Those games that only you seemed to like.

[Ubersupersloth1]

This is going to be a strange one but Digimon World for the PS1. No, seriously, something about raising a Digimon for about an hour doing the same training tasks, feeding it meat and making sure it shits in the toilet then going out and recruiting the few sane Digimon left so the town you're in grows every so slowly is just REALLY satisfying (except when I got Whalemon, seriously, Whalemon is SHIT ). Honestly, the PS1-era of Digimon games were surprisingly good, I'm not even a Digimon fan or anything, either. (I watched it when I was little but I don't own any DVDs or have been following any new seasons or whatever). The reason why I say it wasn't liked was because, in the sequel, Digimon World 2003 (which I thought would just be an improvement over the first Digimon World), they did away with everything I liked about the games, replaced the combat system with some really boring turn-based thing and basically made it an RPG instead of whatever the hell Digimon World was. So, the features I liked must not have been well received.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Personally, OP, as far as I'm concerned DA2 is far, far superior to DAO in basically every way except dungeon design.


Anyway, on topic...

I got Ryse: Son of Rome on PC a while back in a sale and despite the bashing I saw of it its not bad. Okay its not exactly a mind-blowing experience but its competent enough.

I agree with the sentiments earlier about Aliens: Colonial Marines. Another one I picked up in a sale and despite the fact that everyone was basically citing it as a demon incarnate I found it to be a reasonably solid shooter.

Despite the criticisms it got I rather enjoyed playing through Gone Home. It was nice and relaxing and stuff.

And finally I'm a huge Dynasty Warriors fan in spite of the fact that loads of people complain about it being cheesy, repetitive and ridiculous.

 

[shrekfan246]

Diablo III

Ah, Diablo III. General consensus I get nowadays is that, some vitriol aside, D3 is at least a good game. Whether it measures up to D2 (a game I don't like...yes, feel free to flame me) is another matter, but like I said, most seem to agree that it's at least decent. But what about pre-Reaper of Souls? Anyone remember the absolute vitriol the game got back then? How it had a rating of 3/4 out of 10 on Metacritic as a user score? Remember that? Because I certainly do. Enough to make me go "whoah," and think, "okay, I better play D1 and D2 before this, because if I end up liking this game, I'm in for some trouble." So, play through D1 and D2 I did. Finished them, thoughts on them aside, I played D3. And...well, I liked it. And this was before RoS.

Maybe it was inevitable that D3 got the backlash it did. You have to deal with a wait of 10-plus years, what was effectively a different developer (Blizz South, not Blizz North), and a different game in almost every regard bar the four act premise and selection of classes, and even they were different (e.g. actual characters rather than blank slates). But...yeah. I thought, and think, D3 was/is good. I liked the gameplay, I liked the story, I didn't notice (or care, to be honest) about any loot drop rates that so many cried foul of. To be honest, gear is a means to an end for me in these games, not an end in itself. If it gets the job done, I don't care how shiny it is. And yes, I liked the story. And even if I agreed with the notion of it being bad, I have to ask, "why?" D1 basically had no story,* D2 had a lackluster story, Torchlight manages to get by with basically no story at all, and I gave up on Path of Exile by act 2, but wasn't impressed either. And yet, D3 was the one that got the flak.

So yes, liked, like, D3. Right from the start, to be honest. In all fairness, having played D2, I can understand why people may not like it, because of how different it is. But having played D1 and D2 before it (and I actually like D1), D3 still manages to be my favorite Diablo game.

1. "Storytelling" isn't all about having exposition spouted at your face. Dark Souls has rather a lot of very intricate storytelling, the vast majority of which will never be apparent to the unobservant player. It's fine if you want to examine things in the vacuum of only the singular narrative thread that runs from beginning to end, but for most people on forums like this one that's not going to be what they consider the "story" of a game to be.

2. "No story" tends to be better than "bad story". Now, I'll admit that I've got nothing against the story in Diablo III, particularly since I have no nostalgic fondness for the first two games. But even compared to things like Blizzard's earlier games, Diablo III doesn't really hold a large candle up to Starcraft or Warcraft III on the writing front.

3. It's fair that you didn't care, but the loot did become noticeably better once Blizzard decided to remove the Auction House. For a lot of people, that was a big sticking point, because a large amount of the time prior to the pre-expansion patch equipment that dropped would be completely useless, even often going so far as to stack stats on class equipment that were actually entirely pointless for said class.

For what it's worth, I've been a "defender" of Diablo III since it came out. To date, it's the only isometric ARPG I've played over and over and can still play without getting bored, because I find the moment-to-moment gameplay so thrilling and cathartic.

