Bad games that got GOOD reviews

gphjr14

New member
Aug 20, 2010
868
0
0
Woodsey said:
I will never in a million years understand GTA IV's reception.

Bad controls, bad shooting, bad melee combat, bland and clichéd writing (some dialogue is OK, the story is crap), and terrible pacing (story and gameplay-wise).
THIS TIMES 5

The multiplayer was the only reason I kept this game for as long as i did. I'm glad Saints Row became so popular they realized in an open world sandbox game people don't want fancy graphics with nothing to do they wanna fly, blow shit up, and run people down in fire trucks; not bowl with your cousin.
 

Joby Baumann

New member
Apr 19, 2011
103
0
0
To be read or sung to the theme of we didn't start the fire:
Call of duty, Gears of War, Dead rising, Dragon age, left 4 dead 2, GTA 4, final fantasy

guitar hero, world of warcraft, Infamous 2, Mortal Combat, both dead spaces, monkey island, ,Halos 2 and 3

damn i'm good
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
The most recent games I've played that got brilliant reviews and I thought were meh: Uncharted 1, Halo: Reach, and GTA IV.

Of that bunch, I think Uncharted is the only one that has me scratching my head over the glowing reviews. I just thought it was tedious, but the second one is all kinds of awesome. I do question the sanity of people who think Halo: Reach's story is great (paper-thin cliched characters getting slowly killed off among a lot of random missions), but the action delivers exactly what Halo fans want from a Halo game, so I'll just agree to disagree on that front. And GTA IV grew on me like a fungus... and I ended up liking the two DLC packs.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
Dfskelleton said:
The F.E.A.R. games. People always say that the second and third games were no where near as scary as the first, and while I can agree to that (in the sense that F.E.A.R. 2 was the most ridiculous attempt to squeeze in a few moments of frontal nudity at the cost what most fans found scary), I never found the first game that scary either. The first few times anything happened It was kind of creepy, but by the end, the game was getting so predictable that I was just saying "Guy's gonna jump out of that, lights will flicker up there, little girl will walk across hallway in front of me, etc. etc."
What happened to games like Condemned and Blood, Monolith? While reboots can flop, I wouldn't mind a current-gen reboot of Blood. That sort of game has a lot of potential on today's market, as long as you don't do what you did with Blood 2 (shudders at the thought of boring gameplay, stupid ending, and flimsy weapons)
I remember thinking the first F.E.A.R. demo was the most amazing thing I'd ever seen. Watching the little chunks of plaster getting shot out of the walls, while the enemy AI was doing the most amazing shit... bought the game and quickly grew tired of the warehouses and slums that seemed to make up 90% of the levels. Forgot my disappointment and picked up F.E.A.R. 2 after being fairly impressed by its demo... and quickly got bored of it.

Blood 1 was all kinds of awesome and I'd love to see them do another No One Lives Forever game.
 

Xavier323

New member
Mar 6, 2011
15
0
0
Starke said:
Only at the most abstract level. By that definition someone masturbating in the bathroom is a plot. Though even under that definition, Mass Effect is dodgy at best.
For one thing there is no narrative climax. A plot is more than "random stuff happens, and then a goat giant terminator baby". A plot implies that there are some connective themes, elements, or just goddamn anthropomorphic rabbits, anything. Anything is precisely what we don't get here, every single mission is isolated off into its own little sub-continuity streams with minimal regard for what has happened elsewhere.
Why should we need another definition? The only contention I'm putting forward is that there exists a plot in Mass Effect 2. The word implies only that there is a deliberate series of events in a particular order so as to illicit an understanding. The events in the game are not random as you claim, nor is there a lack of cohesiveness between them.

