"Over-rating", what's with it?

[TheNaut131]

What I really think: "This game is really good, I thoroughly enjoyed playing it. You should play it too."



<on shift today: Salesman Neurons>



<approved, sending to voicebox>

"Seriously, best thing I've ever played. You HAVE to play this, it will change how you look at games."

We all want people to like what we like, and we're more likely to get that if we convince them to play a game with high expectations. If you sell it hard enough, the other guy will justify inadequacies of the game to themselves, up to a point.

Once you've crossed that point, then you get the "overrated" backlash.

Pretty much this.

I understand how a lot of people can be irritated or believe they've been mislead when someone exaggerates their feelings and the quality of certain games. But c'mon, if you came to me and asking if you should buy a certain game, "Well, it's an alright game, pretty good mechanics, a few issues here and there, but nothing too jarring" You probably wouldn't be too eager to go out and buy it.

I myself don't care if you buy and immediately fall in love with or hate a game I like, but for some reason plenty of other people do. So, they try to hype it up a bit even or merely exaggerate their feelings for the game, if they don't necessarily mean to.

And then the backlash kicks in and nobodies leaves feeling satisfied.

 

[Lazy]

Alternatively, they might mean "X deserves less credit than it's given to it" but I have yet to see anybody use it properly

I'd never thought of that definition before. Perhaps the term does have some legitimacy after all.

Many games couldn't live up to the hype if they were crafted by the hands of our sweet Lord and saviour Ronald Reagan.

That's overrated.

Pokeymanns on the other hand, is objectively bad, yet very popular. It's rating is better than its quality.

Could you explain how it's objectively bad, then?

Mechanically, it's quite dull. It's taking a turn based RPG and distilling it down to it's barest, essence. Have higher stats or have a type advantage. No strategy whatsoever.
It's also a terribly grind-y game, and grinding is never good.
The story was never particularly good, but you can have a good game without a good story. (See: most anything made by Nintendo)

You have your reasons for not liking a series, but that doesn't make them objectively bad games. Others could no doubt provide counter-points, or may even enjoy it for the very reasons that you don't, and they wouldn't be any more right or wrong.

I've never gotten into the series myself, so I can't comment on their quality, subjectively or otherwise.

 

[DoPo]

Alternatively, they might mean "X deserves less credit than it's given to it" but I have yet to see anybody use it properly

I'd never thought of that definition before. Perhaps the term does have some legitimacy after all.

Well, it does. But it's been washed with so much non legitimate uses of "Hurr, peoplez will now likes my opinionz cuz I iz used a big word" that it doesn't really matter. If anybody uses it now, I don't know if they mean if a game received a bigger rating (say, a official review gave it an 10, when it should, have been an 8), if a game received a legit rating but the person doesn't like it (it deserves an 8, gets an 8, person argues it's worth a 4 at most because the game gave them cancer). If it has nothing to do with rating but with other peoples opinions (some people like it. They should stop liking it.) or what. Actually, I think I've seen "overrated" being used the most in a different context - people sniping imaginary opinions. "Well, lots of people consider X to be Y but I think it's overrated because Z" they would say, where Z is just their opinion and Y has little to do with it, if it even exists.

 

[Lazy]

If anybody uses it now, I don't know if they mean if a game received a bigger rating (say, a official review gave it an 10, when it should, have been an 8), if a game received a legit rating but the person doesn't like it (it deserves an 8, gets an 8, person argues it's worth a 4 at most because the game gave them cancer).

See, that's exactly the problem. Where do you draw that line of what is a good or bad rating? Based on what you thought it deserved? Again, it's all subjective. If, as you mentioned earlier, someone uses the term to describe something getting more credit than it's due, such as believing a game innovated in a certain area when in fact it borrowed concepts from an older and/or less well known title, I think that is legitimate usage. Otherwise though, we're just blasting people for enjoying something more than we do.

 

[DoPo]

If anybody uses it now, I don't know if they mean if a game received a bigger rating (say, a official review gave it an 10, when it should, have been an 8), if a game received a legit rating but the person doesn't like it (it deserves an 8, gets an 8, person argues it's worth a 4 at most because the game gave them cancer).

See, that's exactly the problem. Where do you draw that line of what is a good or bad rating? Based on what you thought it deserved? Again, it's all subjective. If, as you mentioned earlier, someone uses the term to describe something getting more credit than it's due, such as believing a game innovated in a certain area when in fact it borrowed concepts from an older and/or less well known title, I think that is legitimate usage. Otherwise though, we're just blasting people for enjoying something more than we do.

Well, I don't actually look at reviews so much, but a 10/10 game should be different from 8/10 and you should be able to tell. Also, 4/10 is not in the same league as 8/10. If I'm rating a game, I try to keep it fair - I break it down into sound, visuals, gameplay, story, technical (how good or bad the game actually is technically - it only matters if it's exceptional) and an overall "pleasing" factor where the rest goes (if needed)[footnote]for special cases, I can add and remove categories - a game without a story won't get a 0/10 there - I just won't count it. But if the gameplay is functional and responsive, yet it takes bloody ages to get used to and learn I can split that into two - ease of learning and gameplay, for example[/footnote]. I then take an average.