Sonic the Hedgehog (early 3D games)

Okay, this is weird - there are some Sonic games that are universally loved (usually the 2D ones up to Sonic & Knuckles). There's some Sonic games that are universally hated (Boom, 2006). Then there's every other game, in which case I can't cite a consensus at all. There tends to be, um, trends (e.g. Generations and Colors tend to be liked), and one of them in particular caught my eye - the idea that 3D Sonic games were never good until those games. To which I scratch my head again, because I thoroughly enjoyed Adventure, Adventure 2, and Heroes. I wasn't until Shadow that I felt the series started going downhill, and I was still enjoying the 2D games. And it wasn't as if 2D stinkers hadn't existed before (e.g. Sonic Labyrinth, the early racing games, etc.) So when did this become a thing?

There was a YouTube reviewer on why the series is so divisive in regards to its gameplay, but I will say that yes, I enjoyed the Adventure games and Heroes. Perfect? No. Adventure 2 has to deal with tedious level design in the Knuckles/Rouge stages, Heroes's story is lacklustre, and Adventure 1 has to deal with Big. Plus, there's the sense that in both of these cases, the Sonic stages get the priority, while the other characters don't fit in so well. But in spite of all this, yes, I did enjoy this era of games. Certainly more than, say, Unleashed, with the introduction of the Boost mechanic. Here, I felt far more in control of the characters. Going fast, yes, but not where I have to "press button to go."

My first question would be when the last time you played Sonic Adventure was.

I still love the games, don't get me wrong, but they are riddled with problems. Sonic Adventure 2 actually has better level design in a technical sense, though not enough so that it actually has better levels, if that makes any sense. The problem with Adventure, which also somehow worked in its favor, is that every level was just designed for Sonic. It was built in a similar way as the old Act system from the 2D games, and then the other characters just got sections of those Sonic stages repurposed for their own stages. However, it seems like more thought was put into the levels overall because, well, they didn't need to make unique stages for everyone in the game.

But anyway, what seriously makes me wonder when you last played is the assertion of having more control over the characters. Floatiness of the slower-paced platforming sections in Unleashed through Generations aside, the sections that actually used speed used them in essentially the same ways. Except, in the earlier games, small collision detection problems, or momentum glitches, or even just tapping the analog stick the wrong way at the right time meant that the player could go careening off the map on a whim. It can be argued that the newer games are a little more uninspired because the player is almost literally on a rail through the speed sections (and can occasionally grind on literal rails), but it seems like that's what the developers always wanted for the 3D games anyway. It's certainly not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I find the "Press Square To Go Fast" gameplay very exciting, and I'm actually a bit sad that it seems like Sega once again decided they needed to try and reinvent the wheel.

And Sonic Heroes was a great base for a game that was severely let down by having awful level design that didn't take any actual advantage of its team mechanic and was occasionally confusing as all hell.

 

[votemarvel]

We all have one or two of these games. The games that are known by many to be horrible if not just okay, but you and those in the minorities seemed to like it. What are those games.

For me;

Dragon Age 2
Now, I agree they severely cut down the character customization by allowing human race only, and the story was pretty weak, but I see its own Pros here and there. The prosecution of mages as dangerous threats relates to racism happening within our world. The fights now longer feel slow, and is more fast paced. The UI is more cleaner than DA:O. The class system allows players to be more free in creating unique ones.

It's weird as I kind of like Dragon Age II but a lot of the stuff you enjoy is what I didn't like.

I found the UI and classes restrictive over what came before. The story was terrible with the time jumps giving me the impression that a lot of important stuff was happening off screen.

What saved it for me were the characters and the banter between them. Some genuine laugh out loud moments to be had.

Batman AK
Okay, so the game got a lot of backlashes from constant crashing, but when the game works, it's a fun game. I will admit bat mobile/tank was bit over done, but you can't deny the fact that you enjoyed the short time you had fun with it (admit it, you enjoyed Riddler race tracks). We all saw the disappointing reveal of Arkham Knight's identity, but players can also understand where does his hate for batman came from. Just like FO4, this was the best looking batman game. gliding around the city at rainy night, rain drops reflecting off the neon-lit signs, etc. Batman still looks badass when he's beating up the thugs, and there's more enemy variants so you can't use same tactics over and over again. And then of course, hallucination of a old friend.

I enjoyed the batmobile initially but it didn't take long until I grew to loathe it. It wasn't an optional thing to use and who thought stealth sections in it were a good idea?

Mass Effect 3
80% of the hate comments I see are from the ending of the game, which should not overshadow the rest of the game. The game looks great, Liara looks sexier, the gameplay is solid, and you meet so many interesting people and learn interesting lores that could rival those of star wars and trek (which is arguable). I won't deny the fact that the ending was crap, but everything else about the game is great.

The problem is that the ending fuss hides that the rest of the game wasn't great.

How about the terrible journal. The eavesdropping side-quests. The increase in passive conversations. The comedy animations. The push of the balance even more in favour of the gun based classes. Terrible implementation of choices from the previous games. The changes to the character creator that means it is damn hard to make your Shepard keep the same look. Horrible execution of romance options apart from Liara.

