Games you think are overrated

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Then why come into these threads? They aren't meant to tear down the walls of society by exposing those GOTY for the shit they are, they're just fun little threads for expressing your opinion about games you think get more praise than they deserve. Sure there might be some spite towards a particular game itself, but I've rarely seen that spite spill over to another user in these threads. There are other threads that that'll happen in, but most people coming into this thread realize that opinions are opinions and just roll with it. So if you don't like to see games get bashed on, don't come into this thread. It's like complaining when Yahtzee doesn't like something.

To be preemptive? The whole point is discussing games that people think are overrated. So if someone doesn't agree with someone else's overrated game, they will probably make a counter claim against that person. Why bother waiting for the post to happen when you can just cover it early. There's even the ever so slight possibility that someone could read said comments and realize their post might have been silly and word it better to make the thread more interesting. Like I said, its mostly referring to bad to posts people make where people make where they get butt mad over a popular game they hate

 

[Nazulu]

SSB Brawl. I was a huge fan of Nintendo and SSB Melee some time ago, but Brawl managed to change me in ways I never thought I could. I just don't know how the fans can tolerate the clunky feeling of the movement, the lack of smashes and combos, that they took out the air dash, how some characters were nerfed to hell and back like Captain Falcon, how the super moves are completely unbalanced, and of course the random tripping. The game became extremely popular while I found it incomplete and clumsy.

EDIT: Why is it necessary for the first comments on these threads to always be people talking about how "oh, no game is overrated, people like a game for a reason, and however much they like it is how much that game deserves it and blah blah blah..." Seriously, it adds nothing to the discussion. You didn't think games were overrated, so you have nothing to contribute to the thread, then just move on.

Because they're hypocrites who fail to see why this topic is any different to best/worst threads or anything asking your opinion on entertainment, or repeating your opinion on any topic really. They think they're more clever because they refuse to participate. It's strange that so many seem to get offended when you say over-rated. Never under-rated though.

 

[BaronVH]

I have to agree with the inclusion of Dark Souls. I have no problem with a hard game, but any game where you die a lot should have a fast reload. It was the extremely long loading screens that just made it not fun. Graphics were not that great either, but I can forgive that.

Also, I have never managed to finish a Grand Theft Auto game. They are well made, but they just got incredibly boring to me after a while. It is possible that it is the genre for me. Could not finish L.A. Noire, GTA3-5, or Watch Dogs. Loved, loved, loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

 

[Ratty]

Every NES game ever. There is plenty of SNES games that have aged great and are still a ton of fun to play. But NES games always feel so dated to me. They generally have poor controls, inaccurate hit boxes and ugly graphics. Granted I do understand why people liked them at the time, but modern games are just so much better in every way. I would never choose to play the original Mario over Rayman Legends. I would always play Dust or Guacamelee before the original Metroid.

There you go, I feel that's controversial enough.

Well, saying every game for the system is overrated is a bit hyperbolic. Especially considering a lot of them were recognized as trash even then! As for whether any of the gameplay or graphics appeals to you personally that's your business of course.

Though I say the gameplay and level design in Castlevania 3 can stack up to any 2D platformer you want to trot out today. It's really a work of art, some of the most challenging but also fair platforming you'll ever see. And don't say the jumping mechanics are "broken". The stiff jumping and knockback from enemies are consciously designed features of the game. Saying they're "broken" just because they're less popular than other jumping mechanics is like saying FPSs that use medpaks instead of regenerating health are "broken".

For me, playing Dragon Age: Origins was like playing WoW with a group where every other player was controlled by a retarded monkey. The story was ok, but no matter how many times I fiddled with it, I just couldn't get into the combat, since the AI were all busy wondering why the sharp pointy things didn't want to be friends. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but I gave up after one too many deaths.

That's basically every Bioware game I've played. Combat is not their forte. Bioware is really good at telling (basically) the same story with (basically) the same characters (with different skins) through dialog trees and cutscenes. But the combat was never more than passable, and often less than that.

Personally though, I did love it. I wasn't a defender or anything, as back then I was barely even aware of forums as a thing which existed, but for the longest time all I had to play of Wind Waker was the demo which was contained on the Gamecube Zelda Collector's Edition disc, and how pretty it looked was certainly one of the reasons I wanted to get it.

