Poorly Reviewed Games You Enjoyed
- Thread starter Randoman01
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't normally pay attention to scores, so apparently some of my favorites (Alpha Protocol, Pathologic, EYE: The Divine Cybermancy, Deadly Premonition, Binary Domain, Bloodlines, Doom 3, one or two others already mentions) are not the highest rated out there, but there is one game that, were this a competition, beats almost all but the very worst of games, Postal 3. I went in as a Postal fan almost as soon as the game launched, so I may have had some bias, bot once did I lack enjoyment. I, unironically, loved that game. The only reason I stopped playing was that I had overdosed myself on it. In hindsight, it has its flaws, but I always instantly forget about them once I have Champ by my side and a badgersaw in hand.
Hm...I'm not very aware of how well a lot of my games reviewed, but I get the impression that a lot of the internet doesn't/didn't like the Myst series, but I loved those.
Also...Eragon. Yes, the crappy movie tie-in game. Objectively, I know it's complete garbage, and I won't argue with anyone that says it is. But I have very fond memories of playing through it co-op with my siblings, over and over again.
Also...Eragon. Yes, the crappy movie tie-in game. Objectively, I know it's complete garbage, and I won't argue with anyone that says it is. But I have very fond memories of playing through it co-op with my siblings, over and over again.
Red Faction: Armageddon got some shitty reviews, but I liked it alot. One review I read said that there was nothing to destroy in Armageddon, and kept comparing it to the previous game, Guerilla. I kept wondering "what fucking game was this guy playing?" Every fight has shit for you to pull down and launch at the bugs. Bad form to review game A by comparing it to game B when the two were not meant to be anything alike.
Payday: The Heist is another favourite of mine. It got the dreaded "7 out of 10" treatment from most places, but I found it to be pretty fun if you get a group of players who actually function as a team. Bad form to score a game poorly because the people you played with were dildos.
Foreign Legion: Buckets of Blood, while not a GREAT game, is certainly worth more than the 4/10 that alot of places gave it. It's a cheap little shooter that's fun and silly.
Fear 3 is another AAA title that got shafted with numerous 7/10 ratings. I'd give it a little higher than that. The bullet-time, creepy atmosphere, and ability to play as your undead cannibal brother Paxton Fettel really makes this game fun. It's not too long, so the creepiness doesn't wear off too much. Also, telekinetically lifting people into the air and making them explode pretty much never gets old.
I Am Alive got some crappy reviews more because the reviewer wanted the game to be one thing (a Tomb Raider clone in most cases) but it's something different entirely. Scarce ammo and food supplies, very little health restoration and very realistic consequences for trying to bite off more than you can chew in combat make it a survival game, not a 3D action platformer. The only thing most reviewers got right was panning the ridiculous save system.
Duke Nukem Forever is a classic case of "too much hype". With the 13 year development hell this game was in, reviewers were just lining up waiting to slap a "SHIT" sticker on this game. They often reviewed the game compared to what they thought it should have been a decade ago. It's not a great game. Hell it's not even a good one, really. But it probably deserves 15/100 more points than it got in most reviews.
Honourable Mention: Zombie Driver, Alpha Protocol, Toy Soldiers and Warlock: Master of the Arcane.
Payday: The Heist is another favourite of mine. It got the dreaded "7 out of 10" treatment from most places, but I found it to be pretty fun if you get a group of players who actually function as a team. Bad form to score a game poorly because the people you played with were dildos.
Foreign Legion: Buckets of Blood, while not a GREAT game, is certainly worth more than the 4/10 that alot of places gave it. It's a cheap little shooter that's fun and silly.
Fear 3 is another AAA title that got shafted with numerous 7/10 ratings. I'd give it a little higher than that. The bullet-time, creepy atmosphere, and ability to play as your undead cannibal brother Paxton Fettel really makes this game fun. It's not too long, so the creepiness doesn't wear off too much. Also, telekinetically lifting people into the air and making them explode pretty much never gets old.
I Am Alive got some crappy reviews more because the reviewer wanted the game to be one thing (a Tomb Raider clone in most cases) but it's something different entirely. Scarce ammo and food supplies, very little health restoration and very realistic consequences for trying to bite off more than you can chew in combat make it a survival game, not a 3D action platformer. The only thing most reviewers got right was panning the ridiculous save system.
