Poll: Top 10 most overrated games I?ve ever played *WALL OF TEXT AHOY!*

[Tryzon]

You could try the sequel out, but I have to tell you a few things before you do:
- Remember the repetitive and broken gameplay of KotoR? The sequel does it worse.
- Bugs. My god. SO. MANY. BUGS!
- The game is incomplete. There are quite a few things that pop up and never get mentioned again. There is a mod that brings back all of this content and patches the game very well , but it's only for the US versions.

That's basically it. That was more than enough to scare most gamers away from that game or make them dislike it. The story however? You sound like the kind of person that will love it.

Don't expect Planescape: Torment level of storytelling and characters though. That's just impossible, even if KotoR 2 is done by practically the same company.

And yeah, it is nice to have a decent conversation without any insults getting thrown around, so I'm glad as well.

I've definitely heard some horror stories about the bugs in KotOR 2, to be sure. Part of the reason I've taken my time trying it. There are probably countless fan patches and such, but still I'm sure I'll get round to it eventually, just because I've never heard a bad thing said about the story. Much obliged.

 

[Tryzon]

Yeah sure, anything is possible in this crazy world. Maybe I should start a blog on my own where I rant my opinions on games I play?

Couldn't hurt to try. Just don't post ten thousand word essays on forums. Doesn't go down well XD

 

[Tryzon]

Do you honestly don't see that your forum posts are obnoxious, elitest, arrogent, and condescending?

Also, stop complaining that people think that your piece is awkwardly put together. I never said that. It just comes off as smug. The fact that you are refuting your points across numerous pages doesn't help that case. Do yourself a favor a be more humble before you come off as more of an asshole than you actually are.

I certainly do come off as those things. It's my superiority complex combined with the amount of time I have to spend talking to idiots on YouTube. Sorry that some of it ended up getting aimed at people with actual brains.

And I'm calling this piece awkwardly cobbled together because it is; written in chunks with periods of no progress over many months. Only finished it because I remembered the other day. My favourite pieces are usually the ones that I sat down to do one morning and managed to put the finishing touches on by the evening. One coherent train of thought and nowhere near as ludicrous a length. Usually.

I don't go out to annoy people if I think there's a chance they're worth talking to. You lot evidently are, so I've been doing my best to lower my idiot-proof barriers. I respect your opinions and criticism, and I'm sorry if that wasn't apparent until now. Much obliged.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Do you honestly don't see that your forum posts are obnoxious, elitest, arrogent, and condescending?

Also, stop complaining that people think that your piece is awkwardly put together. I never said that. It just comes off as smug. The fact that you are refuting your points across numerous pages doesn't help that case. Do yourself a favor a be more humble before you come off as more of an asshole than you actually are.

As a heads up, overt personal attacks are generally frowned upon here.

His OP was a rambling abomination and was extremely painful to look upon and read because of its absurd length, but he's been quite accepting of that particular criticism. Seriously though, ten dollar words? TEN DOLLAR WORDS?

I realize we live in the age of Twitter now, but there is no argument compelling enough to justify the position that people need to hamstring their vocabulary so that people who are INTIMIDATED BY BIG WORDS don't feel condescended to.

Facetious is a 10 dollar word now?

From that blog:

If your audience is the type that just likes basic words, basic sentences, and a straightforward approach to telling them what they want, then do not rock the boat.

So basically, if I want a bunch of morons who are alarmed by large words to read what I'm writing, I need to make sure to keep it to two syllables at best.

Good to know.

 

[Tryzon]

As a heads up, overt personal attacks are generally frowned upon here.

His OP was a rambling abomination and was extremely painful to look upon and read because of its absurd length, but he's been quite accepting of that particular criticism. Seriously though, ten dollar words? TEN DOLLAR WORDS?

I realize we live in the age of Twitter now, but there is no argument compelling enough to justify the position that people need to hamstring their vocabulary so that people who are INTIMIDATED BY BIG WORDS don't feel condescended to.

Facetious is a 10 dollar word now?

From that blog:

If your audience is the type that just likes basic words, basic sentences, and a straightforward approach to telling them what they want, then do not rock the boat.

So basically, if I want a bunch of morons who are alarmed by large words to read what I'm writing, I need to make sure to keep it to two syllables at best.

Good to know.

