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

[Tryzon]

OP, the fact you dragged this out so much is a damn shame, because if it had been concise, clear and communicative I would have deemed you a good writer, as if my opinion is the last word on these matters. Do you maintain a blog? because if so, I would gladly take the time to read it now and then. Ignore me otherwise.

I do indeed maintain a blog! In fact, I have one I update regularly and a separate one for these sorts of things.

Here's a link to the general one, since you're interested.

http://tryzon.tumblr.com/

 

[EzraPound]

BioShock ('07)

Yes, that S is meant to be capitalised. Yes, you have been getting it wrong all these years. Yes, it's a little something called CamelCase. You're welcome.

Moving on from title formats, what we've got here is 2007's game of the year for 97% of the planet's population. Folk at the time went on and on about the cool powers, the non-linearity, the "surprising" twist and the fact that various themes rarely touched on in games make prominent appearances. What all these people were apparently unaware of is that very nearly everything BioShock does well was pioneered in much the same manner by System Shock, which I've never even played but can still easily tell you from secondary data deserves all the praise its prettier, more mainstream successor got and continues to get.

Now, I'm fully supportive of taking ideas from the past and making them either better or compatible with some advance in technology or ideology, but BioShock is almost literally a remake with a steampunk makeover. Seriously, you could make a drinking game out of comparing the two! The vague premise of wandering about a place in first-person collecting MacGuffins and getting gadgets can be excused, but when you consider that much of the plot (including the famous twist, which isn't all that brilliant if you ask me) were done to varying extents well over a decade earlier. Of course, a cynic might point out that BioShock was a much higher-profile release and had a larger potential market, meaning that it had a far greater chance of being noticed for its above-average plot and thus earning accolades from the mainstream critics, but that'd just be a mad theory, I 'spose.

But what gets me is that even if we ignore how BioShock hoovered up most of the awards that System Shock truly earned, there are countless grievances that prevent it from being worth more than a single playthrough. For one thing, the original release didn't let you turn off the accursed Vita-Chambers, whose purpose is to bring you back to life with almost no consequence but not restore the health of enemies you've previously attacked. To put it simply, they allowed you to beat the game through relentless attrition, destroying any semblance of skill that might be required. They mercifully heard the outcry about this and added the option to deactivate the buggers, but even then they managed to mess it up by giving the setting the confusing name of "Disable Vita-Chambers On/OFF". Smooth.

And what of the fact that specialisation is all but non-existent? You get so many slots for every category of upgrade that you become insanely overpowered, which isn't helped by the tidal wave (ha) of medkits and ammo. And while the variety of powers you can wield is generally an extremely good thing, some are practically worthless (insect swarm) and a few tip the scales too much in your favour (natural camouflage). You're also encouraged to string complicated combos of different plasmids together, like setting a trap as an ambush, enraging one guy, freezing another and then zapping them all when they step in the water, and while tactics like these can make bringing down a Big Daddy more feasible at times, it's usually far quicker and simpler to zap everyone and then shoot them, perhaps setting somebody on fire for good measure.

BioShock is definitely entertaining while it lasts, and the style and themes are undeniably far above the intellectual level of the great majority of big-name releases, but I say there are just too many constant niggles for it to be the masterpiece so many see it as. I also love how both endings manage to be immensely underwhelming after so much build-up.

What an utterly spurious complaint. Was Ben Hur a bad film because it was a remake? Was the same for The Man Who Knew Too Much?

System Shock and BioShock were made by the same people. They are perfectly entitled to tell a variation on a similar story/theme.

"the original release didn't let you turn off the accursed Vita-Chambers"

What a bitchy complaint, the Vita-chambers patch was very soon and there is a SIMPLE solution. If you do die and spawn from a vita-chamber... then load from a save game. YES you CAN complete the game through relentless attrition, but that would be really really dumb. You can play through Hitman just running in with a gun and shooting everyone but again, that would be dumb. How about you stop being dumb.

And now the bitching that you are given TOO MANY OPTIONS! Oh the awfulness of too much flexibility, that you can experiment a bit with all the options presented to you and aren't forced to travel down an extremely narrow path.

Again, if you just want to be an idiot and simply spam electro-bolt over and over then that is your problem. Spamming electro bolt is only easier for you because you can't comprehend more complex combinations of attacks.

Consider how swarm is a homing attack, how fire can cause enemies to retreat to water, how electro can stun multiple enemies in water, how telekinesis can throw explosives and weights.

You niggles are spurious and entirely based on your personal inability to use the options given to you.

The thread author doesn't necessarily make his point as effectively as he could, but BioShock wasn't that good. The gameplay was mostly a point/shoot affair albeit featuring special abilities that would seem new to someone who hasn't played Jedi Knight (in 1997), the art design was strong but many of the level designs consisted of dark, linear corridors you had to saunter through, and the narrative was relayed lazily through what amounts to a long audio casette book, effectively killing immersion.

