Hating a game because it's popular vs hating because it's actually bad?

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I actually had no problem with the Prime series, because it wasn't following a trend. They were just exploring new ideas and changing up the formula, which I'm not against.
Now if the next Metroid Prime was called Metroid Prime: Melee, and was a FPS class based multiplayer arena shooter, with a wide variety of cartoony, wacky and marketable stereotype characters including the sexy waifus, blue haired girls, gamer girls, a fat dude, one or more gay and/or transgender characters, macho badasses, a robot or two, Freddy Fazbear, Tyrion Lanister, zombies, the little Twitch ghost icon, and fucking Ugandan Knuckles, yeah I might agree with your friend and not play that one.

I actually kinda like this idea.

Before you banish me to the moon, hear me out. I wouldn't want Metroid Prime 4 to be this (then again, I'd like Metroid Prime 4 to be different from previous entries, period), or this to be the be all and end all of Metroid, but I could see this working. Have a Metroid arena shooter game where weapon pickups are the equivalent of 'modes' for beam weapons (machine gun equivalent, rocket equivalent, sniper equivalent, etc.), where the character roster isn't what you described, but Samus and other bounty hunters (get the cast from Hunters, add some more, perhaps even dredge up some EU ones). Hunters kind of dabbled with this idea (poorly, IMO), but in theory, I could see this working as a decent Metroid spinoff.

If I had to pick a trending game genre for the next Metroid to copy, I'd go with survival horror, circa the first Dead Space. I think there is untapped gore, fear and desperation in the Metroids invading a facility and viciously murdering the staff or converting them to alien zombies, especially given the whole bio-weapons government program stuff.

Also:

 

[Cold Shiny]

What about hating a game because its popular AND bad?

 

[Hawki]

What about hating a game because its popular AND bad?

Why hate a game (or anything) just because it's popular?

I mean, I get why, I'm guilty of that myself to some extent, but speaking objectively, there's no reason to dislike something just because it's popular.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

What about hating a game because its popular AND bad?

Why hate a game (or anything) just because it's popular?

I mean, I get why, I'm guilty of that myself to some extent, but speaking objectively, there's no reason to dislike something just because it's popular.

Honestly I have no hatred for something that's popular. If its a popular game, there's a 50% I'm playing it. WOW, COD4, Arkham Asylum, Shadow of Mordor, Dawn of War series, Amnesia, Halo, fuck me in FNAF. I've played and enjoyed them all.

The only thing about popular games that are ever worth criticizing are the fans, who can be obnoxious and/or condescending(Looking at you, SoulsBorne git-gud fans) and devs who radically change previously established series to attempt to follow trends.
Jim Sterling for all his faults said it best, there are trend setters and trend followers, and the setters will always be more popular than the followers. That's what makes them different. People already had WOW, they didn't want another MMORPG.

 

[Hawki]

Jim Sterling for all his faults said it best, there are trend setters and trend followers, and the setters will always be more popular than the followers. That's what makes them different. People already had WOW, they didn't want another MMORPG.

Okay, I agree with this in principle, but I'd point out the following caveats:

-WoW is an example of both a trend setter and trend follower. It's true that multiple MMOs tried to chase the WoW gravy train (and mostly failed), but WoW was built off EverQuest in terms of its ideas. WoW itself is also an example of a series changing genre in the process (RTS to MMO).

-Trends can be followed, but a genre can be developed in the process. The era of "Doom clones" is such an example. That hasn't changed (it was hero shooters not too long ago, now it's arguably battle royale stuff), but we can still get positive stuff from it. To use another Blizzard game, do you think HotS would exist if it didn't build off what games like LoL and DotA established? The MOBA craze came and went, but even if other companies tried to cash in on its popularity, we did get standouts in the process (HotS, Smite, etc.)

If I had to pick a trending game genre for the next Metroid to copy, I'd go with survival horror, circa the first Dead Space. I think there is untapped gore, fear and desperation in the Metroids invading a facility and viciously murdering the staff or converting them to alien zombies, especially given the whole bio-weapons government program stuff.

That's trending? Maybe first person horror, but the Dead Space style doesn't seem to have many copycats.

Even then, how would it work? The metroids suck the life out of you, they don't convert you into alien zombies or whatnot (maybe you're thinking of the X?) Also, the aesthetics of Metroid aren't really suited for horror. Course you could just tone down the aesthetic, but then we're getting even further away from the core series.

Also:

NOOOO!