I've already explained the situation to that bloke, so I *think* we're cool now. No need to possibly anger him. I'd rather keep things tranquil. All we are is dust on the wind etc.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I've already explained the situation to that bloke, so I *think* we're cool now. No need to possibly anger him. I'd rather keep things tranquil. All we are is dust on the wind etc.

You used "tranquil" when you could have used "calm", "the situation" where you could have used "things", and "explained" where you could have used "told em good".

I suggest rectifying this immediately if you don't want to come across as arrogant.

 

[Tryzon]

I've already explained the situation to that bloke, so I *think* we're cool now. No need to possibly anger him. I'd rather keep things tranquil. All we are is dust on the wind etc.

You used "tranquil" when you could have used "calm", "the situation" where you could have used "things", and "explained" where you could have used "told em good".

I suggest rectifying this immediately if you don't want to come across as arrogant.

That made me smile ^_^

 

[Treblaine]

I've already explained the situation to that bloke, so I *think* we're cool now. No need to possibly anger him. I'd rather keep things tranquil. All we are is dust on the wind etc.

You used "tranquil" when you could have used "calm", "the situation" where you could have used "things", and "explained" where you could have used "told em good".

I suggest rectifying this immediately if you don't want to come across as arrogant.

That made me smile ^_^

The problem here is you are clealry using such terms inappropriately.

Tranquil sounds like a fancier version of "calm" but it's really different. Tranquil implies being docile and disengaged, to be "calm" in this context would simply mean to not be angry and at each other's throats yet still involved and caring about it.

"Explained" is reasonable, as is "situation". They are actually more efficient ways of speaking and are not needlessly obscure. "Facetious" is suitable as it is the most economical and straightforward way of saying what you mean.

But empty platitudes like:
"All we are is dust on the wind"

are patronising and passive-aggressive. It's a mutual "hey, you are nothing, but it's OK for me to say that because I'm also nothing and so is everyone else so it's not a personal attack". It also doesn't mean anything. You act as if you are suddenly above all of this just when people got passionately involved.

Do you stop and actually think about how people are going to interpret what you say? You can have all the noble intentions in the world but the reality is people aren't mind readers, people do take offence to the way you speak to them.

Again, the problem with terms like "tranquil" is it's the way you'd describe a horse you're breaking in, not a person you are trying to converse with as an equal. Calm is more suitable as conventionally it is used for better relations between people.

The problem with "we are all dust" is maybe people like to consider themselves more than just dust and they may not take such figures of speech so poetically.

Another, thing, It's OK to inform us that the proper way to spell BioShock is with a capitalised S, but it is going too far to add:

"Yes, it's a little something called CamelCase. You're welcome."

You're Welcome? As if a hearty thank you is so deserved that you are a ready made You're Welcome? All you did was make a minor note on capitalisation, not told us some great secret we'd slavishly thank you for. You think if you posted a comment "Actually, BioShock is spelled with a Capital S" would get top-rated with thumbs up on a youtube video??!? Or anywhere? And you start of the review this way, my goodness, you only get one chance to make first impressions.

It's not that you are "too fancy" with your words, you are arrogant and condescending. You gave people the gift of proper spelling but then acted with entitlement and arrogance far beyond that.

And I'm calling this piece awkwardly cobbled together because it is; written in chunks with periods of no progress over many months.

On this, it's not how you say it but what you reveal. You spend so much time complaining about what is wrong... wouldn't that time and effort be better spent on something constructive?

For example Red Letter media's cutting breakdown of the Prequel Trilogy takes its opportunity to eulogise the Original Trilogy and related films (even Citizen Kane), and spell out how is the right way to make a movie and well constructed characters. Their reviews are enlightening for how they pull back the curtain from cinema and show how things work and how they don't.

I haven't read all our reviews but so far there seems to be a startling omission of examples aspects of other games where you may think they may have done things better. In Red Letter Media reviews they back up almost every criticism of character to a relation with a more respected work, like comparing Picard of the Star Trek movies with how much better written he was in the TV Series. Look at what I am doing here, I am criticising you and giving you a positive example.

There is the odd mention (Urban Chaos - headshots) but in such limited it is useless. Simply saying 'Splitters 2 is better isn't enough, what is a meaningful and relevant comparison of the two, you don't say about the things that 'Splitters 2 got right that Black failed at. You don't nail down anything meaningful except to preach to the choir. HL2 you are almost there, but you don't really explain why Portal 2's plot is more compelling, that is would stand the same dressing down as you gave HL2's plot.