Deep breath!

Yeah there are a lot more issues for me than just the ending to the game. I didn't hate the ideas behind them but they were poorly put into practice.

 

[spartandude]

Brink. I actually did enjoy this one quite a bit. Online was kinda fun while it had a player base, and now it's a decent bot shooter to kick back and relax playing. It still has one of the more unique art styles out there, and the world was pretty interesting. Even if they didn't really do anything with it.

I'm not alone in this world after all?!

For me it's Pokemon D/P/P. I'm not sure if everyone hates the main generation 4 games but all i see is bashing and while I wont say they're the best in the series (HG/SS or X/Y) I don't think they deserve anywhere near the flak they get. If anything I seriously think Platinum is one of the better Pokemon games.

 

[Hawki]

Talking about overall story, not the main quest. Lore, if you will. There is heaps of it. A lot can actually be found on set and unique item descriptions, however, the locations also tell a lot about the world, as well.

Lore would come under worldbuilding rather than plot (as I mentioned in my original post, I was using "story" synonymously with "plot").

Now, if you want to talk about the lore of Torchlight, that's a bit different. It's true that some items have flavor text, but that isn't uncommon - D3, Destiny, Dark Souls, Path of Exile, and even DotA 2 have flavor lore for items that could be taken as worldbuilding, so in terms of concept, none of these games get overall props. In terms of content, I can't comment. D3's item lore is pretty good IMO, especially with sets, how it usually tells the story of an individual through all the items. Both Dark Souls and Diablo have wiki articles that are based entirely on flavor text used to combine to an overall whole. Can't find those things on the Torchlight wiki though. Not saying that they don't exist - I recall reading the flavor text myself, but how well they do their job is another matter.

Aside from the items, though, I can't say the locations tell the player much about the setting. I mentioned my theory about Ordrak casting down one civilization after another, and each civilization being less advanced than the one preceeding it (what's the logical conclusion of that trend?), but that's just it, a theory. Aside from that, um...there's portals? The ones you get from villagers in the town. They're not exactly examples of worldbuilding, as they reuse the tilesets of the main dungenon levels.

Brutus was the creation of Shavronne - a dark sorceress that took the prison warden and infused him with her magic to turn him into that. He was intended to guard the prisons and stop the Karui invasion, however, after his transformation, he killed Shavronne. It's actually Shavronne's tale that starts here and interestingly, it starts with the very end of her life.

Merveil is also related to a different character in the game - Daresso. She was her wife, however, at one point Daresso gave her a gift - a gemstone necklace. The necklace, however, slowly corrupted her into the being that you see at the end of Act 1. She is important motivation for Daresso as it was her corruption that made him go off and try to find a cure.

I'll take your word for it, as I guess I didn't get that far in the game. But based on what you said, it kind of validates my feelings on Merveil and Brutus by themselves - they're monsters that exist for the sake of fleshing out other characters, rather than being interesting in themselves.

Dominus doesn't appear until the end of Act 3. You meet Piety - Dominus' right hand in Wraeclast.

You're right, upon reflection.

Now why is it important that you can do stuff that others cannot? It is the underlying theme in Path of Exile - corruption. From the first moment you step on Wraeclast, you are affected by the corruption that has twisted the rest of the continent. You are slowly changing...or "adapting", if you will. Depends on how you want to look at it. You are certainly getting different and more powerful. But at what cost? The power you get is very obviously supernatural. One may also say it's wrong. You can shake off blows that would kill a normal person, even the most grievous wounds you get can close themselves in a matter of moments, not days, you can use some skill gems with unparalleled efficiency. Some of the feats you can reach are even more drastic.

All this is encoded in the passive skill tree - that's the corruption of Wraeclast giving you access to abilities you would never normally have. Each level you get makes you more in touch with the primordial power that is seeped into the land. You are slowly being twisted by it. The endgame content is the peak of your character's corruption, when they set humanity aside and embrace Wraeclast. And mind you, you will not find the game explicitly saying that any point - you don't get a cutscene where a narrator says it - only by finding out about the history of Wraeclast, can you find your journey parallels that of others, all of whom are spoken of as villains, monsters and otherwise unpleasant people. You get to meet some of them or their legacy. It usually ends up with you having to destroy whatever you meet.

I've skipped out the other quotes because you seem to have been leading up to this point. I'll quickly summize that I'll have to take it on your word that the characters had the inability to do these things - I never got that impression, nor did I get the impression that the PC was anything special, corruption or no. It doesn't help that we have to guess at their motivations. The character descriptions imply that these aren't very nice people (the player characters), to say the least, so why they feel compelled to help at all is a mystery. But it's a nice idea, and would be a good example of gameplay-story integration if so. However, can't comment, because again, haven't got that far, and of what I did play, I didn't see the same evidence. While I did see monsters that were based on the player classes that I ran into now and again, I didn't get a "mirror darkly" sense from them. But like I said, can't really comment, and I'm hardly going to berate someone for interpreting a work how they want to.

