What do you think are the most overrated video games of all time?

[Hawki]

Noooooo. Those are some of me favorites. I don't think ALttP aged poorly(that goes for most of the top tier snes games). A Link Between Worlds felt more like a (really good) homage to me rather than a genuine successor.

Name one thing that A Link to the Past does better than A Link Between Worlds.

Graphics? ALttP has aged better than some of the 3D titles that came before it, but it doesn't have the charm of other 2D titles from the era. ALBW has the advantage of full 3D models and better graphics all round.

Story/characters? Not that ALBW is a masterpiece, but it actually does have...well, characters, that you get to know and rescue rather than nameless maidens. Hilda isn't the deepest antagonist in the world, but she does at least have motivations beyond "I'm evil."

Gameplay? Mostly identical, but ALBW does add another, ahem, 'dimension' with its wallhopping segments.

ALttP is arguably the more influential title, but I can't think of anything it does better than ALBW. Heck, I even rank Minish Cap above it, which also uses a similar template (at least as far as the layout of Hyrule goes).

It introduced us to Leon, Claire, and Ada; three of the most popular Resi characters, it was the first introduction to Racoon City, the police station is still one of the most beloved settings in the franchise, and the zapping system was pretty unique at the time and still sort of is. It had Lickers, it had Mr. X, it had Hunk.

It had a lot of new characters, monsters, and environments that have become iconic in the franchise. It's not too weird that people still hold it in high regard.

RE3 was a continuation and slight refinement of 2, but it didn't have the same level of cool, new shit.

All of that's true, but a few points:

-Are we really crediting RE2 with "introducing" Raccoon City, when we only spend 5-10 minutes in the actual city itself before transitioning to an entirely indoor environment? If anything, I'd say RE3 gets that score.

-RE2 gave us Lickers, Mr. X, and Hunk. Hunk is a character who's basically the Boba Fett of Resident Evil, a man with no personality or backstory (barring EU stuff), but everyone seems to love. Lickers, I'll grant you. But while RE2 gave us Mr. X, RE3 gave us Nemesis, which is basically Mr. X on steroids.

I'm not dismissing RE2 (as I said in my OP, I actually like the game), but you yourself point out that RE3 is a refinement of RE2. I'd argue that execution trumps conception in most cases.

Wasn't Halo 5 considered the worst one by the fanbase?

Nowadays, maybe. But I remember the good ol days when Halo 4 was considered the worst. Before that it was Reach.

Personally the worst Halo game I've played is ODST, but Halo 4 takes the second worst spot for me. If anything, it might fall into the category of overrated for me, but it's the strangest case of "overrated" I've seen, because I remember being there when Halo 4 launched. I remember how I hated it, and how most of the fanbase seemed to hate it, but since Halo 5 came out, people now seem to love the game. And in fairness, I don't consider Halo 4 to be a bad game per se, but I do have a chunk of bile reserved for it.

For my money, because Capcom couldn't decide which conventions were essential to Resident Evil as a brand and which should be abandoned. This would also explain why the hardened government operatives of Resis 4 and 5 can't aim and run at the same time, a feat even weedy writer Alan Wake can manage.

No-one could shoot while moving prior to those games either, so I don't see this as an issue. I'm fine with the 'run or shoot' system - adds to the suspense.

In contrast, Resi 4 saw a series stuck in a rut go so far to the opposite extreme it became barely recognisable, aside from a few superficial similarities - returning characters, so-bad-it's-brilliant voice acting and a surplus of potted plants.

What was once a slow, tense, puzzle-led experience was transformed into a series of tacked-together Cool Gaming Moments. Resi 4 feels like the product of ten different minds in a super-macho staff meeting, rather than the singular creative vision of one man.

On a purely mechanical level, it is a remarkable game. It deserves the plaudits received and can rightly be held up as the landmark title which gave us Gears of War et al. In that respect, Capcom nailed it.

But here's the big problem: Resident Evil 4 is not a Resident Evil game. And that's the one thing it should have been, above all else.