I'LL BE BACK! BE IT A THOUSAND YEARS I'LL BE BACKKKK!

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The too 40 is called that for a reason. That it doesn't match my personal aesthetic isn't cause enough for criticism.

That said, I'm more than willing to talk about the reasons I don't like the top 40.

But just being there isn't enough.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't think people actually hate most games that they claim "suck" but they just find them to be bad games. When every game is getting scores of 80+ by critics (it's actually an accomplishment to release a AAA game that scores below an 80 nowadays), saying a game is average (5/10) or even below average seems like you're some massive contrarian when your're really not. Not liking a movie that got a 90+% on the Tomatometer isn't a big deal because opinions vary wildly with movies and there's most likely several movie critics that shared your general sentiments. There's more negative reviews for Ghostbusters than there is for Final Fantasy XIII for example (with FFXIII having more total reviews to boot). I found Witcher 3 to be a below average game because none of the gameplay was actually good to me. I didn't HATE the game, but scoring it a 4/10 seems like I'm taking a shit on it. The only games I think I truly hate that I've played are Max Payne 3 and Danganronpa.

For example, while Modern Warfare series was hated by everyone I know, almost all of them said"Because it's the same shit every year" and did not provide with a good reason for them to hate the series.

Mass Effect Andromeda, on the other hand, I completely agree with negative criticisms. The player character looks god awful, characters are boring, exploration feels empty(although the worlds themselves are pretty to look at), and the fact that they pretty much started from square one annoyed me. And they STILL didn't let the players play as the other race (multiplayer doesn't count). Why not? If this was an attempt to grab new fans to the series, don't you think playing as other races would be a good way to explore their culture, politics, and way of life?

I hated how COD4 influenced basically every single shooter. The MMS era of shooters were so bad and so same-y at the same time. I enjoyed COD4 campaign and multiplayer for what they were but they weren't nearly that great even then. The campaign was paced so well that you could forgive the very extreme linearity of it all. The multiplayer also dropped at the perfect time as online just started to explode as online wasn't nearly as prevalent/important the previous gen. COD4 influenced unlocking of weapons and stuff that online games don't need and the killstreak mechanic doesn't encourage good playstyles and even makes the game less dynamic and more formulaic. Then, everyone else copied that shit ad nauseam; shooters greatly lost skilled movement/mobility.

Andromeda's story premise never made any sense, which was the main reason I didn't give 2 shits about it before any of negative stuff came out. Just fleeing to another galaxy to avoid the reapers makes no sense. So, the reapers only care about stopping synthetics from killing organics in one single galaxy in the whole universe not even thinking that if you let every other galaxy basically "run free" that there will be synthetics that advance enough to overtake the Milky Way and the reapers themselves at some point. Either that or the reapers would just come by your new andromeda galaxy so you'll have to face them anyway. Not to mention, the Mass Effects were basically the rare breed of RPG that gave you all the good stuff without any of the bad stuff but doing the open world/planets thing like every other game and probably having hundreds of lame quests instead of the much fewer and more impactful quests of previous MEs.

 

[Hawki]

Just fleeing to another galaxy to avoid the reapers makes no sense.

The Andromeda Initiative was founded well before the Reapers became known. It becomes part of the project's impetus, but it's not its catalyst.

So, the reapers only care about stopping synthetics from killing organics in one single galaxy in the whole universe not even thinking that if you let every other galaxy basically "run free" that there will be synthetics that advance enough to overtake the Milky Way and the reapers themselves at some point.

That's in keeping with their programming, since they were reacting to a perceived situation within the Milky Way. There's no evidence of their 'mandate' expanding to other galaxies.

Either that or the reapers would just come by your new andromeda galaxy so you'll have to face them anyway.

And how practical is that?

Space is big, okay? Really, really, REALLY big. So big that even in a setting with FTL travel, it took the Arkships 600 years to reach Andromeda (ergo, travelling at 4228 light years per year, and still taking six centuries to reach their destination). We know the Reapers like outside the Milky Way galaxy, but it's never stated how far outside the galaxy that is, and it takes them three years to reach the Milky Way even with their advanced FTL tech.

Whatever problems Andromeda may have had (can't say, haven't played it), I don't have an issue with its premise.

