Bad games that got GOOD reviews
- Thread starter DOOMGUY '93
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
I'm as eager to spew my hate as any other bitter person, but I feel the urge to post this
Dragon age 2
Mass effect 2
Dragon age 2
Mass effect 2
I don't really pay attention to reviews, though I'd have to say New Vegas. Simply because "It's fallout" it got good reviews. If that was the first game released of the Fallout Series, we wouldn't have seen another. No game should be that buggy with that high of a score.
Idunno, it depends on if you like that sort of thing. I like Call of Duty personally, and will certainly be buying MW3, but I know many people don't, and I'm alright with that. Regardless of the fact that soldier isn't anywhere near one of my top 100 fantasies, I think shooting the living SHIT out of some guy over the internet is a blast. Then again I despise every member of the human race, and I'm pretty sure COD is preventing me from doing it IRL.Mr Moonshine said:
I don't understand the Prototype hate.
Anyways, I rarely despise games, so nothing is jumping to mind. Spore was pretty overrated, though.
Anyways, I rarely despise games, so nothing is jumping to mind. Spore was pretty overrated, though.
