Games you consider overrated

[Treblaine]

Pleased edit your post of yours with Spoiler warnings.

OK, you're just twisting my arguments and focusing on the little details rather than the basic reasoning behind what I'm saying.

I've played BioShock and I know the story, I understand why you can't let the Little Sisters harvest ADAM for you and I know that Atlas SPOILERS, but that's not the point. The point is that the story could have been written in such a way where you are offered less extreme choices concerning what to do with the Little Sisters. They could have also written Atlas in such a way that his lies are less transparent.

Also, you keep making false dichotomy fallacies. Just because the Little Sisters is not more adorable than Bambi, Woodstock, Winnie the Pooh, Nemo, and Tweety put together does not mean they're suddenly horrifying to look at. They may not be on the level of Kirby or Yoshi but they're at least the equivalent of Sackboy or Nordom. Just because I want characters that I can connect with because of their personality or backstory does not mean I want to hear a ten minute monologue about a character's life story.

And yes, there are many extreme choices in real life but how can you possibly compare buying something and not buying something to killing someone and not killing someone? That's an obvious false equivalence fallacy.

And you're completely missing the point of the thread. This is a thread about games that people think are overrated. Do you know what that word means? It does not necessarily mean games that everyone else likes but you hate. It could simply mean games that everyone else loves but you like a bit less.

Notice how I never actually said that I dislike or hate BioShock, Fallout 3, and GTA IV. I like those games. I like BioShock for its gameplay, atmosphere, fun weapons, and interesting enemies. However, I do not find the story to be as good as other people say it is and that is why I think it's overrated.

As for appreciating a game for what the developers intended it to be, how is the audience supposed to know what exactly the developers intended the game to be, especially if it deviates from previous games in the franchise? If Terminator 5 was made into a crime drama, are you going to be able to appreciate it for what the director intended it to be and completely ignore previous movies in the franchise? And how do you know any problem in a game, with the exception of glitches and bugs, wasn't the intention of the developer? The controls are terrible? Well, that's what the developer intended and if you can't appreciate that kind of control, maybe the game isn't for you. This comedic film wasn't funny? Well, that's what the director intended and if you don't get that kind of humor, then the movie isn't for you. Is there any time when "Looking at the games for what they actually are, are they really over-rated?" can't be used as an excuse for problems in a game?

Atlas doesn't have to be that good a liar, considering the *SPOILERS* psychological brain washing that has gone on and really he is pretty convincing and it perfectly exploits the convention of gaming in how gamers are conditioned to obey what the voice on the radio tells them to do, just like someone under mind control. Yes, by the confrontation with Ryan it was obvious, but you had crossed the rubicon, the die was cast, you had to follow through and in the end were given no choice.

Well you walked into that false dichotomy with the objection that you shouldn't care about them for their appearance when they are particularly ghoulish.

"Just because I want characters that I can connect with because of their personality or backstory does not mean I want to hear a ten minute monologue about a character's life story."

It's kinda hard to do that when the very way the game is designed with many discrete stages of levelling up in any order and with minimal interaction with each agent I hope you see it would become a nightmare to create empathy by entirely non-physical characteristics. You DO need to dedicate time to monologuing and back story if you aren't going to depend on appearance. This can be done with for example Alyx in Half Life 2 but that look a LOT of time being spent with one character. Not a brief time spent with several dozen little sisters.

"That's an obvious false equivalence fallacy."

Except the buying example is not an equivalence, it is an EXAMPLE of how often there is no middle ground. No way out, you have to decide between two very extremely different courses of action. When cornered by an armed assailant, do you shoot or surrender? You better decide because if you just stand there procrastinating you'll get worst of both options. Sometimes there is another way out, but rarely and you have to be smart and daring to exploit it. The third way in Bioshock is completely ignore ALL the Little Sisters, and that's not nit picking.

"Overrated does not necessarily mean games that everyone else likes but you hate. It could simply mean games that everyone else loves but you like a bit less."