If a category does the job, it'll get 6/10 or maybe 7/10, if I notice. It has to be truly good for 8, or blow my mind (figuratively, of course) for 10. If it's slightly annoying then it's going to be 4/10 probably, 1 and 2 are reserved for those truly awful things which make me want to blow my brains out. That way I can give a score for a game but also like it or dislike it at the same time.

I love Bloodlines, for example, but it's probably a 7/10. I don't like Blood Omen 2, and yet, I cannot give it lower than a 5/10 - 5-6 is where it's at. I can legitimately say, that I think anybody giving the game lower/higher score than that (within about a 1 mark margin) to be under/overrating it. So, I can at least try to tell the difference between ratings - 10/10 game should be exceptional on pretty much every level a 4/10 is unlikely to have features rated above average.

 

[RubyT]

It probably plays from the human longing for "fairness". If there is a game that we don't think is very good, we find it "unfair" if it gets more applause than a game we think more highly of. So we make it our personal mission to "convert" as many people as possible, by telling everybody and their grandma that it's overrated.

And of course, Internet culture has amplified this. I've found that the general approach of discussion in forums is to try to disagree with people as much as possible. It's not just that the tone is generally more hostile and cynical than people would get away with sans anonymity, it's that on the internet people always seem to try and find something in a post that they can disagree with, even if they have to nitpick or hate or do whatever else your momma told you to never do.

And sadly, I can't say I'm not guilty of this myself. Been trying to change this for a while now. Why is spoiling people's mood so seductive...?

 

[pidgerii]

when I say something is over-rated I am only speaking from a purely personal viewpoint. I may not understand the popularity of a lot of games and franchises but ultimately to each their own.

What I get mostly annoyed with is the grading system in professional reviews. I feel there is very little objectivity in games journalism and can't rely on them to assist in making an informed purchasing decision.

 

[Something Amyss]

Mechanically, it's quite dull. It's taking a turn based RPG and distilling it down to it's barest, essence. Have higher stats or have a type advantage. No strategy whatsoever.
It's also a terribly grind-y game, and grinding is never good.
The story was never particularly good, but you can have a good game without a good story. (See: most anything made by Nintendo)

It's fairly simplistic, but I fail to see how that's bad. Moves are incredibly important, especially for competitive play (and let's face it, online has been increasingly more important to the series). No strategy my sweet and bountiful rear.

Some people like grinding. That's not "never good."

The story has actually been decent the last two gens.

So...I think you've failed the "objectively bad" test.

See, that's exactly the problem. Where do you draw that line of what is a good or bad rating? Based on what you thought it deserved?

A lot of review sites and publications specifically list the values of their review scores. While you can argue it's still subjective, the point remains that you can measure the worth of a review. You can also tell some elements are blatantly false. If, for example, a game gets a high gameplay score but has broken controls or mechanics, it's wrong.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Mechanically, it's quite dull. It's taking a turn based RPG and distilling it down to it's barest, essence. Have higher stats or have a type advantage. No strategy whatsoever.
It's also a terribly grind-y game, and grinding is never good.
The story was never particularly good, but you can have a good game without a good story. (See: most anything made by Nintendo)

Hah, someone hasn't seen much of Pokemon's competitive side. That shit is deep. It's just that you can troll through the singleplayer bit of it without bothering with any of those fancy things.

 

[Altorin]

Many games couldn't live up to the hype if they were crafted by the hands of our sweet Lord and saviour Ronald Reagan.

That's overrated.

Pokeymanns on the other hand, is objectively bad, yet very popular. It's rating is better than its quality.

Could you explain how it's objectively bad, then?

Mechanically, it's quite dull. It's taking a turn based RPG and distilling it down to it's barest, essence. Have higher stats or have a type advantage. No strategy whatsoever.
It's also a terribly grind-y game, and grinding is never good.
The story was never particularly good, but you can have a good game without a good story. (See: most anything made by Nintendo)

name another RPG that allows you to construct a party from hundreds of albeit poorly fleshed out characters, each with its own weaknesses and strengths, both intrinsic to its class and specific to itself as an individual, and also relative to the enemy they're facing.

I don't even play pokemon and I can tell you that you're "objectively" wrong.

 

[AnarchistFish]

It's really just a way of saying you personally don't like something popular or critically acclaimed.

Although there are some things I'd argue objectively don't get the praise they deserve. Like Hybrid Theory.

 

[Nazulu]

Well, like usual, over-rated doesn't mean any thing by itself, but if they can explain why and with good reason (which we should always encourage) then it's valid as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, just like every single criticism, there are always people that are going to use it the wrong way and makes it look bad. Personally, I prefer that people use over-rated when discussing a great game, than just saying it's shit.