I normally love cel shaded games but can't seem to get into Windwaker's style. I think it's the characters eyes. Maybe if/when I actually play it I'll get over that.

 

[RealRT]

Also, the original Fallouts. Call me a monster but I prefer them as first-person shooters with RPG elements. Fallout 3 is more atmospheric than any of the older ones, and Fallout New Vegas is just as witty and well-written.

Older Fallout games: OK, maybe these were really good for their time, but I just don't get how they can still be considered pinnacles of the RPG genre. I've tried multiple times to get into all of these games, and while I can sort of see how they could be appealing for their time, they mostly just remind me that I would rather be playing Fallout 3 or New Vegas. They just haven't aged well at all, and the world just isn't as interesting to follow as it was in the newer Fallout games.

I'm so glad to hear other people say this. I LOVE Fallout 3 and New Vegas (NV especially) and have dumped literally hundreds of hours in each one. I the lore and universe are really interesting to me, but despite multiple tries, I just can't get into the original or 2. Whenever I mention that to a "true" Fallout fan, they write me off as some CoD-bro with zero patience who just wants to see things go boom.

I can understand somebody saying that New Vegas is better than 1 and 2 - I don't agree with this point of view, but I understand it, because New Vegas is tremendously huge with content and has a lot of depth. But 3? Yeah, it's a fun game to play, but it's not even in the same league. No depth whatsoever, story is full of cliches, there's not nearly enough content. The only thing it's got going for it is radio.

 

[Trinket to Ride]

I can understand somebody saying that New Vegas is better than 1 and 2 - I don't agree with this point of view, but I understand it, because New Vegas is tremendously huge with content and has a lot of depth. But 3? Yeah, it's a fun game to play, but it's not even in the same league. No depth whatsoever, story is full of cliches, there's not nearly enough content. The only thing it's got going for it is radio.

Yeah, New Vegas is head and shoulders above 3. Most of my time spent on 3 is from before New Vegas was released (or for when I feel nostalgic for that time after high school but before college when I played it the most.) It felt a lot more post-apocalyptic, but was a LOT less interesting. I never really lost myself in the world like I did with NV.

Plus New Vegas didn't have those damned metros.

And the companions were all kind of suck in 3. Or at least, they didn't really have any depth. They were more armed pack mules than legitimate characters.

 

[rob_simple]

Halo. I don't find anything remarkable about it in the slightest, I think Jim Sterling put it perfectly when he said, 'the reason people think it's the best game ever is because Microsoft told them it was,' in regard to the way that enough marketing can make anything seem better than it is.

I've tried to play various games in the series several times (always a few years after the hype died down) and while none of them were badly made they were never particularly engaging either and I always lost interest after a few levels.

 

[Foolery]

I do find it funny how everyone now claims to have always loved Windwaker's artstyle but all I ever heard was bitching about it when the game came out. Though to be fair I wasn't a gamer then and it probably had a few defenders.

Hey, I loved it then. I was also 12 at the time and had no internet access to hear people ***** about it. I missed out on Ocarina and Majora's Mask, so it was my first 3D Zelda.

Anyway, I wouldn't say overrated but man, was the new Wolfenstein hyped up by gaming media. I like it, and it's good, but it has stumbling moments here or there.

Halo. I don't find anything remarkable about it in the slightest, I think Jim Sterling put it perfectly when he said, 'the reason people think it's the best game ever is because Microsoft told them it was,' in regard to the way that enough marketing can make anything seem better than it is.

I've tried to play various games in the series several times (always a few years after the hype died down) and while none of them were badly made they were never particularly engaging either and I always lost interest after a few levels.

Well, the guns are satisfying, the characters exaggerated, yet still serious, there's space zombies, a bit of lore, and the environments feel organic in a way rather than just a scripted set-piece despite having linear campaigns.

But I can understand it not being someone else's cup of tea.

 

[Username Redacted]

Also, I have never managed to finish a Grand Theft Auto game. They are well made, but they just got incredibly boring to me after a while. It is possible that it is the genre for me. Could not finish L.A. Noire, GTA3-5, or Watch Dogs. Loved, loved, loved Red Dead Redemption, though.