If anything, BioShock proved that--in the age of Halo and Modern Warfare--gamers seeking alternative experiences will enjoy any FPS that diverges from the status quo without being a veritable disaster, even if it's mostly content to copy games released over a decade ago. In the 90s and early 2000s, single-player shooters of BioShock's quality used to come out quarterly--think Shogo: Mobile Armor Division, Shadow Warrior, , No One Lives Forever, Undying, etc. Posterity will show that--far from being a game of the same quality as DOOM, or GoldenEye--BioShock is ultimately like these: a strong but ultimately second-tier shooter.

--snip--

I agree with all of the games you cited except for Half-Life 2 and KOTOR.

 

[Thyunda]

Sorry. I have to disagree with practically everything I've read. You've said, first, that you haven't played System Shock, but based on what you've heard it was absolutely amazing. This being a piece on overrated games. I'm sorry, but that's just hypocrisy.
"BioShock is overrated because I heard System Shock was better." Alright buddy. I'll let you roll with that.

GTA IV represented Rockstar moving from action-comedies to seriously dramatic story. The silliness awards go to Saints Row, now, and the Grand Theft Auto series can focus on the writing Rockstar pull off so spectacularly. Your gripes with the controls...you're upset about walking? I don't...I can't...what? Why is this worth getting upset over? Draw your gun, you run automatically. That's really the only time you'd need to worry about that.

And John Marston being awkward but friendly? He's not awkward...just polite. Good God, what country are you from, where good manners are a sign of awkwardness?

Calm down a bit there. Actually, everyone's been saying that to me today. Let's just all calm down. The System Shock thing is a bit iffy, yes, but I did say that the plot and such were the main similarities between it and BioShock, and the latter definitely has a very similar twist to System Shock 2. That's my main issue.

And yes, GTA IV's walking annoyed the smeg out of me. It's a stupid complaint, but a stupid problem to have to worry about. I don't understand how a game from 2008 can have worse movement controls than one from 2002. That does not compute. The fact that the multiplayer controls are so much better is just icing.

And I wrote the Red Dead segment a while ago, but I distinctly remember thinking Marston came across as a bit awkward, particularly when making a very weak attempt at debating the morals of burning people's houses down. I think that's what the mission was about. I try not to dwell on it.

As I've said to everyone else, please take this list as the mad exception to my usual rule of focusing on games I enjoy. See the info I stuck at the top of the original post.

I'm not implying that everything you do and everything you are is as poor as your complaints. These are my problems with your problems, if that makes sense. Also, I'm not mad or excited or anything, I just happen to be very dramatic. Don't judge me.

Anyway. John Marston was designed in a way so that when he's justifying the bad things he does, he doesn't really believe in it himself. He's not...awkward, that's the wrong word. He knows he's wrong in what he does, but he has to do it. But he can't very well earn peoples' trust if he's spreading a message of peace while shooting people. He has to avoid hypocrisy.

However. There is one thing I will agree with you on. Halo 2 is incredibly overrated. I don't know if it's a bad game or not, but I've played every other Halo game, and I love them, but all I ever freakin' hear is "It's not as good as Halo 2." Well fuck your Halo 2. Just...gah, the parts you keep telling me are good just sound convoluted!

 

[Tryzon]

The thread author doesn't necessarily make his point as effectively as he could, but BioShock wasn't that good. The gameplay was mostly a point/shoot affair albeit featuring special abilities that would seem new to someone who hasn't played Jedi Knight (in 1997), the art design was strong but many of the level designs consisted of dark, linear corridors you had to saunter through, and the narrative was relayed lazily through what amounts to a long audio casette book, effectively killing immersion.

If anything, BioShock proved that--in the age of Halo and Modern Warfare--gamers seeking alternative experiences will enjoy any FPS that diverges from the status quo without being a veritable disaster, even if it's mostly content to copy games released over a decade ago. In the 90s and early 2000s, single-player shooters of BioShock's quality used to come out quarterly--think Shogo: Mobile Armor Division, Shadow Warrior, , No One Lives Forever, Undying, etc. Posterity will show that--far from being a game of the same quality as DOOM, or GoldenEye--BioShock is ultimately like these: a strong but ultimately second-tier shooter.

--snip--

I agree with all of the games you cited except for Half-Life 2 and KOTOR.

THANK YOU! A number of people seemed to miss that whole bit where I explained how I enjoyed BioShock, but wished it could've been better. Not so much the case in these comments, but there does seem to be a general view on the internet that making the slightest criticism of something automatically means you hate it and must be shot.