Duke Nukem Forever is a classic case of "too much hype". With the 13 year development hell this game was in, reviewers were just lining up waiting to slap a "SHIT" sticker on this game. They often reviewed the game compared to what they thought it should have been a decade ago. It's not a great game. Hell it's not even a good one, really. But it probably deserves 15/100 more points than it got in most reviews.
Honourable Mention: Zombie Driver, Alpha Protocol, Toy Soldiers and Warlock: Master of the Arcane.
Personally, of the more obscure titles many years ago I really loved the PS2 King Kong official game to the Peter Jackson film. Was it perfect? No, but it had that element of adventure which is lacking in 99% of today's dino-monster shooters.
Other titles that come to mind include -BioShock 2
-F.E.A.R 2-3- Both had creepy atmospheres and used jumps scares effectively with an intriguing plot continuation from the first.
- Alone in the Dark (2008)-Most of the hate from game reviewers was due to the glitches (which where later fixed) and the sometimes awkward dialogue and story elements...but the game was pretty much everything I look for in a survivor horror game.
-Dead Space 2- Absolutely loved the first installment and thoroughly enjoyed the second.
Other titles that come to mind include -BioShock 2
-F.E.A.R 2-3- Both had creepy atmospheres and used jumps scares effectively with an intriguing plot continuation from the first.
- Alone in the Dark (2008)-Most of the hate from game reviewers was due to the glitches (which where later fixed) and the sometimes awkward dialogue and story elements...but the game was pretty much everything I look for in a survivor horror game.
-Dead Space 2- Absolutely loved the first installment and thoroughly enjoyed the second.
Postal 2.It was blasted by critics and used by the anti-violent game lobby as its posterboy for its cause.It was even banned in Australia-where I may or may not live,hem hem.
And the funny thing is,I'm normally one of those people who usually dislikes most FPSes-especially the ultraviolent,barely-any-story ones.It's EXACTLY the kind of game politicans who crusade against violent video games despise-and I fucking enjoyed the crap out of it.
I think the thing with Postal 2,is that it's violence was SO OTT and corny you couldn't take it seriously.It's offensive in almost every way-racial,religious & sexuality stereotypes,animal cruelty and being murderous for fun.It reminds me a bit of South Park(without the cleverness).Being offensive towards EVERYBODY,it ends up with an odd kind of equal-equality mockery.
I think I enjoyed it because IRL I try hard to be a decent person.Courtesy,kindness and respect for others is impt to me,but I have suffered from self esteem issues and several times in my life have been walked over.Where else can I be a sociopath with no ill effects?You CAN complete the game without being violent,but the game loves to goad you into it.Long bank queue? Rude shop owner? Police brutality? Dude with an annoying walk? I COULD put up with it,or I could blast them all with a rocket launcher.Decisions,decisions.
Also,the cat gun is up there with the Portal APSD & the Gravity Gun for 'funnest shootey thing' ever.
A guilty pleasure.
Ignore the title,he's kidding.(Not everyone on the Steam forum got that.)NSFW,obviously.
Cat gun shown here
NSFW)
And the funny thing is,I'm normally one of those people who usually dislikes most FPSes-especially the ultraviolent,barely-any-story ones.It's EXACTLY the kind of game politicans who crusade against violent video games despise-and I fucking enjoyed the crap out of it.
I think the thing with Postal 2,is that it's violence was SO OTT and corny you couldn't take it seriously.It's offensive in almost every way-racial,religious & sexuality stereotypes,animal cruelty and being murderous for fun.It reminds me a bit of South Park(without the cleverness).Being offensive towards EVERYBODY,it ends up with an odd kind of equal-equality mockery.
I think I enjoyed it because IRL I try hard to be a decent person.Courtesy,kindness and respect for others is impt to me,but I have suffered from self esteem issues and several times in my life have been walked over.Where else can I be a sociopath with no ill effects?You CAN complete the game without being violent,but the game loves to goad you into it.Long bank queue? Rude shop owner? Police brutality? Dude with an annoying walk? I COULD put up with it,or I could blast them all with a rocket launcher.Decisions,decisions.
Also,the cat gun is up there with the Portal APSD & the Gravity Gun for 'funnest shootey thing' ever.
A guilty pleasure.
Ignore the title,he's kidding.(Not everyone on the Steam forum got that.)NSFW,obviously.
Cat gun shown here
NSFW)
In a good way I hope? I was never one to keep up to date on his stuff because his loud voice and cheap suit irritates me. Quite sure he has some well founded points and knowledge on the industry but it's all in the presentation y'know?RT said:
I liked his Aliens: CM review though, I enjoy watching people rip the piss out of things XD
All games have been poorly reviewed and almost all games have gotten good reviews, so its difficult to reach some sort of philter there on what to pick out to qualify for this thread.
