AAA Titles Overshadowing lesser known but better games

[Danbo Jambo]

I'm really starting to think that there is some kind of bizare conspiracy not only to push dross titles on us, but to bury good titles beneath bad reviews too.

I'm currently 15 hours in to The Technomancer, and I'm absolutely LOVING it. Yes it's flawed, but the overall experience it brilliant. Combat got slated yet it's really good once you're used to it; voice acting got slated - OK it's more Schwarzenegger or Stallone than Pacino but it's still good and suitable for the game; the game got labelled "dull", yet it builds it's lore & enviroment superbly and is far from dull at all. Currently it's a 9/10 game for me.

And there's loads of games like this, Divinity 2:TDKS, Risen 2, Red Faction 2, Alpha Protocol, Deadly Premonition, Nier, Binary Domain etc. etc.

Yet I can name loads of AAA games which reviewers praised massively, yet I utterly hate and found dull/boring/annoying - Fallout 4 - boring as hell (loved every other FO game); ME3 - forget the ending, the game was awful and nothing but a poor shooter; DA2 - no explanation needed; DA:I - see above, damn MMO; Skyrim - OK, didn't hate it, a 7/10 game for me, but very souless & "meh" at best; Last of Us - dull as hell, Uncharted 2 - again, dull as hell.

Now I'm well aware this is all opinion based and that mine isn't the be all and end all.

But overall surely so many good games shouldn't be getting slated so much? And surely there's an abundance of highly praised, largely hyped games that are actually crap too?

It just strikes me as a little odd. For what it's worth I hated The Force Awakens too, thought it was awful, and there just seems to be a machine of hype & BS trying to brainwash us all into thinking good is bad, and bad is good?

 

[Hawki]

Now I'm well aware this is all opinion based and that mine isn't the be all and end all.

But overall surely so many good games shouldn't be getting slated so much? And surely there's an abundance of highly praised, largely hyped games that are actually crap too?

In a choice between "conspiracy" and "opinion," I'm going to go with opinion. Because if you want a list of unpopular game opinions I hold, here's a list:

-Advance Wars: Days of Ruin is the second best Advance Wars game, and its darker tone is to its benefit, not detriment.

-Tiberium Wars is the best Command & Conquer game

-Diablo II is my least favorite Diablo game, and Diablo III is my favorite

-Doom 3 is the best Doom game, while Doom 2016 is "meh"

-Half-Life 2 is net average, a combination of some excellent aspects weighed down by lacklustre other ones

-A Link to the Past isn't that great of a game, and is superseeded by numerous other entries in the series

-Super Metroid is good, but Zero Mission and Fusion are better

-Path of Exile is a chore to play through, and not engaging in any manner

-Resident Evil 5 is a solid game regardless of tonal departure

-Sonic Adventure 1/2 & Heroes are enjoyable games, and the series has continued to produce numerous enjoyable 2D games well after the Dreamcast was released

-Aliens: Colonial Marines is a good game at the end of the day, even if it didn't live up to the hype

All of these opinions are likely in the minority, but I'm hardly going to invoke a conspiracy theory to justify those ideas, but rather accept that everyone has their opinions, and not every opinion held is going to be in the majority.

Not trying to hijack your thread, but please, indulging in conspiracy theories to account for differences in preference isn't going to do anyone any good.

 

[Zhukov]

*shrug*

From my perspective you just listed a bunch of really crappy games. With the exception of Nier, which I never played (because it looked like something I'd never spend actual currency on), and Binary Domain which was mildly fun in a painfully cheesy switch-your-brain-off Resident Evil kind of way.

I'd say they got the exact slating they deserved and were overshadowed because they were a bit shit.

EDIT: Actually, just realized this is a thinly disguised how-dare-you-not-share-my-tastes thread. Haven't seen one of these in a while. Man, brings back memories of 2011. We used to get these every day. Can't say I miss them. I'm out.

 

[spartandude]

-Advance Wars: Days of Ruin is the second best Advance Wars game, and its darker tone is to its benefit, not detriment.

I semi agree. It was an absolutely fantastic game but I don't think the darker tone meshed well with the inherent cheesiness of the series.

-Super Metroid is good, but Zero Mission and Fusion are better

100% Agree although Prime 1 is the best in the series.

OT

I think the most recent example of a good game getting overshadowed is Battleborn. It was good but not great. Then Overwatch came out and, lets be honest, made almost everyone forget about Battleborn.

