see slobbering Nintendo fanboys chomping at the bit to defend something like this.

That's just from recent memory, though. My pick for the most overrated game of all time is Final Fantasy VI, a slightly above-average game with a fan base consisting almost exclusively of people who try to pitch it by explaining why its successor, Final Fantasy VII, is the worst game ever made. This leads me to believe that the vast majority(or at least the vocal majority) of the Final Fantasy VI fan base is comprised of "noncomformist" little kids who will oppose anything that they think is popular, because they want to look cool to their friends on the internet.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't say what you wanted me to say, did I? Let me rectify that.

*ahem*

OMG CALL OF DTUY IZ SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OVERRTED OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG IM THE ONLY PRSON WHO DSNT THNKI ITS DA BETS GAEM EVRR!!!111!1!1!1!

I can't tell whether this post is supposed to be comedic hyperbole.

I can see how some might think Syward Sword is a step down from most Zelda's and overrated, but it seems like a lot of people genuinely think that it's a really bad game, and I absolutely can't understand that.

The funny part is that criticisms about the game contradict each other. People say that it's too linear or too combat/action oriented, but other people (and sometimes, the same exact people) say that it's too much like other Zelda's.....I just don't get it, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the slobbering Nintendo fanboy in me.

And The World Ends With You, the worst game of this generation? I know you can't possibly mean that literally. The RPG system in TWEWY is my favorite of all time, and personally disagreeing with a character doesn't make him a bad character.

Final Fantasy VII. While the game is ok, it is undoubtedly overrated. The story is not too great and the plot is pretty much predictable from disc 1. The main characters is either complete morons or cliché emos. At several points I just want to punch them in the face and tell them to do it. The controls on the original was so stiff and it was sometimes painful to move at some areas. Also, several of the areas you visited was so boring, like mount Nibel.

Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time. The dialogues is a prime example of one of several reasons why the game fails. They are so boring, always repeats themselves and are unsinkable. Having to do several puzzels over and over again, then die and having to do them all all over again was dreadfull (looking at you, water temple). The characters are not only dumb as barndoors, but so 2D it´s amazing. Ganondorf is the best example here. He is so cliché as a villian it is pretty much funny. The bosses where easy, too. It was obvious what you where supposed to do and what weapon you had to use and that pretty much destroys the whole point of making them epic looking. Also, the getting the master sword scene (both before, during and after) was amazingly boring.

pretty much every game that is released by a major publisher is painfully over hyped and over rated.

mw3 ,bf3 were massively overrated.
to much formula AAA games out these days.

Skyrim too but that was because silly Bethesda released the game without its mod tools.
Seriously what the hell is an elder scrolls game without 100 - 300 mods ?

Every Cod after the original modern warfare, FF VII/X/XII, GTA IV. Honestly most games that come out today from most major developers I find overrated, games just aren't what they used to be. Perhaps it's as someone previously postulated and I have overbearing expectations, perhaps not. Either way, I'm beginning to feel old as a gamer. The original Twisted Metal came out 17 years ago? Madness.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked