Games you consider overrated

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 

Imbechile:

Don Savik:

xSKULLY:
all retro games the escapist community makes them out to be amazing and better than todays games and perfect in every way and they are shit as a younger gamer used to higher standard games (my first console was a PS2) retro games are terrible and many times worse than games of today

Yea, I think its called like The Golden Age Syndrome or something.

Care to explain how I think the older Fallouts are better that Fallout 3 despite playing Fallout 3 FIRST?
Care to explain how I think System shock 2 is better than Bioshock despite playing Bioshock FIRST?
Care to explain how I think Daggerfall is better than Skyrim despite playing Skyrim FIRST?
Care to explain how I think Planescape Torment has better writing then all the Bioware drivel despite playing the Bioware drivel FIRST?

You can keep yourself in denial with the whole "rose tinted nostalgic glasses" thing as much you like, but there is no denying that games are getting shorter and shallower.

PS: Try not to use the "well that's just your opinion" argument, nor the "many people don't agree with you".

For the record, I stand by the notion that this is an OPINION thread, "so that's just your opinion/ many people disagree," is a valid argument.

Also, You can get nostalgia goggles even when you didn't play the game when it was new. You get the idea that *insert generation of x* was the golden age of writing/gameplay/storytelling/whatever, influences you own opinions of the experience before you go into it; you're more likely to gloss over the flaws over nostalgia that isn't even yours.

There are alot of people who complain that games are getting "dumbed-down" because controls are more streamlined or intutitive, or that the games aren't as long as they used to be, or the hundreds of niggling complaints that get harped-on anyone willing to complain about them.

And who says that games are getting shorter and shallower? Perhaps that's a genre issue, games seem shorted because the FPS is still in the vouge, and the big titles are focusing more on short, intense stories and multi-player focus to make coherence worthwhile? As for comparing PlanetScape Torment to Bioware games, the answer to your complaint is scale. PT is a personal story, and as such will have more clearly visible nuances than, say, Mass Effect; where the implications are more subtext involving the setting, not the hero. Although the actions of Commander Shepard lead to questions all their own, particularly on the nature of good vs evil, or morality vs practicality/mortality.

I say that games have only improved since their inception, and that while every generation has its gems and flops, today's industry is producing higher than average work as a whole compared to any previous generation. While Bioshock is not system-shock two, I am willing to say that FF7 is worse than FFX, and that Halo is better than doom or quake, or that Mass Effect is better than Planetscape Torment, which, like most stories, is a good mix of cliche's, mixed together and some subverted in creative ways to create a unique and enjoyable experience. It may not be your opinion or what you want to hear, but its my OPINION as much as your comments are your opinions.

Now to respond to the actual thread :D I'm not to fond of GTA4, the former wasn't nearly as flawless as the critics claimed; it honestly didn't feel like a GTA game, the tone of the story and world just didn't mesh with what I, and honestly I think most people, expect from a GTA game, it was too serious for the franchise's usual campyness.

Im also not too crazy about COD multiplayer, which is always the same but with new guns... more expansion pack than actual "inovation" a word that gets thrown around far to easily nowadays; Halo's 2 gun limit was innovation, COD2 health system was innovative, adding currency to by upgrades in multiplayer instead of just leveling?... less so, because they just copied a system from a single-player experience, threw it into multiplayer and said it was a new thing.

Bioshock. People were talking about, and saying that it's an RPG. WTF were they smoking?

Dark Souls:
Everyone praises its difficulty but there is a very big difference between a game being challenging and a game being cheap and unfair.

It'd be challenging if the enemies have half a brain, but no they just stand there and shoot at a wall for 2 minutes instead of walking around and smacking you across the face. The games 'difficulty' comes from the overpowered enemies and the fact that every single enemy in the game can stunlock you to death.

Healing also takes forever too, your taking a drink you can move at the same time, lazy bugger.

Treblaine:
As crazy as that theory is it does make more sense than the actual ending of MGS2.

I really do get the impression MGS2 was very rushed and Kojima has always spoken ambivalently about sequels to MGS1, he seemed a lot more keen on MGS3 which seemed to be made with a lot more forethought and was much more rounded.

I agree. Even for a Metal Gear Fan, you'd do best to forget the last 10% of Metal Gear Solid 2.

But i don't buy that other guys argument about Kojima intentionally screwing the game up to scare fans away. Nobody goes into that much trouble to excuse themself from making another game.