That's another problem, the Poll. You ask if people already agree with you as in shared views. Well what is the point in that other than boosting your ego from how many peoples views follow yours?

What would be far more pertinent is how your writing could be ENLIGHTENING, how what you write changes peoples minds about things. To look at their games in a different way, and consider others they may have dismissed. That is great because you have helped someone, for THEIR benefit! Increase their appreciation, they enjoyment of life.

Cherry picking comments here but from GTAIV:

"I want cartoonish absurdity, not realistic bumps."

How does this line of the review enlighten anyone except to your personal tastes? What is so great or bad about either?

"I love... I want... I am a fan of... I don't think... I don't care about..."

These declarations pepper your reviews and are the crux of so much ofyour analysis yet what do they say to people? They depend entirely on WHO you are and what YOUR tastes are and if they are in any way relevant at all! Yet you are so dismissive of other people's tastes:

"I'm not hating on Doom 3 because it's stupid or simple... I'm hating on Doom 3 because it's the exact sort of game made to impress graphics whores"

While in your GTAIV review:
"I'm a self-confessed whore for physics"

The most cutting of reviews out there just say what it is and say what that they think that means just to them, but to everyone. While infrequent use of personal tastes are used they don't form the basis of analysis.

Remember your opinion is valued but only as much as divided by the number of people who have an opinion. There are a lot people on this planet: you'd do a lot better to appeal to people, to change their opinion, than to over-value your own.

I hope, I have changed your opinion on what is the best way to go about writing reviews and such.

 

[Terramax]

I've heard the Soul Reaver/Tomb Raider comparison many times, but there's a distinct difference between the two. For one thing, the camera isn't so rigidly locked behind you in Soul Reaver, but it's otherwise a bit hard to describe. Soul Reaver's camera is still clumsy, yeah, but I would say easily preferable to Tomb Raider's.

And the entire piece is just me expressing my opinions in my overly aggressive manner. I do personally believe Tomb Raider's controls are beyond horrific and that they cannot be excused, but that's my opinion and is clearly stated as such.

Oh, I fully understand it's just your opinion. It's just that, in my opinion, there isn't much of a difference between Soul Reaver and Tomb Raider, you don't understand the controls of the game in context to the kind of game it is, you just aren't able to comprehend why other people like Tomb Raider even if you don't, and that its success isn't wholly due to Lara's sexuality ( even though it definitely contributed).

Also, you mention you think later Tomb Raiders haven't improved. From What I understand, all TRs since Tomb Raider Legend have been developed by the creators of Soul Reaver, a series and developer which you think got 3D right, so you may wish to reconsider whether the camera may have been 'fixed'.

 

[Tryzon]

*big snip*

Unless that was one EPIC joke, I think you're taking this a bit seriously. Also, "All we are is dust on the wind, dude" was a Bill and Ted quote. So yeah. Just me being silly.

I'm sensing a considerable amount of anger. Can't we all be CALM?

And the reason I posted this piece despite my problems with it is I hate to just throw something I've spent time on away. Maybe I could've spent even more time redoing it, but I've not the patience for that after such an investment. Besides, like I mentioned to someone else, I'd rather spend that time making a list of games I see as UNDERrated, just to balance things out and go back to my usual happy tone.

And from what I remember, I very frequently like to use my encyclopaedic knowledge of other games to point out how to do something better if a feature in a game I'm reviewing is a bit meh. Not so much in this piece, admittedly. Don't know which reviews you were reading, unless they were my very early (and generally arse) ones. If these were intended as full reviews (and the top of the OP clearly says they weren't), I would've gone the whole hog and analysed the hell out of everything. As they're (relatively) condensed summaries of why I see them as overrated, I had to keep things brief or end up with a 20,000 word piece.

Lastly, I think there's a bit of a difference between enjoying bouncing ragdolls off walls and loving a game because its textures are particularly high-res.

I was under the impression we'd all become CALM and put this bickering behind us. You made valid points and I thanked you for them, but that massive rant was a bit out of place, even though further valid points were raised.

Friends now? Pretty please?