The merit of the format of the plot is a different discussion. However, just because the game is broken into subplot "missions" does not mean it is discontinuous. One could argue that this format is necessitated by the goals of the game designers, namely that the game gives choice to the player in terms of the order of events and decisions (more on that later).
Starke said:
If the only missions in the game were the tutorial mission, the first colony, recruiting Mordin, recruiting Grunt (maybe), the second colony, the collector ship, the derelict, and the endgame, and you might be able to convincingly claim the game has a plot, unfortunately, that represents about 12% of the game, and the remaining 88% has nothing to do with anything, and a bit more than half of the game is mandatory to progress the game triggers.
So your argument is that only 12% of the game is actual plot, while 88% is irrelevant and only serves to muddle it up? Therefore a plot does not exist? I guess Oblivion doesn't have a plot, nor does the Empire Strikes Back. No, that tells me that there is much more content between the major plot points than in a normal work. The difference and challenge of writing a story for a video game is that, unlike film or books, there is much less of a constraint on content. Movies are two hours, games like ME2 are 25 hours plus. A story must then either be much more complex or more extensive and sometimes extraneous.
Starke said:
As a result, this isn't a plot. Hell, ignoring the endgame map, there isn't even a real gameplay climax. Each recruitment and loyalty mission has some combat challenge escalation as it progresses, but, honestly, the missions don't generate a sense of increasing stakes, or difficulty.
Look, I agree that the giant terminator baby idea is stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that it's on the mission that is obviously intended to be the climax. The entire game all they talk about is going through the Omega 4 relay. I don't think difficulty progression really factors into this. The game ends with an extensive boss battle; I'd say that counts as a "gameplay climax."
nightwolf667 said:
The side portions of Mass Effect 2 have plots, the companion collection quests and the loyalty quests, but each plays out more like its own short episode in a television series rather than part of the cohesive whole. There's a plot there, a beginning, middle, end, climax and denouement where they reflect on their actions and wind down. These are actually very good.
However, Shepard's story, the main plot of the game is virtually non-existent. To have a plot, or even a character arc, the character is required to end up in a place that is different from where they started. What was the point of stopping the Collectors? Yes, they were puppets of the Reapers and yes, they were creating a "Human Baby whatever". Why? Who cares. It doesn't actually matter. It's a mcguffin, but it means nothing to Shepherd's overall story. The Horizon mission the Collector's ship/the Derelict Reaper, and the Collector's Base. There's nothing connecting these threads together except the Illusive Man. These are events, not plot points.
A plot requires that a character have a journey, that they learn something, and that they end up in a place at the end of the story that is different than where they began.
I see what you're saying. Within the story of Commander Shepard fighting the Reapers, ME2 is basically unimportant filler. In a sense, the game is more of a spinoff or bridge than a true narrative sequel. As such, however, it makes main character development less important in a three game arc. You don't expect a character to have some great introspective revelation in every single game do you? Also, I have to point out that a character arc is not required in a plot. Look at ancient Greek tragedy or any ancient epic; the hero or heroes don?t always change. Often, they are static. We do not say these works have no plot based on these grounds.
nightwolf667 said:
I could argue that Shepherd's death at the hands of the Collectors at the beginning is meaningless, and it is. Shepherd gains nothing from it and learns nothing from it.
Well, I would say that the beginning has a few purposes. One could surmise that served the purpose of justifying the player being able to re-customize their character. Assuming that's not the only reason, I think I could offer a few. For one, they reference the Bible when they name it the Lazarus project. One could also draw parallels to Nietzche?s Superman among other things. As well as being unexpected, it tries to make the player dislike the Collectors.

That brings me to another point about video game characters that I think is important. Shepard serves as more than a mere character. The medium of the video game is distinct from that of any other in a very interesting way, methinks. The folly of many games is to directly imitate other mediums. By giving the player choices (or at least some semblance of choice), giving the option to customize the character, and making the plot less linear, the player can not only witness the experience but feel as if he/she is a part of it. Shepard is a canvas for the player to project him/herself.
nightwolf667 said:
We have Cerberus as a stand in for the Alliance, but there is literally difference between them. Shepherd could have been working for Alliance and it would have been the same game. Shepherd gains nothing and learns nothing (except for the shiny ship and the leather, but that's not plot or character growth now is it?).
I would contend that Cerberus adds a whole different element to the game and to player choice. It exemplifies the theme of moral ambiguity in that the player must choose between what is right for humans and what is right for everyone (this, of course, is also present in the end of ME1). All of this is not relevant to the plot and at this point, so you're correct in saying that they?re a stand in for the Alliance of the first game. However, I suspect that in Mass Effect 3 their circumspective purpose will be much distinguished from the Alliance.
nightwolf667 said:
In fact, if one wiped out the events in the game that act as the main plot...we'd still have the exact same game.
Not true. There would be far more people complaining that the game had no plot and was just a jumble of individually well thought out missions in no particular order. :)

Phew.
 