And then there are other games which just don't get the recognition they deserve. Also in case it wasn't obvious, the next few statements are OPINIONS *cue gasps*

Alpha Protocol is viewed as a poor man's Deus Ex. Even though it's so much better.

Pillars of Eternity was overshadowed by the admittedly better Witcher 3 (still loved Pillars) and the disappointment of Fallout 4.

The Banner Saga just doesn't get anywhere near the attention it deserves.

Stellaris was ignored in favour of both Total War: Warhammer, or as I like to call it Total Warhammer, and Civ VI. Again both great games but Stellaris needs more love.

And Titan Fall 2 was released at the worst possible time.

Also as the OP pointed out Divinity was generally over looked. Ok if you tried it you know the first hour or so is crap, but get passed that for a great game.

 

[sXeth]

I didn't find Technomancer's story particularly awful (what I got through of it, anyway), but I wouldn't call it good either. Just kind of an utter "Well, thats a thing", and not particularly interesting or original. That could vary subjectively of course, and particularly as a sci-fi fan, might contribute to it seeming old-hash where someone less exposed would find it fresher.

The gameplay was where it took a turn into the actual bad territory. Just an awful slog, and definitely overshadowed by other ARPGs AAA and Indie alike. On the wider stage, it wasn't the Dev's first outing, and seemingly the last one was about the same, so they're not getting an easy pass if they're repeating mistakes.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

I didn't find Technomancer's story particularly awful (what I got through of it, anyway), but I wouldn't call it good either. Just kind of an utter "Well, thats a thing", and not particularly interesting or original. That could vary subjectively of course, and particularly as a sci-fi fan, might contribute to it seeming old-hash where someone less exposed would find it fresher.

The gameplay was where it took a turn into the actual bad territory. Just an awful slog, and definitely overshadowed by other ARPGs AAA and Indie alike. On the wider stage, it wasn't the Dev's first outing, and seemingly the last one was about the same, so they're not getting an easy pass if they're repeating mistakes.

Original? No definitely not, fair comment. But good? And very well done? For me, yes.

e.g. I think The Technomancer is a FAR better game than Mass Effect 3 all round, yet look at the difference in pro reviews and comments and there'd only be 1 clear winner. It does so much well, and I'm having an absolute blast with it.

Again it's about opinions, but personally I thrive on the gameplay. Playing as a rogue-mancer it's really fast, fun, fluid combat. Yes not perfect and a little choppy at times, but still great fun.

It's just a big shame to see games like this get a 6/10 and games such as ME3 get a 9/10 from pros, as I think it's killing genuine creativity and depriving us of lesser known quality, in favour of AAA cash ins.

And that's why I'm wondering if there's any bias at pro review level?

-Advance Wars: Days of Ruin is the second best Advance Wars game, and its darker tone is to its benefit, not detriment.

-Tiberium Wars is the best Command & Conquer game

-Diablo II is my least favorite Diablo game, and Diablo III is my favorite

-Doom 3 is the best Doom game, while Doom 2016 is "meh"

-Half-Life 2 is net average, a combination of some excellent aspects weighed down by lacklustre other ones

-A Link to the Past isn't that great of a game, and is superseeded by numerous other entries in the series

-Super Metroid is good, but Zero Mission and Fusion are better

-Path of Exile is a chore to play through, and not engaging in any manner

-Resident Evil 5 is a solid game regardless of tonal departure

-Sonic Adventure 1/2 & Heroes are enjoyable games, and the series has continued to produce numerous enjoyable 2D games well after the Dreamcast was released

-Aliens: Colonial Marines is a good game at the end of the day, even if it didn't live up to the hype

All of these opinions are likely in the minority, but I'm hardly going to invoke a conspiracy theory to justify those ideas, but rather accept that everyone has their opinions, and not every opinion held is going to be in the majority.

Not trying to hijack your thread, but please, indulging in conspiracy theories to account for differences in preference isn't going to do anyone any good.

You're probably right in that there's not a concious conspiracy. But come on, how many games get released hyped up to mass praise, for people to finally accept they weren't anywhere near as good a year or so later?

Maybe "conspiracy" is the wrong word. "Concious bias" would probably be a better term.

It's just very strange because nowadays most games I really thrive on are rated 6 or 7/10, and most 9/10+ games are massive let downs. I've no bias to any system, company, franchize etc. I just want to play good games which i enjoy.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

AAA titles just have more money to throw at marketing and the people unlike us who rely, knowingly or not, on being told what they want are the reason why these AAA games do so well. You can't help this thing, and small games can't compete with marketing campaigns that are multiple times their entire budged for the whole game. What we can do is keep singing the praises of the games we cherish and hope more people will listen. This is why I think complaining about games in general is a bad idea, there's so much more good to be done by glorifying the unknown gems.