I hadn't even made the connection to Jedi Knight, but there definitely is a similarity there. The difference is Jedi Knight lets you use a lightsaber and is therefore superior by default.

Also, 600 posts. Joy of joys.

 

[Tryzon]

I'm not implying that everything you do and everything you are is as poor as your complaints. These are my problems with your problems, if that makes sense. Also, I'm not mad or excited or anything, I just happen to be very dramatic. Don't judge me.

Anyway. John Marston was designed in a way so that when he's justifying the bad things he does, he doesn't really believe in it himself. He's not...awkward, that's the wrong word. He knows he's wrong in what he does, but he has to do it. But he can't very well earn peoples' trust if he's spreading a message of peace while shooting people. He has to avoid hypocrisy.

However. There is one thing I will agree with you on. Halo 2 is incredibly overrated. I don't know if it's a bad game or not, but I've played every other Halo game, and I love them, but all I ever freakin' hear is "It's not as good as Halo 2." Well fuck your Halo 2. Just...gah, the parts you keep telling me are good just sound convoluted!

Well, we've found some common ground. Now we're friends forever.

Let's just leave it at this: I can't stand RDR and would much rather play one of the various things I mentioned in the piece, but we both dislike Halo 2 and thus we are BFFs.

 

[Vuliev]

Sadly, I've played a total of one of those games (Halo 2)--otherwise, I'd probably say "your thoughts are in the same vein as mine."

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Huh, I kind of came in here expecting a hotbed of controversial claims and acclamations. When I first read the thread title, immediately my mind was filled with a list of game titles so ingrained in gaming and fanboy culture that the mere though of pointing out their obvious flaws would turn the ne'er-do-well into a pariah. I expected lengthy explanations calling out the flaws of titles that included Deus Ex (the good one), Final Fantasy VI, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and perhaps a cursory look at Portal and the System Shock series and delved into whether or not they could really be called "perfect" examples of their genre and medium in retrospective. The only 2 games I found on the list that I actually called out ahead of time were KotOR (which to be fair was improved dramatically thanks to its modding community that unearthed extensive parts of the game that were cut out at the last minute but still on the disk) and Half-Life 2. A good 70% of the list (to my knowledge at least) was already publicly lambasted to popular furor by much bigger and better critics years ago. If anything this reminds me of a blog post, full of personal insight but really just a retread of old news. Unless they were accompanied by marketing campaigns similar to the one for Dante's Inferno, I would hesitate to call most of your games "overrated".

And yes, TimeSplitters WAS a good series. We get it. Stop hitting us over the head with it.

 

[Lunar Templar]

*snip*
so there ya go my 10 cents or so

Wow. That's actually even more rage than what I mustered. Bravo

hehe ask my opinion and you shall get it

 

[Naeras]

Of all of these I've only really played HL2 and Bioshock(and Halo 2 co-op which was okay-ish yet never cared much for), and I have to say I agree quite a lot with you. I never had a problem with the life chambers in Bioshock though, but that's more related to the fact that I "died" about twice throughout the game, which pretty much ruined any sense of vulnerability I had in the game anyways. The storytelling of both games keep them alive, but HL2s actual story is somewhat uninteresting and survives quite a lot on charm and characters rather than an involving plot. Bioshock had a couple of moments that were jaw-dropping, especially when the story manages to actually set up a cutscene and have it not only make sense in terms of game mechanics, but made me so immersed I honestly wasn't sure whether or not it actually was a cutscene. However, I never felt like I was in danger when I was in Rapture because I was overpowered like all hell, which sort of ruined part of the point in the game. I mean, everyone's afraid of the Big Daddies, but with the exception of the first Big Daddy you fight, I ended up killing them simply for good sport and hardly took any significant damage.

(Yes, both games are still really good though, but both have weaknesses most just look past)

 

[stiver]

I'll debate people when they have real criticism, but nitpicky attacks on games because they are popular is not a valid platform for any debate.

 

[thejackyl]

Well... I heard Final Fantasy 7 being the best game ever, and I beat it shortly after it came out on the PSN. It's a good game, but definitely not the best ever. Probably because it didn't age well at all.

As for what you said:

Bioshock: Having never played System Shock 2(can't get it running on a modern computer and my old computer is missing a hard drive, and has no SATA port for a new one), the "it's the same story in a different setting bothered me very little, and wasn't a problem with me until I watched a Let's Play of SS2 (even then the fine details being different and the different setting made up for it) It was also my first experience with the Steampunk Setting, which I find much more intriguing than Cyberpunk.

KotOR: Yeah, the combat wasn't that great. In fact it suffers from the same thing that most DnD games struggle with in combat. The simulated dice rolls and slow combat aren't very engaging no matter WHAT the setting is.