I can sympathize with most of that bar the voice acting - honestly, the RE4 voice acting is pretty good. I mean, prior to this, we had RE1 (ugh), and RE3 had its share of wonky voice acting/dialogue.

That aside...well, I'll come out and say that RE4 is my favorite Resi game, and this is someone who played numerous RE games before it (all the main ones at least), and it does get a spot in my top ten. If RE4 has a problem, it's that plotwise, it is a departure from everything that comes beforehand. The fall of Umbrella is relegated to the intro cutscene, and very little in the plot feels that connected to what came before. However, I can forgive RE4 for that because a) its gameplay is enough to carry it, and b) in the context of the wider series, it's easy for me to see where RE4 falls in. It's the transition period between everything that came before, and everything that came after. It feels like a test bed for Capcom to try a new style before getting onto the wider plot. In that context, I can forgive it for its plot shortcomings.

Picture your favourite contemporary game series - for the purposes of this example, let's say it's Call of Duty. Now imagine picking up Call of Duty: Red Insurgencies (play as the Soviet Secret Police, folks!).

On booting up the game you discover the template has subtly shifted: it's now an open-ended, emergent Bioshock-style shooter. All that linear action movie pacing has been taken out and there's nary an explosive set-piece in sight.

"Red Insurgencies" could easily fit in with Call of Duty. Something like BioShock could also work.

To be frank, almost any game that involves firearms of some kind could serve as a CoD game, because we've run the full gamete from WWII to outer space. CoD is to FPS what Final Fantasy is to JRPGs - numerous self-contained installments/sub-series that are connected by only a few key elements.

As I've kind of established, for me, execution>conception. If I'm judging RE4 purely on the merits of its story and how it fits into the overall mythology, then it doesn't do too well. If I'm judging it on its own merits, then it's excellent.

Or how about this: imagine excitedly loading the latest Final Fantasy, only to find the expansive overworld adventuring you know and love has been replaced by endless treks round lavishly decorated, sparsely interactive linear corridors. Oh, hang on...

...Final Fantasy X?

I jest, I know you mean FFXIII, but I have to ask, what separates FF13 from the series as a whole? By itself it doesn't strike me as being linearity, and Final Fantasy doesn't have one single setting, and it left behind its medieval settings from FF7. Wary of commenting too much (FF10 is the only FF I've played), but the point is, those points above don't strike me as being inherent issues, only just part of why FF13 isn't well regarded by many people.

You keep hammering on about the story but really it's never been the game's priority. It's subject of parody for a reason. I can't think of a storyline that is more shite than Resident Evil so it boggles my mind someone buys these games for story. It's what Defunct says it's the 'spirit' of a game that is worth maintaining and that is what Resident Evil 4 does and RE5 and 6 didn't do. With RE4 I definitely felt I was playing Resident Evil, but evolved. With RE5 and 6 I definitely did not and that is because the director, again, didn't understand the spirit of the games and what made them unique(namely the atmosphere and incremental dread).

Well, that I disagree with. RE doesn't have the best story in the world, but there's plenty of worse examples out there, many of which have been mentioned on this very forum. I actually quite like RE5 as well, albeit not as much as 4, and a lot of the reason is that it does have a better plot that's better connected to the series's mythology.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I totally agree with this (except REmake is my favourite now). Resident Evil 4 elevates the accessible action parts and dumbs down the bits that made you think. It's what happens when a gamer's series is rejigged for a mainstream audience, and it isn't true to its roots.

Look, I like the classic Resi games for their slower pacing and spookhouse atmosphere, but they hardly made you think beyond remembering where the nearest item box was. The puzzles in these games were just as easy as the ones in RE4, the only difference being RE4 allowed you to take all the puzzle items with you without taking up space.

The games were always pretty dumb, RE4 just rolled with it and added precise shooting controls.

And what were the series' iconic zombies and devastating viruses replaced by? A mutating midget in a pirate hat. An Emperor Palpatine clone with a giant scorpion tail. An army of quasi-intelligent parasite-infected villagers who were so savage they couldn't even use firearms... Except for the ones who could. What?