 

[Casual Shinji]

More people are always going to flock to the games that are the easiest for them to pick up and play. Those examples of games you found bad/boring are exactly the type of games most people can just jump into without too much of a struggle. They were specifically designed with that idea in mind.

No point in jumping at shadows, this has been around forever. Also no point in trying to assume everyone else is brainwashed because they don't share your taste in certain games.

 

[RedDeadFred]

If I'm going to look at reviews, I honestly find I get more out of looking at the Steam user reviews. Sure, there are people who just do a meme, but there are lots of in depth, helpful reviews too. Not only that, they seem more likely to highlight startling flaws in highly praised AAA games (Mankind Divided chopping off a lot of the plotlines for future DLC), whilst praising the game as a whole. I feel like you get a lot more out of people's opinions when you simply ask them to tell you if they recommend it or not. Not assigning an arbitrary number that has gotten to the point where anything lower than an 8 is considered trash.

Take Mount and Blade Warband for example. On Metacritic it only has a 78. On Steam, it's one of the highest rated games there is with an Overwhelming Positive response. It's my favourite game of all time and I had just listened to critics, I might never have picked is up.

 

[meiam]

I'm really bummed out by batteborn getting annihilated by overwatch. After the server emptied out I switch to OW, but the time to kill is so ridiculously low that I just can't get into the game playing with random. It's just so uninteresting to get randomly killed without being able to do anything about it

Dragon'd dogma has a bit of a cult following, but it's still pretty overshadow by other open world ARPG, which is a shame since it can kick all of there butt and so much more fun to play (yes, open world does not mean the combat has to suck, imagine that!).

 

[Casual Shinji]

Dragon'd dogma has a bit of a cult following, but it's still pretty overshadow by other open world ARPG, which is a shame since it can kick all of there butt and so much more fun to play (yes, open world does not mean the combat has to suck, imagine that!).

I really like Dragon's Dogma, but I can still concede that games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 are all around better games. When I think of the latter two, I think of a smooth entry into a nice, big, polished world with a ton of stuff to do. When I think of the former, I think of some really awesome stuff burried underneath heaps of rusty debris, that you need to decide for yourself whether or not you wanna dig through it. And I don't blame people who choose not to.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I think production values and presentation are way way too overvalued by reviewers. Anyone that knows shooters can tell you Uncharted is about average with regards to gameplay yet scores in the freaking 90s somehow. Any game scoring in the 90s is beyond ridiculous. You're not going to find any work in any other medium that has that high of a score. Game criticism is a joke right now. Just consider how messed up it is that the original Ghostbusters movie has as many negative reviews as Uncharted 4, GTAV, and Final Fantasy XIII COMBINED. Writing is something that is awful across the board in gaming yet is very rarely criticized. FFXV: Kingsglaive is what happens when actual critics get to criticize video game writing. Game reviewers don't understand it's OK to not like a game.

In comparison, The Force Awakens has an average score of 8.2/10 and 8% of the critics didn't like the movie.

Dragon'd dogma has a bit of a cult following, but it's still pretty overshadow by other open world ARPG, which is a shame since it can kick all of there butt and so much more fun to play (yes, open world does not mean the combat has to suck, imagine that!).

I really like Dragon's Dogma, but I can still concede that games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 are all around better games. When I think of the latter two, I think of a smooth entry into a nice, big, polished world with a ton of stuff to do. When I think of the former, I think of some really awesome stuff burried underneath heaps of rusty debris, that you need to decide for yourself whether or not you wanna dig through it. And I don't blame people who choose not to.

I will also contend that I had more fun in Dragon's Dogma than any Bethesda game I played. How can you not be utterly disappointed by say Witcher 3's griffin fight or Dark Souls' hydra fight after playing Dragon's Dogma? I'm not at all saying Dragon's Dogma is great without barely any flaws. There's LOADS of flaws in the game. But there's also loads of flaws in Bethesda games that critics don't talk about. At least Dragon's Dogma did something better than every other game and still sets the bar for action combat in an RPG.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I really like Dragon's Dogma, but I can still concede that games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 are all around better games. When I think of the latter two, I think of a smooth entry into a nice, big, polished world with a ton of stuff to do. When I think of the former, I think of some really awesome stuff burried underneath heaps of rusty debris, that you need to decide for yourself whether or not you wanna dig through it. And I don't blame people who choose not to.

