Misjudged Games

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I just checked metacritic for Splatterhoue. PS3-59 points and for Xbox360 it`s 62 points out of 100 and the user score is at 7.4 from 10. 7.5-8.0 would be my personal score. The scores mean nothing but better sales would have meant a sure sequel and there aren`t nearly enough brawlers out there, especially not ones such as this game...makes me sad.

edit
Since the user score is almost like my personal score this isn´t the best example for a misjudged game.

 

[ZedLeg]

I think Test Drive Unlimited 2 got unfairly reviewed. It had it's fair share of problems for sure, but it was actually a pretty good game.

The Need for Speed Shift games were unfairly judged too. They were given great reviews even though they were both pretty terrible. The same can be said for several other more recent NFS games.

I think the TDU 2 reviews I read were fair. It wasn't horrendous but it hadn't moved on from the first one and mechanically it was even more broken. I lost count of the amount of times I got stuck in scenery or fell through the floor before I gave up with it. Also the graphics weren't great and the handling was sloppy at best.

I agree with you about NFS Shift thought. I gave up after an hour of trying to make my first car drive properly. Hot Pursuit is good but I'm playing through the Run just now and it's borderline as to whether I'll bother finishing it.

I personally didn't like Hot Pursuit. I found the handling in that to be pretty terrible. The game looks fantastic, but the turn in is so vague. There seems to be a delay between your control input and the car actually turning, and when it does turn there seems to be no predictability over how sharply your car turns. It seems completely random. Also the fact the world is so small is pretty irritating. I also really don't like the menu system on that game. I guess this is more of a personal taste thing but I hate how you have to wait ages after each race or when you unlock something for a hundred bloody splash screens to come up. Just get on with it! I also think the HUD in the menus is too busy a lot of the time.

I liked the drifty way the cars handled, although I will concede that it wasn't a long lived game. There wasn't a huge variation in feel between cars. Some were slightly more slidey some were slightly less. It was a good mix of Burnout and NFS though which is what you'd hope for from Criterion. Hopefully Forza Horizon or the new Citerion NFS game will be the sandbox driving game we've been waiting for.

 

[Worgen]

Brutal Legend, I made the mistake of listening to the reviews and canceled my preorder of it, when I did finally get it I ended up loving the fuck out of it. Even the much maligned stage battles, in fact I effin loved those, I'm still pissed at critics for talking me out of getting it earlier.

 

[Legion]

Almost all of the Xbox magazines in the UK gave GTA IV a 10/10. Now don't get me wrong, I liked the game, I played it a fair amount and despite the connection issues, I thought the multiplayer was a blast. But it is not a perfect game.

I do not understand why Bioshock 2 receives so much dislike. Honestly, I truly don't. The combat is ten times better, and a hell of a lot more fun. Research and hacking are more intuitive as well as being more enjoyable. The game-play is mixed up with the occasional 'create a defensive perimeter and hold them off', the story is actually quite original compared to the first games, which is very closely copied from System Shock 2 (I do love Bioshock 1 by the way).

The only criticism I see, which seems to be almost the entire reason for the dislike is that it is set in the same city as the last one, and so it doesn't feel "unique" any more. Which strikes me as hypocritical to the extreme considering how many other games do little more than add a few new guns in between each iteration.

Skyrim is overrated. I like the game a lot, and have put a lot of hours into it, but the way some game related sites and magazines rave, you'd think it doesn't have a single flaw, which is simply not true. It's got a lot of great things, but when it comes down to it, it's incredibly shallow.

Just look at how many different endings/consequences there are in Fallout New Vegas, and yet in Skyrim people barely acknowledge anything that you have done.

I thought that every Halo game with the exception of 1, and Reach were seriously overrated. That put too much of a focus on the multiplayer, and didn't develop the single player enough.

As a fan of Halo in general, I agree entirely.

 

[Darkmantle]

I actually really enjoyed Alpha Protocol as well. I don't know why it scored so low, I guess I'm just lucky and missed the bugs.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Alright, the gist of this topic is that I want your opinions on game reviews that you believe were way unfair. This can be in the instance that a game was given too low a score, or even too high. One example that I'll give (for my opinion) is Alpha Protocol. I realize that it has it's flaws, but I think that it's a good enough game to deserve a 6 or 7. But definitely not the lowly 2 that it was given from Destructoid.

I won't be the first or the last to say this, but number ratings are meaningless and arbitrary. Which is why I don't understand why people get so bloody worked up about them. It's like the Jimquisition episode 'Hate out of Ten', that just stupefies me. You can't quantitatively judge the quality of a piece of art, it's just not possible. Then again, I struggle to understand people in general.

 

[Nadia Castle]

Star Fox Adventures. Most publications (especially the Nintendo magazines) chewed it a new arsehole for being more of a Zelda styled game and bitterness that Rare was no longer Nintendos. Damn the fact that it was horrendously fun and one of the best presented games on the Cube. Also Lumines on PSP. It was a fun little game but the successor to Tetris? Really?