And what was Leon's motivation for being there? To save the President's daughter.

Right.

You do know Code Veronica had the incest twins right? I mean, that brother was basically a non-midget version of Salazar. Again, all the characters in the RE universe are silly dimwits. The only time the series comes close to having a sincere character is with Lisa Trevor.

That's not even mentioning how for some reason every environment in these games operates under a weird puzzle system, where people apparently need to insert gems in order to open a gate to the gas station.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Well, that I disagree with. RE doesn't have the best story in the world, but there's plenty of worse examples out there, many of which have been mentioned on this very forum.

And in this very thread. [cough]MGS[/cough]

 

[stroopwafel]

Noooooo. Those are some of me favorites. I don't think ALttP aged poorly(that goes for most of the top tier snes games). A Link Between Worlds felt more like a (really good) homage to me rather than a genuine successor.

Name one thing that A Link to the Past does better than A Link Between Worlds.

Graphics? ALttP has aged better than some of the 3D titles that came before it, but it doesn't have the charm of other 2D titles from the era. ALBW has the advantage of full 3D models and better graphics all round.

Story/characters? Not that ALBW is a masterpiece, but it actually does have...well, characters, that you get to know and rescue rather than nameless maidens. Hilda isn't the deepest antagonist in the world, but she does at least have motivations beyond "I'm evil."

Gameplay? Mostly identical, but ALBW does add another, ahem, 'dimension' with its wallhopping segments.

ALttP is arguably the more influential title, but I can't think of anything it does better than ALBW. Heck, I even rank Minish Cap above it, which also uses a similar template (at least as far as the layout of Hyrule goes).

Like I said ALBW is a really good homage but a homage none the less. It exists b/c of ALttP and it doesn't even pretend to be anything else.

Well, that I disagree with. RE doesn't have the best story in the world, but there's plenty of worse examples out there, many of which have been mentioned on this very forum. I actually quite like RE5 as well, albeit not as much as 4, and a lot of the reason is that it does have a better plot that's better connected to the series's mythology.

The story of RE5 can be summarized with this:

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...Every game ever that's won a GOTY. Simply because GOTY isn't indicative of actually being game of the year.

...Also, honestly, most AAA games with HUGE pre-orders. Listen, Ubisoft, the Assassins Creed games are Remarkably Average at best, their quality really doesn't justify a $600 pre-order. Remember the last one? Where nobody had faces?

Undertale. Not because I dont like it, but because I dont think it gives as much freedom as people think it does. Now, talking with monsters instead of having to kill them? Neat idea. I support subverting expectations like that, but the game encourages 2 specific playstyles. Kill everything or kill nothing. I would praise it if there was a thoughtful outcome for taking the practical middle route and was smart about it. Like, kill some but not all and NOT just a third "I killed some but not all" result. Like, it should take into account who you killed and did not kill and why. Why did you befriend/spare X but not Y? And what differences does that make?

I hope Undertale inspires future games to think outside the box, but I think Undertale only opened the box up, but did not really step outside it as much as people say.

To be fair to Undertale, it does do that with the middle ground, with different endings, character responses and the like based on who/how many you do kill (to the point you can even get different responses killing someone, reloading then befriending them). Though by 'different ending' it is just the standard ending with some variations in results, but, hey, it was mostly made by one guy, it's got some limitations.

...The problem, however, is that according to the fan community, there's only two 'TRUE' endings - 100% Pacifist and 100% Genocide. No middle ground, otherwise you played the game wrong. Which is... *deep breath* frustrating, to say the least.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Halo 5. Halo fucking 5. It's not just overrated, it's downright atrocious and a spit in the face of everyone who calls themselves a Halo fan. It should have been lambasted a whole fuckton more than it was, and it is now my personal mission to drag its name through the shitmud at every opportunity I can.