Which is funny because I remember the time I gave my take on D3's theme, and the exact words were "stop liking so terrible."

1. "Storytelling" isn't all about having exposition spouted at your face. Dark Souls has rather a lot of very intricate storytelling, the vast majority of which will never be apparent to the unobservant player. It's fine if you want to examine things in the vacuum of only the singular narrative thread that runs from beginning to end, but for most people on forums like this one that's not going to be what they consider the "story" of a game to be.

I'm not disputing that multiple methods of storytelling exist. In the post you quoted I commented on "story," not "storytelling," which, taken in isolation, is a separate element of narrative from plot. If anything, D3 kind of proves your point, how in D1, D2, PoE, and Torchlight, a lot of it IS exposition (walls of text narrated by NPCs/tomes), whereas in D3 exposition is conveyed through dialogue rather than monologue in those circumstances, even though tomes remain.

Dark Souls, although it's a game I haven't played, also seems to back up this point. Like I said, haven't played it, but while I hear a lot of people talking about the storytelling of Dark Souls, its actual plot comes up far less often. Nor do its characters for that matter. Now I'm quite aware that Dark Souls could simply excel in three areas of story (worldbuilding, themes, storytelling), but like I said, in this context, storytelling and plot are separate things. D3 I feel generally does well in all five elements of story - probably strongest in terms of characterization, worldbuilding, and storytelling, average in plot and themes. D2 and D1 I feel only feel have strengths in worldbuilding, with the other elements ranging from average to being non-existent.

A work of fiction doesn't need all five to be great, of course. Having seen The Revenant recently, instance, in terms of plot it's very simple. Look at storytelling, themes, characterization, and setting, however, and it excels. Or to use a game example, the Wind Waker - excels in all of those above points bar plot. WW's plot is very simple, but the other areas make up for it. And finally, a pet peave of mine, Doom. Of the five, it only does anything interesting in one area - storytelling, and that's Deimos's design, how it's an in-between point of Hell and Phobos. The environment tells the story and carries implications. That doesn't mean Doom has a good story when it's lacking in the four other areas of story.

2. "No story" tends to be better than "bad story". Now, I'll admit that I've got nothing against the story in Diablo III, particularly since I have no nostalgic fondness for the first two games. But even compared to things like Blizzard's earlier games, Diablo III doesn't really hold a large candle up to Starcraft or Warcraft III on the writing front.

I hold WC3 above D3, but SC1...I'm really not sure. SC1 I think has the better plot, D3 has better worldbuilding, everything else is kind of on the same level. But then again, I consider SC2 superior to all of the above, so go figure.

My first question would be when the last time you played Sonic Adventure was.

I still love the games, don't get me wrong, but they are riddled with problems. Sonic Adventure 2 actually has better level design in a technical sense, though not enough so that it actually has better levels, if that makes any sense. The problem with Adventure, which also somehow worked in its favor, is that every level was just designed for Sonic. It was built in a similar way as the old Act system from the 2D games, and then the other characters just got sections of those Sonic stages repurposed for their own stages. However, it seems like more thought was put into the levels overall because, well, they didn't need to make unique stages for everyone in the game.

But anyway, what seriously makes me wonder when you last played is the assertion of having more control over the characters. Floatiness of the slower-paced platforming sections in Unleashed through Generations aside, the sections that actually used speed used them in essentially the same ways. Except, in the earlier games, small collision detection problems, or momentum glitches, or even just tapping the analog stick the wrong way at the right time meant that the player could go careening off the map on a whim. It can be argued that the newer games are a little more uninspired because the player is almost literally on a rail through the speed sections (and can occasionally grind on literal rails), but it seems like that's what the developers always wanted for the 3D games anyway. It's certainly not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I find the "Press Square To Go Fast" gameplay very exciting, and I'm actually a bit sad that it seems like Sega once again decided they needed to try and reinvent the wheel.

And Sonic Heroes was a great base for a game that was severely let down by having awful level design that didn't take any actual advantage of its team mechanic and was occasionally confusing as all hell.

I last played those games about 5-10 years ago. Nostalgia/faulty memory could play a role, but I don't recall ever playing SA1 and feeling like I wasn't in control, or there ever being a tendency to be sent on a trajectory I didn't want. SA2, had some problem with Knuckles and Rouge at times, but they were otherwise fine.

As for Sonic Heroes, I can't recall anything off about its level design bar the Chaotix stages - "kill/collect x no. of y" is ill suited for a linear path that doesn't allow you to go back without using the warp at the end of the stage (or whatnot). But honestly, I felt Heroes was fine in terms of gameplay. It's the story that was the letdown for me in that case.