Well, no, actually I don't think you understand the term over-rated.

What does "rated" mean? Well, for video games that would mean it's critical reception amongst journalists and the wider community who would play it. OVER-rated would NOT mean ANYONE didn't like it as much as most critics (statistically that's almost guaranteed, my grandmother might say ALL video games are over rated... because she hates all of them), OVER-rated would mean the critics (and gamers) gave it higher acclaim than they really should given hindsight and being relative to other games. Like Modern Warfare 2, the critics may have over-rated that game simply because it was a true sequel to the highly lauded COD4 and made all the improvements they expected... but were blinded by this excitement to the flaws. Such as how unbalanced it was, how easily exploitable it was, how the plot didn't really make any sense and didn't have the same drive as COD4 nor such a neat epilogue. With hindsight you can see people far more reminiscent of COD4 than MW2 and talk excitedly of elements begin more like COD4.

"how is the audience supposed to know what exactly the developers intended the game to be, especially if it deviates from previous games in the franchise?"

Well for one they could play it with an open mind and see where delineations are made. Bioshock may be spiritual successor to System Shock 2... but that doesn't make it System Shock 2.5: Under the Sea, and one shouldn't go into it expecting all the aspects of System Shock 2. Similarly, Fallout 3 it is very clear (to spite the numbering scheme) to be a completely different game from Fallout 1 & 2, also Grand Theft Auto 4 was as different from GTA3 as GTA 3 was different from the early top-down 2D games. This should be obvious, but if people hold such prejudices that because they liked the jetpack in San Andreas so much then it SHOULD be in GTA4 well then they need to GET REAL! The developers wanted to try something else, something where there is no place for jetpacks. Same with Resident Evil 4, a HUGE departure from previous entries almost completely separate canon but still a DAMN good game.

Movies can HUGELY change with sequels. Alien was a suspenseful body-horror thriller. Aliens was an action-adventure war-film with Vietnam overtones. Horror to action. Everyone knew from trailers and TV spots what the new film was about but only if you willingly take prejudice into the film that it SHOULD be just like the prequel, THEN you will be disappointed for WRONG expectations.

I know it is what the director intended as I have read many interviews with the developers talking about their game. Also, other things you can figure out for yourself by actually playing out alternate scenarios in your head and thinking about how it doesn't work if it was done this other way. Like how being forced to harvest Little Sisters by extreme challenge of non-harvest isn't really a moral choice any more, your decision is forced.

 

[Treblaine]

PS; complaining about vita-chambers is like complaining about inverted look or aim assist; you can turn it off in the option menu. I kept it on simply because it sped up loading after dying.

Seriously? I had no idea I could turn that crap off. Wow.

You do make some good points here, never saw the Little Sister thing in that light.

It came with a patch, It wasn't there in the launch iteration.

I think a lot about games, books and films I consume, I also watched the Adam Curtis documentary on Objectivism (don't remember name of doc) with game further significance to this... interesting... ideology.

 

[Darkmantle]

Trine: I absolutely hate this f*cking game. I'm sorry, but an action game with puzzles? Fine.
A 2D platformer with puzzles WITH physics? F*CK THAT.

Magicka: I have no problem with friendly fire. I do have a problem when the game is designed I can only complete it with 'friends'.

Dragon Age: Origins: I have a review on GameSpot somewhere but I can't seem to find it right now. Anyways, I hated it.

GTA IV: Same.

About Magicka, you TOTALLY can, it's just hard as balls! you need to know combinations they don't tell you.

What I used was shield/earth/earth/earth/earth, cast on self (middle click IIRC). It gives you a MASSIVE chunk or armour, quadrupling your effective HP, but it does slow you down, so I would get used to casting haste and/or teleport to remain mobile. also, combining spell effects can result in massive damage/crowd control. ice is a god send. use 5 water and soak a group of enemies as soon as the fight starts, follow up with either Lightning (tons of damage to wet enemies) or ice (freezes wet enemies solid). Furthermore, frozen enemies take something like double or triple physical damage, so I like to freeze a big enemy, then hurl a 5 rock at him. insta kill. Hell, even just using the m60 on a frozen guy will get you through a large part of the game.

