The Most Overrated Games that Aren't

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Dragon Age 2.

A lot of people seem to hate this game. Dragon Age: Origins was about this whole world which was evolving and changing. Dragon Age 2 was about the individual journey of Hawke and her friends. So, obviously two different experiences. But different shouldn't be coded as bad. Dragon Age 2 is an amazing game. It is not some long, massive arching story that ends with that fight you've been leading up to this whole time. It is smaller stage. It is about the various things in life that shape us, twist us, torture us, delight us. There really are three "main plots" in Dragon Age 2 and this is what seems to bother people the most. I think it is more realistic for character development. I think the way it progressed made Hawke a more real character than The Warden. The lack of travel to a bunch of places can be read as a problem but it's more of a sandbox style game than an open world. It's different and bold. It tried something new.

More games should take chances with their sequels.

I definitely believe DA2 would've done leagues better in reviews and the onslaught it recieved from the fans if it had just been a side game in the dragon age world, because since it took the direct sequel's spot, the fans were expecting something faithful to the first game....to which DA2 is not, it's a rough gem in its own rights, but there are lots of things about it that just fucked over the first game (including anders...he was awesome in awakening, but the fucker turned into a total ponce in the 2nd game.)

at least that's how I personally feel, if I would've came into it expecting a game that was in the dragon age universe, but not a sequel to the first game, then I would've been a bit more open minded.

I disagree on your last point, if the game is a sequel to something, it shouldn't be deviating so much as to change what fans it had in the first place (you can see this in the differences from mass effect 1 to 2 as well, although the changes weren't as extreme.) The whole point that a sequel has a chance at existing in the first place is because of the profit/overhead that the fans of the first game generated for it, why would you possibly alienate them by taking chances just for the sake of taking them?

 

[Prince of Ales]

Out of interest, and because so many people have brought it up, what was wrong with the Tomb Raider reboot? Seemed like an ok game to me.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

Out of interest, and because so many people have brought it up, what was wrong with the Tomb Raider reboot? Seemed like an ok game to me.

I imagine a lot of it has to do with disregard for prior installments, dumbing-down of mechanics, etc. etc. I liked it myself, but then I also liked DMC and I can understand why a lot of people didn't.

 

[maninahat]

Black and White.

It received ridiculously high scores in the magazines when it first came out, and after a while there was a major backlash against it, often from the same magazines. But I never really lost my enthusiasm for it. It has a lot of tedious flaws (difficulty spikes, obligatory training missions that take up the first two massive levels, an over-emphasis on creature handling, and a lot of annoying noises) that grate on you after prolonged play, but B&W was offering something that hadn't really been done before, even by its forefather, the populous franchise. And it looked gorgeous! And it was hilarious to lob peasants around the map, or crush their houses with giant boulders.

 

[silasbufu]

I'm thinking Morrowind. It's one of my favourite games, it has huge scores on most review websites, but it seems like everywhere I read about it, people just say "Oh..THAT game with the F**ed up combat system". Well yeah I still love it and you have to admit most games that are 10 years or older, have plenty of flaws even if the general delivery was awesome.

 

[Beretta]

Mass Effect 3.
The multiplayer is still meaty after all this time, and if you can block out the reflex rage at the original ending it's one hell of a ride through a great setting.

Bonus points for mentioning MGS 4.
Mechanically it was the series at it's peak, but christ so many of the plot and character choices were agonizingly bad.
MGS is such a tainted brand for me. I love, LOVE the sneaking and tacticool and it's solidly anti-War message, but goddamn Kojima wrote some wincingly stupid, sexist crap.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Honestly Spec Ops:The Lines infamous scene didn't hit me very hard, probably due to the whole being spoiled. One scene however still sticks at me very prominently and it was IN game which made it better.

Relatively early on when you start fighting American soldiers, there's a large skirmish and lots of confusing rockets, etc. But at some point a civilian runs out in fright straight towards you, I blew that ***** away, without hesitating. Only until after I shot them did I realize who I shot, that hit me WAAAAAAAY harder then any other.

 

[sumanoskae]

I've seen Bioware's games as a whole catch some more flack than they used to, and granted, Dragon Age II was a cut below their old work, and Inquisition comes up aces in almost every area, except the one that matters most (Story).

