Medal of Honour: Rising Sun a very very poor follow up to that rather good Frontline on consoles. Rising Sun was a very bland and amazingly ugly corridor shooter that several reviews gave 9/10 while the majority of the playerbase thought 6/10 was generous.
Bad games that got GOOD reviews
- Thread starter DOOMGUY '93
- Start date
Why would I flame you when I not only agree with you, but you also made me laugh? Cherries for you!Mr Shrike said:
I will disagree with you on Pokemon though, it might be because I'm a good little whore, but I love those games.
OT: I've noticed this thread is a matter of opinion, but GTA IV. I did not enjoy that game at all. The driving and the aiming sucked, and the story was crap. Ok yeah, some of the dialog was pretty decent, but it was shadowed by the rest of the plot.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
It's an awful game. The controls are so bad, I'm having nightmares after trying the game. The gameplay below average, the aesthetics are nothing special. All in all, it's a below average game. I don't get why it gets so good review scores.
Also almost every FPS and Uncharted. Uncharted is just a bad PoP copycat with ranged weapons and an awful story.
It's an awful game. The controls are so bad, I'm having nightmares after trying the game. The gameplay below average, the aesthetics are nothing special. All in all, it's a below average game. I don't get why it gets so good review scores.
Also almost every FPS and Uncharted. Uncharted is just a bad PoP copycat with ranged weapons and an awful story.
Hmmm...True enough.sravankb said:
The topic is worded in the negative.
Of course, when you start praising something, some people still descend upon you as a "fanboy", so I guess the futility of the matter is built-in no matter what.
It's why I've only ever created one topic during the entirety of my posts here on The Escapist.
I think one of my favorite threads I've seen on here was a thread that encouraged you to talk about your favorite games critically and pick out things that weren't good or didn't appeal to everyone. It came with an arbitrary score system that rated you from fair critic to fanboy, but I liked the idea of the thread itself. And I don't come to these forums often, but I know that I've seen more than one favorite game thread in some form or another.Atmos Duality said:
I do wish that you could be critical without someone getting defensive, and praise without being called a fanboy/girl. Because you can't find valid points for everything, no matter how good a critic you are.
It may not be entirely representative, because I only played the demo, but it was the gameplay changes that I hated. Not as a bioware fanboy, not as a BG purist, not as an RPG snob.ghost whistler said:
I just didn't enjoy it for one minute. It took me three sittings to finish the demo I disliked it that much.
The stupid appearing out of nowhere enemies, the stupid camera angles, and the impossibility of seeing what was going on, coupled with the complete re-colouring/texturing/retconning of pretty much everything I enjoyed in Dragon Age totally baffled me.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, and 50% of the spells I used in Dragon Age had been cut. WTF?!
High profile games tend to get a lot warmer reception that they might deserve... Not that there aren't examples of bad high profile games, but most reviews are positive about them.
My personal example is Final Fantasy 12... Near perfect scores left and right, and for me it was the beginning of the downfall of the franchise.
My personal example is Final Fantasy 12... Near perfect scores left and right, and for me it was the beginning of the downfall of the franchise.
I always feel that games need about a 3 month gap from release to be reviewed correctly, particularly if there's been a lot of buzz about them. Of course, that doesn't really help, because reviews need to come out with the game, but...hermes200 said:
For example, I loved BioShock at the time, but I've never gone back to it, and when I think of it, my primary feeling is "Meh. Alright. Like System Shock 2, just nowhere near as good".
I liked Metroid Other M a lot, cutscenes and all. For me, the obvious choice is every Metal Gear Solid ever. They're badly written, have horrible controls, limited gameplay, repetitive objectives, awkward cameras, and they hardly ever develop into anything worthwhile. Of course, every critic overlooks that because "Hey, it's Metal Gear! 10 out of 10!!!" Double that for pre RE4 Resident Evils.
You are aware of how a discussion works, right? You share opinions and then you discuss them. You don't come in and try and belittle everyone just because you feel like it.sravankb said:
OT: Battlefield Bad Company 2.
I thought the gameplay was slow and difficult - like trying to wade through waste deep water with your feet in sand. There's also serious spawning issues with both Conquest and Rush (I assume the other modes are the same), time after time our team will be reduced to our spawn point and have a helicopter hover above it killing everyone, hell I do it to other teams too. The campaign is uninteresting and is worsened by the slow gameplay meaning I'm just sat on one of the campaign missions wondering what went wrong with my gaming for me to be playing the game.
Don't get me wrong though I still play it every now and again, but it certainly isn't top of the list.
4 was good. It was action/horror/survival(played it to death)uzo said:
BIO5...SHIT ACTION/ SHIT SURVIVAL/SHIT HORROR/SHITTY SHITY SHIT
I think the problem comes from the descriptions people use, i.e "bad" "awful". I've said before, that I believe opinions can be wrong. There are games you can't look at and say the gameplay is bad, or the graphics are bad, and be right, unless your definition isn't based on any reasonable reality.
Like the wanker above who said Deus Ex is an "awful" game. You can say the sky is green in your opinion. Doesn't make you right cuz it's your opinion. You might not personally enjoy aspects of a game, but if something is objectively well constructed, then it's just you didn't like it. Doesn't change that it holds up well when compared to the rest of the market.
I don't like COD multiplayer, but I can't say it's "bad". It obviously works perfectly well.
