Most underrated games this gen
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
Hollow Knight got a good amount of recognition from what I've seen, at least among people who care about metriovania/souls-likes and apparently didn't do shabby in sales either. It's just that lately we're getting a slew of Souls-like 2D games, such as Dead Cells/Death's Gambit while Hollow Knight came out a year or so ago.Specter Von Baren said:
I'm personally rather enjoying the game, though I'm still on my first play through(I recently beat the Broken Vessel in like 3 tries) and I'm curious to see what the new DLC brings to the game.
The DLC adds more to the story, more depth, but it IS depressing so fair ye be warned.Dalisclock said:
The Box Boy series by HAL Labs is an underrated series of puzzle games.
It's not a puzzle game type I've seen before and there's a ton of charm to Box Box Boy and Bye Bye Box Boy (The second and third games).
It's not a puzzle game type I've seen before and there's a ton of charm to Box Box Boy and Bye Bye Box Boy (The second and third games).
*Pulls up Switch.*Specter Von Baren said:
*Sees Hollow Knight is second only to Dead Cells in terms of sales ATM*
Seems to still be having its moment in the limelight.
Also I'm going to say Battletech. It kind of got slammed in the Steam user reviews, but damn was it a great intro to the Battletech verse for me.
Well, the game itself wasn't exactly sunshine and lollipops so I guess that's not a shocker. Or is it like significantly more depressing? Considering the original game at a lot of implied child kidnapping, mass murder and cannibalism(if those people can be considered "Human")......Silentpony said:
All the reviews I've seen made it sound pretty good. A fair bit of management because you're running a Merc company(something that would have been interesting for MGSV to have had) and apparently taking too much damage during a mission can be as bad as losing considering how much time/money is lost. Not that either of those are bad, just more challenging.erttheking said:
It was release 1-2 month to early and there were tons of bug and problem at release. Otherwise I'd say it's a bit meh, the pilot progression system is so simple that I think I'd be better to not have one instead, and the randomness can be a bit too much at time, the very first mission you do after the tutorial an enemy got a random crib on my leader which wonder him (disable for 27 day iirc), that meant I had to restart that character.Dalisclock said:
Not sure if they fixed the balance but there were also absolutly no reason to ever field light mech at release (and even medium mech were kinda pointless).
There's a lot of possible contenders, but I'm going to nominate...
Aliens: Colonial Marines
Maybe not underrated per se, but certainly overhated. Certainly I really enjoyed the game, and due to the game not living up to the hype (said hype including duplicitous marketing), I don't think the game was ever given a fair shot (even if it does have problems).
Aliens: Colonial Marines
Maybe not underrated per se, but certainly overhated. Certainly I really enjoyed the game, and due to the game not living up to the hype (said hype including duplicitous marketing), I don't think the game was ever given a fair shot (even if it does have problems).
It has less of a happy ending, if what that monstrously cannibalistic ending could ever be described as happy.Dalisclock said:
That's because it's been released on the Switch. When it first released on Steam, while it did indeed hit it big, it just fell off the face of the earth in terms of acknowledgment from people.erttheking said:
I feel like people are confusing 'underrated' with 'not super popular'.
Most of these games get nothing but praise at any mention of them. They may not have broken sales records, topped the charts or been the 'it' thing of the moment, but they're mostly rated as very good games.
Most of these games get nothing but praise at any mention of them. They may not have broken sales records, topped the charts or been the 'it' thing of the moment, but they're mostly rated as very good games.
It's because like every game is overrated if you go by the aggregate scores. It's very rare that I rate a video game an 8/10 or higher because so many games are so poorly designed along with the writing usually being shit. So many games are designed with a kitchen sink attitude adding in elements and mechanics just because every other popular game has them instead of being there to enhance the core.Elijin said:
Professional reviews, maybe, but it's being raked over the coals in user reviews, even to this day.Dalisclock said:
I wouldn't say the entire sequel was a downgrade gameplay-wise. Some of the new gravity modes had some fun mechanics, the world was bigger and had an interesting vertical design, some of the side-quests were more varied and entertaining, you had a picture-mode to play around with, etc.Casual Shinji said:
But I do still prefer the first Gravity Rush in several ways. Even if the story was more all over the place and abruptly ended on a bunch of unanswered questions, there was something about the charming and surreal nature of it all that kept me hooked from start to finish. GR2 is bigger and has its highlights, but it has a bit more chaff to deal with as well. More awkward stealth missions, needle-in-a-haystack scavenger hunts, etc. Plus compared to the first game, which started out with you fighting supernatural super-villains and falling through time and space, the whole rich vs. poor setup at the start of GR2 was kind of one-note. So I feel like things didn't really pick up until nearly halfway through the game.
Overall I do think both games were very underrated though. The soundtrack's great, the world and the way you explore it's creative, and Kat's one of the best game protagonists I've seen in years.