Joby Baumann

New member
Apr 19, 2011
103
0
0
Xavier323 said:
Starke said:
Only at the most abstract level. By that definition someone masturbating in the bathroom is a plot. Though even under that definition, Mass Effect is dodgy at best.
For one thing there is no narrative climax. A plot is more than "random stuff happens, and then a goat giant terminator baby". A plot implies that there are some connective themes, elements, or just goddamn anthropomorphic rabbits, anything. Anything is precisely what we don't get here, every single mission is isolated off into its own little sub-continuity streams with minimal regard for what has happened elsewhere.
Why should we need another definition? The only contention I'm putting forward is that there exists a plot in Mass Effect 2. The word implies only that there is a deliberate series of events in a particular order so as to illicit an understanding. The events in the game are not random as you claim, nor is there a lack of cohesiveness between them.

The merit of the format of the plot is a different discussion. However, just because the game is broken into subplot "missions" does not mean it is discontinuous. One could argue that this format is necessitated by the goals of the game designers, namely that the game gives choice to the player in terms of the order of events and decisions (more on that later).
Starke said:
If the only missions in the game were the tutorial mission, the first colony, recruiting Mordin, recruiting Grunt (maybe), the second colony, the collector ship, the derelict, and the endgame, and you might be able to convincingly claim the game has a plot, unfortunately, that represents about 12% of the game, and the remaining 88% has nothing to do with anything, and a bit more than half of the game is mandatory to progress the game triggers.
So your argument is that only 12% of the game is actual plot, while 88% is irrelevant and only serves to muddle it up? Therefore a plot does not exist? I guess Oblivion doesn't have a plot, nor does the Empire Strikes Back. No, that tells me that there is much more content between the major plot points than in a normal work. The difference and challenge of writing a story for a video game is that, unlike film or books, there is much less of a constraint on content. Movies are two hours, games like ME2 are 25 hours plus. A story must then either be much more complex or more extensive and sometimes extraneous.
Starke said:
As a result, this isn't a plot. Hell, ignoring the endgame map, there isn't even a real gameplay climax. Each recruitment and loyalty mission has some combat challenge escalation as it progresses, but, honestly, the missions don't generate a sense of increasing stakes, or difficulty.
Look, I agree that the giant terminator baby idea is stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that it's on the mission that is obviously intended to be the climax. The entire game all they talk about is going through the Omega 4 relay. I don't think difficulty progression really factors into this. The game ends with an extensive boss battle; I'd say that counts as a "gameplay climax."
nightwolf667 said:
The side portions of Mass Effect 2 have plots, the companion collection quests and the loyalty quests, but each plays out more like its own short episode in a television series rather than part of the cohesive whole. There's a plot there, a beginning, middle, end, climax and denouement where they reflect on their actions and wind down. These are actually very good.
However, Shepard's story, the main plot of the game is virtually non-existent. To have a plot, or even a character arc, the character is required to end up in a place that is different from where they started. What was the point of stopping the Collectors? Yes, they were puppets of the Reapers and yes, they were creating a "Human Baby whatever". Why? Who cares. It doesn't actually matter. It's a mcguffin, but it means nothing to Shepherd's overall story. The Horizon mission the Collector's ship/the Derelict Reaper, and the Collector's Base. There's nothing connecting these threads together except the Illusive Man. These are events, not plot points.
A plot requires that a character have a journey, that they learn something, and that they end up in a place at the end of the story that is different than where they began.
I see what you're saying. Within the story of Commander Shepard fighting the Reapers, ME2 is basically unimportant filler. In a sense, the game is more of a spinoff or bridge than a true narrative sequel. As such, however, it makes main character development less important in a three game arc. You don't expect a character to have some great introspective revelation in every single game do you? Also, I have to point out that a character arc is not required in a plot. Look at ancient Greek tragedy or any ancient epic; the hero or heroes don?t always change. Often, they are static. We do not say these works have no plot based on these grounds.
nightwolf667 said:
I could argue that Shepherd's death at the hands of the Collectors at the beginning is meaningless, and it is. Shepherd gains nothing from it and learns nothing from it.
Well, I would say that the beginning has a few purposes. One could surmise that served the purpose of justifying the player being able to re-customize their character. Assuming that's not the only reason, I think I could offer a few. For one, they reference the Bible when they name it the Lazarus project. One could also draw parallels to Nietzche?s Superman among other things. As well as being unexpected, it tries to make the player dislike the Collectors.