Same here. Now granted it's been a while since I've tried (GTA: Vice City to be precise) but, and this is going to sound weird (probably), but they have too much story for my taste for a sandbox game. Or I guess more specifically if I wanted to watch Scarface or The Godfather I'd watch the movies rather than play a video game whose story is basically what you would get if those movies had a baby and that baby had gotten dropped on its head. Also Vice City's controls are ass. Chase that guy down on a motorcycle while shooting him with an SMG that's been loaded, apparently, with spitballs instead of bullets. Sure game, I'll get right on that. The really funny thing is that I love open world and/or sandbox games. The GTA series just isn't my thing.

 

[rob_simple]

Halo. I don't find anything remarkable about it in the slightest, I think Jim Sterling put it perfectly when he said, 'the reason people think it's the best game ever is because Microsoft told them it was,' in regard to the way that enough marketing can make anything seem better than it is.

I've tried to play various games in the series several times (always a few years after the hype died down) and while none of them were badly made they were never particularly engaging either and I always lost interest after a few levels.

Well, the guns are satisfying, the characters exaggerated, yet still serious, there's space zombies, a bit of lore, and the environments feel organic in a way rather than just a scripted set-piece despite having linear campaigns.

But I can understand it not being someone else's cup of tea.

See to me, the guns all felt weak and ineffectual, the characters are all shallow tropes that could have walked out of any existing sci-fi universe and the environments just look the exact same as a billion other shooters I've played.

In my mind, Timesplitters deserves all of the praise that Halo receives, and more; it was probably the last time I really enjoyed an action-orientated FPS, and it had more content packed into a single game than most series manage with a slew of sequels.

Basically, until another FPS let's me play as a snowman on a magic carpet, the genre is over.

 

[Foolery]

Halo. I don't find anything remarkable about it in the slightest, I think Jim Sterling put it perfectly when he said, 'the reason people think it's the best game ever is because Microsoft told them it was,' in regard to the way that enough marketing can make anything seem better than it is.

I've tried to play various games in the series several times (always a few years after the hype died down) and while none of them were badly made they were never particularly engaging either and I always lost interest after a few levels.

Well, the guns are satisfying, the characters exaggerated, yet still serious, there's space zombies, a bit of lore, and the environments feel organic in a way rather than just a scripted set-piece despite having linear campaigns.

But I can understand it not being someone else's cup of tea.

See to me, the guns all felt weak and ineffectual, the characters are all shallow tropes that could have walked out of any existing sci-fi universe and the environments just look the exact same as a billion other shooters I've played.

In my mind, Timesplitters deserves all of the praise that Halo receives, and more; it was probably the last time I really enjoyed an action-orientated FPS, and it had more content packed into a single game than most series manage with a slew of sequels.

Basically, until another FPS let's me play as a snowman on a magic carpet, the genre is over.

Eh, can't really disagree with that either. Shallow? Yeah. But that's something I like about it. Sergeant Johnson is basically a rip-off of a character from Predator and it's hilarious.

And you just reminded how much I'd love another TimeSplitters game. Or even a collection re-release.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Don't feel like making a long post so I'll just leave it at 1 game for now.

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night - The levels, while visually stunning, are bland in terms of layout, the enemies and bosses aren't particularly fun to fight, the game is easier to break than a wet Weetabix (and is piss-easy even if you don't), there's little to no challenging platforming, the menus are clunky and the voice acting is horrible (and no, I'm not one of those "I can enjoy bad acting ironically" types).

 

[rob_simple]

Halo. I don't find anything remarkable about it in the slightest, I think Jim Sterling put it perfectly when he said, 'the reason people think it's the best game ever is because Microsoft told them it was,' in regard to the way that enough marketing can make anything seem better than it is.

I've tried to play various games in the series several times (always a few years after the hype died down) and while none of them were badly made they were never particularly engaging either and I always lost interest after a few levels.

Well, the guns are satisfying, the characters exaggerated, yet still serious, there's space zombies, a bit of lore, and the environments feel organic in a way rather than just a scripted set-piece despite having linear campaigns.

But I can understand it not being someone else's cup of tea.

See to me, the guns all felt weak and ineffectual, the characters are all shallow tropes that could have walked out of any existing sci-fi universe and the environments just look the exact same as a billion other shooters I've played.

In my mind, Timesplitters deserves all of the praise that Halo receives, and more; it was probably the last time I really enjoyed an action-orientated FPS, and it had more content packed into a single game than most series manage with a slew of sequels.

Basically, until another FPS let's me play as a snowman on a magic carpet, the genre is over.