-

I could actually properly defend a ton of games in this thread. Namely,

Morrowind and Skyrim
Ocarina of Time
Halo 1, 3, and Reach
GTA2, San Andreas, and 5

But I'll leave it alone for now. If someone wants to challenge me to a verbal duel over the above though, let me know.

I challenge you... to hate Halo 5 more than I do.

OT, the Call of Duty franchise. They're not bad games, but since CoD4, none that I've played have merited the persistent fan base hard-on or two development teams for yearly releases. That dead horse has been beaten into the afterlife.

 

[dscross]

This is one of the biggest reasons I dislike Resident Evil 4. I'd spent the best part of eight years watching Umbrella get built up to the point where I was dying to take them down. That pleasure was snatched from me, suddenly and unceremoniously, in a single cut-scene.

You keep hammering on about the story but really it's never been the game's priority. It's subject of parody for a reason. I can't think of a storyline that is more shite than Resident Evil so it boggles my mind someone buys these games for story. It's what Defunct says it's the 'spirit' of a game that is worth maintaining and that is what Resident Evil 4 does and RE5 and 6 didn't do. With RE4 I definitely felt I was playing Resident Evil, but evolved. With RE5 and 6 I definitely did not and that is because the director, again, didn't understand the spirit of the games and what made them unique(namely the atmosphere and incremental dread).

I didn't hammer on about story. That was my number 2 reason. In the 3 posts I made it clear that gameplay is my main issue but I'm not happy with the story either. I talked extensively about both.

 

[dscross]

snip - on RE4 discussion

First bit - I didn't mean puzzles in JUST that sense, although I still think they required more thought in the originals. I talked about it in the post and it will just be me repeating myself but I also meant navigating your way through the mansion to avoid zombies, unlock doors, and conserve ammo etc in the most efficient way. Look at previous post for more info.

Second bit - My main issue with the RE4 plot was getting rid of the main villain since the beginning without any lead up or warning and replacing zombies with humans. I don't mind silliness in a goofy horror plot if it's in line with the story so far - not just scrapping nearly everything and starting again and pretending it's still resident evil. Again, read previous posts for more info.

 

[Casual Shinji]

snip.

First bit - I didn't mean puzzles in JUST that sense, although I still think they required a bit more thought in the originals. I talked about it in the post and it will just be me repeating myself but I also meant navigating your way through the mansion to avoid zombies, unlock doors, and conserve ammo etc in the most efficient way. Look at previous post for more info.

Sure, but you couldn't just run around willy nilly in RE4 without a care in the world either. That game rewarded efficient play just as the older ones did. In both games it was all about finding those little exploits.

Second bit - My main issue with the RE4 plot was getting rid of the main villain since the beginning without any lead up or warning and replacing zombies with humans. I don't mind silliness in a goofy horror plot if it's in line with the story so far - not just scrapping everything and starting again. Again, read previous posts for more info.

Well, there we're just going to have to agree to disagree. See, I liked Umbrella when it was a faceless organisation that made monsters just cuz. Because they wanted money, because they wanted power -- whatever resulted in a bunch of monsters running amock and me being in the middle of it. As soon as they introduced plotlines about furthering human evolution and becoming a god, with Wesker getting Matrix powers, because apparently the T/G/whatever-virus can do that now too... As soon as that happened it became a big, messy pile of stupid.

And I was glad RE4 came along and whiped all of that from the table, bringing it back to a simple premise; There's an evil organisation out there making monsters and shit. Go stop 'm.

 

[dscross]

Sure, but you couldn't just run around willy nilly in RE4 without a care in the world either. That game rewarded efficient play just as the older ones did. In both games it was all about finding those little exploits.

Well, it's possible it's a matter of perspective but, to me, when you can take out 5+ foes with a SINGLE shotgun blast in RE4...and still have 100+ rounds left, that's not survival horror. And you become even MORE deadly when you get the semi-auto Striker. Really, the horror and the survival aspects were pretty much obliterated. Or that was my experience anyway. It was tense at times, yeah - but you get that in a lot of games.

