Nothing is Overated

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Maybe a few years ago I would've agreed. But there's stuff like Quantic Dream getting anywhere between 72 - 100 for their titles every time with people who don't seem to realise the guy writes like an easily distracted pubescent child who can't stop ripping off movies he likes to the point where the stories literally make no sense because he cannot stop jumping illogically between stuff wot he thinks is cool at the time cos it happened to be in a film he saw, without actually understanding why it was in the film or what it meant. And somehow believes that being an "auteur" (self-described, no less) means not listening to any criticism and popping off pretentious phrases he heard elsewhere that also make no sense when you apply them to his work or even to the pretentious thing he said no more than a goddamn minute ago about the same thing! Unlike someone such as Adam Sandler who knows their audience and appeals openly to the lowest common denominator, this is more like it's fooling people that it's somehow smart or deep and they're repeatedly falling for it because...? The graphics are pretty? It looks a bit like a movie sometimes? It's a trick, people...

Anyway, that's not even going into certain outlets that have been shown to actively raise the scores during editing after their writer's have already given one for their review, solely to "meet expectations." Am pretty sure that is an objective example of "overrated."

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Maybe a few years ago I would've agreed. But there's stuff like Quantic Dream getting anywhere between 72 - 100 for their titles every time with people who don't seem to realise the guy writes like an easily distracted pubescent child who can't stop ripping off movies he likes to the point where the stories literally make no sense because he cannot stop jumping illogically between stuff wot he thinks is cool at the time cos it happened to be in a film he saw, without actually understanding why it was in the film or what it meant. And somehow believes that being an "auteur" (self-described, no less) means not listening to any criticism and popping off pretentious phrases he heard elsewhere that also make no sense when you apply them to his work or even to the pretentious thing he said no more than a goddamn minute ago about the same thing! Unlike someone such as Adam Sandler who knows their audience and appeals openly to the lowest common denominator, this is more like it's fooling people that it's somehow smart or deep and they're repeatedly falling for it because...? The graphics are pretty? It looks a bit like a movie sometimes? It's a trick, people...

Anyway, that's not even going into certain outlets that have been shown to actively raise the scores during editing after their writer's have already given one for their review, solely to "meet expectations." Am pretty sure that is an objective example of "overrated."

I mostly admire David Cage because at the very least, he's making different kinds of games on the market right now because how often are their adventure games right now in the AAA sphere.

And I am a graphics whore.

 

[maninahat]

Maybe a few years ago I would've agreed. But there's stuff like Quantic Dream getting anywhere between 72 - 100 for their titles every time with people who don't seem to realise the guy writes like an easily distracted pubescent child who can't stop ripping off movies he likes to the point where the stories literally make no sense because he cannot stop jumping illogically between stuff wot he thinks is cool at the time cos it happened to be in a film he saw, without actually understanding why it was in the film or what it meant. And somehow believes that being an "auteur" (self-described, no less) means not listening to any criticism and popping off pretentious phrases he heard elsewhere that also make no sense when you apply them to his work or even to the pretentious thing he said no more than a goddamn minute ago about the same thing! Unlike someone such as Adam Sandler who knows their audience and appeals openly to the lowest common denominator, this is more like it's fooling people that it's somehow smart or deep and they're repeatedly falling for it because...? The graphics are pretty? It looks a bit like a movie sometimes? It's a trick, people...

Anyway, that's not even going into certain outlets that have been shown to actively raise the scores during editing after their writer's have already given one for their review, solely to "meet expectations." Am pretty sure that is an objective example of "overrated."

I mostly admire David Cage because at the very least, he's making different kinds of games on the market right now because how often are their adventure games right now in the AAA sphere.

And I am a graphics whore.

Absolutely. What Cage was offering may well be the very thing that wow critics enough to give the games high numbers. It's especially easy to be cynical about Cage's games in hindsight, but a game that (ostensibly) adapts to your choices, places a huge emphasis on story, and doesn't neatly fall into any pre-established game genre was the exact sort of thing that impressed people when they first encountered it, and totally unimpressive people once they come to know better. Only Jim Sterling and a few others found Heavy Rain to be dog shit as they played it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There is no objective measurement of quality. It's all subjective. Something cannot be overrated or underrated. It just IS. It has exactly as much success as it deserves. And since success isn't a measurement of quality anyway, the point is moot.