 

[sXeth]

I don't think people actually hate most games that they claim "suck" but they just find them to be bad games. When every game is getting scores of 80+ by critics (it's actually an accomplishment to release a AAA game that scores below an 80 nowadays), saying a game is average (5/10) or even below average seems like you're some massive contrarian when your're really not. Not liking a movie that got a 90+% on the Tomatometer isn't a big deal because opinions vary wildly with movies and there's most likely several movie critics that shared your general sentiments. There's more negative reviews for Ghostbusters than there is for Final Fantasy XIII for example (with FFXIII having more total reviews to boot). I found Witcher 3 to be a below average game because none of the gameplay was actually good to me. I didn't HATE the game, but scoring it a 4/10 seems like I'm taking a shit on it. The only games I think I truly hate that I've played are Max Payne 3 and Danganronpa.

More or less this. Hate is a strong term, and more often used defensively by the fandoms of said popular games then the actual people who have critical opinions of the games.

Hate is like, what I'd reserve for something like Ultima 9, a buggy (and at launch literally unplayable, and that was when you had to register the game via mail to get a patch sent to you on a floppy disk) unfinished mess, that even in the individual components they tried to jam together into something coherent contradicted or regularly got its own series history wrong.

Even the dumpster fire of asset flip junk on Steam doesn't really merit hate. Stuffs there, and its a nuisance to trying to find actual games, but there's no emotional value to it, just a general acknowledgement that its there and probably shouldn't be.

There's the bologna sandwich sort of AAA mainline games. Your CODs and Assassin Creeds and most of the rest. A simple easily executed product that serves its purpose, but will never be gourmet, and has no aspirations to do so. They don't anything so ambitious as to get it wrong in such a fashion to inspire actual heavy problems.

There are popular games that have merited criticisms where their game design doesn't seem to match their other scopes. Which seems like you're tackling this thing that folks love, but really you're just approaching it from a different priority set. The scope or presentation of GTA 5's sandbox compared to its 10 years out of date third person shooter gameplay. An obvious commitment to writing and polish in Witcher 3, but a fairly barebones generic ARPG combat system, and "Witcher sense" being a weird addition, since they clearly can design environments and shouldn't need the glowy highlight nonsense.

Then there's the popular games where there can be vastly different perspectives based on the platform or even timeframe you played it on. PS3 Skyrim was unplayable with a memory leak error for months. Xcom 2 launched with a ton of issues for many people (while others apparently could run it fine). Any of the barrage of ports that took a lot of patching to iron out, from Dark Souls to Arkham Knight would have drastically different impressions by those who dealt with the original experience to those who came to the repaired version later. Or the ever popular early access model, where huge changes happen to games, to the extent people haven't even played the same game. You could take Fortnite right now, and people who play the PvE wonder why the BR is horrifically stripped down bones of the game, missing classes at all, and tons of guns, traps, and gadgets.

 

[RobertEHouse]

To be honest i cannot stand any of the modern Final Fantasy games at all. Personally i think the whole series has become a little too over hyped with little substance. The games are ad-washed with characters that remind me of people that just had too much plastic surgery.Watching these artificial characters look more in line as a j-pop or K-pop bands trying to act tough. Never allowed me to actually take any of the games stories or characters seriously enough to enjoy the game. Sure one version might be better then the next, yet again i am still looking at a strange art style which is taking me out of the world.

 

[Souplex]

Many bad games simply fly under my radar. A game needs to be both popular and bad to warrant my hatred.

For example, while Half Life 2 wasn't that bad (a mere D+/65/100 which is still a passing playable game) I despise it because it represented everything wrong with gaming at the time.

 

[Xprimentyl]

One game I am curious why people hate so much is Halo 2. I [was*] a fan of the franchise pretty much since the beginning, and at the time (and imho,) Halo 2 improved on Halo: CE in every way not to mention helped pave the way for the popularity of multiplayer gaming as we know it today. I didn?t mind the cliffhanger ending; if anything it served to wet my palette for Halo 3. Cliffhangers have a been an effective (if frustrating) literary tool forever; I don?t know why Halo 2 is regarded as some gross offender for using one. Another complaint leveled at it is the levels with the Arbiter. I didn?t mind the playing as the Arbiter at all and it was actually nice to see the war from the perspective of the enemy as [he] comes to realize the truth.

On those notes:

-Speaking personally, I did prefer H1's multiplayer. H2 is argubaly better "objectively," ranging from vehicle damage, to dual wielding, to the pistol being appropriately nerfed, but H1's multiplayer had a charm to it that H2 didn't have for me.