 

[shrekfan246]

I hold WC3 above D3, but SC1...I'm really not sure. SC1 I think has the better plot, D3 has better worldbuilding, everything else is kind of on the same level. But then again, I consider SC2 superior to all of the above, so go figure.

I'd say Diablo III has better worldbuilding mostly based on the fact that it's not an RTS from the late '90s (not trying to be sarcastic or snarky here). You're one of the few people I've seen who says they think Starcraft II is better, though. (I'm waiting to get Legacy of the Void to finally start digging in, myself.)

I last played those games about 5-10 years ago. Nostalgia/faulty memory could play a role, but I don't recall ever playing SA1 and feeling like I wasn't in control, or there ever being a tendency to be sent on a trajectory I didn't want. SA2, had some problem with Knuckles and Rouge at times, but they were otherwise fine.

It's generally caused by the camera, and if you know it's coming you can compensate for it. I think it has varying chances of happening based on what version of the game you're playing, too; the Steam release of Sonic Adventure DX, for instance, didn't pose too much trouble for me.

As for Sonic Heroes, I can't recall anything off about its level design bar the Chaotix stages - "kill/collect x no. of y" is ill suited for a linear path that doesn't allow you to go back without using the warp at the end of the stage (or whatnot). But honestly, I felt Heroes was fine in terms of gameplay. It's the story that was the letdown for me in that case.

Like I said, it was a great base for a game.

A lot of the levels were just too big, though, without actually doing anything that required them to be so large. There were hardly any branching paths, if any, to utilize the three different gameplay "modes", and as you say some of the missions for Chaotix (and I think Team Rose, though it's been a very long time since I played that game and I do remember they tended to have the "easy mode" stages; to be honest while I can't remember exactly I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true for some levels for all four teams) were absurdly obtuse.

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

Well, the flack I usually get for liking FFXIII has died down slightly, I still get a bit of shit for it.
I'm have the opinion that Final Fantasy games were always linear. Just because they didn't take place in "corridors" doesn't mean they were open. You still spent every game in the linear environments, occasionally running around a barren overworld to each town, and there were few reasons for revisiting previous towns. You might find a little secret, but it's not that common. The only game that changed that was FFXII I believe.
Admittedly, XIII does like to drag you by the nose for quite a long time, but like everyone says, it does open up a bit later.

I've also enjoyed Far Cry 2 immensely. One of the most immersive games I've played. Many people didn't like it for a few mechanics and the respawning outposts. Personally, it rarely bothered me.

Finally, Resident Evil 5. It's certainly one of those games where single player doesn't hold it's own too well, but in co-op I think it stands pretty strong. I love coming back to the game now and again to play co-op with a friend.

 

[LetalisK]

We all have one or two of these games. The games that are known by many to be horrible if not just okay, but you and those in the minorities seemed to like it. What are those games.

Maybe the minority of those that are vocal. Between humans being more likely to make their complaints heard than their satisfaction and our propensity to focus on negative observations, it tends to greatly skew the impression of the negative. Internet scuttlebutt that you hear is not necessarily representative of internet scuttlebutt in general, let alone gamers. I don't know if that helps or not.

 

[Hawki]

Finally, Resident Evil 5. It's certainly one of those games where single player doesn't hold it's own too well, but in co-op I think it stands pretty strong. I love coming back to the game now and again to play co-op with a friend.

I'll second RE5. Of all the Resident Evil games I've played, it ranks somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, I do feel it pushed a bit too far into the action side of things (zombies with guns, turret sections, etc.). However, I still think it's a very enjoyable game, and IMO, would have been a good place to end the series. Storyline began with Chris and Wesker at the Arklay Mansion, storyline finally ends with Chris defeating Wesker. Done. The end. Also the last RE game I played for those reasons. But that's not an inditement, because like I said, think this is still a good game.

 

[-Samurai-]

I really enjoyed The Cursed Crusade, and both Kane and Lynch games.

I played both using couch co-op, and while not great games, the co-op really made them more enjoyable.

 

[The White Hunter]

Final Fantasy XII is the best Final Fantasy game ever made.

Yes Tizzy, I am including FFIX in that. Fite me.

Edit: Resident Evil 6 is a decent tps, Modern Warfare 3 had good multiplayer and survival, Singularity is awesome, etc.

 

[The White Hunter]

Brink. I actually did enjoy this one quite a bit. Online was kinda fun while it had a player base, and now it's a decent bot shooter to kick back and relax playing. It still has one of the more unique art styles out there, and the world was pretty interesting. Even if they didn't really do anything with it.

I'm not alone in this world after all?!

For me it's Pokemon D/P/P. I'm not sure if everyone hates the main generation 4 games but all i see is bashing and while I wont say they're the best in the series (HG/SS or X/Y) I don't think they deserve anywhere near the flak they get. If anything I seriously think Platinum is one of the better Pokemon games.