That brings me to another point about video game characters that I think is important. Shepard serves as more than a mere character. The medium of the video game is distinct from that of any other in a very interesting way, methinks. The folly of many games is to directly imitate other mediums. By giving the player choices (or at least some semblance of choice), giving the option to customize the character, and making the plot less linear, the player can not only witness the experience but feel as if he/she is a part of it. Shepard is a canvas for the player to project him/herself.
nightwolf667 said:
We have Cerberus as a stand in for the Alliance, but there is literally difference between them. Shepherd could have been working for Alliance and it would have been the same game. Shepherd gains nothing and learns nothing (except for the shiny ship and the leather, but that's not plot or character growth now is it?).
I would contend that Cerberus adds a whole different element to the game and to player choice. It exemplifies the theme of moral ambiguity in that the player must choose between what is right for humans and what is right for everyone (this, of course, is also present in the end of ME1). All of this is not relevant to the plot and at this point, so you're correct in saying that they?re a stand in for the Alliance of the first game. However, I suspect that in Mass Effect 3 their circumspective purpose will be much distinguished from the Alliance.
nightwolf667 said:
In fact, if one wiped out the events in the game that act as the main plot...we'd still have the exact same game.
Not true. There would be far more people complaining that the game had no plot and was just a jumble of individually well thought out missions in no particular order. :)

Phew.
none of these points are correct...
 

Joby Baumann

New member
Apr 19, 2011
103
0
0
Dfskelleton said:
The F.E.A.R. games. People always say that the second and third games were no where near as scary as the first, and while I can agree to that (in the sense that F.E.A.R. 2 was the most ridiculous attempt to squeeze in a few moments of frontal nudity at the cost what most fans found scary), I never found the first game that scary either. The first few times anything happened It was kind of creepy, but by the end, the game was getting so predictable that I was just saying "Guy's gonna jump out of that, lights will flicker up there, little girl will walk across hallway in front of me, etc. etc."
What happened to games like Condemned and Blood, Monolith? While reboots can flop, I wouldn't mind a current-gen reboot of Blood. That sort of game has a lot of potential on today's market, as long as you don't do what you did with Blood 2 (shudders at the thought of boring gameplay, stupid ending, and flimsy weapons)
never thought of fear as scary, but the gunplay in the first one was great, but then it got call of dutified in the second one...
 

Dfskelleton

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,851
0
0
Netrigan said:
Dfskelleton said:
The F.E.A.R. games. People always say that the second and third games were no where near as scary as the first, and while I can agree to that (in the sense that F.E.A.R. 2 was the most ridiculous attempt to squeeze in a few moments of frontal nudity at the cost what most fans found scary), I never found the first game that scary either. The first few times anything happened It was kind of creepy, but by the end, the game was getting so predictable that I was just saying "Guy's gonna jump out of that, lights will flicker up there, little girl will walk across hallway in front of me, etc. etc."
What happened to games like Condemned and Blood, Monolith? While reboots can flop, I wouldn't mind a current-gen reboot of Blood. That sort of game has a lot of potential on today's market, as long as you don't do what you did with Blood 2 (shudders at the thought of boring gameplay, stupid ending, and flimsy weapons)
I remember thinking the first F.E.A.R. demo was the most amazing thing I'd ever seen. Watching the little chunks of plaster getting shot out of the walls, while the enemy AI was doing the most amazing shit... bought the game and quickly grew tired of the warehouses and slums that seemed to make up 90% of the levels. Forgot my disappointment and picked up F.E.A.R. 2 after being fairly impressed by its demo... and quickly got bored of it.

