Bad games that got GOOD reviews

[Xavier323]

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.

 

[CommanderL]

Fable 3 was shallow and the story sucked

 

[CityofTreez]

GTA IV.

 

[Azure Sky]

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]

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.

 

[mysecondlife]

I'm going to be unoriginal and say Call of duty Black ops.

I don't have to explain myself here

 

[Aprilgold]

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.

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.

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?

 

[EPICGunner]

Insert Call of Duty joke here

 

[Nazulu]

Would you look at this thread? What is this all about now, people liking things you don't like?
Seriously now, good reviews happen because the reviewers like them, and liking something is a Subjective thing. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean the game is bad, just that you don't like it.
Blah.

So... your saying that nothing can be bad?

I can understand that a lot of the time people dislike things because it's not in their interest. However, a lot of the time it's also because it's just poor in quality.

Don't forget, sometimes reviews are not their real opinion because they can get paid more for good reviews or even get bribed by those companys.

 

[rohansoldier]

Fable 3, GTA 4 and Bioshock 2. I loved the previous games but these were so disappointing. Especially GTA as the crappy shooting mechanic that had me shooting some guy on the other side of the room when I was trying to shoot in front of me then dying to the guy I was trying to shoot was infuriating. Plus I just wasn't interested in Nico or his story (such as it was).

Thank god for Rockstar fixing this for Red Dead Redemption. Much better game. I hope they manage to sort out GTA 5.

Bioshock 2 did not have the impact of the original. Plus playing as Subject Delta did not have any of the walking tank feel that being a Big Daddy should have.

Fable 3 - I quite enjoyed Fable 2 but 3 was inferior in just about every way. Too short and really not up to scratch.

I do however like some of the games others have suggested on here, like Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2 (not keen on Origins though) and Halo Reach is OK I guess for a game I got for free (it came with my xbox).

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Fable 3, GTA 4 and Bioshock 2. I loved the previous games but these were so disappointing. Especially GTA as the crappy shooting mechanic that had me shooting some guy on the other side of the room when I was trying to shoot in front of me then dying to the guy I was trying to shoot was infuriating. Plus I just wasn't interested in Nico or his story (such as it was).

Thank god for Rockstar fixing this for Red Dead Redemption. Much better game. I hope they manage to sort out GTA 5.

Bioshock 2 did not have the impact of the original. Plus playing as Subject Delta did not have any of the walking tank feel that being a Big Daddy should have.

Fable 3 - I quite enjoyed Fable 2 but 3 was inferior in just about every way. Too short and really not up to scratch.

I do however like some of the games others have suggested on here, like Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2 (not keen on Origins though) and Halo Reach is OK I guess for a game I got for free (it came with my xbox).

I agree with you about gta 4 and its refreshing to see someone who says so. I am genuinely baffled why so many people like it. San andreas was the peak for me.

 

[i7omahawki]

Would you look at this thread? What is this all about now, people liking things you don't like?
Seriously now, good reviews happen because the reviewers like them, and liking something is a Subjective thing. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean the game is bad, just that you don't like it.
Blah.

This is a silly comment. If there wasn't a link between one person's perspective and another's then reviewing games (or anything else) would be pointless.

Game reviews are subjective in that they come from a subject's point of view, but game reviewers are employed to offer judgements on games, not just whether they like them or not.

A carbon-copy of this post seems to occur very frequently on this site, and I am completely perplexed by the motive behind it. Should we not disagree with people, and offer reasons why we disagree? To be sure, we can't tell someone that they liked or disliked something, but we can get them to re-evaluate their tastes based on arguing the merits/drawbacks of a game. Would you really rather just say 'Well that's just your opinion,' to everyone and thereby negate any criticism they might level which could improve your taste and therefore draw you to better, more enjoyable games?

OT: Anyway, after following you into your relativist pit, I have to agree with others that GTA IV was praised beyond any sensible comprehension. Sure the city was alive and it felt real, but this is a grand theft auto game, the city's existence (and realism) is secondary to an enjoyment of the game. I feel like they missed that out.

