Games your surprised are popular

[PleasantKenobi]

Most of the earlier Final Fantasy's are infinitely harder than Baldurs Gate/Fallout

I think you have misunderstood me. When I talk about 'Hardcore' gaming, or at least how it is percieved among those that describe themselves as such, I am not refering to difficulty level. It seems that alot of people who class themselves as a 'gamer' and not casual, have to name drop Final Fantasy in covnersation to me in an attempt to show that they are into 'real' games.

If we are going to judge game's merit completely on their difficulty, then this means Contra is better Viva Pinata. And despite all the subjectivity you could point out, I simply do not agree.

 

[ZiggyE]

Fallout 3 / NV. Sorry, just don't see the appeal of swamping through a giant brown desert for the entire game.

Portal. Honestly, I enjoyed the humour of it, but I don't see why people praise it for being so great. Maybe it's because Yahtzee said it was good and people are just following the trend. When I look at Portal I just see a generic puzzle game with a fair dollop of humour and portals.

CoD MW2 / BO. My reasons are pretty much the same as everyone elses in this thread, so take it from that.

 

[kiralon]

I'd have to agree about the sims. I play fps's because i dont own an m60 to blow chunks out of everything with, i play rts's because i dont own hordes of troops to smash my enemies with, i play racing sims because, well i cant afford a lambourghini diablo (to smash into other people at super high speeds), and i love playing ww2 plane sims because i dont own a spitfire to bomb ze crap out of ze germans. However, the one thing i do have is a life, so why play a virtual one that mimics crap i already do.

 

[Gemore]

WoW, though i suppose its a drug.

Every Cod since MW. They barely change.

Halo Reach. Absolutely love the game, but it really hasn't changed that much.

WoW Again

In fact, just about all the recent blizzard games. They are polished close to perfection sure, but they dont really do anything new.\

EDIT: Im suprised The Void isn't more popular. now that is innovation

 

[JonnoStrife]

Games can be great, and they can also be udder crap, but somehow you see the games you consider crap getting 10/10 ratings and millions in sales. What are games you think are bad that become popular?

My opinion: Halo 3. I played it quite a few times, and while i think its good, most people that I know who own it think its an almighty gift from the heavens, and then they consider any other game to be completely teribble, no matter how good it actually is.

Haha, I was gunna say halo to troll. But seriously, that game is pretty monotonous.

 

[Torrasque]

Sims series, games based off of movies, most sports games, DJ hero, games that are literally copy-paste of an existing game that is good, and meaningless grind games (farmville, any pet simulator thingy, etc.)

Also, Black Ops.
I call it 'Black Oops' because I have difficulty enjoying the game.
MW2 was enjoyable enough for me, and the campaign was actually playable.

But lets try and avoid ANOTHER thread about BO...

 

[Torrasque]

World of Warcraft.

True that. How people can pay 15 dollars a month for a game in an extended recession/depression is beyond me.

Because its *gasp* Fun?! Seriously...some things are popular because its doing something right. I have no qualm with either of you, although, people do need to think these things through. If every WoW player really thought the game was bad enough to stop playing, they would stop; and 12 million people (give or take, there are people who have more than one acount for some odd reason) cant all be wrong...unless its nazi germany...and those people are nazi's...

Sure, but to have such a dedicated following to a game that sucks so much money out of people's pockets with expansions, pay-to-play, and real world trading, all for a game that is cool but not mind-fucking-amazing is ridiculous to me.

Thats pretty much what I used to say before I played WoW.
But if you have a job that pays more than $2/hour, paying for months of WoW isn't that big of a deal.
My phone bill is more expensive.
Hell, buying lunch from Subway is just about on par with paying for a month of WoW.

The thing with WoW, is there is pretty much a niche for everyone.
You cannot say you hate/dislike WoW, until you really try it, because you can't appreciate the scope of the game unless you try it.

lol, Half Life bad?
Is someone going to say Portal is mediocre sometime soon?