With that said, I understand why you find it be an extremely fun game. I would have far less of a problem with it if didn't carry the Resident Evil brand and directly influence the next two in the main line series. It's lengthy, the enemies are unique, the weapons are good, the graphics were great, the music is memorable, the enviroments are nice to look at, and the bosses are interesting. But it's not Resident Evil to me and never will be. It should have been a separate title or spin off and not a direct RE sequel for all the reasons I've said in previous posts.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Sure, but you couldn't just run around willy nilly in RE4 without a care in the world either. That game rewarded efficient play just as the older ones did. In both games it was all about finding those little exploits.

Well, it's possible it's a matter of perspective but, to me, when you can take out 5+ foes with a SINGLE shotgun blast in RE4...and still have 100+ rounds left, that's not survival horror. And you become even MORE deadly when you get the semi-auto Striker. Really, the horror and the survival aspects were pretty much obliterated. Or that was my experience anyway. It was tense at times, yeah - but you get that in a lot of games.

Was Resident Evil EVER really a survival/horror game from a gameplay perspective? I can't recall very many gameplay instances backing that up. Survival/Horror seems, to me, have always been a narrative trait for Resident Evil, not a gameplay one.

But then again, I always thought it's room to room gameplay was kind of garbage.

 

[dscross]

Eh? It was the original Resident Evil that coined the term.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Sure, but you couldn't just run around willy nilly in RE4 without a care in the world either. That game rewarded efficient play just as the older ones did. In both games it was all about finding those little exploits.

Well, it's possible it's a matter of perspective but, to me, when you can take out 5+ foes with a SINGLE shotgun blast in RE4...and still have 100+ rounds left, that's not survival horror. And you become even MORE deadly when you get the semi-auto Striker. Really, the horror and the survival aspects were pretty much obliterated. Or that was my experience anyway. It was tense at times, yeah - but you get that in a lot of games.

Oh come on, you're acting like you start out with a shotgun with 100+ rounds. The only way you get that much ammo is by playing efficiently. And the way ammo stacks means the stronger it is the more space it takes up. And you start the game with a small item capacity, if you take into account the size of your handgun, shotgun, rifle, and the accompanying ammo and health items.

And killing 5 enemies with one shotgun blast? I don't know what cheat code you were using, but that's not going to happen unless you're playing on new game+ with a fully upgraded Striker.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Eh? It was the original Resident Evil that coined the term.

And it really only delivered, in my opinion, in the narrative sense. It singularly failed to do so through gameplay.

Not something unique, really. Few games can both give you a gun, and deliver on horror. Only ones I can think of at the moment are Eternal Darkness and the original Dead Space, but even those were situational - 90% of the time the horror bit was absent in gameplay.

 

[Silvanus]

I totally agree with this (except REmake is my favourite now). Resident Evil 4 elevates the accessible action parts and dumbs down the bits that made you think. It's what happens when a gamer's series is rejigged for a mainstream audience, and it isn't true to its roots.

REmake is perhaps the more consistently solid experience, and is a heavy graphical upgrade without losing the tone of RE1. It's probably the best game remake I've played. I recognise that RE3 is a bit messier, but Nemesis gave me a sense of panic on the first playthrough that none of the others have managed to match.

Name one thing that A Link to the Past does better than A Link Between Worlds.

Graphics? ALttP has aged better than some of the 3D titles that came before it, but it doesn't have the charm of other 2D titles from the era. ALBW has the advantage of full 3D models and better graphics all round.

Story/characters? Not that ALBW is a masterpiece, but it actually does have...well, characters, that you get to know and rescue rather than nameless maidens. Hilda isn't the deepest antagonist in the world, but she does at least have motivations beyond "I'm evil."

Gameplay? Mostly identical, but ALBW does add another, ahem, 'dimension' with its wallhopping segments.

ALttP is arguably the more influential title, but I can't think of anything it does better than ALBW. Heck, I even rank Minish Cap above it, which also uses a similar template (at least as far as the layout of Hyrule goes).

Agreed on all points. ALBW is utterly brilliant.