Platinum fixed a lot of stuff wrong with D/P. Such as the abject lack of good fire type pokemon to catch if you didn't choose Chimchar (and why would you, Piplup is so adorable it gave me diabetes and Torterra is OP as fuck), generally dull world, some pretty lame evolutions added in and so on. They're not bad games by any stretch of the imaginations, but to me they're a low point in the series. They had some cool new things (Abomasnow is neat), and the last boss is a legitimate challenge. But overall, I go to FR/LG, HG/SS, B/W a lot more.

 

[THM]

Bioshock 2 - Looks like people mostly consider it "meh", but I actually liked it more than both the original Bioshock and Infinite.

I was beginning to think nobody else liked BS2. It had a good, solid emotional punch - and to be fair, though I can't entirely agree it was better than Infinite, it at least had a more coherent ending.

Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel - A lot of people seem to dislike the thing, but... It is a decent piece of DLC, and since I knew it was just a standalone DLC, I didn't think it was bad.[/quote]

I'll be honest; I liked it as a game, full stop. Plus, the Claptrap DLC was a good story (Holodome, not so much). But yeah, this was a great title.

 

[Zhukov]

I didn't hate Kane & Lynch 2.

Kinda liked the combat, although it didn't do enough to distinguish itself from Cover Base Third Person Shooter: The Game.

Actually rather liked the "found footage" presentation.

That said, I didn't like it enough to finish it. Which is hardly a glowing recommendation, especially when you consider that it's only 5 hours long.

 

[Joccaren]

Can't help but share my opinions on games, especially when mentioned in the OP. So, my opinions on your's before moving on, just 'cause I can't resist.

Dragon Age 2

Dragon Age 2 had the POTENTIAL to be a decent game. The fact that every 'dungeon' was a copy-paste of the same tiny area, just with a different door open this time, was a major let down. Combat was unbalanced and boring; wave based was terrible, forcing Anders into the party almost all the time was just painful after they butchered his character, and the reliance on cheap tactics like high health ministun enemy swarms, as opposed to any minutely creative encounters, just killed my interest in it. Combat never felt faster either. It had flashy animations, but was the equivalent of Super Smash Bros in how it felt to play, especially with the default "Mash attack button or else" setting. "Push button, something awesome happens" could have been a good thing, but the execution was mindless and boring, much like the rest of the game.
As said, it had potential, but it was just a rushed cash grab, and that showed.
Also, got to say, I actually felt more restricted by the class system than I did in DA:O. Each had their own freedoms. Locking companion equipment upgrades to 1 off store bought items that disappear if you don't buy them when they first appear was also a terrible decision, but hey, that's par for the course.
I don't think many people complain about things like the themes of the story [Which were much the same as the ones appearing in Origins], things looking slightly more flashy in their animations, or the improved console UI [Though IIRC I prefered Origin's UI on the PC], they're more annoyed at the rush job it was, and all its short comings that took what could have been a good game and an improvement on Origins, and ruined it in the name of a quick buck.

Fallout 4

Haven't played it personally, but this:

Yes, the game may not live up to FO3 and NV, but come on, that doesn't mean the game deserves less that 5/10.

Is exactly what the game deserves, if what you say is true.
If there are already existing versions of the game that are better, that it doesn't live up to, it does not deserve more than a 5/10. Better versions are already out there. Especially when you look at the PC where FO4 isn't the best looking Fallout game, as mods will have made 3 and NV look better than anything Bethesda could do, until the equivalent mods are out for FO4. Its got some new features, but if the game doesn't live up to the legacy of games that are fairly recent and still able to be played... It doesn't deserve a great rating.

Batman AK

I wouldn't say a lot of people hated Arkham Knight, more they just felt the same way about it they do about each new Assassin's Creed game, or Call of Duty game, or Madden game, or Ubisoft sandbox game. Its just the same thing all over again. Thorough mediocrity. Where people take offense is with its PC port, which was... IS just horrid.

Mass Effect 3
80% of the hate comments I see are from the ending of the game, which should not overshadow the rest of the game. The game looks great, Liara looks sexier, the gameplay is solid, and you meet so many interesting people and learn interesting lores that could rival those of star wars and trek (which is arguable). I won't deny the fact that the ending was crap, but everything else about the game is great.