 

[Tryzon]

Oh, I fully understand it's just your opinion. It's just that, in my opinion, there isn't much of a difference between Soul Reaver and Tomb Raider, you don't understand the controls of the game in context to the kind of game it is, you just aren't able to comprehend why other people like Tomb Raider even if you don't, and that its success isn't wholly due to Lara's sexuality ( even though it definitely contributed).

Also, you mention you think later Tomb Raiders haven't improved. From What I understand, all TRs since Tomb Raider Legend have been developed by the creators of Soul Reaver, a series and developer which you think got 3D right, so you may wish to reconsider whether the camera may have been 'fixed'.

Fair enough. I have actually been meaning to try the post-Angel of Darkness instalments, but so many years of reflexively rejecting anything Lara-related have caused much procrastination. That was a bit of a fluffy sentence.

It is my genuine belief that Lara only gets by these days on nostalgia and the ease of seducing teenage males, but I'm well aware that her early success was at least significantly due to people actually enjoying the game. Can't comprehend why, but I'm not about to stop them doing it, either. Too busy with Soul Reaver, you see.

I do wish they'd dump Lara and make Legacy of Kain 6, though.

UPDATE: This is apparently my first post on here to reach 10,000 views. Fitting, given the word count, but it still annoys me that one of my better pieces couldn't have claimed that prize. Ah well.

 

[Terminally Chill]

Someone else on the internet likes Gun more than RDR? Or at least wasn't so impressed with RDR because they'd already played Gun?

It's like all my dreams came true and gave me free beer.

 

[Tryzon]

Someone else on the internet likes Gun more than RDR? Or at least wasn't so impressed with RDR because they'd already played Gun?

It's like all my dreams came true and gave me free beer.

Where have you been all my life? And that's a glorious analogy.

 

[Goofguy]

I really wanted to take you seriously, until you recommended Gun over RDR. I'm not a rabid RDR fan-boy, but there is not one thing that Gun did better than RDR.

 

[GLo Jones]

I read the OP and few of the first posts, and typed up a scathing rant about how I kind of hate you, Tryzon. But looking through the thread now, I actually see there's some cool discussion of games going on, and it's not all about you.

Anyway, I really think most of the games you disliked were more examples of simply expecting too much from them. Maybe the main issue nowadays is the hype caused by/for certain games.

Spoiler: Actually, balls to it. I will risk mod action. Here's my original post.

This is literally the most pretentious, self-serving thread I have ever seen. You, sir, may be the Armond White of gaming but without the actual qualification of being a "critic". You are critical (of the smallest, most insignificant things) but you are not a critic. It doesn't help your cause when you try to use complicated prose to sound intelligent.

Seriously, what Rower said, a million times, this.

This thread, and by extension, you, are the very things I despise about the general blogging culture

In my opinion, this is a forum for people to share their opinions with like minded individuals in order to develop their own understanding of their shared interest (gaming), and in the hope that the resulting pool of posts becomes worth more than the sum of it's parts. You seem to have posted on this forum with the intent to publicise your blog (perhaps not content with it's current readership, maybe your blog is shit, I don't know or care), and again, by extension, you.

You're defiant attitude when faced with potential hostility makes you appear to simply be looking for attention. I don't even know you, but I dislike you.

P.S. I really didn't want to post this, because I didn't want to bump the thread, but since it seems to be drawing a lot of attention, I thought I'd get this off my chest.

 

[Tryzon]

I really wanted to take you seriously, until you recommended Gun over RDR. I'm not a rabid RDR fan-boy, but there is not one thing that Gun did better than RDR.

I would argue otherwise. If you ask me, Gun's gameplay and general design are thoroughly more entertaining and the story is interesting enough to make it worth seeing through to the end. I'd never say it's plot was brilliant, but I also wouldn't call RDR's massively better, either.

 

[Tryzon]

*snip*

I'm glad you looked through the thread a bit, but saddened that you too have taken this one post as an example of what I'm about. As the top of the OP says, I'm usually a very happy-go-lucky sort who'll tell people about games and such I enjoy and think should be better known about. Somehow, this one negative piece has managed to become my most read on these forums, and that annoys me. I'd recommend my Penumbra: Black Plague review as a more typical instance of the sort of thing I write.

