Cult classics (or "underrated games") that you found underwhelming.

[putowtin]

Suda51 games, I've tried to like them, really I have. But I think if you have to put that much effort into trying to like a thing you'll end up driving yourself mad.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Playing [Spec-Ops: The Line] was like arguing with a particularly obnoxious troll. It was someone trying to Socratically convince you that you're a jackass, while not laying out all their premises and pretending it's intentional, then ignoring you when you point out that you took every premise they offered (even the flawed ones) and still came up with an entirely different, rational conclusion.

That's a great way to put it!

I can't help but feel that many of the people who like it are also the ones who actively despise something like Call of Duty and will settle for anything that rips on it and other games like it, no matter how hypocritical and devoid of nuance the actual writing is.

Also:

http://ludo.mwclarkson.com/2012/07/the-invisible-hands/

This is a great criticism of the game.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Anything by Ninja Theory; I really don't get why people wear kid gloves with those guys as they repeatedly made mediocre game after mediocre game with no signs of improvement. It also doesn't help that they have a very petulant attitude towards criticism and throw tantrums every time their games fail. It's just baffling how these guys commit every crime that journalists usually jump on at the first sign and yet get free passes. It's just WEIRD.

 

[McElroy]

Killer7. Honestly, I liked just about nothing in it. Gameplay, controls, VOICES, tight spots... No please, no more.

 

[Fox12]

Final Fantasy 6.

Hands down the most overrated underrated game of all time. The characters are boring, the game play is fairly average, and it has one of the most generic villains in the history of games. My main issue is with Kefka, who's sole motivation is that he's crazy. No real motivation at all, then. He reminds me one of those poor Saturday morning cartoon villains who blabbers on about the power of evil, and how everything is meaningless.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Ok im game lets see

Mario 64 - just hate it so much one of the few mario games I see no positives in back on release and now.

Ocarina of time - hated on release later found it was ok but rather mediocre still finished it though.

GTA series - cant stand them find them utterly dull in every conceivable way fun for 30 minutes though I guess.

Chrono Trigger - Not bad but certainly not one of the greats expected more tbh.

FFIX - Good game mostly but not one of the great FF games and the battle system was horrible one of the worst in the series. This one like the above one is more underwhelming than disappointing.

Mario Kart (SNES) - This game was massive but I thought it looked and played naff on release and still do but to give credit Battle mode was fun and its way better than Mario Kart 8.

Balders Gate 1 and 2 - yeah I went there I have tried so many time to get into these games but damn they make it hard work especially the first one dont hate them but they are not games that draw you in or indeed make me want to bother continue playing after a few hours.

Halo - thought it looked garbage and the campaign was really bad but two maps in MP were a lot of fun and the game shone through there so it kinda saved it but still didnt get the hype for it or the love for me the series peaked with Halo 2 and died with 3.

Tekken 3 - the best selling in the franchise and the one that put a rift between me and the series which has only just started to heal cant say what I didnt like its just that I didnt find it fun unlike tekken 2 which is one of my favourite fighters ever.

Dark Souls - I liked this game a lot but I did find it underwhelming most likely because I had finished Demons Souls before ages ago. Dark Souls sorta had a ive been here and done it feel after Demons and it didnt have as strong enemy design imo. At least the level design was way better but I also preferred the mystery surrounding Demons with the Maiden in black and all that shiz by the end I was just completing it out of stubbornness. Gotta say though that Artorias boss fight was probably my favorite out of both games, brilliantly done.

I could go on but that has let off some steam if anybody wants to tell me their favourite game I will be happy to tell you why its bad or over rated and you are wrong for liking it

 

[King Billi]

cut for length

I didn't know any of those games were considered underrated.

OT: Half Life 2

The game isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, its just soooooooooo looooooooooooong! I just lose interest, I feel I'm playing for hours on end making very little progress.

 

[Maximum Bert]

cut for length

I didn't know any of those games were considered underrated.

OT: Half Life 2

The game isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, its just soooooooooo looooooooooooong! I just lose interest, I feel I'm playing for hours on end making very little progress.