I'm one of the apparently few who thought the majority of the game was terrible. Removal of dialogue choices and forced Bioware "Emotional Shepard", taking the character I had created over 2 games and, depending on the playthrough, between 20 and 200 hours, and turning it into a Bioware-created pre-scripted protagonist with less Freedom of expression than Geralt in the Witcher series... Bad move.
Most of the plot was nonsensical. Half of it was a Deus Ex Machina, half was really bad anime styled crap with plot shields, and the remainder was often mediocre at best.
The game looks worse than ME2. Animations are terrible, and the skin textures are just really awkward and weird. Maybe its shaders are better, but that's about it. Never cared about Liara to begin with either.
Choices were relegated to be utterly meaningless. Killed the Rachni? They're there anyway. Set Anderson as Councillor? Psych, its Udina. Destroyed the Human Reaper remains? Cerberus still has them. No matter the choice, its all-but retconned if Bioware don't agree with it.
Mass Effect Lore has always been great, but otherwise... Nope. Nope nope nope. The game just fell flat on everything I wanted to play it for, and... I don't even know. I don't get how its possible to screw everything up so badly. But then I remember its Bioware we're talking about, and they can't deal with criticism well. Its always polar opposites for them, rather than something in between.

Platinum fixed a lot of stuff wrong with D/P. Such as the abject lack of good fire type pokemon to catch if you didn't choose Chimchar (and why would you, Piplup is so adorable it gave me diabetes and Torterra is OP as fuck), generally dull world, some pretty lame evolutions added in and so on. They're not bad games by any stretch of the imaginations, but to me they're a low point in the series. They had some cool new things (Abomasnow is neat), and the last boss is a legitimate challenge. But overall, I go to FR/LG, HG/SS, B/W a lot more.

Honestly, I liked Pearl. It had its weird quirks at times, but it was still pretty fun. Every game since, to me, hasn't stood up to it [Outside remakes]. Black/White I just hated. Terribly designed world there simply for the gimmicks of "OMG we can curve", a disturbing lack of content or trainers in many areas, boring pokemon, and a world I got less immersed in than even Pearl. It is the one Pokemon generation to date I have not finished [Actually, take down Gold/Silver for that as I played it when I was quite young, got stuck with something I swear just didn't trigger in the game, and never got another version to try and play through, though I still quite enjoyed it as far as I could play it]. Apparently there were some battle balance improvements, but having never really been into the hyper-competitive scene, they didn't affect me.
X/Y were alright, but just felt watered down. A couple of real nice and friendly battles if you wanted, really simple locations to travel through with little reward for exploration, emphasis still on the gimmick of being 3D rather than creating an enjoyable world to inhabit [Less so than White/Black though]... It just felt kind of flat and uninteresting, which I feel is kind of ironic as I could feel it trying to be more interesting by having more of a story about friendship and being 3D.
Favourite Pokemon is still Red/Blue/Yellow and their remakes. I used to say Ruby/Sapphire, but replaying the remakes isn't quite as I remembered them when I was young, whilst Red/Blue ect. I still enjoy just as much.

Bioshock 2 - Looks like people mostly consider it "meh", but I actually liked it more than both the original Bioshock and Infinite.

I was beginning to think nobody else liked BS2. It had a good, solid emotional punch - and to be fair, though I can't entirely agree it was better than Infinite, it at least had a more coherent ending.

Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel - A lot of people seem to dislike the thing, but... It is a decent piece of DLC, and since I knew it was just a standalone DLC, I didn't think it was bad.

I'll be honest; I liked it as a game, full stop. Plus, the Claptrap DLC was a good story (Holodome, not so much). But yeah, this was a great title.[/quote]

Seriously? People disliked Bioshock 2?
Add me in to the group that liked it then. It looked amazing. Improved graphics, and an outstanding aesthetic really sold Rapture to me, especially in the underwater sections. The story was more personal and whilst without the twist of 1, I probably found it more enjoyable and thought it fit the dystopia theme slightly better too. I liked the ability to prepare more for attacks with traps for fights against splicers or Big Daddies, and the little sister escorts weren't too terrible either. Big Sisters were great, a more nimble enemy with cool abilities, compared to the lumbering Big Daddies who were just health sponges. Choices throughout the game, at least one of which I actually felt morally conflicted over [The guy who's gone insane, third choice. Do you kill him, and honor the wishes of his old self, or do you let him live, and recognise him as a new person rather than a incurably diseased other person]. The final parts of the game were where it sped up, rather than slowing down like 1, and playing as a little sister was pretty interesting too. Dual wielding weapons/plasmids was amazing, and I don't know why it wasn't in the first game, and there were some cool new plasmids to toy around with too. Hacking was improved...
What did people dislike about the game? Seriously? I don't think I've ever met someone who thought it was any worse than lackluster as it wasn't their sort of game.

More OT: Most of the games here seem to be ones that aren't widely disliked, as the "Only you seemed to like" title would imply, more ones that not everyone loved and adored like the second coming of Christ.