-I don't mind the Halo 2 cliffhanger, but I can imagine why people are put off by it. Doesn't help that Halo 2 promised that the battle be on Earth, except we leave Earth early on in the game. So now that we're back at Earth, the game just...stops. Just like that. Think of film trilogies, such as Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. While Fellowship/New Hope, Empire/Two Towers do end with "to be continued" feelings, they do their endings gracefully. Halo 2's ending is very jarring in terms of its pacing. So when that's the last thing you're left with, it can colour perception of the product.

-Of the original trilogy's singleplayer, I'd say that Halo 2 has the best story, but the weakest gameplay, and the Arbiter is the reason for both. Storywise, it's good, as he undergoes a character arc, and we get some insight into the Covenant. Gameplay-wise, apart from the Great Schism levels, I find it tedious. The levels aren't as well designed, they're pondrous, and they just don't engage me as much. Speaking personally, on the gameplay side of things in H2, I can only enjoy about half of it. Halo 3 had some dud levels as well, but they were the exception rather than the rule.

I loved everything about Halo 2, so imagine my surprise when I see a lot of people listing it as the worst of the franchise especially when the atrocity* that is Halo 5 happened. FUCK Halo 5.

Halo 5 is to me what Halo 2 is to you - a game I'm baffled about why people dislike it so much. Especially after the "attrocity" that was Halo 4.

Granted, none of these games are as lacklustre as ODST, but that's at least a spinoff.

Believe you me, when 343 took over the franchise, I was pretty hesitant, but they showed me with Halo 4 and the Master Chief Collection that they had the due respect for and understanding of the legacy of the franchise and could do it justice; my leeriness was assuaged. But with Halo 5, they betrayed that confidence.

Most else could be forgiven had they not literally back-seated the Master Chief for the majority of the game; that?s honestly 90% of my ire with Halo 5. Halo 4 humanized both the Chief and Cortana in a way the previous games hadn?t, so I was looking forward to seeing that develop. But nope, Halo 5 drops us in the seat of some new schmuck, a glorified cop, to track down the HERO we?ve been playing for over a decade who?s apparently gone? rogue? Excuse us? As if we don?t fucking know better?! For all intents and purposes, Halo 5?s story is little more than an indictment of everything we?ve done throughout the course of the franchise, so 343 wanted us to prosecute ourselves? We?re just expected to warm up to some new, clueless fuck-wit asshole in the lead for the majority of the 6th major installment of a flagship, console-selling franchise like it?s the next natural progression of the story we?ve lived since day 1? Thoughtless at least; unforgiveable, to be sure.

This gripe is admittedly a fanboy-ish one; I could have done without the focus on squad-based game play. I?m sorry, the Master Chief fell from fucking SPACE, hit the goddamn ground, dusted off his britches and was back to killing Brutes within minutes; how do they rationalize that now, he?s essentially a turtle on its back when he takes too much damage? He never needed another Spartan to kiss his boo-boos and give him a pep talk to rejoin the fight every time his shields went down; believe me; I was THERE. If they wanted to give ?Spartan? Locke help, fine, but the Chief doesn?t need brain damaged AI to babysit while he goes about the general badass-ery of which he?s a tried- and-true veteran.

After those gross missteps, they shoved their heads even further up their asses, took the beloved multiplayer and laced it with pathetic, sleazy, money-grubbing microtransactions hiding character customization behind a paywall and random chance. In my mind, this was akin to 343 turning a supermodel into a prostitute replete with the sunken eyes and track marks indicative of heavy drug use.

Agreed, ODST was lackluster, but it didn?t purport (much less try) to be ?Halo 4?; it took its place as a tangential diversion within the larger Halo universe which is what Halo 5 deserves at BEST if it deserves anything at ALL. Halo 5 was pretty much everything I hate about modern gaming. Without sounding entitled (contrarians can sheath your quills now,) I was highly disappointed to see 343 change gears so drastically and crassly over the course of only two games. They took a franchise of legend, which by name alone is guaranteed to sell like fucking hotcakes, and cheapened it in nearly every way possible, then had the balls to tack on sleazy microtransaction bullshit-ery.

 

[CaitSeith]

I don't hate games for being popular, even games I personally don't enjoy. I hate devs and gamers who demand every game be exactly like that popular game.
I hate that because the Devs wanted to get in on the E-sports scene, Dawn of War III was turned into a 40k DOTA skin.
I hate that because Markiplier is a meme-God, Resident Evil 7 was turned into an Outlast clone so he can make memes.
I hate that because PUBG is popular with streamers, Red Dead Redemption is getting a battle royal mode.

But I don't hate those games, I hate what was done to them.

