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

[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.

 

[BrawlMan]

Gears of War - More so the first game. Thanks for starting a genre of mostly mediocre cover shooters. Heck most cover shooters I find pretty average.

Most COD games after 4. Once again, not bad games, but really overpraised and over saturated.

Ninja Gaiden (NES) - The first game I really dislike and find overly cheap. Granted, I grew up on Shinobi, but that series proved you can have difficulty without being cheap. I know this in controversial, but that his how I honestly feel.

Bioshock 1 & Infinite - The original seemed special if you did not play a lot of FPS or only played 1 fps franchise, but I had played a lot of shooters on the consoles and PC, so what Bioshock offered was pretty standard for me. I'll still praise it's art direction and ambition. Infinite was just let's do it the game in the sky, but strip it down and simplify it more, and fill the level design with the standard post Modern Warfare corridor shooter, and you have problems. It did not help in the case of what could have been. The story was a complete mess too.

Killer 7 - Gameplay wise, K7gs. is nothing to write home about. The gameplay functions and is serviceable, but most are there for the plot. Once someone goes through it, there is not much reason to go back a 3rd times once you understand some things. My high admiration for Suda and Grasshopper has not changed. Though let it die can go fuck itself. You took a great concept, and threw it away for some Dark Souls clone nobody wanted.

 

[Trunkage]

Bioshock 1 & Infinite - The original seemed special if you did not play a lot of FPS or only played 1 fps franchise, but I had played a lot of shooters on the consoles and PC, so what Bioshock offered was pretty standard for me. I'll still praise it's art direction and ambition. Infinite was just let's do it the game in the sky, but strip it down and simplify it more, and fill the level design with the standard post Modern Warfare corridor shooter, and you have problems. It did not help in the case of what could have been. The story was a complete mess.

I don't think, even in its heyday, Bioshock was well known for its shooting mechanics. The plot twist was clearly the first thing written and the rest was trying to get you to that point. Style over substance. I understand why your critical. I don't think it is more of a mess than most other games. I think what you point out is common in most games.
If you've played, think about Mass Effect 1. How does the last battle effect a Reaper? Why didn't that weakness come up later? In the Witcher 3, you are literally pointless except for one battle back at base. And it probably would've been won without you. Spec Ops forces your into situations. In New Vegas, why do people give you pardons? And wouldn't that anger the people in each group? Why aren't the factions disintegrating? Why can't I use the chip the way I want to? I have to hand it to someone. How does that make sense. Bioshock stands out maybe because its mechanics are shoddy, doesn't mean most stories aren't a mess.