It's doable. but you have to get REAL creative on some parts.

 

[thatfknninja]

bioshock, bioshock 2, mass effect 2, black ops, mw2, mw3.

 

[evilneko]

*puts on a race car driver's suit*

*adds another layer of asbestos*

*drinks a potion of fire resist*

Diablo 2.

It's nothing but a mouse test. It's boring, even easier than Classic Diablo, not as versatile, and it eliminated the horrific atmosphere of the first one, turning it into a cartoonish light-hearted clickfest.

 

[Drexlor]

I was not impressed by Bioshock. After a while it just got very repetitive. I was always being sent to get something, but right as I was about to get it something goes wrong and then I have to do another task just to go back to do the original fetch quest to solve the problem that I had to fix in the first place. The story didn't blow me away either, I just didn't buy any of the twists it threw at me. I can see why people would like the game though, I was very immersed for the first couple levels and it even came back near the end of the game, it was just the parts in between that got to me for some reason. I played some of Bioshock 2 and I found that it improved on a lot of issues I had with the first game, maybe it was just that I felt that the more linear design was more fitting.

 

[Resetti's_Replicas]

No judgement/flaming rule is in effect? I'm not a hipster, I just played these games and didn't like them, and couldn't figure out why other people did. There are popular games that I think are properly-rated (Portal, Half Life, Pokemon GSC) Anyways, here goes:

The N64 Zelda games; confusing, sidequests are frustraing.

Super Mario Bros 3; Levels are way too short and yet incredibly frustraing.

Psychonauts: It was Ok but not the messiah of platformers, I just thought it was average. Also I couldn't figure out how to get past that girl in the house on the "milkman" level.

Epic Mickey: No backtracking, too many fetch quests all for the same thing, not enough emphasis on forgotten Disney characters (Goofy and Donald appear in this game FFS) camera angles ARE as bad as everyone says, the morality choices don't actually have any impact on the story, and there's no final boss. That's right you just destroy the three towers and never actually confront the Big Bad.

 

[Plucky]

Id probably say Final Fantasy 7 *arms flame shield*

Not that i hate it, it is Square's first time at a 3d game and was alright, but the pacing felt a bit too long winded...it probably doesn't help that i prefer the more modern 2D games in the series...that and FF 8 and 10. (by more modern 2D games in the series, i mean anything later than 3)

For me, the series hit a memorable point with 6, since there was quite a bit of story and Kefka was generally dark, i mean seriously, you have what can be amounted to as the Japanese version of the Joker who gets kicks out of poisoning entire kingdoms, enslaving an entire species of creatures for the sake of power and even succeeding at his plan....

How many villains can claim that they have succeeded in their plans, whilst the game continuing in a "after the end" scenario?

 

[Hattingston]

*Readies flame shield*
Diablo classic and 2, Starcraft
I played Titan Quest (think Diablo 2+ with good graphics) before Diablo 2, and Dawn of War before Starcraft, and I honestly felt that the games seemed old and just not very good when I played them (which, admittedly, was about 3 years ago). Diablo just seemed like a lesser version of Titan Quest,and Starcraft a less fun version of Dawn of War (although, this may just be because I prefer the way DoW plays, not into the heavy micro and unit placement in Starcraft). I understand why people loved them way back when, but after playing them recently, they didn't seem all that great, especially compared to their modern incarnations.

 

[Electrogecko]

Okay, I think we all have stumbled into those games at least once. I'll list mine.

F-Zero GX; I know there are quite a handfull that do like this game, but I still declare it the worst game I've ever played, I don't know how the players that do like this game are able to get over the isues I had with it. but I've b****** about it in previous posts before, so I'll just say in short that playing this game to me was like having to solve a rubix cube blindfolded and with recently burnt hands.