Disagree there, or rather, some things are judged on objective (or mostly objective) factors, which can lead to something being under- or over-rated.

Not movies and so on, unless perhaps if people were misinformed about how much money they brought in or something.

 

[sageoftruth]

If not for the role marketing plays in a game's early success, I'd agree.

I suppose the argument holds more weight when referring to games that have been out for a very long time, and haven't been marketed in ages.

Of course, if you're referring to critical success, rather than financial success, then I completely agree, give or take a few reviews with questionable motives.

 

[CaitSeith]

Exception: "overrated" is overrated. It implies that somebody else's positive opinion is objectively wrong, without revealing who is that somebody or what exact opinion they are holding. That's an invalid premise for an objective discussion.

 

[CaitSeith]

The value of meta-critic is overrated.

As in the website Metacritic?

http://www.metacritic.com/

OK, that's the second exception. Bringing down websites with DDoS attacks because they gave a review that lowered the game's metacritic score? That's someone giving way too much value to metacritic.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Except Jaws, which has a shark in it.

It does? Well shit, I actually kinda liked that movie. Bummer.

I do too... but what if there wasn't a shark in it?

 

[COMaestro]

But what if most of something's renown comes from something that most of the people never experienced, and it's fame is based off of hearsay? Sometimes works become so big that people will assume that they are good, sight unseen, and spread that assumption as if they know it to be true.

How many people believe that Moby Dick is an epic tale of revenge that has been held up through the ages by it's quality, rather than a dry textbook on whaling with some actiony revenge bits stitched on. Moby Dick is overrated because most people have not read Moby Dick and yet still believe it to be a classic, regardless. It's overrated on almost a subconscious level. If everyone who has heard of Moby Dick were to read it, without a doubt the public perception of it would be a lot lower.

I can somewhat agree with this. You will have people giving a low or high rating to games or movies that have not even been released yet, just because they want to like or hate it when it finally is released. They have had no chance to experience it themselves, but are only going by what they've seen or heard about it to automatically assume it's going to be great/terrible. In such instances, I'd say these things are over- or underrated.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Except Jaws, which has a shark in it.

It does? Well shit, I actually kinda liked that movie. Bummer.

I do too... but what if there wasn't a shark in it?

I think you like it...a little too much.

 

[Natemans]

Maybe a few years ago I would've agreed. But there's stuff like Quantic Dream getting anywhere between 72 - 100 for their titles every time with people who don't seem to realise the guy writes like an easily distracted pubescent child who can't stop ripping off movies he likes to the point where the stories literally make no sense because he cannot stop jumping illogically between stuff wot he thinks is cool at the time cos it happened to be in a film he saw, without actually understanding why it was in the film or what it meant. And somehow believes that being an "auteur" (self-described, no less) means not listening to any criticism and popping off pretentious phrases he heard elsewhere that also make no sense when you apply them to his work or even to the pretentious thing he said no more than a goddamn minute ago about the same thing! Unlike someone such as Adam Sandler who knows their audience and appeals openly to the lowest common denominator, this is more like it's fooling people that it's somehow smart or deep and they're repeatedly falling for it because...? The graphics are pretty? It looks a bit like a movie sometimes? It's a trick, people...

Anyway, that's not even going into certain outlets that have been shown to actively raise the scores during editing after their writer's have already given one for their review, solely to "meet expectations." Am pretty sure that is an objective example of "overrated."

I mostly admire David Cage because at the very least, he's making different kinds of games on the market right now because how often are their adventure games right now in the AAA sphere.

And I am a graphics whore.

Absolutely. What Cage was offering may well be the very thing that wow critics enough to give the games high numbers. It's especially easy to be cynical about Cage's games in hindsight, but a game that (ostensibly) adapts to your choices, places a huge emphasis on story, and doesn't neatly fall into any pre-established game genre was the exact sort of thing that impressed people when they first encountered it, and totally unimpressive people once they come to know better. Only Jim Sterling and a few others found Heavy Rain to be dog shit as they played it.