It's an interesting game, and I'd be the last to criticize them simply for trying something new, but it felt like that video gaming aspect of the game was neglected in favour of erecting a realistic, but pretty dull, city.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Would you look at this thread? What is this all about now, people liking things you don't like?
Seriously now, good reviews happen because the reviewers like them, and liking something is a Subjective thing. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean the game is bad, just that you don't like it.
Blah.

This is a silly comment. If there wasn't a link between one person's perspective and another's then reviewing games (or anything else) would be pointless.

Game reviews are subjective in that they come from a subject's point of view, but game reviewers are employed to offer judgements on games, not just whether they like them or not.

A carbon-copy of this post seems to occur very frequently on this site, and I am completely perplexed by the motive behind it. Should we not disagree with people, and offer reasons why we disagree? To be sure, we can't tell someone that they liked or disliked something, but we can get them to re-evaluate their tastes based on arguing the merits/drawbacks of a game. Would you really rather just say 'Well that's just your opinion,' to everyone and thereby negate any criticism they might level which could improve your taste and therefore draw you to better, more enjoyable games?

If that's where the discussion lies then the thread should be 'Well-received games you didn't like' or something to that effect. By claiming a game is bad, the poster is implying that their opinion is more valid than someone else's, which is simply not the case. I also rather take issue with this sentence:

Would you really rather just say 'Well that's just your opinion,' to everyone and thereby negate any criticism they might level which could improve your taste and therefore draw you to better, more enjoyable games?

What are 'better, more enjoyable games'? Because, as you already stated, we can't tell people whether they liked a game or not. That sentence really sounds like you think people have the right to tell others why they're wrong to like the games they like and to tell them they should like 'better' games. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's how it sounds.

OT: There are many games that are very popular which were given good reviews that hold absolutely no appeal for me, but I wouldn't presume to call them bad games. Each to their own and all that.

 

[Nazulu]

Starcraft 2: Mainly because of the terrbile story and poorly wrtten cinematics, but the game play hasn't changed for the better and the atmosphere isn't as immersive either. On top of that, I hate how they just focused on one race missions and left the others for expansions.

SSB Brawl: Has some nice new features added to it but the mechanics are awful, making the game play feel blocky, clumsy and difficult to find any combo's so your not playing tag or just camping (which is very effective). I also find a lot of level designs are not thought out well, like getting stuck underneath platforms which breaks flow. And lets not forget how un-even the supers are and the constant random tripping.

 

[giggetygooo]

y'know, i first thought TF2 was shit till i learnt how to play it, and yes i still giggle at it.

 

[jacobythehedgehog]

Call of Duty games come to my mind.... IGN gave Black Ops a 10 saying it has been the best writing they have seen in a video game in years. That is a bunch of poop. I mean come on, a copie and pasted online shooter with a 5 hour or less compainge got a perfect 10... seriously. What is wrong with this picture

Sorry I have been wanting to do that for a long time

 

[funguy2121]

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.

EDIT: And wow .. RDR? Really? I thought it was fabbo.

Took me a minute to realize that you were talking about the Japanese version of Resident Evil. Makes me wonder where you must live where it's called Biohazard (I'm guessing Pretenseville). Also, I have ni what RDR stands for, dygtp? Or fabbo, ftm...let's spell things out every once in a while, please, for the dummies like me.

 

[Vivi22]

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).

That's always bothered me. I'm a big fan of GTA3 and Vice City and to a lesser extent San Andreas, but GTAIV was just terrible. I'll give them credit for mildly improving the shooting from earlier games but that's about it. The story was terrible, the missions were boring, and nothing will ever be more annoying than having people call you every five minutes looking to do something, even if you're in the middle of a mission, and you're punished if you ignore them too much. Fuck off.

I'll also add Resistance 2 and Resident Evil 4. Resistance 2 is just hands down one of the worst games I've ever played, and I liked the original. It had terrible level design, terrible pacing of both the gameplay and the story. Actually, I wasn't even sure what the story was. It did such a poor job of telling it, often drowning out important dialogue with explosions, that I'd usually finish a level and move on to a new place and have no idea where I was, why I was there, and what the point of the whole thing was.