Crackdown; Unlike F-Zero GX, I don't consider it a horrible game, I simply consider it a very boring game. I thought the combat had some balance issues and was somewhat generic, the driving felt obnoxious, and they give you the ability to jump several fett in the air only to still make going up certain rooftops and being in high places somewhat unforgiving, and they wasn't much to do in Pacific City aside from killing the gangs, go through racing challenges, and find hidden collectables. I've played bad movie tie-in games that had more variety than this.

Dragon Age: Origins; I know it might seem shocking, but just hear me out on this. I don't consider Dragon Age to be a horrible game or even much of a boring game, Like the Mass Effect games, Dragon Age does have an interesting story that in ways did keep me interested enough to play it through to the end, and I do like alot of the characters, especially the companions, Bioware did a great job characterizing them well enough that I do find myself caring alot about them even when I don't always agree with them in certain moments.

but here are my troubles with the game, I did find the combat a little boring, not enough that it ruins the game for me, and the game's story while the thing I had some of enjoyment of the game with is also in some ways my biggest problem with the game.

I know Bioware's approach in making the game was to make it a dark fantasy, but half the things I see from the writing seem to imply they were trying too hard in that approach, slightly in a Tastes Like Dirt sort of fashion (look it up on TV Tropes) and some elements don't seem to have reason to be put here, like what's up with writing so that Grey Wardens only live to be 30? their lives are already on the line fighting Darkspawn, especially the ArchDemon, so what's the point?

but enough about me, what games do you think are overrated?

My brother recently beat F-Zero GX 100%.

That means all of story mode on very hard, every single grand prix on every difficulty beaten, all characters and parts unlocked.....hold your applause.

The game is indeed ridiculously difficult, but I think that's a big part of why so many people like it, including me....It's very much single-player oriented for a racing game, and the difficulty gives it length and replayability.

My picks would have to be Elder Scrolls and CoD. CoD goes without saying, but the Elder Scrolls, especially Skyrim, have been lavished with an incredible amount of praise, and while I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim, my experience with the series has been less than spectacular.

I can understand that people can look past the glaring flaws in the core of the game and try to enjoy the atmosphere and the story, but the world has always felt like a computer simulation to me instead of like a.....world. Bethesda can build up their wild animal AI as much as they want pre-launch, but the bears still can't make their way onto rocks that are raised a foot off the ground, horses think they're suicide mercenaries, companions appear to be inbred, and there are hundreds of NPC's that have the same damn lines! It seems like Bethesda's attempts to impress me end up backfiring most of the time.

Everywhere I look I have a constant stream of reminders that I'm playing a game, and that's not to even mention the less subtle, more incredibly game-breaking flaws and bugs that even I, in my limited play time, ran into frequently.

In short, I have no idea why the game is so highly praised. It's good, don't get me wrong.....I can tell because I played it for a couple weeks. But after a certain point, I realized that I wasn't having much fun on a minute to minute basis....that the reason I kept coming back was not much more than the promise of new perks.

 

[Electrogecko]

Catherine comes immediately to mind for being a poorly written, poorly designed puzzle game that proves once again that Japan just hates women(shocker). Another equally execrable, equally Japanese, equally overpraised monstrosity would be the absolutely horrendous, unforgivable hellscape that was The World Ends with You, which I consider to be the worst game of this generation by a considerable margin and, notably, is headlined by the single worst video game character of all time. There's also The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword to consider; it's just kind of sad to see slobbering Nintendo fanboys chomping at the bit to defend something like this.

That's just from recent memory, though. My pick for the most overrated game of all time is Final Fantasy VI, a slightly above-average game with a fan base consisting almost exclusively of people who try to pitch it by explaining why its successor, Final Fantasy VII, is the worst game ever made. This leads me to believe that the vast majority(or at least the vocal majority) of the Final Fantasy VI fan base is comprised of "noncomformist" little kids who will oppose anything that they think is popular, because they want to look cool to their friends on the internet.


Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't say what you wanted me to say, did I? Let me rectify that.


