Games that are critic proof

[gh0ti]

Major franchises are often critic proof in all media. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies are testament to that. In gaming, CoD and Halo spring to mind as the obvious ones; MW2 having plenty of weaknesses that are simply ignored by its loyal fanbase. The Total War games are also in danger of falling into this category - as they've added complexity, they've become buggy as hell, but I'll still be pre-ordering Shogun 2 when it comes around.

PS. Disappointing that despite about a dozen posts explaining what the OP was asking for, people still aren't getting it.

Critic-proof isn't a term for a "perfect" game. It refers to a game that is immune to legitimate criticism - one that sells well despite the critics hating it.

 

[SoopaSte123]

Mainstream FPSes and Nintendo games. The lack of origionality on both accounts sicken me. At least Yahtzee complains about them.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Didn't anybody on the second page read the OP's post?
It's about games that are guaranteed to sell well once the announcement was made, no matter how shitty critics say it will be. No retro titles, folks.

Anyway, any game that has one of the following words in its title: Warcraft, Starcraft, Call of Duty, Halo, Diablo, Star Wars, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Half-Life. Ooh, look, this simplifies to any game made/released by Blizzard, Infinity Ward/Activision, Lucas Arts, Rockstar, Square, and Nintendo. Coincidence? Bullocks!

 

[A Pious Cultist]

GUNSTAR HEROES

What's not to like?

:/

Nintendont's refusal to put better savestates on the virtual console

 

[John47]

psychonauts,beyond good and evil,both dungeon siege games these are the greatest games i have evr played i dont think that some dumbass would critisize these awesome games

 

[Ertol]

Well I can think of two off the top of my head, MW2, and Starcraft 2.

 

[Palademon]

I think you need to go retro. Nobody's about to say that Tetris isn't a great game.

My six year older brother who, like me, is a gamer, finds it annoying.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Pretty much any game pushed out by big name companies like Valve and Blizzard. Tons of people are going to buy those games due to company loyalty and hype. We have the preconceived notion that games these developers make are always of the highest quality. Plus if these games are part of a franchise, they people will believe that they will at least be equal in quality to the previous installment.

That's not to say critics won't damage the sales of these games. However they will make large amounts of profit regardless. It's the companies next game that would probably be at risk as a result of the critics.

Anyone who says Mass Effect 2 was better than Mass Effect 1 in this thread doesn't know what they are talking about. Just Sayin'.

Why exactly? Mass EFfect 2 had problems, but most of them where ones that where also in Mass Effect.

 

[V TheSystem V]

Tetris, Ocarina of Time, LittleBigPlanet (it's a game you make yourself), Wii Sports.

A lot of the casual games.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Episode 3. No one who beat the other Episodes won't buy it.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Actually it's exactly like GTA, but if you can't see that then there's hardly any point us discussing it. In addition, it is a very boring game, not even as good as GTA 4. But hey, it's just my opinion.

I think you're missing the point of discussion. If I agreed with you that RDR was exactly like GTA, then there would be hardly any point in discussing it. We'd both think the same things and have no need to talk about it. However, I have a big disagreement with your opinion, and would like to know why you think the two are exactly the same. Frankly, the only similarities I noticed were due to both being based around the same engine, which is meaningless; is Portal exactly the same as Half-Life, after all?

Actually big-budget games that suck are often NOT critically panned. That's the whole point. See Kane & Lynch Gamespot fiasco. Someone else mentioned FF13, and that's a perfect example: a godawful game that got an 80+ metacritic score. That's big bucks at work right there. And also fear of rocking the boat, I guess.

The issue with Gamespot was not that the critics were too afraid to talk about how shit the game was. The issue was that the review appeared on the same page as adverts for Kane & Lynch. The reason the review was pulled, and the author fired (from what I remember, anyway) was that the company paying for advertising did not like having their adverts sitting next to a negative review of the game. That is corruption, a conflict of interests that does not reflect the industry on the whole. I read plenty of negative press about Kane & Lynch, which it rightfully deserved; why pick just this one example?

I can't comment on FF13, having never played it, but I heard from friends who have that it's a good game. It takes a while to get going but is very enjoyable once it does. Why does it deserve negative reviews? Just because you don't think it's very good?

 

[RowdyRodimus]

The only games I can think of off the top of my head that will sell no matter it's quality (and in these examples, they will still be defended to the death even if they make Too Human seem like Fallout 1 and 2) would be any Zelda or Mario (proper series, not spinoffs like Mario's Time Machine).

Gamers are like Pavlovs dog and have been trained that Miyamoto even looking at the cover art samples make it the greatest game ever made.

 

[lacktheknack]

Mass Effect 2 was critic proofed from the start.

 

[Racecarlock]

Anything with a franchise title. They always make millions. As for a game being actually good enough to avoid all criticism, i'd go with portal. Hey, why not cover both discussions in here?

 

[Racecarlock]

Actually it's exactly like GTA, but if you can't see that then there's hardly any point us discussing it. In addition, it is a very boring game, not even as good as GTA 4. But hey, it's just my opinion.

I think you're missing the point of discussion. If I agreed with you that RDR was exactly like GTA, then there would be hardly any point in discussing it. We'd both think the same things and have no need to talk about it. However, I have a big disagreement with your opinion, and would like to know why you think the two are exactly the same. Frankly, the only similarities I noticed were due to both being based around the same engine, which is meaningless; is Portal exactly the same as Half-Life, after all?

Ok, I like a challenge. Cars are now carriages, bikes are now horses with speed boosts, liberty city citizens are now cowboys, city sections are now cow towns, and weapons are the same, except wild west flavored.

 

[BlackWidower]

I think you need to go retro. Nobody's about to say that Tetris isn't a great game.

It's repetitive and frustrating. HA!

No game is immune from criticism. All games have their faults. Primarily because everyone has different tastes, and it's impossible to please everyone.

 

[Timbydude]

I think the Final Fantasy series is a good example; the most recent one got middling reviews but still sold 6 million so far.

That's 'cause most of the people doing reviews aren't the target audience of RPGs, so they're just reviewing something they don't really like or have no interest in.

I don't really think that's true. Most of the Final Fantasy entries before XIII were showered with praise by critics. Heck, I wouldn't even call the most recent one an RPG. It's more of an action-adventure with slight RPG elements.

Plus, it's kind of hard to make that claim. Most people reviewing XIII were complaining about the linearity and annoying characters. Since this implies that said reviewers appreciate non-linear areas and compelling characters, I think that actually shows that the critics do love RPGs when done properly.

 

[Mariakitten]

Portal perhaps.