Guess I'll have to settle with "Games that were generally unfavored by a majority of game critics"....if I actually bought any such games. I dont, so I'll be forced to bring customer feedback into that fold, and that is unfortunetly about as reliable as building a bridge out of feathers.
- Dragon Age 2
Took a lot of flak for the way its story was told and the lack of bridging content between Dragon Age 1 and and nr.2.
Mostly took flak for its constant re-use of poor textures, buildings and caves. Not to mention the "when in doubt, throw in spiders or 9812 bandits".
Despite all that, I enjoyed the game immensely. Looking forward to the third title.
- Sim City (the new one)
This one's tricky, and a clear example of why its difficult to just choose a "poorly reviewed game". Because Simcity did not generally recieve poor reviews. In fact it was described as a pretty solid game. But the game(and EA) took MASSIVE flak from both customers and reviewers for the outrageously poor handling of the servers at the time it launched. It also took (mostly customer) criticism for breaking too far from previous simcity games and for making maps too small, as well as the DRM.
If one looks aside the server issues, I quite agree with most reviewers conclusion, Simcity is a pretty solid game and I enjoyed it(and I still enjoy it) a lot.
- Dead Space 3
Again an example where a game didnt really recieve that much negative attention from reviewers, but mostly from customers. Dead Space 3 took a lot of criticism for being too much of an action-shooter and taking too big steps from its predecessors. Less horror and more action.
I never played any of the previous dead space titles, and perhaps that's why I didnt really have a problem with the new title. I've definetly played better games then DeadSpace 3, but it didnt suck as much as many told me it did.
Guess I'll have to settle with "Games that were generally unfavored by a majority of game critics"....if I actually bought any such games. I dont, so I'll be forced to bring customer feedback into that fold, and that is unfortunetly about as reliable as building a bridge out of feathers.
- Dragon Age 2
Took a lot of flak for the way its story was told and the lack of bridging content between Dragon Age 1 and and nr.2.
Mostly took flak for its constant re-use of poor textures, buildings and caves. Not to mention the "when in doubt, throw in spiders or 9812 bandits".
Despite all that, I enjoyed the game immensely. Looking forward to the third title.
- Sim City (the new one)
This one's tricky, and a clear example of why its difficult to just choose a "poorly reviewed game". Because Simcity did not generally recieve poor reviews. In fact it was described as a pretty solid game. But the game(and EA) took MASSIVE flak from both customers and reviewers for the outrageously poor handling of the servers at the time it launched. It also took (mostly customer) criticism for breaking too far from previous simcity games and for making maps too small, as well as the DRM.
If one looks aside the server issues, I quite agree with most reviewers conclusion, Simcity is a pretty solid game and I enjoyed it(and I still enjoy it) a lot.
- Dead Space 3
Again an example where a game didnt really recieve that much negative attention from reviewers, but mostly from customers. Dead Space 3 took a lot of criticism for being too much of an action-shooter and taking too big steps from its predecessors. Less horror and more action.
I never played any of the previous dead space titles, and perhaps that's why I didnt really have a problem with the new title. I've definetly played better games then DeadSpace 3, but it didnt suck as much as many told me it did.
To be fair, it was an ugly game for its time. Even for a PS2 or XBox game. I also think it might have been one of the first games to dip into the brown and gray color pool that all of this generation seems to love. Maybe everyone just wasn't ready for that yet.pandorum said:
Multiple mentions for Dragon Age 2 and Alpha Protocol, and I agree.
Only one mention for Prince of Persia 2008. I am still awestruck at the art direction for this game. It is probably pretty non-PC to say you like a game for the visuals (pun intended), but I think far too often people equate graphics with simply having really high resolution models or something. There was just something fairy tale-ish about how this one looked, to the extent that I frequently just stopped free-running and simply looked all around myself in wonder, and more for this ONE game than all others I've played put together. Matter of fact, the last game where I simply stopped and looked around in awe was the very first Unreal game, back in the day.
And in fact, I think it was too radical of return, in a sense - Sands of Time was (and is) a true classic. The first sequel (Warrior Within) dumped much of the platforming and personality of SoT in favor of a brooding homicidal prince who fought everything that moved (with tons of electric guitar thrash in the background). Terrible idea. The next sequel (Two Thrones) minimized a fair amount of that, but still focused heavily on combat and less on puzzles.