I've never liked David Cage's games. I'm sorry, but I found his writing really lackluster

 

[PhoenixKnight]

I believe something can be overrated in the eyes of one person, without necessarily being so in the eyes of others. There are plenty of things I cannot understand how they?ve gotten to be as popular as they are. Obviously the people who like those things will think they are rated fine but, from my point of view, they are overrated.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Moby Dick, like the Mona Lisa, was not well regard when first created. It was an event in history that elevated it into the limelight. Moby Dick connected with the soldiers in the trenches of WW1 as it seem to protray the sense of hopelessness they felt. The revenge part wasn't their fascination.

I can definitely identify with the sense of hopelessness. I was feeling pretty hopeless when he was going off on his tangent about white. "He's been rambling about the colour white for PAGES, it's never going to end, is it?"

 

[Vigormortis]

There is no objective measurement of quality.

Agree on all points but this one.

I believe there is an objective metric by which we can measure a piece of media's quality. That being said, a piece's quality is intrinsically mutually exclusive to any given individual's enjoyment of that piece. Or, to put it another way, some people love trash, others hate brilliant masterworks.

Enjoyment is subjective. Quality isn't.

And that's okay.

I firmly believe the world would be a better place if people were more willing to admit that some of the things they like are hot garbage, and some of things they don't like are actually masterpieces. We're allowed to like bad things, and dislike good things. That's the nature of subjectivity and personal perspectives. I've come to terms with the level of quality of the things I enjoy, and the broad spectrum they cover.[footnote]I'll fully admit to loving some truly awful games, movies, books, etc. And I'll do so unashamedly.[/footnote]

I also believe we'd be better off if people didn't put so much weight into how much others like or dislike the things they personally like or dislike. Think how many fewer arguments we'd have on the internet, and in real life, if people just worried about enjoying the things they like and letting others revel in their own tastes.

Things are overrated in a person's opinion. That's it, not more no less.

Also this.

A piece of media can't, by the very nature of popularity and market success, be 'overrated' in anything but someone's own personal, subjective view.

So, sure, someone can say, "I think this game/movie/whatever is overrated!", but that has about as much merit or relevance as someone else saying the thing's underrated, or terrible, or amazing, or any other variant. Which is to say, outside that person's own view, very little at all.

 

[McElroy]

You are overrated! I'll give you 5/7.

Games get inflated review scores because over half of the critics/journalists/whatever review them as TOYS FIRST! Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it breeds elitism.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Except Jaws, which has a shark in it.

It does? Well shit, I actually kinda liked that movie. Bummer.

I do too... but what if there wasn't a shark in it?

I think you like it...a little too much.

I'd like it more if it didn't have a shark.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I'd agree except the works of Jane Austen exist and I continue refusing to believe they're actually enjoyed and are instead considered worthwhile purely because they're old. Just go read a Bronte and thank me later

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'd agree except the works of Jane Austen exist and I continue refusing to believe they're actually enjoyed and are instead considered worthwhile purely because they're old. Just go read a Bronte and thank me later

With Austen I think it's less of a case of "it's old enough" and more to do with "nobody did it before that".
Having said that I know plenty of people who've enjoyed her.
So the lesson is always the same: nothing is overrated, nothing is underrated.

 

[Fox12]

Just so you know I was merely curious when making that movie thread because well I don't see Overrated movies being discussed as often as overrated games (and people target the most popular games that have been cherished childhood memories)

I sincerely wasn't calling you out. I've seen "overrated" threads pop up with some regularity, not just here, but on many sites. Nearly anything that has any level of real success gets described as "overrated" eventually.

I just don't think that's a fair criticism to level at something, and I see it leveled a lot. But if I hurt your feelings, I sincerely apologize. I just wanted to offer an opposing view to the "x is overrated" comments I keep seeing.

 

[Fox12]

If not for the role marketing plays in a game's early success, I'd agree.

I suppose the argument holds more weight when referring to games that have been out for a very long time, and haven't been marketed in ages.

Of course, if you're referring to critical success, rather than financial success, then I completely agree, give or take a few reviews with questionable motives.

But if a game receives large marketing, and a large number of people enjoy it, is it overrated? If a large number of people enjoyed it, then I don't think so. And I suppose it's possible for something like Star Wars Battlefront 2 to do well, despite being largely criticized, but it's still a critical failure. Which is what i'm focusing on. I don't think marketing matters that much toward whether something is "overrated."