If you want to move on with a new girlfriend/boyfriend, you don't need to murder your ex either last time i checked, and similarly - while I know that Metal Gear fans can be very passionate (including sending death threats etc.) - if Kojima doesn't want to make more MGS games, he just has to stop. That simple. No need to screw up the games he DOES make in the series along the way. It's his life's work after all.

Timmey:

Always end up getting shorter, yet you put Mass effect and Elder scrolls in your list? Doesn't make any sense .... does it ?

And yet Mass effect 2 was significantly shorter than 1 (if you do 100%) just by the sheer fact that they changed the planets from 30 minutes of work to 5... not to mention the missions went from running through an open world finding where to go next to a streamlined corridor with chest high walls... weird that me and the 7 of my friends who also played it all managed to beat it at least 10 hours faster than 1.

Elder scrolls are all the same length cause they are the same game. If thats really how big a stickler you are going to be than try to have some fun. I can't imagine how angry you are all the time to look at two identical games with a different title name (oblivion to Skyrim) and think damn those identical games that I could technically play forever are certainly the one thing he had to be talking about when he said shorter. Learn to think before you speak it makes you look really unintelligent.

Batman Arkham Asylum was way over-rated. I didnt like it much at all, but even yatzhee like it. I could only play through half of it.

Melopahn:

Timmey:

Always end up getting shorter, yet you put Mass effect and Elder scrolls in your list? Doesn't make any sense .... does it ?

And yet Mass effect 2 was significantly shorter than 1 (if you do 100%) just by the sheer fact that they changed the planets from 30 minutes of work to 5... not to mention the missions went from running through an open world finding where to go next to a streamlined corridor with chest high walls... weird that me and the 7 of my friends who also played it all managed to beat it at least 10 hours faster than 1.

The mission in Mass Effect 1 were also linear without any kind of exploration. Or you talk about some magic mission that never appeared when I played it last month.

How fast do you finish 1? I did it in 17h, not even close to the time I needed for 2.

TheKasp:

Melopahn:

And yet Mass effect 2 was significantly shorter than 1 (if you do 100%) just by the sheer fact that they changed the planets from 30 minutes of work to 5... not to mention the missions went from running through an open world finding where to go next to a streamlined corridor with chest high walls... weird that me and the 7 of my friends who also played it all managed to beat it at least 10 hours faster than 1.

The mission in Mass Effect 1 were also linear without any kind of exploration. Or you talk about some magic mission that never appeared when I played it last month.

How fast do you finish 1? I did it in 17h, not even close to the time I needed for 2.

God i wish you people would learn how to read, you clearly can but choose not to Mass effect 2 was significantly shorter than 1 (if you do 100%) do you know what 100% means... If not ill give you a lesson just let me know. But yes my difference between both of them is about 5 hours 1 being 31 and 2 being 26... in mass effect 2 there are mission where you get off your ship run (literally in a straight line) than a mission complete screen appears. Each room you run through will have 2 sniper/ rocket launcher enemies on a high platform at the end of the corridor while having 4/5 enemies with assault rifles or shotguns on the ground behind cover. Please play both the games before you jump into a discussion about them. It reflects rather poorly on you.

As for exploration every planet you land on in one has either a full exploration (in the vehicle game) or you are in a hub grab quests and go in many different directions. I actually cant think of a planet that was linear and as the burden of proof lies with you (the nay sayer) im going to say please show me where the linear missions are. Cause having played it just as recently literally saw 0 of them.

FFVII, FFXII, Oblivion (haven't played Skyrim, since Oblivion was so lamesauce), any AAA F/TPS, GTA4, Saints Row 3,

...and anything by Valve. Only because of the batshit insane amounts of hype any and all of their games get. I do still like Half Life, Portal and TF2, don't get me wrong, but I don't think the triple-cunted-Princess-Leia-in-a-gold-bikini levels of fanboyism shown about the games does said games any favours.

...

Grand Theft Auto IV and Red Dead Redemption. Hell, anything by Rockstar.

GTAIV was incredibly boring. I can't see what anyone likes about the game, tbh. Boring characters, boring setting, boring mechanics, etc. I'm just glad I played a friend's copy, rather than wasting my money.

RDR was competent in enough areas to make a decent show of itself but was no more than the sum of its parts. I liked it but didn't consider it GOTY material.