While it's true that Bioware have been telling the same basic story their whole career, let's not forget that they're really fucking good at it, in fact I'd say their good enough at it that even when their boilerplate plot is actively sabotaging their games, they still turn out great.

I've long said that the Reapers were about the least interesting thing about the Mass Effect universe, but Bioware have such a grasp of characterization and pacing that they managed to turn an entire trilogy whose focal point was this incredibly one-dimensional antagonist into some of the best games ever made.

Admittedly, things are getting worse. Like I said, Inquisition's story greatly disappointed me, due in large part to the fact that the game seems to go out of it's way to preserve the tired, insipid, idiotic, simplistic, corny, contrived Chosen One VS Cartoonishly Evil Monster plot. The game actively downplays and ignores other story possibilities that are both much more evocative, unusual and intriguing, and much more befitting the setting and the plots of the previous games.

Bioware needs to drop the Mono myth like a coke addiction, but like a lot of coke addicts, they manage to function pretty well regardless.

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

Half Life 2, Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy 7, really any of those games that came out years ago, someone plays for the first time today and says that they weren't impressed.

It's like they forget that since that games success in the past, almost every game like it has been trying to emulate it's success. No duh you've probably played better, the developers have had over 10 years to make a game like it and now you've probably played 16 games like it! It's about appreciating what the game offered at the time.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

Honestly Spec Ops:The Lines infamous scene didn't hit me very hard, probably due to the whole being spoiled. One scene however still sticks at me very prominently and it was IN game which made it better.

Relatively early on when you start fighting American soldiers, there's a large skirmish and lots of confusing rockets, etc. But at some point a civilian runs out in fright straight towards you, I blew that ***** away, without hesitating. Only until after I shot them did I realize who I shot, that hit me WAAAAAAAY harder then any other.

You know, I never hear people talk about this scene, but I had pretty much the same reaction. Big twist spoiled way before hand, so it didn't have the same impact on me as it did many others (even if I do feel it works well in the context of the story) but when I accidentally gunned down the fleeing civilian, THAT made me feel like a bit of a shit-head.

 

[FateWitch13]

Dragon Age 2.

A lot of people seem to hate this game. Dragon Age: Origins was about this whole world which was evolving and changing. Dragon Age 2 was about the individual journey of Hawke and her friends. So, obviously two different experiences. But different shouldn't be coded as bad. Dragon Age 2 is an amazing game. It is not some long, massive arching story that ends with that fight you've been leading up to this whole time. It is smaller stage. It is about the various things in life that shape us, twist us, torture us, delight us. There really are three "main plots" in Dragon Age 2 and this is what seems to bother people the most. I think it is more realistic for character development. I think the way it progressed made Hawke a more real character than The Warden. The lack of travel to a bunch of places can be read as a problem but it's more of a sandbox style game than an open world. It's different and bold. It tried something new.

More games should take chances with their sequels.

I definitely believe DA2 would've done leagues better in reviews and the onslaught it recieved from the fans if it had just been a side game in the dragon age world, because since it took the direct sequel's spot, the fans were expecting something faithful to the first game....to which DA2 is not, it's a rough gem in its own rights, but there are lots of things about it that just fucked over the first game (including anders...he was awesome in awakening, but the fucker turned into a total ponce in the 2nd game.)

at least that's how I personally feel, if I would've came into it expecting a game that was in the dragon age universe, but not a sequel to the first game, then I would've been a bit more open minded.

I disagree on your last point, if the game is a sequel to something, it shouldn't be deviating so much as to change what fans it had in the first place (you can see this in the differences from mass effect 1 to 2 as well, although the changes weren't as extreme.) The whole point that a sequel has a chance at existing in the first place is because of the profit/overhead that the fans of the first game generated for it, why would you possibly alienate them by taking chances just for the sake of taking them?

The best games take chances. The first Mario was worlds away from the second which fostered a market which wanted innovation. Not everything works. I'm not saying they should take a game and completely slaughter it. They didn't make Dragon Age 2 a platformer or a point and click adventure. Combat is still the main mechanic. They took risks with the storytelling, character arcs and setting but not so much so that you don't know it's a Dragon Age game. Risk taking is important. Sometimes it leads to failure. But any game could fail. A game that is the exact duplicate of the first could fail. We should not fear the new.