I was going more for cult classics although I admit I was being a bit liberal in the cult part or classic part for some of them but so has the OP. Then again you have selected Half Life 2 which wasnt under rated either so I assume you are going by the same criteria as me as it happens I also felt very underwhelmed by Half Life 2 I did eventually finish it and it was fun in places but overall I found it a bit of a slog.

 

[FPLOON]

Virtua Quest... But, then again, I did play it more than 5 times, so there's that...

But honestly, both the Alice games from American Mcgee left me wondering why I did waste my time trying to plow through those games other than to find out more about the overall story that was laid out beforehand... (I mean, at the time, it has been a while since I wasn't having fun playing a video game in general... Thanks American Mcgee's Alice and Alice: Madness Returns! I didn't have fun playing your game overall!)

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

I think the Zone of the Enders games are considered cult classics but I found them a little stale. The combat was made a bit awkward by the movement of the mechs, especially in The Second Runner and the game just felt a tad dull. God Hand, I'm assured was a cult classic game but I tried it and just couldn't enjoy it. The combat had some interesting bits to it but the game was tedious and the plot and zany humour fell flat for me. I'm sure some people enjoyed it but it wasn't for me. Similarly, I tried out Mirror's Edge (which I didn't think was a cult classic but according to Wikipedia, the most reliable source , it is) and hated it. The first-person platforming didn't really work, the combat was horrible and the plot was tiresome. As again, I'm sure some people enjoyed it but it wasn't for me.

 

[ChristopherT]

I don't really think most of the games listed in this thread really fall into the "cult classic" category. I could be wrong but I always thought a cult classic was more of something that was over looked by the majority and somehow found a small yet strong following. Not exactly an under rated game, more so one that doesn't quite become near as popular as the more prominent titles. And the fact that you, or the majority might not like them, or have even thought of them, is kind of part of the idea, that's why in the first placed they were over looked or became obscure in the first place, not everyone is supposed to like them, I think that's how it's supposed to go.

Some games that I think may fall into the cult classic title, even if a few are relatively new,

God Hand
Alpha Protocol
Deadly Premonition ?
the Longest Journey
The Binding of Isaac
System Shock 2 ?
Resident Evil before 4
Resident Evil after 5
Syberia and Syberia 2
Zork ?
Fatal Frame ?
Valkyria Chronicles ?

Those with question marks are ones I'm not sure of, but I think they count. I think each of those has a following, has a strong group of fans that care for them, but each title doesn't meet well with public eye too often. Resident Evil, I think funny enough is one of the best examples, back during Resident Evil CODE: Veronica there were small groups of die hard fans spread over the internet. Each installment I don't think was ever all that popular with the gen pop and critics. The REmake came along, got some nice press here and there for it's lovely visuals, but then 4 really take the cake, and the series was no longer some fainted heard of thing, it was a house hold gamer name, come 5, come disappointment and people are, I think, helping it go back into the obscure category, less and less seem to be playing it, or caring about each new title, the only thing that really has kept it alive in the public eye has been the love for 4 and the amount of awareness of the brand now. But who, really wanted to touch 6 or Operation Raccoon City, and I think it's that general idea that leads a game into cult classic territory.

 

[ThreeName]

That's a great way to put it!

I can't help but feel that many of the people who like it are also the ones who actively despise something like Call of Duty and will settle for anything that rips on it and other games like it, no matter how hypocritical and devoid of nuance the actual writing is.

Also:

http://ludo.mwclarkson.com/2012/07/the-invisible-hands/

This is a great criticism of the game.

While I would argue that anybody who tries to make the "huurr the developers are hypocrites!" argument are so woefully incapable of any degree of introspection that the experience the game delivers is simply lost on them. I can't fathom how people are so afraid of anything telling them they aren't perfect little snowflakes or giving them the opportunity to prove it to themselves and pat themselves on the back that it somehow becomes someone else's "fault".