I will also contend that I had more fun in Dragon's Dogma than any Bethesda game I played. How can you not be utterly disappointed by say Witcher 3's griffin fight or Dark Souls' hydra fight after playing Dragon's Dogma? I'm not at all saying Dragon's Dogma is great without barely any flaws. There's LOADS of flaws in the game. But there's also loads of flaws in Bethesda games that critics don't talk about. At least Dragon's Dogma did something better than every other game and still sets the bar for action combat in an RPG.

Yes, when the fun's there it's great. And no action game can compete with it once you're fighting a cave troll or a cyclops... But after the first 10 times even that becomes a bit tedious. And in between those moments you're constantly tripping over boring, bland, and clunky open-world design, character interactions, and menus.

The Witcher 3 might not have those epic monster battles, but it blows Dragon's Dogma out of the water in terms of open-world, characters, visual design, quests, scope, voice acting, story, and pretty much everything else that isn't the monster fights.

 

[meiam]

The Witcher 3 might not have those epic monster battles, but it blows Dragon's Dogma out of the water in terms of open-world, characters, visual design, quests, scope, voice acting, story, and pretty much everything else that isn't the monster fights.

Well on paper witches 3 has more good element, but in practice in both game you spend the vast majority of your time fighting, so I think that being better is more important than everything else combined.

Also DD has far better movement than witcher 3 and most open world RPG (again something that you do a lot), you have a few different movement ability (double jump, gliding) and can reach far more area by jumping ledge and stuff, you can actually jump from roof to roof in the cities which is a tons of fun. I'd also argue they're not very far apart in term of environments and visual design, the spell effects were better in DD (the giant tornado that actually pick up piece of rubble and enemy is very impressive https://youtu.be/M1pCQrz3b0w?t=10s, as is most spells) and the enemy more varied and interesting/imposing (I'll never forget how witcher 3 has this quest hyping a fight against a dragon just to end up fighting a palette swap of an enemy you've out a bunch of time already versus dragon dogma dragon). The world was smaller but just about as varied, and the night where far more impressive since it's actually night and not just a blue filter.

 

[09philj]

Dragon Quest is generally overshadowed by Final Fantasy. I cannot fathom why. FF is unwieldy, poe faced, and often tortuously slow paced. DQ is none of those things, but for some reason it's mentioned fairly infrequently.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The Witcher 3 might not have those epic monster battles, but it blows Dragon's Dogma out of the water in terms of open-world, characters, visual design, quests, scope, voice acting, story, and pretty much everything else that isn't the monster fights.

Well on paper witches 3 has more good element, but in practice in both game you spend the vast majority of your time fighting, so I think that being better is more important than everything else combined.

The fighting was certainly better, but due to the way the gameworld was structured, the lack of fast travel, and the enemies respawning, it did feel like you were fighting the same battles over and over. It almost felt like grinding in a traditional JRPG.

And in The Witcher 3 I used every oppertunity I could to fight on horseback anyway, which I found thoroughly satisfying.

Also DD has far better movement than witcher 3 and most open world RPG (again something that you do a lot), you have a few different movement ability (double jump, gliding) and can reach far more area by jumping ledge and stuff, you can actually jump from roof to roof in the cities which is a tons of fun. I'd also argue they're not very far apart in term of environments and visual design, the spell effects were better in DD (the giant tornado that actually pick up piece of rubble and enemy is very impressive https://youtu.be/M1pCQrz3b0w?t=10s, as is most spells) and the enemy more varied and interesting/imposing (I'll never forget how witcher 3 has this quest hyping a fight against a dragon just to end up fighting a palette swap of an enemy you've out a bunch of time already versus dragon dogma dragon). The world was smaller but just about as varied, and the night where far more impressive since it's actually night and not just a blue filter.

I'll give you the spells, which were probably the best representation of wielding the elements in any game I've seen, and the night actually being dark, which too few games do, but the rest... nah. Again, I have a huge soft spot for DD for it does right, but it's mired by too many issues that tips it just over the edge of wonky. It's a diamond in the rough, and I wish we could get a sequel that'd clean the place up, but I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

[Hawki]

You're probably right in that there's not a concious conspiracy. But come on, how many games get released hyped up to mass praise, for people to finally accept they weren't anywhere near as good a year or so later?

I dunno, but probably no more or no less than people constantly telling me a game is terrible, only for me to not find it terrible when I actually play it for myself.

Maybe "conspiracy" is the wrong word. "Concious bias" would probably be a better term.