The 2008 game, then, was actually closer to SoT in that it focused on the wall-running and the interaction b/t the Prince and the female lead, and much less on the combat. I think that might have been too much for folks to handle, given those changes along with the other major differences (no Dagger of Time hijinks and a new character and setting).
And to those reviewers who hated it because it was "too easy" because you can't die - I never understood that. So Elika saves you every time you "die" - to me, that meant she was essentially a quick-save / quick-load button with a personality ;-) I always thought that you can't die in ANY game that doesn't immolate the disc if you screw up (or else has a brutal hardcore mode like Diablo, etc. that erases your character).
Only one mention for Prince of Persia 2008. I am still awestruck at the art direction for this game. It is probably pretty non-PC to say you like a game for the visuals (pun intended), but I think far too often people equate graphics with simply having really high resolution models or something. There was just something fairy tale-ish about how this one looked, to the extent that I frequently just stopped free-running and simply looked all around myself in wonder, and more for this ONE game than all others I've played put together. Matter of fact, the last game where I simply stopped and looked around in awe was the very first Unreal game, back in the day.
And in fact, I think it was too radical of return, in a sense - Sands of Time was (and is) a true classic. The first sequel (Warrior Within) dumped much of the platforming and personality of SoT in favor of a brooding homicidal prince who fought everything that moved (with tons of electric guitar thrash in the background). Terrible idea. The next sequel (Two Thrones) minimized a fair amount of that, but still focused heavily on combat and less on puzzles.
The 2008 game, then, was actually closer to SoT in that it focused on the wall-running and the interaction b/t the Prince and the female lead, and much less on the combat. I think that might have been too much for folks to handle, given those changes along with the other major differences (no Dagger of Time hijinks and a new character and setting).
And to those reviewers who hated it because it was "too easy" because you can't die - I never understood that. So Elika saves you every time you "die" - to me, that meant she was essentially a quick-save / quick-load button with a personality ;-) I always thought that you can't die in ANY game that doesn't immolate the disc if you screw up (or else has a brutal hardcore mode like Diablo, etc. that erases your character).
I really enjoyed Dragon Age 2 despite the redundant maps and combat system departure from the first Dragon Age. I really enjoyed the three different classes and all the character interactions for each of the members of your party. I wonder if it would have gotten better reviews if it had been it's own standalone game.
I also really liked the Dynasty Warriors games (except for maybe Empires) as they were fun, mindless and great to blow off steam with. I didn't expect the games to be much more than that, so I was happy.
I also really liked the Dynasty Warriors games (except for maybe Empires) as they were fun, mindless and great to blow off steam with. I didn't expect the games to be much more than that, so I was happy.
I agree with pretty much most of the games listed by people here.
Duke Nukem Forever, The new Splatterhouse, Bionic Commando, Alpha Protocol, Dynasty Warriors (any), Alone in the Dark Inferno, Alien Vs Predator, Star Ocean 4, Dead Island, Castlevania Lords of Shadow, Silent Hill Downpour, The Saboteur, The Last Remnant, and Metroid Other M.
So it's really nice to see i'm not the only one who liked these.
Duke Nukem Forever, The new Splatterhouse, Bionic Commando, Alpha Protocol, Dynasty Warriors (any), Alone in the Dark Inferno, Alien Vs Predator, Star Ocean 4, Dead Island, Castlevania Lords of Shadow, Silent Hill Downpour, The Saboteur, The Last Remnant, and Metroid Other M.
So it's really nice to see i'm not the only one who liked these.
Gothic franchise and Alpha Protocol come to mind of games that weren't so good reviewed.
There are a lot more games out there that I can't seem to recall now but I can say that I have "odd tastes". I usually don't look at reviewers and go with my gut most of the times.
There are a lot more games out there that I can't seem to recall now but I can say that I have "odd tastes". I usually don't look at reviewers and go with my gut most of the times.
Absolutely agree. The writing for the prequel wasn't as good, and time had a little bit more dumbed down dialogue, but holy -hell- did it make me cry. As did the prequel which has a twist so dark it made me squeal with glee. As did the sequel which draws out the sadness over a ridiculously long time to just make it -worse-, and yet better.Terminate421 said:
Yeah, you know what, I'm gonna come out and say it.
Fable and Fable 2.
You heard me. Staples of my fucking childhood.
Fable 3 was crap though.
Fable and Fable 2.
You heard me. Staples of my fucking childhood.
Fable 3 was crap though.