Like the wanker above who said Deus Ex is an "awful" game. You can say the sky is green in your opinion. Doesn't make you right cuz it's your opinion. You might not personally enjoy aspects of a game, but if something is objectively well constructed, then it's just you didn't like it. Doesn't change that it holds up well when compared to the rest of the market.
I don't like COD multiplayer, but I can't say it's "bad". It obviously works perfectly well.
Red Dead Redmption. THIS POST WILL HAVE MAJOR SPOILERS.
It wasn't a bad game, but it certainly wasn't even close to the quality of GTA.
Like having a story that splits in two directions (the Mexican army vs. Rebels) but making you play both sides in what I assume is a shit attempt at giving John some characterization. I could see them betraying me coming from a mile away, they were all complete douches from the start. All the characters come off as complete asses (except Bonnie and John's wife, but Bonnie is a spinster with the mind of a teenage girl the last time you see her and John's wife hams it up at the end when John dies). Luisa comes across as manipulative, she starts the waterworks whenever John's around but acts tough the rest of the time. John is an utter dumbass who's constantly saying things he'll never do ('I just want to find Bill and save my wife, none of this is my business.' and then he proceeds to help the Marshall anyway. Or he comes to the end of his quest and then for the first time says something like 'I don't want to do this. Give me my wife.' after like 15 hours of doing everything he's told). Then there's the only male character with any potential and it's all squandered away by poor writing and an ending that's begging for a choice, Jack. He literally at one point says something like 'Don't show me. You'll just leave again if you do.' when John suggest showing him how to shoot. Seriously? Am I the only person who can recognize how horribly written that statement is? The idea behind it is sound, but it's so heavy handed that it loses any potential it could have had . Then at the end, Jack is completely different from what I saw as a teen. Instead of taking the high road for his father, like I thought he would, he shoots in revenge (I know this is particularly subjective, but I formed an opinion of Jack based on what I was given in game and I didn't see him change that much, maybe if they had shown him growing up I could have conceived it, but the sheer difference was bothersome). If either he didn't kill the man or if the player was given the choice to either shoot or not, that scene would have been more powerful and impactful. I could really go on and on. >>
Then there's the glaringly obvious issues. Like forcing you to think quickly on who to shoot in certain random events when police, innocents, and gang members looks remarkably similar (especially hat wise). Or a control scheme that I never got used to (poorly designed horse controls from my perspective, the button for stopping was a bad decision and I didn't once remember which button to press when I needed to stop on the first go). Or how about shooting a wild beast NEAR a side quest important character causing me to either fail that side quest or be forced to start it over after they respawned after running away. Or side quests that could have been solved easily with violence, but instead simply failed when violence was used.
Quotes are paraphrased, not direct quotes.
There. I finally got to rant about this game fully. There's probably more, but that's all I've got right now.
It wasn't a bad game, but it certainly wasn't even close to the quality of GTA.
Like having a story that splits in two directions (the Mexican army vs. Rebels) but making you play both sides in what I assume is a shit attempt at giving John some characterization. I could see them betraying me coming from a mile away, they were all complete douches from the start. All the characters come off as complete asses (except Bonnie and John's wife, but Bonnie is a spinster with the mind of a teenage girl the last time you see her and John's wife hams it up at the end when John dies). Luisa comes across as manipulative, she starts the waterworks whenever John's around but acts tough the rest of the time. John is an utter dumbass who's constantly saying things he'll never do ('I just want to find Bill and save my wife, none of this is my business.' and then he proceeds to help the Marshall anyway. Or he comes to the end of his quest and then for the first time says something like 'I don't want to do this. Give me my wife.' after like 15 hours of doing everything he's told). Then there's the only male character with any potential and it's all squandered away by poor writing and an ending that's begging for a choice, Jack. He literally at one point says something like 'Don't show me. You'll just leave again if you do.' when John suggest showing him how to shoot. Seriously? Am I the only person who can recognize how horribly written that statement is? The idea behind it is sound, but it's so heavy handed that it loses any potential it could have had . Then at the end, Jack is completely different from what I saw as a teen. Instead of taking the high road for his father, like I thought he would, he shoots in revenge (I know this is particularly subjective, but I formed an opinion of Jack based on what I was given in game and I didn't see him change that much, maybe if they had shown him growing up I could have conceived it, but the sheer difference was bothersome). If either he didn't kill the man or if the player was given the choice to either shoot or not, that scene would have been more powerful and impactful. I could really go on and on. >>
Then there's the glaringly obvious issues. Like forcing you to think quickly on who to shoot in certain random events when police, innocents, and gang members looks remarkably similar (especially hat wise). Or a control scheme that I never got used to (poorly designed horse controls from my perspective, the button for stopping was a bad decision and I didn't once remember which button to press when I needed to stop on the first go). Or how about shooting a wild beast NEAR a side quest important character causing me to either fail that side quest or be forced to start it over after they respawned after running away. Or side quests that could have been solved easily with violence, but instead simply failed when violence was used.
Quotes are paraphrased, not direct quotes.
There. I finally got to rant about this game fully. There's probably more, but that's all I've got right now.
I feel like that happens all the time. Most recently New Vegas which everyone said was great (which it could?ve been) and had a few technical issues but that they were already being worked on. Well, they apparently needed to work on it for half a year and I think at that point they should?ve offered the dlc to those launch buyers for free. And that?s assuming they even fixed it then. I heard of another patch for it that came out around a month ago.DOOMGUY said:
Another one that stands out is No More Heroes. It was just such a tedious and boring game; even the action portions were (with the exception of a boss or two) repetitive and monotonous.