 

[Pyroguekenesis]

Far Cry 2, I really wonder how the heck it even got a platinum rating on the PS3. If they rated it on graphics sure, heck it was actually beautiful....but....I can't even snipe with a tranquilizer rifle without everyone literally running behind a house, rock or tree when I snipe a friend who wasn't even looking in their direction...

 

[Vrex360]

*resists urge to lash out at the people ragging on Halo*

Okay... I honestly, find it surprising that Sport games are popular. You know, Madden, Pro Golf or whatever, it just seems weird that there are virtual simulations of games you can literally just go out and play in the real world.
I would have thought that the main reason one goes to video games in the first place is because they don't like to play those sports. Instead they go ahead and pay to live through the endless repetitive nature of the sport in question but without any of the actual fitness benefits.

It's kind of baffling really.

 

[CleverNickname]

People keep calling some games "generic". I don't think it means what they think it means, considering which games they're talking about.


I'm never surprised a shitty game is popular. Lots of pure crap is popular, and I don't just say it because "I are an rebel hurr durr". I'm not a teenager anymore, I have no cool-points to earn by deriding CoD and its ilk. Sometimes things are crap because it's cool to say they're crap - sometimes things are crap because they're crap.

 

[PleasantKenobi]

t just seems weird that there are virtual simulations of games you can literally just go out and play in the real world.

I understand some of the hate towards sports games, but ultimately an argument such as yours is invalid. You over simplify sports games when discussing them in the way you do. Take for example Fifa. I am not a massive fan of playing football, but I do enjoy watching it and playing Fifa. Why is this? Well, for a start, at the most basic of levels, I can't go out onto a field and magically turn myself into eleven players. On top of this, real world Football does not have a manager mode, the lack of physical exertion Fifa does or the absolutely awesome Ultimate Team.

To state my argument simply, real world Football and EA's Fifa title share very little in common as far as how you actually play them. You are playing a video game representation of the sport, not a simulation of it which is in short: the key difference. I press 'Y' with a certain amount of timing to pass a 'throughball' from my Centre Mid to my Striker. In real life, that simply wouldn't work like that. It is completely and utterly different gameplay mechanics and execution at work.

Anyone using the 'I play this because I want to do it in real life' argument is either severely lacking thought in their line of thinking, or need help. I do not want to end someone?s life by shooting them, but I find this perfectly acceptable in movies, in singleplayer campaigns of video games and especially in competitive multiplayer that is nearing on completely removed from the actual act of shooting a real human being, physically and moraley.

 

[cricketlenny]

t just seems weird that there are virtual simulations of games you can literally just go out and play in the real world.

I understand some of the hate towards sports games, but ultimately an argument such as yours is invalid. You over simplify sports games when discussing them in the way you do. Take for example Fifa. I am not a massive fan of playing football, but I do enjoy watching it and playing Fifa. Why is this? Well, for a start, at the most basic of levels, I can't go out onto a field and magically turn myself into eleven players. On top of this, real world Football does not have a manager mode, the lack of physical exertion Fifa does or the absolutely awesome Ultimate Team.

To state my argument simply, real world Football and EA's Fifa title share very little in common as far as how you actually play them. You are playing a video game representation of the sport, not a simulation of it which is in short: the key difference. I press 'Y' with a certain amount of timing to pass a 'throughball' from my Centre Mid to my Striker. In real life, that simply wouldn't work like that. It is completely and utterly different gameplay mechanics and execution at work.

Anyone using the 'I play this because I want to do it in real life' argument is either severely lacking thought in their line of thinking, or need help. I do not want to end someone?s life by shooting them, but I find this perfectly acceptable in movies, in singleplayer campaigns of video games and especially in competitive multiplayer that is nearing on completely removed from the actual act of shooting a real human being, physically and moraley.

I agree with the simulation thing you said. My freinds had this problem with the Playstation Move. Since he sucks at ping pong, he didnt do well in that game because its too realistic. Same thing with golf. he cant golf at all, so he stinks at that game. Realisticness is games is what some people say they want, but if its too real, then whats the point?