You remind me of my friend, who hates that Metroid Prime was turned into a FPS. I don't know about you and those games, but in my friend's case he never played Metroid Prime because of that; and I feel sad that he missed such great series.

I actually had no problem with the Prime series, because it wasn't following a trend. They were just exploring new ideas and changing up the formula, which I'm not against.
Now if the next Metroid Prime was called Metroid Prime: Melee, and was a FPS class based multiplayer arena shooter, with a wide variety of cartoony, wacky and marketable stereotype characters including the sexy waifus, blue haired girls, gamer girls, a fat dude, one or more gay and/or transgender characters, macho badasses, a robot or two, Freddy Fazbear, Tyrion Lanister, zombies, the little Twitch ghost icon, and fucking Ugandan Knuckles, yeah I might agree with your friend and not play that one.

My friend considered that as Metroid Prime pursuing the FPS trend.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I hated how COD4 influenced basically every single shooter. The MMS era of shooters were so bad and so same-y at the same time. I enjoyed COD4 campaign and multiplayer for what they were but they weren't nearly that great even then. The campaign was paced so well that you could forgive the very extreme linearity of it all. The multiplayer also dropped at the perfect time as online just started to explode as online wasn't nearly as prevalent/important the previous gen. COD4 influenced unlocking of weapons and stuff that online games don't need and the killstreak mechanic doesn't encourage good playstyles and even makes the game less dynamic and more formulaic. Then, everyone else copied that shit ad nauseam; shooters greatly lost skilled movement/mobility..

The Success of COD4 lead to destruction of FPS genre. it was released at the time when far superior FPS like Stalker and Crysis were releaed but COD4 was what praised most.

a 4 hour scripted and linear game praised over ambitious, deep, innovative game like STALKER. in a same year.

Im glad the popularity of MMS has died thanks to MOH warfighter. now developers are making FPS rather than copying MMS.

 

[Mothro]

I don't hate games for being popular, even games I personally don't enjoy. I hate devs and gamers who demand every game be exactly like that popular game.
I hate that because the Devs wanted to get in on the E-sports scene, Dawn of War III was turned into a 40k DOTA skin.
I hate that because Markiplier is a meme-God, Resident Evil 7 was turned into an Outlast clone so he can make memes.
I hate that because PUBG is popular with streamers, Red Dead Redemption is getting a battle royal mode.

But I don't hate those games, I hate what was done to them.

You remind me of my friend, who hates that Metroid Prime was turned into a FPS. I don't know about you and those games, but in my friend's case he never played Metroid Prime because of that; and I feel sad that he missed such great series.

I actually had no problem with the Prime series, because it wasn't following a trend. They were just exploring new ideas and changing up the formula, which I'm not against.
Now if the next Metroid Prime was called Metroid Prime: Melee, and was a FPS class based multiplayer arena shooter, with a wide variety of cartoony, wacky and marketable stereotype characters including the sexy waifus, blue haired girls, gamer girls, a fat dude, one or more gay and/or transgender characters, macho badasses, a robot or two, Freddy Fazbear, Tyrion Lanister, zombies, the little Twitch ghost icon, and fucking Ugandan Knuckles, yeah I might agree with your friend and not play that one.

My friend considered that as Metroid Prime pursuing the FPS trend.

So do I. It came out a year after Halo which I think really started the trend on consoles.

 

[GentlemanJ]

You know, I always felt the number of people who would have liked something but decided to hate it because either it was popular, or it was cool to hate on, is roughly 1% of the population max.
Mainstream popular stuff has its own set of qualities that just don't appeal to some people.
And maybe some popular stuff does get more hate, but that's just because people know about it vs some random shovel ware.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I hate that because Markiplier is a meme-God, Resident Evil 7 was turned into an Outlast clone so he can make memes.
I hate that because PUBG is popular with streamers, Red Dead Redemption is getting a battle royal mode.

I know I've asked you this before but you chose to ignore me so I'll ask again, how is RE7 anything like Outlast?

Also, Battle Royale for RDR2 isn't confirmed, it's just a rumor.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I hate that because Markiplier is a meme-God, Resident Evil 7 was turned into an Outlast clone so he can make memes.
I hate that because PUBG is popular with streamers, Red Dead Redemption is getting a battle royal mode.

I know I've asked you this before but you chose to ignore me so I'll ask again, how is RE7 anything like Outlast?

Also, Battle Royale for RDR2 isn't confirmed, it's just a rumor.