If you don't like the gameplay, sure, it's pretty standard, or if you don't like the twisting plot, hey, it's not your thing. But I cannot stand this complaint that "I wasn't given a choice!" Yes, thank you, that's the point. It's a linear, character-driven game, what did you expect? It seems like people just react so negatively to anything that even seems like criticism of themselves that their proverbial "flail" reflexes get activated and they run around trying to make excuses about why good little them should never be criticised.

Personally, I didn't find it to be personal criticism but rather just an invitation to rethink the way I and gamers as a whole approached linear war games. The game wasn't calling me a bastard, contrary to what many seem to believe.

And that "great criticism" praises Bioshock's ending, which was almost objectively atrocious. There's no steeper downhill in any single game than between the middle and end of the original Bioshock.

Also I should probably point out that I actually enjoy the Call of Duty games, so me liking Spec Ops is not to do with getting off on some indirect criticism of them.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Final Fantasy 6.

Hands down the most overrated underrated game of all time. The characters are boring, the game play is fairly average, and it has one of the most generic villains in the history of games. My main issue is with Kefka, who's sole motivation is that he's crazy. No real motivation at all, then. He reminds me one of those poor Saturday morning cartoon villains who blabbers on about the power of evil, and how everything is meaningless.

After playing FF5 (which I absolutely adored), FF6 was a big let down. Way too many characters for me to develop any real investment in them and the battle system took many steps backwards.

 

[NeutralDrow]

That's a great way to put it!

I can't help but feel that many of the people who like it are also the ones who actively despise something like Call of Duty and will settle for anything that rips on it and other games like it, no matter how hypocritical and devoid of nuance the actual writing is.

Also:

http://ludo.mwclarkson.com/2012/07/the-invisible-hands/

This is a great criticism of the game.

While I would argue that anybody who tries to make the "huurr the developers are hypocrites!" argument are so woefully incapable of any degree of introspection that the experience the game delivers is simply lost on them. I can't fathom how people are so afraid of anything telling them they aren't perfect little snowflakes or giving them the opportunity to prove it to themselves and pat themselves on the back that it somehow becomes someone else's "fault".

If you don't like the gameplay, sure, it's pretty standard, or if you don't like the twisting plot, hey, it's not your thing. But I cannot stand this complaint that "I wasn't given a choice!" Yes, thank you, that's the point. It's a linear, character-driven game, what did you expect? It seems like people just react so negatively to anything that even seems like criticism of themselves that their proverbial "flail" reflexes get activated and they run around trying to make excuses about why good little them should never be criticised.

I didn't quite agree with the article, myself. I mean, yeah, I do definitely think "if it made you so uncomfortable, you could have stopped playing" was a pretty stupid attitude of the developers to take (I mean, I did that with the Dark Brotherhood quests in Skyrim, but those weren't the whole $60 game). And I do agree with it that there was a certain amount of inevitability built in to the plot that's not usually acknowledged (soon after encountering the 33rd for the first time, about 1/3 of the way in, it's outright stated "they know we're here, we can't escape"). But I thought the article was too nice overall. And my own criticism stems mostly from one thing:

It embodies the evil of its Dubai in Colonel John Konrad, commander of a US battalion trapped in the buried city. The game sells us the proposition that his orders, his decisions built Dubai. Captain Walker rationalizes the crimes that he commits by insisting that Konrad's deeds made them inevitable.

Spoiler

Then, at the end, the game rips the rug out from under this justification.

Um...no. No it does not.

Spoiler

That reveal just means that the crazy, oppressive nightmare regime in Dubai was decentralized and sustained entirely on its own inertia. If anything, that retroactively justified decimating the 33rd, rather than simply going after Konrad, because they were completely out-of-control. So while there were maybe one or two things I'd have done differently by the end (sending Lugo back while Adams and I investigated, for instance), I did find all my other actions inevitable.

That was my problem. It wasn't that the game didn't make me introspective. The game made me introspective, but didn't convince me that it had the right interpretation of my actions. And it didn't help that the plot felt holier than pope-blessed pumice (though ironically, I liked the gameplay well enough).

Personally, I didn't find it to be personal criticism but rather just an invitation to rethink the way I and gamers as a whole approached linear war games. The game wasn't calling me a bastard, contrary to what many seem to believe.