In terms of games that people didn't like: Spore.
God damn I know everything that is wrong with it, but I can't help but like it all the same. The cell stage is really cathartic, the creature stage gives me plenty of exploration motivation to find all the body parts I want, which I like. Tribal stage starts to get a bit more complex gameplay in, at least if you're playing to reach a certain space stage trait - needing to balance your friends and enemies and deal with them each appropriately so that you end up with whatever alignment you need. Even if the gameplay is simple, it can at times be challenging when 3 separate tribes want to attack you, so you need to bribe 2 of them before they reach you, kill one without losing too many people, grab your instruments, peace out with one of the tribes you bribed, then destroy the other. City stage was the start of the downhill. Somewhat enjoyable in the planning your cities aspect, for maximum output, but otherwise fairly simple gameplay, and too easy to get locked into a certain ending style without wanting to on higher difficulties. Space stage... I'm always of mixed minds. It gets old. By god does it get old. With no clear goal after meeting Steve... The game loses its touch, and once you've met Steve once, well, there isn't as much need to do it again. Still, every time I play I still end up enjoying it for a while. Sailing the stars, making alliances, wiping out my enemies. If it had a bit more depth to it, it could be an amazing sandbox. Unfortunately it never really reaches that stage.
It gets its criticisms for being so simple and childish, but to be honest that's something I like about it. A couple of improvements to the space stage, and it'd be all set for me. Maybe a couple of balance fixes in the City stage too. Almost everyone you talk to hates it, but me, and everyone I knew who played it when it came out, loved it, and I still do, though, not as much as some other games. Maybe its because my expectations weren't as in-depth as others, though I still had some, but either way I just still enjoy the game.

Otherwise, honestly, I'm not sure there's many games that everyone hates that I've played, let alone enough to find ones that I like. In general, games that almost everyone hates tend to be a continuation of a series that then departs drastically from its previous entries, whilst also suffering from poor execution at the time, leading to all its fans hating it and those who weren't fans not being interested or impressed [Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age II, the Final Fantasy examples, apparently FO4...], or games that are just so objectively bad that you can't help but not like them [Big Rig Truckers].

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I'm definitely not the only one who liked this game, but I think I'm one of the few who REALLY liked it and really wants there to be a sequel.

Rage: I thought Rage was an awesome game. Yes, the story was basically crap and the ending seemingly came out of nowhere, but the game had phenomenal shooting action, the best enemy movement I've ever seen, incredible graphics, fun weapons, tons of cool gadgets and gizmos, an awesome aesthetic, and an intriguing world that I really wanted to know more about. Doom 4 looks good, but give me Rage 2 over a reboot of a 20 year old game any day of the week.

Also, I'm definitely in the minority on FO4, but so far I honestly like it more than 3 or NV. I think getting rid of the skill %s was a great idea, the shooting action feels the most solid, and the weapons actually feel powerful. The crafting elements are great, and this is probably the best and most fun iteration I've seen of the Bos (my favorite faction) since Fallout: Tactics.

 

[The White Hunter]

El Snip

I like Platinum a hell of a lot more than X and Y. I found x and Y very very easy and very very boring for the most part, it really hammered home some of the stale elements of the franchise for me. Platinum enhanced everything wrong with diamond and pearl imo; more variety of creatures, better gym order, better UI, everything felt improved.

I enjoyed Black & White for the very fact it only let me use new pokemon, and there were a lot of new ones, and some I really love, Conkelldurr for example is to this day my favourite fighting type by a long way, I replayed those two a lot experimenting with new monsters and team compositions. The world design I can happily concede is very bland and simplistic. X&Y has a nicer continent imo. I also enjoyed the story in black and white quite a bit, and some of the characters are really a lot of fun to me.

Edit: Replaying ORAS and I'm not enjoying Hoenn as much as I did back in the day, frankly there's a lot of monsters I just don't want to use in-scenario because they're weak, niche, or just not compatible with how I play, for example myf avourite water types of the generation are all physical but I need surf, thus I am stuck without my Crawdaunt and/or Sharpedo, I sauppose Tentacruel will do, but it's a shame Huntail/Gorebyss are so late-game.

I really enjoy going back to Leaf Green, the originals not so much I feel they haven't aged well, but the remakes are excellent. HG/SS I can always have a good time with to.

Edit 2: Mega-Evolution is stupid, tacked on nonsense.

 

[shrekfan246]

Final Fantasy XII is the best Final Fantasy game ever made.

Yes Tizzy, I am including FFIX in that. Fite me.

Spoiler

While I don't agree, if XII International Zodiac ever gets a Vita or PC release, I'm going to buy it so hard.

 

[The White Hunter]

Final Fantasy XII is the best Final Fantasy game ever made.

Yes Tizzy, I am including FFIX in that. Fite me.

Spoiler

While I don't agree, if XII International Zodiac ever gets a Vita or PC release, I'm going to buy it so hard.

To clarify on strict gameplay terms it is by far my favourite, I also love the story, Vaan and Penelo I can take or leave, I don't hate them but I couldn't care less about them. However the world is so fleshed out and seeped in lore, the bestiary alone is dripping with content to plough through, fascinating tales of myths and monsters, etc. There's also so much to do and see and hunt down and bludgeon to death.

I would adore a re-release on just about any platform.