Blood 1 was all kinds of awesome and I'd love to see them do another No One Lives Forever game.
Oh yeah! Wasn't "No One Lives Forever" kind of like an old spy flick? I love games that parody older film styles.
Monolith, why has thou abandoned all that is badass? Okay, Condemned: Criminal Origins was good, but it got pretty silly towards the ending of the second game.
Oh, and if they do a Blood remake, GET. THE. ORIGINAL. FREAKING. VOICE. ACTOR.
Without Caleb's sadistic, raspy voice, it would just be incomplete.
Nice avatar by the way. It takes a real man (and a half) to have an avatar like that.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
Dfskelleton said:
Oh yeah! Wasn't "No One Lives Forever" kind of like an old spy flick? I love games that parody older film styles.
Yeah, they were running with the Austin Powers thing, although I think the tone is meant to be more along the lines of In Like Flint instead of an outright parody.
 

moosek

New member
Nov 5, 2009
261
0
0
ruben6f said:
and I'm sure it's like a 6.5/10.
I think it's more like a 4/10 I have green eyes and the ladies like that but I have some pimples on my face =([/quote]

Ah, that'll clear up. I had some acne in my early highschool days, just avoid chocolate and wash your face. Exercise also helps regulate your hormones, which can help alleviate acne on most your body.
 

lobo_ace777

New member
Nov 18, 2009
25
0
0
God of War 2. So much of the game feels like unnecessary padding, and it feels so poorly paced. Whereas the first game had en equal focus between puzzles and combat, the second one way too many puzzles. Also, most of the bosses from two feel really forgettable as opposed to the bosses from one and three.
 

Xavier323

New member
Mar 6, 2011
15
0
0
The Call of Duty games haven't been the same since CoD4 (which I loved). The most recent iteration was by far the worst in terms of single player, IMO. I never played multiplayer in Black Ops but the SP was just abysmal.

I liked Uncharted and was underwhelmed by Uncharted 2. It wasn't bad but I don't think it deserved the sheer number of accolades it got. The graphics were nice though.
 

Azure Sky

New member
Dec 17, 2009
877
0
0
uzo said:
Biohazard 4.


Sure .. it's fun enough. But is it really THAT good? And it didn't so much 'redefine' survival horror as throw it out the fucking window. After the first scene (approaching the town on foot), it feels like godamn John Cleese appeared and said 'and now for something completely different.'


What in the hell happened to Biohazard, Capcom ??! I want it BACK.
Agreed, I stopped playing attention to RE/Biohazard as soon as it decided to change from 'survival-horror' to 'mindless-action'.

...I want my RE2 back... =(
 

rob_simple

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2010
1,864
0
41
sravankb said:
Opinions. Subjective. Not fact.

When, oh when, will the Escapist get this through their heads? There's seriously a thousand topics just like this one. And all of them can be answered with one word - opinion.
Opinion only goes so far. There are games that are just badly made. So Fallout getting good reviews despite being buggy as all hell and almost guaranteed to crash on a regular basis hasn't really got much to do with perspective.

OT: Uncharted. I don't know how it got the praise it did. I can only assume it was because, at time of release, PS3 had no games.

Boring, repetitive combat, preposterous difficulty curve and the worst motion-control implementation on a system that has abysmal motion-controls as a rule of thumb. The sequel was fantastic, though.
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
Woodsey said:
I will never in a million years understand GTA IV's reception.

Bad controls, bad shooting, bad melee combat, bland and clichéd writing (some dialogue is OK, the story is crap), and terrible pacing (story and gameplay-wise).
It was fun, but it was just too gritty, I forced my mind to THINK it was good so I didn't have to try and find a new copy of San Andreas.

ruben6f said:
Every single CoD game after 2 (I can't say anything about 3 since I didn't played it), and GTA IV.

Edit: forgot Halo Reach... I HATE THAT GAME!!
I agree, CoD 3 was actually pretty good, but wasn't by the guys who made the first 2, which was the best, in my opinion, whichever one that took place in WW2.

sravankb said:
Opinions. Subjective. Not fact.

When, oh when, will the Escapist get this through their heads? There's seriously a thousand topics just like this one. And all of them can be answered with one word - opinion.
Oh god when will you stop with this. I'm sorry, but could you stop? Hes asking your opinion on something, why not just give the man something on it instead of crotch blocking. Just let guys have their bloody fun, theres a limit to being a pessimist. I'm also sick of people saying
"OH THIS THREAD IS HERE EVERY WEEK!" IT IS NEVER HERE! This is my first time seeing it in all my time as a member. HES NOT ASKING FOR FACT, REVIEWS ARE NOT FACT, NOTHING IS BLOODY FACT *I'm just speaking on the review level here* UNTIL IT IS UNDOUBTLY GOOD!

Seriously, could you just let people have their bloody fun?