*SPOILERS*

The section where you meet your family should've been at the beginning. Marston clearly cared about them but I didn't at all. The beginning section with Bonnie, who was more likable than Abigail Marston, should've been replaced by the ending section with Jack Marston. The purpose of Bonnie's section was to introduce the player to the game's mechanics. Jack's section served the same purpose. Granted, both used the time to characterize their respective characters but both didn't need to be tutorials. By placing Jack's section at the beginning, the player can be introduced to Abigail and him, thus making the player's goal align itself with John's goal: namely, to return to his family.

daveman247:

DioWallachia:

Unless that RTS is Dungeon Keeper who also mixes FPS by possessing your units to do even more evil fun stuff. However, thanks that NOBODY remembers this game i may never know if it is the best example ever and if not at least what could be done to improve it

Aww, now im depressed that such an awesome idea for a game does not exist :(
Think of the tactics and variety that could be created by having the "shift" ability in an RTS.

Although simply having a "commander" player lording it over his army of "players" online would also be awesome. Then again, when the players or leader turned out to be retarded, it would not be so fun :/

And that, my dear fellow, pretty much sums up Nuclear Dawn.
Look it up.

Great on paper, horrible in execution.

You either get players that won't cooperate with your commands, tactics, and suggestions; leading to a failure they will blame you for; or you get a commander that figuratively or literally does not know what he's doing, and could have the best team of soldiers, and still fail because they cannot for the life of them destroy the enemy's bunker without support. Or, God forbid, BOTH...

Secret of Mana - I bought this game solely because of those claims made by the fans that it was better than Final Fantasy VII and was letdown. The same could be said for Final Fantasy IV and VI, but even they had more going for it. The characters were blander than anything found in FFIV, the story was average at best, and unless you were playing with two of your friends, the two other allies in your party were dumber than a bag of rocks. The soundtrack was pretty good, though.

The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time - Not a bad game, I just think Majora's Mask and Wind Waker polished the features found in Ocarina a bit more.

Super Mario Galaxy - Good game? Yes. Probably even better than Super Mario 64. Worthy of all the accolades it's been getting? Not really.

everyone in this thread is WRONG AND STUPID.
nothing anyone has said is overrated, its all severely UNDERRATED. the only overrated game to ever exist is pong. I don't get what anyone sees in this game. There isnt any philosophical discussion, and the sexiness has been VASTLY over represented. I mean, yeah, its KINDA sexy, but not in the pants-shattering way everyone described.

also, halo 3. Game was utter balls

IckleMissMayhem:
Oblivion (haven't played Skyrim, since Oblivion was so lamesauce)

To be fair, Skyrim shits all over Oblivion, I absolutely HATED Oblivion but Skyrim is pretty fun.
Overrated to the highest degree fucking possible, but fun.

I'm gonna also say Portal 1 (Not so much 2, 2 deserved most of it's praise). The original Portal wasn't funny, it wasn't fun, it wasn't very good, period.

Also gonna agree with Biohock, LoZ:OoT, Mass Effect (both of them) and Final Fantasy (all of them).

Others have mentioned WoW, but that's a hard one.
Yes, by TODAYS standards it's a pretty terrible MMORPG, trampled on by even the most generic free-to-play ones and still thinks it's worth money...
But was it always? no, at its creation it was the MMORPG, the best available, almost a fact.
It just failed to die when its time was up, same story with Runescape.

... it pains me to say these two, but Bastion and Minecraft as well.
Don't get me wrong, brilliant games, love both of them to bits.
But Minecraft really is praised too much for what it is at the end of the day...
And Bastion, although pretty much the only game I will accept someone using as an argument for "epic immersion and story can save 'meh' gameplay" is also loved a bit too much for what it is... considering aforementioned 'meh' gameplay.

One last thing: how is this thread not just one giant fireball at this point? you'd think it would only take one fanboy to start a thread-closing flamewar with this kind of question...

Hmm, how did I ended up posting in a flamebait thread?
Anyway.

Biggest new offender for me is Skyrim.
I know, I know, everyone and their dog in this thread think so. Look, I actually loved Skyrim, but it wasn't any sort of Holy Grail or anything. It's exactly the kind of game I would enjoy, and I did. But really, it's nothing new, and nothing particularly innovative. Buggy, too. Every Elder Scrolls game EVER was buggy as hell and this is no exception. I think the part that I loved the most about it was the fact that it did not suck, as opposed to Morrowind and ESPECIALLY Oblivion. So they finally managed to make a sandbox game and not fuck it up. Big whoop.

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. It's just a mess of rip-offs, shitty story, boring world, WoW and Bob Salvatore's crappy writing. I really don't understand what's with people liking it and I'm beginning to wonder whether they played any games KoA steals from.