It's just very strange because nowadays most games I really thrive on are rated 6 or 7/10, and most 9/10+ games are massive let downs. I've no bias to any system, company, franchize etc. I just want to play good games which i enjoy.

So...play what games you enjoy?

I'm not dissing what people like and dislike, but it's hardly worth worrying about what other people think of what you like/dislike. Which is much easier said than done, but if your point is that you like different things than what others like...congratulations ,you're a human being, have a cookie.

Not being disrepaging, but you may be worrying too much about what other people like, and not simply just enjoying what you do.

 

[hermes]

Dragon Quest is generally overshadowed by Final Fantasy. I cannot fathom why. FF is unwieldy, poe faced, and often tortuously slow paced. DQ is none of those things, but for some reason it's mentioned fairly infrequently.

I am guessing that you are talking "mostly in the west". In Japan, DQ is one of the most popular franchises there is (I wouldn't be surprised if it bigger than FF with a tenth of its budget). To answer your question, it is because spectacle, and because SE doesn't care. Before 7, it was a toss between which franchise was biggest on the west. After FF 7, the series went all out on looking spectacular and having great production values, which made it very attractive on the western market, which is more obsessed with graphics in games. By contrast, DQ was never about "looking spectacular" (consider that 8 was the first one to use 3D, in 2004, and it was made to look like the old games)
It also doesn't help that, even recently, SE is not interested in releasing and promoting DQ games in the west. It is one thing in the NES era with games like FF 2 to 5 that never got here, but so late as 2012 there are main numbered DQ games that are not being released outside of Japan.

 

[Rangaman]

Different strokes for different folks. I have a friend who loves Sonic Heroes and Unleashed but finds the old Mega Drive games to be boring.

There's no conspiracy anywhere. Just reviewers echoing similar sentiments.

 

[stroopwafel]

The Witcher 3 might not have those epic monster battles, but it blows Dragon's Dogma out of the water in terms of open-world, characters, visual design, quests, scope, voice acting, story, and pretty much everything else that isn't the monster fights.

Really? Dragon's Dogma was a game I really wanted to like but I found the combat extremely tedious. The Witcher 3's combat is simple but it's fun and competently designed. Combat in DD however is a mess: 'pawns' constantly getting in your way and cluttering your field of vision, the jittery camera that bounces across the screen like Michael J Fax preparing a cocktail and then the excruciatingly tedious fights themselves of chipping away at the 10 health bars of poorly designed enemies. Dragon's Dogma has nothing to otherwise compensate for but even if it had I don't think I could get over the frustrating combat.

It also doesn't help that, even recently, SE is not interested in releasing and promoting DQ games in the west. It is one thing in the NES era with games like FF 2 to 5 that never got here, but so late as 2012 there are main numbered DQ games that are not being released outside of Japan.

Point is that there is just very little variety in DQ games. With various degrees of success FF atleast always tried to do something different in both gameplay, world building and aesthetic sensibilities. DQ is just the same thing over and over. There is very little reason to put up with a similair grind in a game which looks and plays exactly like the previous one. Not that these games are inherently bad(DQ8 in particular is quite good) but they are much more of a niche compared to FF, which has a much broader appeal for obvious reasons. Not only that but DQ is mostly relegated to old games, portable games or re-releases on portables or something like Builders that tries to capitalize on the Minecraft craze. Final Fantasy is much more diverse in both content and availability spinning from mainline to spin-offs to having characters appear in other games. Dragon Quest is originally Enix' IP which was a much larger company than Squaresoft during the merger so it speaks volums that even they saw more potential in FF.

Anyways, yeah I think there are quite a few games that get high praise for very arbitrary reasons. The Last of Us and Mass Effect series to name a few. I mean, they are competently made third person shooters(ME with RPG elements) but I don't think having some cheap sentimentality or a few lines of well written dialogue shoved into them suddenly elevates these games to 9's and 10's.

One of my (atleast fairly recent) personal favorite games that wasn't recognized for the visionary qualities it had is The Evil Within. The balance, pacing and general set-up of the levels is excellent. The gameplay hits that perfect sweet spot between tension and release; something other games with a similar emphasis never seems to manage. The art design is also espescially good espescially considering the game was made by a start-up studio and not having any original concept art but going straight to CGI. The Evil Within is just sheer amazement to me what one man without pretense or false promises is able to pull off with such limited means. Shinji Mikami remains one of the industry's greatests.

The game got fairly good reviews but I think many of it's sensibilities got lost espescially on the millennial hipsters that review games such as Kotaku.