 

[Beat14]

Almost all of the Xbox magazines in the UK gave GTA IV a 10/10. Now don't get me wrong, I liked the game, I played it a fair amount and despite the connection issues, I thought the multiplayer was a blast. But it is not a perfect game.

I do not understand why Bioshock 2 receives so much dislike. Honestly, I truly don't. The combat is ten times better, and a hell of a lot more fun. Research and hacking are more intuitive as well as being more enjoyable. The game-play is mixed up with the occasional 'create a defensive perimeter and hold them off', the story is actually quite original compared to the first games, which is very closely copied from System Shock 2 (I do love Bioshock 1 by the way).

The only criticism I see, which seems to be almost the entire reason for the dislike is that it is set in the same city as the last one, and so it doesn't feel "unique" any more. Which strikes me as hypocritical to the extreme considering how many other games do little more than add a few new guns in between each iteration.

I felt like I must be severely dysfunctional to have really enjoyed playing through Bioshock 2. Sure the plot didn't quite grasp me like the first but I didn't feel let down or dissatisfied.


For me, I think Jagged Alliance Back in Action got slated a bit much. I've never played the launch version of the game so maybe that is why. However having played it recently... I love it. 30 hours in and still playing. For the record, I think the step away from turn based onto this hybrid system/real time was executed in a decent way and I welcome this change. In case you wonder, I have played the praised Jagged Alliance 2 and an expansion, both I loved.

The hardcore fans of JA2 dislike this new version, and I have my gripes with it too. Quite a few options are dumbed down, and where did "IMP" go, the make your own merc service. It's always nice to project a character from your mind onto something. (Mods helped most of my flaws with it, even though minor)

 

[ZedLeg]

Almost all of the Xbox magazines in the UK gave GTA IV a 10/10. Now don't get me wrong, I liked the game, I played it a fair amount and despite the connection issues, I thought the multiplayer was a blast. But it is not a perfect game.

Totally agree. It took me four attempts to complete GTA 4 and by that I mean just finishing the story not 100% completion. It looked great and some of the missions were awesome but for me the story felt flat. I didn't care about any of the characters so it didn't work for me. The expansions were better but it was still no Vice City.

 

[Pink Gregory]

A word on the word 'overrated'

When someone uses the word 'overrated', is there an objective consensus as to who apparently rated it in too overzealous a way?

 

[Wayneguard]

There are two that immediately spring to mind. First is the Tenchu series. It's like anybody who reviewed any of the series after the first two (the ones on PS1) completely forgot how awful the controls, the AI, the story, the voice acting, etc... were in those first two games. Not saying that I don't love the shit out of Tenchu: Stealth Assassins and, to a lesser extent, Birth of the Stealth Assassins; but, Wrath of Heaven, Tenchu Z and the others not only manage to be good or great in their own right, but manage to improve upon the games that came before. Isn't that the exact thing that reviewers are always clamoring for anyways?

Second is Mirror's Edge. When it came out, everyone was like, "zomFG dat gaem iz liek all in da sewerz cooda been so gud but is sooo gaaaay!!!" No seriously listen to me here and now... the sewer level is one fucking level and it plays no differently from the levels where you're on rooftops. ME had such a great ambiance, fantastic controls and was (still is) completely unique. Mirror's Edge is fucking fantastic.

 

[cjspyres]

Alright, the gist of this topic is that I want your opinions on game reviews that you believe were way unfair. This can be in the instance that a game was given too low a score, or even too high. One example that I'll give (for my opinion) is Alpha Protocol. I realize that it has it's flaws, but I think that it's a good enough game to deserve a 6 or 7. But definitely not the lowly 2 that it was given from Destructoid.

I won't be the first or the last to say this, but number ratings are meaningless and arbitrary. Which is why I don't understand why people get so bloody worked up about them. It's like the Jimquisition episode 'Hate out of Ten', that just stupefies me. You can't quantitatively judge the quality of a piece of art, it's just not possible. Then again, I struggle to understand people in general.

Except that he still uses them. So I suppose that makes him a hypocrite?

 

[Terminate421]

See the box cover? Whats the first thing you think of.

Typical pokemon spin-off right? Well, below that shell turns out to be on the greatest stories I've ever played through. Writing is solid and while a few lines of dialogue throughout the whole thing are cheesy, its still fucking amazing.

 

[D_West]

I think Bethesda is massively overrated, and haven't made a good game since Morrowind. Fallout 3 and Skyrim were particularly bad in my eyes.

 

[TrevHead]

Mainly, though, I'd point to The Last Remnant. The game was sprawling, had great designs of characters, monsters, setting and items, a solid storyline, and a combat system with a surprising amount of depth for those who bothered looking for it. It's a true shame that it wasn't better received for I can not think of another 'new' franchise with greater potential.