*ahem*


OMG CALL OF DTUY IZ SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OVERRTED OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG IM THE ONLY PRSON WHO DSNT THNKI ITS DA BETS GAEM EVRR!!!111!1!1!1!

I can't tell whether this post is supposed to be comedic hyperbole.

I can see how some might think Syward Sword is a step down from most Zelda's and overrated, but it seems like a lot of people genuinely think that it's a really bad game, and I absolutely can't understand that.

The funny part is that criticisms about the game contradict each other. People say that it's too linear or too combat/action oriented, but other people (and sometimes, the same exact people) say that it's too much like other Zelda's.....I just don't get it, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the slobbering Nintendo fanboy in me.

And The World Ends With You, the worst game of this generation? I know you can't possibly mean that literally. The RPG system in TWEWY is my favorite of all time, and personally disagreeing with a character doesn't make him a bad character.

 

[Truniron]

Final Fantasy VII. While the game is ok, it is undoubtedly overrated. The story is not too great and the plot is pretty much predictable from disc 1. The main characters is either complete morons or cliché emos. At several points I just want to punch them in the face and tell them to do it. The controls on the original was so stiff and it was sometimes painful to move at some areas. Also, several of the areas you visited was so boring, like mount Nibel.

Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time. The dialogues is a prime example of one of several reasons why the game fails. They are so boring, always repeats themselves and are unsinkable. Having to do several puzzels over and over again, then die and having to do them all all over again was dreadfull (looking at you, water temple). The characters are not only dumb as barndoors, but so 2D it´s amazing. Ganondorf is the best example here. He is so cliché as a villian it is pretty much funny. The bosses where easy, too. It was obvious what you where supposed to do and what weapon you had to use and that pretty much destroys the whole point of making them epic looking. Also, the getting the master sword scene (both before, during and after) was amazingly boring.

 

[Saltychipmunk]

pretty much every game that is released by a major publisher is painfully over hyped and over rated.

mw3 ,bf3 were massively overrated.
to much formula AAA games out these days.

Skyrim too but that was because silly Bethesda released the game without its mod tools.
Seriously what the hell is an elder scrolls game without 100 - 300 mods ?

 

[Dmyster]

Every Cod after the original modern warfare, FF VII/X/XII, GTA IV. Honestly most games that come out today from most major developers I find overrated, games just aren't what they used to be. Perhaps it's as someone previously postulated and I have overbearing expectations, perhaps not. Either way, I'm beginning to feel old as a gamer. The original Twisted Metal came out 17 years ago? Madness.

 

[Metal_Head]

Fallout 3. Sorry I just could not get into the story. 5 hours of play and nothing. A far better nuclear disaster game is S.T.A.L.K.E.R Shadow of Chernobyl. I could, and have, played that game for many many hours. *I know people rave about Fallout 3's story, so sue me*

Minecraft: It looks bad, it is buggy and I cannot understand why people love it so much.

WoW: Just think its crap.

I would say COD but everyone has already.

I am currently wearing 2 fire suits so you cant touch haters!

 

[Demongeneral109]

all retro games the escapist community makes them out to be amazing and better than todays games and perfect in every way and they are shit as a younger gamer used to higher standard games (my first console was a PS2) retro games are terrible and many times worse than games of today

Yea, I think its called like The Golden Age Syndrome or something.

Care to explain how I think the older Fallouts are better that Fallout 3 despite playing Fallout 3 FIRST?
Care to explain how I think System shock 2 is better than Bioshock despite playing Bioshock FIRST?
Care to explain how I think Daggerfall is better than Skyrim despite playing Skyrim FIRST?
Care to explain how I think Planescape Torment has better writing then all the Bioware drivel despite playing the Bioware drivel FIRST?

You can keep yourself in denial with the whole "rose tinted nostalgic glasses" thing as much you like, but there is no denying that games are getting shorter and shallower.

PS: Try not to use the "well that's just your opinion" argument, nor the "many people don't agree with you".