You keep hammering on about the story but really it's never been the game's priority. It's subject of parody for a reason. I can't think of a storyline that is more shite than Resident Evil so it boggles my mind someone buys these games for story. It's what Defunct says it's the 'spirit' of a game that is worth maintaining and that is what Resident Evil 4 does and RE5 and 6 didn't do. With RE4 I definitely felt I was playing Resident Evil, but evolved. With RE5 and 6 I definitely did not and that is because the director, again, didn't understand the spirit of the games and what made them unique(namely the atmosphere and incremental dread).

Must a story be particularly serious to get involved in it? Resident Evil always had some Romero kitch, but it also had depth enough to be involving.

I'm a lore-hog, and get bogged down in the lore of everything I play (and read, and watch), squirrelling away information about the fictional worlds like some kind of hungry, useless encyclopaedia. It bugs me, too, that the evil corporation that's been the focus of 4 previous games gets dismissed in a single line of dialogue at the start of RE4.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I challenge you... to hate Halo 5 more than I do.

OT, the Call of Duty franchise. They're not bad games, but since CoD4, none that I've played have merited the persistent fan base hard-on or two development teams for yearly releases. That dead horse has been beaten into the afterlife.

Oh I assure you, that is impossible, good sir.
-
Black Ops is pretty darn good. MW was nice but I think BO holds up much better. I consider it to be where CoD peaked. Black Ops 2 is great for MP. Even better than BO in many ways. But it's biggest problem is that it seemed to lack that personality and charm and that awesome setting all around that BO had. So despite BO2 being the objectively better MP experience, I'll still sometimes load up the original BO anyway.

In fairness, I haven't had the chance to play Black Ops 3 yet though.

 

[RedRockRun]

[opinion that will get ignored while two people continue arguing]

 

[dscross]

The original Mario Galaxy. I remember some sites were literally giving it 11/10.


The game couldn't hold my interest for over 40 minutes in a row, and I'm someone who can go through 12 hours of visual novel without break. I still use its case to straighten a shelf that's missing a leg to remind myself to never believe idiotically overhyped reviews, and out of general spite.

Mario's a funny one. I'm never really sure how to rate those games. I mean, they are consistently good and fun - but they are always pretty safe and, I would argue, never that remarkable. Galaxy was a great game, but I was never wowed. So yeah, overrated in one sense I guess, but pretty consistently fun in a safe sort of way. Critics certainly seem to love them.

 

[DefunctTheory]

[opinion that will get ignored while two people continue arguing]

I am morally opposed to this opinion, sir.

 

[skim172]

Taking a step back from "overrated" to "popular game that I personally don't enjoy":

Final Fantasy 7. I never finished it. I thought the combat was boring, and the story was predictable when it wasn't being utterly nonsensical. I didn't care about any of the characters, I was completely nonplussed by Aeris' death - if anything, I felt irritated by the obvious contrived and manipulative nature of the scene ("Want to make your story seem serious? Inject death scene here!")

I could go on - but I won't. I just ... I tried to like it. I honestly did. But I really didn't. There wasn't a single thing in the game I liked ... maybe I liked some of the characters? (I hated Cloud, incidentally).

In fact - I think I actually hated this game.

It's harsh, I know. I don't quite understand it. I know people whose opinions I respect for whom this is possibly their favorite game ever - and it might be one of the worst I've played. Expectations, perhaps - I expected too much going into it. Or ... maybe I'm just a hipster who can't enjoy something that's popular. I don't know.

I don't even like thinking about FF7, because I end up trying to figure out why I hate it when so many love it, and it kind of stresses me out a little.

I haven't played a Final Fantasy game since. I view them all with suspicion and some measure of repulsion. In fact, it turned me off JRPGs as a genre. I used to play so many - I've maybe played one since I played FF7. Because I end up comparing the JRPG I'm playing to FF7, and critically looking at anything - any tiny thing - that reminds me of FF7.

It's a problem. Maybe there's something actually wrong with me.