Surely you can understand why people would have gotten a personal attack vibe from the developers, at least?

Spoiler: Spoiler: It's a reasonable conclusion.

There's a hint of passive-aggressiveness, is what I'm saying.

And that "great criticism" praises Bioshock's ending, which was almost objectively atrocious. There's no steeper downhill in any single game than between the middle and end of the original Bioshock.

The article didn't mention the ending of Bioshock. It mentioned the "climax," which I'm assuming is the halfway point (the last time Ryan does anything, and the last part I see anyone on the internet praising). Oddly enough, I had similar problems with Bioshock, but at least the game didn't shove a conclusion I disagreed with in my face. Of course, I also thought the game picked up after the midway point, so what would I know?

Also I should probably point out that I actually enjoy the Call of Duty games, so me liking Spec Ops is not to do with getting off on some indirect criticism of them.

I've actually come to the tentative conclusion that me not liking Spec Ops was partly because I don't play military shooters as a rule (hell, I rarely play any shooters besides TF2). I only played this one because I got it for free legally, and because I was curious what kind of game could depress Yahtzee so badly.

 

[Fox12]

Final Fantasy 6.

Hands down the most overrated underrated game of all time. The characters are boring, the game play is fairly average, and it has one of the most generic villains in the history of games. My main issue is with Kefka, who's sole motivation is that he's crazy. No real motivation at all, then. He reminds me one of those poor Saturday morning cartoon villains who blabbers on about the power of evil, and how everything is meaningless.

After playing FF5 (which I absolutely adored), FF6 was a big let down. Way too many characters for me to develop any real investment in them and the battle system took many steps backwards.

Yeah, 4 and 5 were pretty good. I'll admit 7 was my favorite, though it had its issues. I felt like 4 had an interesting enough cast for me to be invested in, and 7 was so ambitious that I couldn't help but love it. I thought it had the most heart in the series thus far, before Square went off the deep end.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I would argue that anybody who tries to make the "huurr the developers are hypocrites!" argument are so woefully incapable of any degree of introspection that the experience the game delivers is simply lost on them.

I am perfectly capable of introspection, or at least I think I am; not agreeing with a piece of criticism does not mean one is incapable of introspection.

I cannot stand this complaint that "I wasn't given a choice!" Yes, thank you, that's the point. It's a linear, character-driven game, what did you expect? It seems like people just react so negatively to anything that even seems like criticism of themselves that their proverbial "flail" reflexes get activated and they run around trying to make excuses about why good little them should never be criticised.

Thing is: there's plenty of video games, books and movies where all sorts of tragic and horrible things happen; but Spec Ops' conceit is that the player is partially complicit for all the things that happened over the course of the story while the developers don't acknowledge that they made said story that way to begin with. To wit:

Spoiler

When Konrad is revealed to have been little more than a voice in Walker's head, it's basically the developers absolving themselves of any responsibility while laying all the blame with the players.

For me, it's not about only wanting completely positive feedback from the games I play. In fact, I've enjoyed games that similarly questioned the nature of linear games (or tried to, at least) such as Metal Gear Solid 2 and the aforementioned Bioshock. I even got a bittersweet feeling from beating certain colossi in Shadow of the Colossus.

And that "great criticism" praises Bioshock's ending, which was almost objectively atrocious. There's no steeper downhill in any single game than between the middle and end of the original Bioshock.

Do tell how the ending to Bioshock is ''objectively atrocious''. I think that the game does suffer a dip in quality after the big twist but do not think it's by any means ''atrocious'', much less ''objectively'' so.

And the article doesn't so much praise the game's ending as it does point out that Bioshock acknowledges that the violence commited by the player was engineered by the developers' hand, whereas Spec-Ops: The Line goes ''This is all your fault and no it's not relevant that we spend years making that game, writing the scenario, getting voice actors and making sure the death animations and scenes of mutilated bodies and destroyed scenery look just right!''

 

[sXeth]

Final Fantasy 6.