For the record, I stand by the notion that this is an OPINION thread, "so that's just your opinion/ many people disagree," is a valid argument.

Also, You can get nostalgia goggles even when you didn't play the game when it was new. You get the idea that *insert generation of x* was the golden age of writing/gameplay/storytelling/whatever, influences you own opinions of the experience before you go into it; you're more likely to gloss over the flaws over nostalgia that isn't even yours.

There are alot of people who complain that games are getting "dumbed-down" because controls are more streamlined or intutitive, or that the games aren't as long as they used to be, or the hundreds of niggling complaints that get harped-on anyone willing to complain about them.

And who says that games are getting shorter and shallower? Perhaps that's a genre issue, games seem shorted because the FPS is still in the vouge, and the big titles are focusing more on short, intense stories and multi-player focus to make coherence worthwhile? As for comparing PlanetScape Torment to Bioware games, the answer to your complaint is scale. PT is a personal story, and as such will have more clearly visible nuances than, say, Mass Effect; where the implications are more subtext involving the setting, not the hero. Although the actions of Commander Shepard lead to questions all their own, particularly on the nature of good vs evil, or morality vs practicality/mortality.

I say that games have only improved since their inception, and that while every generation has its gems and flops, today's industry is producing higher than average work as a whole compared to any previous generation. While Bioshock is not system-shock two, I am willing to say that FF7 is worse than FFX, and that Halo is better than doom or quake, or that Mass Effect is better than Planetscape Torment, which, like most stories, is a good mix of cliche's, mixed together and some subverted in creative ways to create a unique and enjoyable experience. It may not be your opinion or what you want to hear, but its my OPINION as much as your comments are your opinions.

Now to respond to the actual thread I'm not to fond of GTA4, the former wasn't nearly as flawless as the critics claimed; it honestly didn't feel like a GTA game, the tone of the story and world just didn't mesh with what I, and honestly I think most people, expect from a GTA game, it was too serious for the franchise's usual campyness.

Im also not too crazy about COD multiplayer, which is always the same but with new guns... more expansion pack than actual "inovation" a word that gets thrown around far to easily nowadays; Halo's 2 gun limit was innovation, COD2 health system was innovative, adding currency to by upgrades in multiplayer instead of just leveling?... less so, because they just copied a system from a single-player experience, threw it into multiplayer and said it was a new thing.

 

[praetor_alpha]

Bioshock. People were talking about, and saying that it's an RPG. WTF were they smoking?

 

[Bruenin]

Dark Souls:
Everyone praises its difficulty but there is a very big difference between a game being challenging and a game being cheap and unfair.

It'd be challenging if the enemies have half a brain, but no they just stand there and shoot at a wall for 2 minutes instead of walking around and smacking you across the face. The games 'difficulty' comes from the overpowered enemies and the fact that every single enemy in the game can stunlock you to death.

Healing also takes forever too, your taking a drink you can move at the same time, lazy bugger.

 

[Athinira]

As crazy as that theory is it does make more sense than the actual ending of MGS2.

I really do get the impression MGS2 was very rushed and Kojima has always spoken ambivalently about sequels to MGS1, he seemed a lot more keen on MGS3 which seemed to be made with a lot more forethought and was much more rounded.

I agree. Even for a Metal Gear Fan, you'd do best to forget the last 10% of Metal Gear Solid 2.

But i don't buy that other guys argument about Kojima intentionally screwing the game up to scare fans away. Nobody goes into that much trouble to excuse themself from making another game.

If you want to move on with a new girlfriend/boyfriend, you don't need to murder your ex either last time i checked, and similarly - while I know that Metal Gear fans can be very passionate (including sending death threats etc.) - if Kojima doesn't want to make more MGS games, he just has to stop. That simple. No need to screw up the games he DOES make in the series along the way. It's his life's work after all.

 

[samstewiefisher]

Batman Arkham Asylum was way over-rated. I didnt like it much at all, but even yatzhee like it. I could only play through half of it.