As for the blog, I only put that link there after everyone said this piece was more fitting for a blog. Indeed, everything I write is intended for my blog and I just put the reviews/opinion pieces on here so a few more can see them, for better or worse. This create have the problem already mentioned: people see this one thing I've written, assume all I write is like this, and jump to the conclusion I'm an attention-seeking madman. I don't blame people for assuming that based on that epic ramble, but I do wish I could prove otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure what your opinion of me is now, since you say you changed your mind a bit after reading some of the reasonable debates people have been having here, but I do hope you can understand this is an unfortunate situation that I didn't anticipate. I have to sound like a parrot, but reading that Penumbra thing might put me in a more positive light. Peace?

 

[GLo Jones]

*snip*

I'm glad you looked through the thread a bit, but saddened that you too have taken this one post as an example of what I'm about. As the top of the OP says, I'm usually a very happy-go-lucky sort who'll tell people about games and such I enjoy and think should be better known about. Somehow, this one negative piece has managed to become my most read on these forums, and that annoys me. I'd recommend my Penumbra: Black Plague review as a more typical instance of the sort of thing I write.

As for the blog, I only put that link there after everyone said this piece was more fitting for a blog. Indeed, everything I write is intended for my blog and I just put the reviews/opinion pieces on here so a few more can see them, for better or worse. This create have the problem already mentioned: people see this one thing I've written, assume all I write is like this, and jump to the conclusion I'm an attention-seeking madman. I don't blame people for assuming that based on that epic ramble, but I do wish I could prove otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure what your opinion of me is now, since you say you changed your mind a bit after reading some of the reasonable debates people have been having here, but I do hope you can understand this is an unfortunate situation that I didn't anticipate. I have to sound like a parrot, but reading that Penumbra thing might put me in a more positive light. Peace?

That's the problem though, you're now technically advertising more of you work to me. Plus, it shouldn't matter how people feel about you here. It's about what you post, not who you are, and thus far, you're putting emphasis on your writing and yourself rather than the games.

 

[Tryzon]

That's the problem though, you're now technically advertising more of you work to me. Plus, it shouldn't matter how people feel about you here. It's about what you post, not who you are, and thus far, you're putting emphasis on your writing and yourself rather than the games.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just doing all I can to make sure people don't think the voice in the OP is who I usually am. Not liking this one piece is fine, of course, but I'm just worried how many people are going to immediately dismiss me based on an anomaly. That's my fear here.

I also meant to mention that I don't tend to buy into hype these days, at least not deliberately. I've had some soul-fracturing disappointments in the past, not least of all Black, so have since learned to just see what happens and try to go in blind whenever possible. It's part of how I try and maintain my happy attitude. But when I DO find something to hate, I tend to get overexcited in that hatred. You may well have noticed that ¬_¬

 

[SushiJaguar]

I did read the whole thing through, and I found it to be a pretty engaging read. I'd say it was quite fair, and amusing in the parts where others claim you to be condescending, OP. I'd like to reply fully to your list but really, it is huge and there's no real way to discuss it without picking it apart.

I'll agree with your opinions, keeping in mind that the original point here is that these games are over-rated - which they are- and not just to you, but to everyone. Yes, you do come across as condescending at some points, but rightfully so! I'm guilty of skipping every other poster's comment once I realised that for the most part it's the same repetition of some other guy's post, so I don't really have any sort of handle on anyone else's opinion towards you/your list.

However I would like to state that it's MY opinion that if someone was to complain that you're too condescending, they're likely sore because they know that these problems are easily solved, there is no need to be anything other than negatively-critical, or passive-aggressive. The issue lies with the person themselves, and they'd do well not to get so sour about a harsh truth.

As for the games themselves, if I don't recall enjoying, or even recall much of the game in the first place, then it wasn't memorable or deserving of it's praise in the slightest. People can flaunt the age-old argument of "everybody's different" all they like, but the problems with gaming design are as undeniably wrong as, say, killing somebody. Take KoTOR for example. I came across the second one first, thought it was a fairly good Star Wars game. It got boring and stodgy after a while, and the story wasn't enough to keep me playing because it progressed to slowly alongside such clunky design.

Nobody can really dispute successfully that bad game design is excusable on the merits of its better sections, but I'm definitely getting the vibe that all you've done is piss off a few people who don't want their rose-coloured glasses smudged. That's their issue, and they're trying to put your validity to the sword because they're offended that you're right.

Besides, hypocrisy is a really good indicator of when you should disregard someone entirely, isn't it?