And RE4 is just bad for a lot of small things that just pile up to make a game that I can't stand for more than the first hour or so. It's literally just a game of fighting wave after wave of enemies, going to the next room, fighting more waves of enemies, repeat for 15-20 hours or whatever it was until finished. Which might be bearable, except the game is at least twice as long as the enemy variety can support, the movement controls are the exact same tank like controls everyone claims to hate so much in the original games, and the laser sight you're given to aim only shows up on things you can shoot. This leads to a lot of waving the screen around hoping it shows up on something so you know where the hell you're aiming. The enemies are usually only a few feet away when this happens, so at best you fire off a handful of shots before having to run away, turn around, and start the dance with the laser sight all over again. The best part is, everything in the levels is real-time, so there is literally no excuse for it other than Capcom is either lazy or stupid. Oh, and did I mention quick time events which come out of nowhere and are gone so fast that you'll usually fail them the first time, and then fail the second time too because the button you need to press to get past it changed? Yeah, fuck RE4.

 

[uzo]

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.

EDIT: And wow .. RDR? Really? I thought it was fabbo.

Took me a minute to realize that you were talking about the Japanese version of Resident Evil. Makes me wonder where you must live where it's called Biohazard (I'm guessing Pretenseville). Also, I have ni what RDR stands for, dygtp? Or fabbo, ftm...let's spell things out every once in a while, please, for the dummies like me.

Well hello there in Presumption City. Nice weather this time of year?

I lived in Japan through most of 2000-2010 and played through all of the *ahem* "Resident Evil" games there, in Japanese. Shit, I personally know Kazuhiro Aoyama (the director of Last Escape) - I used to go drinking with him and a few of his mates from Capcom Kansai (don't remember them so well .. they were 'just' programmers). So I'm used to discussing the entire series in Japanese - and indeed most games - in Japanese, moreso than English.

So if you'll excuse me, when I say 'Biohazard', I mean exactly that - Biohazard. I did however play Resident Evil 1 in uni on my PC back in the day. That does sound quite pretentious; but no more than an Australian who lived in America for 10 years and then says 'to-MEI-to', is it?

Other points - 'RDR' is Red Dead Redemption. I noticed one of the other posters had referenced it and I was expressing my surprise by saying 'fabbo'. Shorthand for FAAAAHBULOUS DAAAHLINGK.

 

[Viirin]

I'm so getting attacked, but here goes:

Fallout 3- I played it, was seriously addicted to it while playing it, but

Spoiler: the ending

full-on ended the game without letting me continue even if I had Lyons die instead of me and I found the game to have 0 replay value. Why would you even get a unique weapon off the end game boss if you can't even keep it for 40 seconds? Ruined the rest of the game for me.

Dragon Age II- I got it because I liked the first one so much, but since the

Spoiler: whole game

seems to just keep you in town or just outside it, and there's never a 'save the world' or any kind of 'epic' story, just 'oh this group is being a dick today' I couldn't get into it. I love Merill but everything else bored me. They changed the Quun way too much too. They don't even resemble what they were before. I've seen some people's first mods be more compelling and have more work involved.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion- I'm a serious fan of Morrowind, and hoped that Oblivion would be another magnificent and well-told story, with a highly interesting world to freely explore,

Spoiler: but

I couldn't be more wrong. The main quest has such a sense of urgency to it that I didn't bother doing anything but warping from spot to spot, caring nothing for any NPC unlike previous Bethesda games. The game also had horrible art management, having excessive polygons and texture resolutions that dragged the game's FPS to the point of feeling like my feet were made of molasses. Unlike MW, mods for OB made the game playable, instead of increasing content (for the most part).

Final Fantasy XIII- Yatzee said it best. Just, he toned it way down from my perspective. As an example, he didn't point out the lighting. Look at the character's illumination when walking between direct light and shadow. How did I

Spoiler: beat the first boss fight?

I put the controller down. That's it. The two other characters did healing as needed and attacked when that wasn't necessary. I beat the boss without even being in the room. Literally. I put the controller down and tended my pets, came back, and I had won. It doesn't deserve the 'final fantasy' title, those are games made for players that hunt the world for tiny and out-of-the-way things to unlock everything and whatnot, FF13 just has you explore in the same way you did in... actually no, the map for Super Mario Bros. and Megaman 1 were more complex, my bad.