Eh, can't really disagree with that either. Shallow? Yeah. But that's something I like about it. Sergeant Johnson is basically a rip-off of a character from Predator and it's hilarious.

And you just reminded how much I'd love another TimeSplitters game. Or even a collection re-release.

Yeah I can understand that, like I say I don't think the games are even bad, I just don't think they are as revolutionary as the box-art itself claims they are.

I would be content with a re-release of the original trilogy, too. I played the multiplayer last year and it still totally holds up; it would be amazing to play online. I think Timesplitters is probably the only series where, even though I was playing myself, I put as much time into the multiplayer part of the game as I did the campaign mode.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Not a big fan of calling games overrated since I'll admit it's all based on opinion and perspective. The way I see it, when I call something overrated, I mean to say it was a game that I didn't really care for, but ended up being popular, or won awards etc. I don't mean to suggest that people who like said games are wrong, dumb, sheeple etc.

That being said, here are just a few I found meh, that many people found to be excellent.

Definitely Last of Us. The reasons? The story was rather predictable, it even used the "genetic chosen one" trope. Plus being yet another zombie game makes me roll my eyes. I found many of the characters unlikeable despite the game trying desperately to make me like them. Ellie in particular, I honestly would not have minded letting her get sacrificed for the cure in the end. Joel wasn't much better, I would have rather seen them both get their comeuppance considering they did some awful stuff too. Gameplay wasn't bad, but it didn't really click me, but I can see why people would enjoy the stealthy conserve ammo approach.

Super Mario 3D World. Now I liked the game, but honestly it wasn't one of the best games of 2013, especially when you compared it to other Nintendo games. I thought Link Between Worlds, Pokemon X and Y, Fire Emblem Awakening, and Pikmin 3 deserved more praise. Yet it was touted as one of the best games of the year, at least by critics when awards season rolled around.

 

[Vigormortis]

A game is never overrated, Frodo Baggins. Nor is it underrated. People rate them precisely how they mean to.

Exactly. The notion that anything can be "over/underrated" implies that the person making that judgement has themselves over or underrated the material; an inherently contradictory stance.

A piece's "rating" is entirely subjective and, in any meaningful sense, is entirely predicated on how each individual person assesses the piece. The general consensus of the piece is irrelevant to the individual's assessment.

So if you like a piece but the general consensus is that it's rubbish, who cares? You love it, so be content in that. Dislike a piece that everyone else loves? Good for you. Go enjoy what you do like and let everyone else enjoy what they like.

It's really that simple, people.

 

[Sinister Minister]

The only reason I even look at these threads is to see how many times Half-Life 1/2 get mentioned. Series is just a magnet for debate.

 

[Aeshi]

The Souls series. They're decent games make no mistake, but I feel they have neither the depth nor the complexity that people like attribute them as having.

Can't speak for Bloodborne because I've yet to play it.

 

[Nazulu]

A game is never overrated, Frodo Baggins. Nor is it underrated. People rate them precisely how they mean to.

Nor can they be crap or good. In fact, forget opinions, everything can be nothing and nothing can be everything, so sayeth the spider queen.

OT: Recently played Chrono Trigger, I was surprised in how average the dialogue is, and the story I couldn't call clever either since it's all been done before, especially executed better. CT just throws in all these events with no build up, or hardly, so I guess it's only interesting bit is mainly in the pretty pixel art and choices that effect the story. Unfortunately, it really didn't matter to me in the end when I already lost interest at the start, but I pushed on. Not much to say about the game play either. What a shame. I really wanted to like this one.

Resident Evil 4 I bought because of all the praise it's received, and I can see somewhat why. Not a bad game in the least, but it really became repetitive quick as your constantly killing enemy's very similar almost the entire way in the same way. I started to dread seeing the infected because I become so bloody sick of seeing them. Just wave after wave in many spots, and not even the mutant insects or later enemy's made it feel that much more diverse.

Then there are the QTE's that just pop anywhere. I could ignore them when there is a little, but in some parts of the game it just keeps coming non stop, like the only way they knew how to make a fight more intense is to just watching out for buttons.

And then there is the character interaction which I felt slowed down a lot at the end as it seems like there was nothing to say anymore. Well, they're right. He learned the nut jobs are just nut jobs doing nut job things, and it's annoying when kill your friends. I really didn't care in the end. Oh well.

Edit: Oh fuck me. I just realised this is an old thread