I played the PC version as a way to get back into the genre and I must say for it's faults (like not been able to properlly direct your team mates to cast a certain spell) it liked it, probably too much because I sank way too much time into the sidequests and filler that I utterly burnt myself out before I beat it.

I think Square Enix should take the good parts of the battle system, especially the RTS style big battles and put them into another game.

 

[Scrustle]

I liked the drifty way the cars handled, although I will concede that it wasn't a long lived game. There wasn't a huge variation in feel between cars. Some were slightly more slidey some were slightly less. It was a good mix of Burnout and NFS though which is what you'd hope for from Criterion. Hopefully Forza Horizon or the new Citerion NFS game will be the sandbox driving game we've been waiting for.

HP didn't feel "drifty" to me, it was more like when you turned you had no idea whether you were going to sharply veer off or just twitch a little. It doesn't matter how much you actually pushed the stick, the game would just randomly decide to do whatever it felt like. I never felt like I could trust the controls, and my failures were never down to my own lack of skill. It was just the short temper of the game.

Now Shift felt drifty to me. Every single tap of the stick brought out the rear end. Zero grip at all. It didn't matter how fast you were going or how you turned, it always sent you in to a slide. And not an arcade style slide like with Burnout where you can keep your speed up and control direction. It just fucked everything up. The sequel mostly fixed the problem and the game was actually playable, but the first was so terrible I don't even understand how they thought the game was in a fit state to release. It was like pre-alpha or something.

 

[Macemaster]

Predator: Concrete Jungle is my choice here, it had a lot going for it, and has so far been the only game to capture the feeling of actually being a Predator, yeah, it had problems, but if it had gotten a sequel, I think it would have been a damn awesome game.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

There are two that stand out to me for being underrated heavily by the critics, and one that seems to be dismissed too much by the general gaming fanbase.

The first critically underrated game, for me, is Alpha Protocol. I didn't run into many bugs (actually, just one that I can think of), and as far as making your choices have actual consequence story-wise, it delivers much more than most games. I've played through the game several times, and it's never been exactly the same each time, due to changing up seemingly minor things. It actually felt less buggy to me than Fallout: New Vegas, yet the latter game gets crazy praise.

The second critically underrated game is Stranglehold. Don't get me wrong, it's not an extremely good Game of the Year contender type of game. It is a John Woo movie put into video game form. And you know what? It totally delivers on that. There was one mission that annoyed me (fucking lasers...), but I didn't regret buying the game (used, of course, for cheap) at all, nor playing through it. It's shallow pleasure, but it is still pleasure, and not a slog.

For the game that I feel has been too harshly slammed by gamers in general, it is Mass Effect 3. Yes, the original ending sucked. That said, I felt the rest of the game was definitely strong enough to make up for it. The party characters were more developed, the chats between characters on the ship felt natural, the voice acting was even more improved from the second game, the romances (assuming you continued one) were extremely heartwarming, and the game managed to be humorous, even when it was by far the darkest game plot-wise.

But nope, the ending sucked, invalidating the rest of the series. And if you disagree with the general consensus of the game sucking, you are objectively wrong.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Mainly, though, I'd point to The Last Remnant. The game was sprawling, had great designs of characters, monsters, setting and items, a solid storyline, and a combat system with a surprising amount of depth for those who bothered looking for it. It's a true shame that it wasn't better received for I can not think of another 'new' franchise with greater potential.

Have to agree with this, I think my main problem with the game was the long loading times, but besides that I thought it was excellent.

I'm one of the few who likes Shadow the Hedgehog...in fact, pretty much every Sonic game outside of 06 and the Riders games I found to be at least "okay". I can see why people don't like a lot of the games, but some people come down way too hard on some of them. People may accuse me of being the problem with the Sonic fanbase, but I don't particularly care.

Perhaps not, Shadow the Hedgehog (mainly because I've never played it so I don't have an opinion on it) but I agree with you for the rest of them. I think they tend to be harshly judged just because it is a Sonic game.

GTA IV - It's a good game, no doubt about it, but no way is it anywhere near the levels of greatness that has it at 98 out of 100 on average at Metacritic. Especially since it's competitor that year, Saints Row 2, had the fun that GTA IV lacked for the majority of the game.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Alright, the gist of this topic is that I want your opinions on game reviews that you believe were way unfair. This can be in the instance that a game was given too low a score, or even too high. One example that I'll give (for my opinion) is Alpha Protocol. I realize that it has it's flaws, but I think that it's a good enough game to deserve a 6 or 7. But definitely not the lowly 2 that it was given from Destructoid.

I won't be the first or the last to say this, but number ratings are meaningless and arbitrary. Which is why I don't understand why people get so bloody worked up about them. It's like the Jimquisition episode 'Hate out of Ten', that just stupefies me. You can't quantitatively judge the quality of a piece of art, it's just not possible. Then again, I struggle to understand people in general.

Except that he still uses them. So I suppose that makes him a hypocrite?

I don't think he's ever said that, I was just expressing my opinion on numerical ratings and on that video.