I have explained it to you, multiple times. You just keep going 'Doesn't count! Try again!' I'm resigned to the fact you'll never see it.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I hate that because Markiplier is a meme-God, Resident Evil 7 was turned into an Outlast clone so he can make memes.
I hate that because PUBG is popular with streamers, Red Dead Redemption is getting a battle royal mode.

I know I've asked you this before but you chose to ignore me so I'll ask again, how is RE7 anything like Outlast?

Also, Battle Royale for RDR2 isn't confirmed, it's just a rumor.

I have explained it to you, multiple times. You just keep going 'Doesn't count! Try again!' I'm resigned to the fact you'll never see it.

No you haven't, I've asked you ONCE and you never answered, you must be thinking of someone else. Explain it to me.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The Andromeda Initiative was founded well before the Reapers became known. It becomes part of the project's impetus, but it's not its catalyst.

That's in keeping with their programming, since they were reacting to a perceived situation within the Milky Way. There's no evidence of their 'mandate' expanding to other galaxies.

And how practical is that?

Space is big, okay? Really, really, REALLY big. So big that even in a setting with FTL travel, it took the Arkships 600 years to reach Andromeda (ergo, travelling at 4228 light years per year, and still taking six centuries to reach their destination). We know the Reapers like outside the Milky Way galaxy, but it's never stated how far outside the galaxy that is, and it takes them three years to reach the Milky Way even with their advanced FTL tech.

Whatever problems Andromeda may have had (can't say, haven't played it), I don't have an issue with its premise.

I haven't played the game either as I didn't like the story premise nor the change in the game structure. The Initiative's real catalyst doesn't make that much sense either, how are they running low on resources in an entire galaxy?

The Reaper AI has to be smart enough to put 2-and-2 together that synthetics will overtake organics eventually if they only deal with the problem in 1 galaxy. And the fact that a supreme synthetic hasn't come to cleanse the Milky Way then proves the Reaper logic wrong if all the other galaxies are left alone. Or why is the Andromeda galaxy not super advanced beyond the Milky Way if their races aren't being destroyed every few millennia?

Yeah, I fully realize space is so massive is mind-boggling, I love watching documentary-type shows about space, black holes, etc. The reapers are doing nothing for thousands of years, it isn't that out of reach for them to be taking care of the other galaxies at least in a fictional story where you can hand-wave lots of stuff. I'm sure in reality going to every galaxy over the thousands of years the reapers aren't doing anything is probably like a billion times less logical from a logistics standpoint than 1 man (Santa Claus) going to every home delivering presents on Christmas. Even playing through the original ME trilogy, the only way the whole storyline works with any logical bearing is if the reapers are in fact doing that for every galaxy. And Andromeda sorta ruins that aspect of the story if escaping to another galaxy is the solution. And the fact that the reapers even let the galaxy get that advanced to be able to jump galaxies is pretty much dropping the ball for such an advanced AI; it's basically "you had ONE job!!!"

There are popular games that have merited criticisms where their game design doesn't seem to match their other scopes. Which seems like you're tackling this thing that folks love, but really you're just approaching it from a different priority set. The scope or presentation of GTA 5's sandbox compared to its 10 years out of date third person shooter gameplay. An obvious commitment to writing and polish in Witcher 3, but a fairly barebones generic ARPG combat system, and "Witcher sense" being a weird addition, since they clearly can design environments and shouldn't need the glowy highlight nonsense.

My point with regards to game critics is that why does no critic out of the near 100 reviews for every game point out such and such merited criticisms? How does a game (or any work of art) ever get an average review score of 95+? Since when does a 50+ group of humans ever agree that something is not only just good but you get basically a consensus that a game is a masterpiece. It just makes no sense and that's why I find professional reviews completely useless, reviews are nothing more than ads. Whereas a Youtuber like Errant Signal or Super Bunnyhop will be so much more in line with my feelings of a game than if I read every single professional review.

Im glad the popularity of MMS has died thanks to MOH warfighter. now developers are making FPS rather than copying MMS.

Actually MOH Warfighter had the best multiplayer of any MMS last-gen. The guns were balanced nearly perfectly and the game leaned at bit towards being high health because it took 5-6 bullets to kill vs like 3 bullets for COD so you needed legit aiming skill to get your kills. Plus, the game featured both a great leaning and slide mechanic making movement as important as one could get for a MMS; when COD added a slide mechanic, I don't think you could actually shoot while sliding like Warfighter. But, that campaign was so very very much complete shit.