Spore. You remember Spore? It was very hyped up in 2008. I really don't know why, it was 4 short versions of different games in 1. If I really felt like playing one of these, I would. I wouldn't play Spore, with its Play Doh people. And most certainly this game wasn't good enough to warrant all the spin-offs and expansions. But. It is EA we're talking about, so there you go.

Dragon Age II. Ok, it's pretty universally acknowledged that it was a bad game. But there was a hype, people declaring it second coming before it was even released, all that. To this day BioWare treats it like it's the next best thing since sliced bread and I find it insulting. RPGs and Action-RPGs are my pet genres, so I did enjoy DA:O, despite its flaws. But this thing? It's crap in it's own right and in comparison to its predecessor it turns into some sort of malignant tumor.

There are some more games that I loathe because they are mainly multiplayer and those communities are full of retards, so it doesn't have anything to do with the game itself. It's a discussion for another thread.

Loethlin:

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. It's just a mess of rip-offs, shitty story, boring world, WoW and Bob Salvatore's crappy writing. I really don't understand what's with people liking it and I'm beginning to wonder whether they played any games KoA steals from.

I still don't have the game, but to me, it's Todd McFarlane's involvement that draws me in, not Salvatore's generic-ass fantasy writing.

Iwata:
I still don't have the game, but to me, it's Todd McFarlane's involvement that draws me in, not Salvatore's generic-ass fantasy writing.

Oh, that was exactly what made me play this game, in the end. I really was counting on some really freaky, wonderful, imaginative art design. I got World of Warcraft. Seriously. It looks like WoW. I was so disappointed. Some say it looks like Fable, too. They might see it that way, I'm not questioning that. The point is, it rips off art design. Everything in this game is either stolen or crap. I expected more from the creator of goddamn Spawn.

EDIT: Oops. Ok, I should give credit where it's due. Combat animations are pretty. That's about it. ONLY combat animations. Try talking to someone, you'll see a monster from the depths of Uncanny Valley.

A lot of 'classic' games don't really hold up for me without the benefits of rose-tinted glasses. I appreciate their existence, and I wouldn't dream of arguing that they weren't important, but too many people still put them on top of 'Best Game Ever' lists.

In fact, scratch that, 'classic' everything is overrated in every media, be it literature, music, art, games, film etc. because most attempts at dissent or criticism are either dismissed out of hand as "You just don't get it" or subjected to the opinion equivalent of napalm.

This is hardly an unusual post, but f****** skyrim. Buggy is one thing, but the lag (I have a PS3) is ridiculous. And now it's starting to emerge that Bethesda knew there was a problem before release. Also, the factions were dull, excluding the Dark Brotherhood, as in they were much shorter and less varied than Oblivion's. Same goes for the civil war questline.

Basically skyrim makes me go gnaaarrrgh!

Pretty much any shooter that is meant to be realistic. I play video games to escape the real world.

Call of bloody Duty. I hate this game and it's bland repetitiveness. Especially how everyone seems to treat every release like the second, third and fourth coming of Christ were he a video game back in the day.

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.

There where (Doom, Quake, Marathon), but they where all on the PC, Halo brought it to an audience that wouldn't know a graphics card from a Magic card.

Knights of the Old Rebublic.It felt like a prototype for Mass Effect.

Always on-line Diablo III!

bafrali:
Knights of the Old Rebublic.It felt like a prototype for Mass Effect.

Haha I'm totally the opposite about this. KOTOR had great side quest with consequence and different paths, better characters and it was more varied and original. ME seemed too dumbed down, with all the planets being the same, boring MAKO missions, formulaic, etc...

The most overrated game in recent times for me is Skryim by a LONG way. I really loved the TES series, I thoroughly enjoyed Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion (Oblivion not so much).
But Skyrim, its a mile wide and about 3/8" deep. The combat is was never a TES strong point and its no better now. The story was PATHETIC, the guilds were a fucking disgrace and the game is a buggy glitchy mess.
There is no incentive to do anything, none of the players actions have any consequence, none of the quests you pick up have point short of performing arbitrary tasks. You never receive valuable items or take part in an engaging story line.

The whole game is a hiking simulator with a side of bullshit, its almost insulting.

Other then Skyrim, Mass Effect 2 was another major let down. I found the plot took a nose dive and the combat mechanic retcon was a joke. It came as no suprise when I heard that Mass Effect 3 was even more bullshit.

Batman: Arkham City. Only decent thing about it was Mark Hamill's voicing of The Joker.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked