In your opinion, what's the most overrated video game ever?

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
The-Traveling-Bard said:
ShinyCharizard said:
The-Traveling-Bard said:
ShinyCharizard said:
The-Traveling-Bard said:
ShinyCharizard said:
The-Traveling-Bard said:
Guild Wars 2. Holy crap... so much wrong with the game itself, and is over-haul a pretty horrible game. Good idea, good philosophy, but just came out terrible. ._. Which is sad, because I love Guild Wars 2.. well I used to.
I also vote for Guild Wars 2. Insane hype and it turned out fairly crap. It promised to reinvigorate the MMO genre, yet to me it didn't do anything that great and all the things it promised to improve just ended up being worse.
Not only that but the combat is just terrible, and if you just take out the gimmick dodge mechanic.. It's just like WoW. I like the approach Cryptic did with Neverwinter. They made it stand-still combat, but made it feel like it had weight behind it instead of float-y-ness. Yeah, it's a little more boring, but in a sense. It's more appealing to the eyes.

The quest system? The only thing they truly changed.. THE ONLY THING. Was running back, and forth. Dynamic Events were for the most part.. a horrible idea. Well the way Guild Wars 2 did it made it horrible.

It's no longer ? + x = !
It's <3 + x = Mail.
Hell the combat isn't just like WoW. It's worse than WoW. At least WoW required strategy and teamplay (don't know if it still does, I haven't played it for a long time). Guild Wars 2 is just a massive spam zerg fest. And yes the dynamic events are just crap and boring.
Since did WoW really have any content that uses in-depth strategy, and teamplay? Hell.. get a good raid team together, and get a good healer. That's all you really need. That's ALL YOU EVER NEEDED. Maybe once a new dungeon is released, and people who haven't done it needed to learn the ropes.
You just answered your own question.
Oh come on now. Don't be a smartass. That's not real teamplay That's just telling someone. "Hey this boss has massive AoE circles. Make sure you don't go into them"

PVE vs actual people will hardly ever have deep meaningful teamplay once everyone learned how to do it. ( I did say hardly. :b)

Seriously even when I was new to WoW I was just told what to do, and everyone on teamspeak just talked about other things. I don't think I ever been in a WoW raid where the majority of the talk was actually about the raid itself.
It depends on the raid, the fight mechanics get substantially more complicated than that. Even in Lich King which was one of the easier expansions (and the last one I seriously played) you had fights like the Dracolich before Arthas (the name eludes me) which involved mechanics where all the spellcasters would get a stacking debuff that would blow them up if it got too big as they cast spells. In addition the boss periodically froze random raid members into blocks of ice, and the only way to avoid his attacks was to hide behind the blocks of ice, but the gimmick was the people in the ice blocks were suffocating so you had to time breaking them out of the ice so they wouldn't die, but also keep them frozen long enough to avoid the attack. In the final phase the dragon lands, has to be tanked sideways, and you need to position the people getting frozen near the head and tail and run between the ice blocks as the only place to avoid a radial DoT, and let it's stacks diminish, periodically smashing them to save the raid members and replacing them with new people being frozen.

WoW hasn't been "tank and spank while avoiding AoE" for quite a while, even the easy fights require some fairly obtuse mechanics and a decent amount of practice. After a while it gets easier, but typically learning new fights can take wiping a raid for days on end, until you finally get the timing and strategy just right, then it becomes increasingly easier as you progress, get better gear, and get the fight down. After a while it becomes easy to bring new people who don't know the fight at all and win because their contribution and getting it right doesn't usually matter.

To be honest having a good healer isn't nessicarly the key, though it does help. The reason being is that most WoW bosses require you to follow the fight mechanics (bypassing them can get you banned if there is even a way). This includes instant kill effects, with there being nothing to heal you from, it's just "Bam! your dead". In many cases what kills you might have nothing to do with your actions, but depend on someone else doing something to avoid killing other people in the raid. The old Molten Core "Da Bomb" mechanic was an example of this (Baron Geddon) but it got far, far, worse and more obtuse.

Now to be entirely fair, most MMO encounters now are a simple matter of "tank and spank while avoiding marked AoE", but that's because developers have been focusing for a more casual market. It's also what's been killing MMOs because people come in, gear up quickly, and then wind up with nothing to do with that gear since they exhausted all content. When you consider most endgame content is developed so people can sit down and do it in 45 minutes to an hour rather than needing a huge time committment or lots of people, and so that you can pug it without needing the same people to show up every day to try, it means that MMOs cease to be a time sink, which means people stop playing, which has killed the subscription model and has even hurt some FTP games in the long run because nobody is going to want to buy exps potions for example if they can't get exps anymore.

I see where the accusations are coming from, but to be honest WoW isn't a good example, and hasn't been for a long time. Ironically WoW is what developers are trying to get away from in making more casual friendly content, the idea being they will get a bigger market from people who can't commit to wow-type raiding and endgame, but in the end without that kind of an endgame it becomes difficult to sustain long-term interest since people finish the content too quickly, it's that long-term involvement that makes WoW what it is.

To be fair though Molten Core, their original "big" endgame was somewhat overrated as the big trick of it was to get 40 people together. None of the boss gimmicks except for maybe Domo were all that hard to deal with, especially with decurse mods. That said BWL (Blackwing Lair) was known as a "guild killer" as many guilds could not even progress past the first room (with the eggs and huge crowds of spawning mobs) due to that transition point being where it took more than just tank, spank, avoid. If you didn't do the egg destruction/mind control orb perfectly, you WOULD get overrun, especially if your groups wreren't set up to kill the adds properly.
 

redknightalex

Elusive Paragon
Aug 31, 2012
266
0
0
elbrandino said:
I LOVE the Sly Cooper series. Though I completely see why you might consider it far from perfect. It has its issues. HD collection destroyed all the fun in the Mz. Ruby fight, too. So damn difficult when it gets out of sync. As for the OT, I'd have to say I'd agree with you on God of War III and actually expand it to all three console God of War games. Mediocre hack n' slash adventures at best, but still good enough to keep me playing through all three. So not terrible. I'd also like to mention Super Mario 64. Clunky controls, annoying-as-hell camera, and the same main boss fight three times.
Sly 1 was ok but the others went a bit downhill. The problem with the HD collection was that it never optimized games meant for a previous generation, like so many other HD collections. I'm sure it was a great game on the PS2 except as I played it, I didn't like it. I may pick up the new game, which received some decent reviews, but not right now. My backlog includes games like Spec Ops and Jak and Daxter so I will probably wait.

And God of War...I really enjoyed the first one -- thought it was a revolution in gaming when it first came out -- but the others just went downhill. Particularly the end of GoWIII where I just could not get over the contrived ending. It just sucked. Or it was an over-saturated IP by that point and I just didn't care.

Ugh, Super Mario 64 camera? What camera?! :)
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
I'd say saying Final Fantasy being over rated is well over rated at this point. Really how often do you get FF fans(7 especially) coming on to the forums and saying how awesome sauce it is unless asked first? Although if I had to pick a game Portal is a bit too lauded.
 

Newtonyd

New member
Apr 30, 2011
234
0
0
Akratus said:
Newtonyd said:
Also Eve Online.

Seriously, how does Spreadsheets: The Game get as many subscribers as it does? All Eve does is stand in the genre's door, blocking more interesting space MMOs.
http://tacticalentertainment.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/eve-wtd.jpg
Yes, and all that sounds very theoretically interesting. Then I remember that the game controls like ass and the leveling up system is literally just a progress bar that fills up by itself, regardless of what you do. Combat involves turning on your auto fire weapons while orbiting until either you or your opponent dies.

It's not like those theoretically awesome features would disappear if the game had actual controls, but Eve's strangehold on the space MMO market (admittedly, very few have even tried) ensures that an actual fun multiplayer space simulator is years in the future.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
rob_simple said:
For me it's the Mass Effect games. I got about an hour into 1 and 2 before completely losing interest; there was just nothing there for me that set it apart from any other cover based shooter.
It has to be one of the worst beginnings to a game... its a grind to get the game going.
 

Murrdox

New member
Nov 20, 2012
119
0
0
I don't think there can be a bigger winner to this than Final Fantasy VII. The game was good, but now it is the stuff of Legend. It is nigh untouchable. I think Final Fantasy VII's success was largely due to the massive popularity of the original Playstation, and the fact that for quite a long period of time, FFVII was 1) The only good RPG available in the US and 2) Americans hadn't had a Final Fantasy game since the Super Nintendo, and to go from sprites to 3D Graphics was just mind-blowing at the time.

Also Halo. The only reason Halo ever did well is because it was a shooter on the X-Box. If you had an X-Box, and you wanted a shooter... you bought Halo. Personally I thought it was an utter piece of crap... but all the frat guys loved it.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
Murrdox said:
Also Halo. The only reason Halo ever did well is because it was a shooter on the X-Box. If you had an X-Box, and you wanted a shooter... you bought Halo. Personally I thought it was an utter piece of crap... but all the frat guys loved it.
I'd argue the first Halo made some good steps in environmental level design (at the time it was rare to see games try such a thing). In terms of gameplay though, it's easy to see why you'd dislike it.

But I can't really say anything technically positive about the other Halo games, other than "they look nice."
 

The-Traveling-Bard

New member
Dec 30, 2012
228
0
0
xPixelatedx said:
The-Traveling-Bard said:
Holy crap Skyrim is insanely overrated, and it hasn't aged
I agree with it being overrated, however aged well? ...Are you a time traveler? Because gaming hasn't changed at all in the last few years.
Well yes it's only been a year, but for me. Skyrim has already lost it's charmed, and I really disappointed with the first DLC. All it ended up being is a bunch of fetch quests on the other side of the map. "Go over, and get this." "We need this person you can find them over there." "There's some vampire rings we need to collect. One's on this side of the map, and the other on the other side of the map"

Granted.. Dragonborn is some-what a proper DLC they promised but severely lacked detail, and the main boss doesn't really have much of a back-story, and you don't find out much about him.

So yes.. Skyrim hasn't aged well in my eyes.
 

Pero

New member
Dec 11, 2011
31
0
0
I'm gonna jump on Guild wars 2 wagon. I tried it on free weekend, played it, was really disappointed. But, I'm not a MMO guy (I hated WOW and still do) so maybe I expected more than game could offer. Idk. It was just so hyped with inovative combat and dynamic events and rich and inspiring world. I hated combat-felt to much like WOW and then everything else fell in water for me.
Also Half LIfe 2. It's good but it's not awesome crazy ludacris unbeatable by any other game gift from gods like some people describe it (at least I get the wibe that some people think like that).
As for Skyrim that some people mention, I think people adore it becouse there is nothing like it (except some other Bethesda games). It has a huuuge world filled with everything and anything and you get dragged into it easy. It has tons of mods for your liking and you can (practically) do ANYthing you want (by that I mean you can kill whoever you want xD). And yeah, melee combat sucked but hey, rest of combat is okay.
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
NightmareExpress said:
Half-Life 2.
It's nowhere near as innovative and ground-breaking as Half-Life was.
Great game that did plenty right and brought some good ideas to the table, but it didn't exactly change what the FPS scene looked like the way the original did.

Before Half-Life you were lucky to see reloading and decent aiming in the same game.
Those have since become the norm, with iron sights often being tossed into the mix. Half-Life 2 was just a cliche sci-fi story with a great supporting side character that stole the thunder from just about everyone else (Alyx Vance) and vehicles that inexplicably felt like beach balls. An interesting trek, but really nothing that we didn't see before or have seen since.

Runners up on my list of things to shoot down are Grand Theft Auto and Bethesda RPGs.
But I'd rather light one fire than three in one post.
I think HL2 main accomplishment was in its story telling. It was the first game to really merge gameplay and story telling almost seamlessly. But i do agree it was not really a technical achievement apart from the source engine and physics engine were very nice for the time.

My vote would go for either the Gears of War series ( i cant take a series seriously when all you are doing is fighting mole men essentially)

Or GTA, sorry but just never like the characters.
 

Murrdox

New member
Nov 20, 2012
119
0
0
The-Traveling-Bard said:
xPixelatedx said:
The-Traveling-Bard said:
Holy crap Skyrim is insanely overrated, and it hasn't aged
I agree with it being overrated, however aged well? ...Are you a time traveler? Because gaming hasn't changed at all in the last few years.
Well yes it's only been a year, but for me. Skyrim has already lost it's charmed,
I'm really surprised about all the hate for Skyrim as an overrated game, and no one is saying the same thing about Oblivion.

I'm not going to claim Oblivion was pretty ground-breaking in it's own way for bringing the open-world RPG of Morrowind to the consoles... but for us PC Gamers, Oblivion wasn't anything THAT new.

But I just thought Oblivion was utter crap. I couldn't control the damn thing on the X-Box and could never figure out how console gamers managed to sink dozens of hours into the thing. On the PC side, you had to install a dozen mods to fix all the controls that were designed for a console with no customization for mouse/keyboard controls.

You want to talk about lame DLC? Don't you remember "Horse Armor"? For a lot of people, this was the first DLC they'd ever had for ANY game... and it went down in history as probably one of the worst DLCs ever produced.

Plus Oblivion got SO much more press than Skyrim. Part of being over-rated is how much people shouted about it, and I think people made a much bigger fuss over Oblivion than Skyrim.
 

Vern5

New member
Mar 3, 2011
1,633
0
0
I'd say this is a toss up between Final Fantasy VII and Baldur's Gate.

Yes, they were gaming Pioneers and changed everything we knew about gaming BACK IN THEIR DAY.

The years have not been kind to these games and their fame is fed on an IV of nostalgia. Both of them have potentially fascinating stories that are hindered by their execution and are incredibly annoying when you consider there are other, more refined games of similar genres lying around today.
 

AwesomeDave

New member
Feb 10, 2011
87
0
0
I could make a huge list... but I'll stick to just a few.

Dishonored - Not a terrible game, but definitely not deserving of the hype. It was fun for about 2-3 hrs, then it just got boring and repetitive... and even after completion, the only name I remember is Corvo.

Farcry 3 - Once again, not a terrible game... but grinding is fucking boring, especially in a FPS. It did have it's cool aspects though.

HALO and CoD - I've played both... still play CoD here and there for the MP... but god I wish they would both just die, I'm sick of hearing about them, and the war between them. Admittedly, I hate Halo more, but that's because I think jumping during combat is just an asinine idea.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Overrated by fans - Half Life 2. It is fun. But honestly, I never wanted to replay it. Still don't.

Overrated by the official reviewers - Mass Effect 3. This is where it became painfully obvious that every major reviewer was bought by EA. The fact that no one mentioned anything about the ending, auto dialogue and how the choices don't matter at all throughout the game (Rachni queen, Collector base) makes it pretty obvious.
 

Arfonious

New member
Nov 9, 2009
299
0
0
ccdohl said:
Arfonious said:
Diablo 3

Ridiculusly over-rated. The entire feeling of the older games are lost, the gritty artstyle is replaced with plasticy derp-fantasy stuff and the skill system so dumbed down that leveling stopped feeling noticable
I was under the impression that most people, like me, felt that Diablo 3 was an okay, but not good game and stopped playing after a week or two.
I did as well, but during those first weeks it was praised out the ass
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
You know it's funny. While I can kinda agree that FFVII is a bit overrated by the people who really liked the game, I feel it's also sort of underrated considering how many people seem to like to bash on it. It's a kind of a weird feeling.

OT: Probably the first two Fallout games. Now, don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed both of these games. But for some reason, I see a lot of people talk about how great these games are and how shit later games in the series are (like 3 and to a lesser extent NV). They talk about how perfect the games were and how "dumbed down" the later games were in comparison.

Okay, I can agree the games were really good, but they aren't without their problems. Skills like Medicine and Doctor are almost completely useless, and Fallout 2's starting area is probably one of the worst ways to start off a game ever. What's that? You want to play as someone who's good with small guns and really good at talking his way out of a situation? Here's a spear, go fight some ants, and beat this guy in a fist fight.


I get that you start off in a tribal village, but there must have been a better way to start off the game than THAT area.