Hands down the most overrated underrated game of all time. The characters are boring, the game play is fairly average, and it has one of the most generic villains in the history of games. My main issue is with Kefka, who's sole motivation is that he's crazy. No real motivation at all, then. He reminds me one of those poor Saturday morning cartoon villains who blabbers on about the power of evil, and how everything is meaningless.

I'd say Kefka gets severely overrated because his successors became overly convoluted messes hiding behind a pretense of actual motivations (that still basically boiled down to that). The preceding FF villains before him were all prettymuch "ancient evil sealed away" generics too. His having a backstory not boiled down in 2 lines of generic ancient evil exposition, and being human set him above the 1-5 antagonists, while he didn't have the artifical pretense to him that most of the later ones did.

 

[Ratty]

Then there's Eternal Darkness...I didn't like Eternal Darkness. I made it through a couple of levels and, saw a few of the more interesting sanity effects but it just couldn't stay interested long enough to want to see it through to the...midpoint.

I couldn't get into Killer 7 either but honestly, I only gave it about 2 hours. I may like it if I gave it more time but I had other things to play at the time.

I've watched a full Let's Play of Eternal Darkness, and clearly I'm not going to have the same experience as playing it; but it feels like there's a lot implied complexity that didn't quite work out. Insanity effects really are a bit tame compared to the mindfuck some make it out to be. But then again the kind of mindfuck I'm thinking of would probably make quite an annoying and tiresome game, but one that specifically I would love.

I'd say the biggest problem with Eternal Darkness for me is that it's not scary, at all.
By halfway into the game you can usually just walk around in one of many empty and completely safe rooms to refill your mana, then cast HP and sanity healing spells until you're completely healed. Then there's the lack of tank controls and the focus on melee weapons. Which means you can run circles around most enemies and there's almost no concern about conserving ammo, which makes the zombies a joke.

Plus it becomes evident pretty quickly that the "play as different characters" gimmick is really just an excuse for them to re-use the same 4 or so levels upwards of 3 times each with small aesthetic changes.
I think the game earned its reputation because in 2002 most people still hadn't heard of Lovecraft's work, and this pastiche on the Cthulhu Mythos blew people's minds.

PS- I should probably mention that, while I generally consider myself a fan of them, I don't find Lovecraft's works very scary either. Because a lot of the horror is based on the protagonist going "Oh God! On a cosmic scale mankind and all its works are meaningless!" Which is something I accepted a long time ago as an existential nihilist.

 

[RJ 17]

If you're playing an "underrated" game and you find it to be "underwhelming"....doesn't that mean that it's "spot-on rated" for lack of a better term?

Sorry, I'm just having trouble getting what you're looking here. "Games that most people think are crap and you think they're crap too"?

I can't fathom how people are so afraid of anything telling them they aren't perfect little snowflakes or giving them the opportunity to prove it to themselves and pat themselves on the back that it somehow becomes someone else's "fault".

Welcome to Today's Society! Where a couple years ago a youth soccer league in Ottawa implemented a rule stating that if your team is winning by 5 points you automatically forfeit the game! And don't worry, we've stopped using red ink to grade homework and tests in school because red apparently hurts the child's precious little feelings...even though "You're a fucking moron, Timmy, 2+2 doesn't equal 22" reads the same in both red and purple. Thanks for stopping by! Oh! And don't forget to pick up your participation trophy just for showing up!

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

If you're playing an "underrated" game and you find it to be "underwhelming"....doesn't that mean that it's "spot-on rated" for lack of a better term?

Sorry, I'm just having trouble getting what you're looking here.

I thought I'd made it clear enough in my opening post but I'll try again:

I'm referring to games that don't sell particularly well and aren't very popular but nonetheless have small(er), extremely devoted fanbases that love to proselytize about their (supposed) greatness.

To make a movie director analogy: Edgar Wright's movies don't perform nearly as well at the box-office as, say, Michael Bay's; but go on the right internet forums and you'll find people talking about how awesome Wright's movies are and how they should be much more popular. Edgar Wright's fans would, in this context, call his work "underrated".