I started playing Mad Max last night, and get the feeling its Meta was heavily influenced - or more accurately negatively impacted - by the movie Fury Road. I've only played a couple hours so far, but barring any future technical falloff the game to me is even more fun than Mafia 3 and GTAV combined. The combat feels weighty like a more grounded Arkham game which makes sense, and the driving is smooth. There is also some excellent sound design and detailed levels of destruction. Chumbucket is an oddly charming sidekick of sorts, and from the looks of the options menu there's a pretty healthy selection of character/car/lore building to be discovered.
My main gameplay/control-centric gripe to speak of is Max feeling kinda floaty while running or jumping, which isn't a big deal once adjusted to it.
It's of course heavily subjective as to what qualifies as a "fun" game, but the gameplay loop of scavenging parts to build my twisted dream car, fighting goons on foot and behind the wheel in a way that combines the best aspects of several car combat games, and generally just exploring a vast wasteland is exceptionally gratifying here. I love the harpoon usage; feels so good to topple large structures with it. It doesn't hurt that I'm a bit of a sucker for games that use Havok well.
Given how the game is technically and artistically competent and at times excellent, it makes the current 69 Meta seem unjustified even when compared to other supposedly better games. Worst would probably be Jim Sterling's review, [http://www.thejimquisition.com/mad-max-review/] which further and definitively proves he has no clue how to assign numerical scoring in a cognitive, rational manner. I mean just read the headline:
When it comes to simply chewing through yet another open world game, Mad Max does suffice. It's a substandard but largely competent "AAA" game in a sea full of them, and those who do value the idea of content above all else will find more than their money's worth here...There's simply no reason to pick it up, however, if you've yet to try The Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor or Batman: Arkham City. There are tons of better games that go for what Mad Max went for and do so in a superior manner.
Yup, that's a solid "4" sure. I'm also enjoying it more than The Wither 3 or Batman in terms of gameplay, and I paid for at least one of those (Mad Max and Arkham City were through monthly PSN+ deals). Never played SoM, but I did enjoy the LotR movies. Right now though, I'm inclined to say Mad Max is the best movie licensed game I've played since Goldeneye.
My main gameplay/control-centric gripe to speak of is Max feeling kinda floaty while running or jumping, which isn't a big deal once adjusted to it.
It's of course heavily subjective as to what qualifies as a "fun" game, but the gameplay loop of scavenging parts to build my twisted dream car, fighting goons on foot and behind the wheel in a way that combines the best aspects of several car combat games, and generally just exploring a vast wasteland is exceptionally gratifying here. I love the harpoon usage; feels so good to topple large structures with it. It doesn't hurt that I'm a bit of a sucker for games that use Havok well.
Given how the game is technically and artistically competent and at times excellent, it makes the current 69 Meta seem unjustified even when compared to other supposedly better games. Worst would probably be Jim Sterling's review, [http://www.thejimquisition.com/mad-max-review/] which further and definitively proves he has no clue how to assign numerical scoring in a cognitive, rational manner. I mean just read the headline:
When it comes to simply chewing through yet another open world game, Mad Max does suffice. It's a substandard but largely competent "AAA" game in a sea full of them, and those who do value the idea of content above all else will find more than their money's worth here...There's simply no reason to pick it up, however, if you've yet to try The Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor or Batman: Arkham City. There are tons of better games that go for what Mad Max went for and do so in a superior manner.
Yup, that's a solid "4" sure. I'm also enjoying it more than The Wither 3 or Batman in terms of gameplay, and I paid for at least one of those (Mad Max and Arkham City were through monthly PSN+ deals). Never played SoM, but I did enjoy the LotR movies. Right now though, I'm inclined to say Mad Max is the best movie licensed game I've played since Goldeneye.
My main gripe with it was that what should be in its proverbial meat and potatoes in its unique car combat mechanic (err, more or less I guess, RAGE did exist), was rather woefully underused. Enemy variety was at minimum, actual challenging car encounters were few and far between, most of the upgrades for it, and indeed, most of the cooler seeming gadgets were ineffective to the point of being a waste. Coupled with the very out of place region-securing mechanic rapidly eliminating even the mediocre encounters.hanselthecaretaker said:
Also the survival mechanics that're introduced and thrown away within the hour prettymuch. Not that such things tend to make for great game additions anyways, but why even bother having them at all then.
You realizes Jim used(because he doesn't do scored reviews anymore) the entire 10 point spectrum, right? Not just 7-10, where something had to be broken to rate lower then that for a lot of reviewers. 4 would make it okay to mediocre by that metric.hanselthecaretaker said:
I personally dislike the idea of review scores for much this reason, but also because it feels fucking lazy. Is it too much to ask someone to read a 3-5 page game review to assess strengths and weaknesses before purchasing a potentially $60 title? At least scan the damn thing(some reviews include a TL;DR summery just for that reason)? Or do people really just want to see that stupid number, which apparently sends people into conniptions when it isn't high enough for their personal taste(8.8 syndrome)?