 

[weker]

BioShock (?07)
"unaware of is that very nearly everything BioShock does well was pioneered"
Bioshock took upgraded or changed almost everything it took from system shock. The games both contain similar themes, but didn't "copy" each other even tho they are made by the same developers.
I would say both twists in the story are different enough to keep them both equally interesting.
System shock didn't contain a large portion of the political themes, as well as interesting fight you would have in Bioshock, for instance the big daddy still remains one of my favorite fights.
Not everyone abused the Vita chambers so for many like my self it never mattered, it just seems to have made the game easier for you, and from what it sounds you needed it.
So what if specialization is non existent? It doesn't have to be in a game all the time. You got it at the start and towards the end it felt right, as you felt all powerful like you should.

Black (?06)
"It took years" There is where your problem lies, it was great AT THE TIME, this was because brown realistic shooters were not as prominent as they are now.
The game was good at the time because it was just fun shooting compared to most other shooters at the time.

Doom 3 (?04)
Doom 3 is a jump horror, while Amnesia is a atmospheric horror, and you know what? Doom 3 made me jump and do it's job more then Amnesia ever could, I was scared for about an hour of Amnesia, and then it just lost it (still fun and good). Doom 3 however kept me launching out my chair for almost the whole game. OH btw I played it recently so the graphics which I had no idea about, don't effect my view.

Grand Theft Auto IV (?08)
Normal complaint against GTA here where people want the game to be silly and over the top, while Rockstar wanted it to be a serious narrative, and it did.

Half-Life 2 (?04)
"nobody reacts when you shoot them until the second they actually die" They seemed fine to me, also this game is old so you can't expect the high quality bullet reaction like they have now.
Well the game is an epic, so expecting the story to feature a dominant role throughout the entire first chapter is a bit silly.
"since hardly anything gets accomplished in either of them"
Again epic it's a normal thing, but I would also say there is a fair amount that happens which is fairly important.
It would be a boring story if it was just lets go kill the bad guys, and then they do...

Halo 2 (?04)
"Halo 2, then. As per the first one, I only care about the campaign and co-op, so don't expect any comments on anything else" you ignore half the game so i'll ignore the rest of criticism.

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (?08)
Haven't played can't comment

Red Dead Redemption (?10)
"press X to go at any speed other than a casual stroll" You class it as outdated, I enjoy it, unsure why but it makes the game more fun for me. hitting X wildly to run out of a hail of bullets is much more fun then just pushing forwards alone.
"And the shooting is miserably easy" strange on some games you make it sound like your an awful shot, but on others your a god.
I found it fine, your meant to be able to take down a large amount of people, and it's not meant to be a super difficult game.
"representation of the west, in the sense that death is constant and in no way something that's easily avoided"
Don't know when that started representing the wild west, and I wouldn't say Gun it's job that much better.
"acts awkward but generally friendly" He is a man who has manners, that's why he acts friendly, and he acts "awkward" because he doesn't want to be involved with this line of work again. I think you kinda missed the point of the story.

Goes outside, is under control of the player again, immediately starts dragging prostitutes into the path of trains without a care in the world.
If you think that's an issue your kinda back tracking on your "it's serious story rather then silly and fun" complaint. They have allowed you to still have fun and mess around but still keep the overly mad story, they don't want to destroy the entirety of the open world they have made.


Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (?03)
I don't want to get involved with this one, I just kinda find it the same complaint as all of your other ones.

Tomb Raider (the franchise) (?96 - MYGODTHEYSTILLMAKETHESE)
Haven't played them much can't comment

In short almost all your complaints were "it's not how I want it to be" from games being more focused on narrative rather then plain silly, for you to only make things confusing, when you complain they don't destroy the silly entirely for Read Dead. Apart from that you seem to have issues with the style of games like KotOR.
Again in short your issues come from certain expectations rather then issues the games have.

 

[Treblaine]

You know what your problem is, you hate games for not being what you expect them to be... rather than appreciate them for what they are!

Also, your post is insultingly meandering and pedantic. You go off on a 3 paragraph spiel about your personal situation before you even start on the actual relevant subject.

And the arrogance to say that games that simply don't suit your personal tastes are "over-rated". Ratings are industry consensus. Over-rated would mean the consensus of the industry isn't really as high as the actual score but that it was somehow inflated for whatever reason.

Black is not Modern Warfare or Rainbow Six, it is like an action movie where you are supposed to empty a long burst of awesome full sounding machine gun fire, not a tight neat burst or single shot. And you have to give appreciation to the sound an effects of explosions, though low res they were just the best ever shown.

You don't even play Tomb Raider games and you call them over-rated. You don't seem to even understand HOW the controls work! It's not supposed to have light easy fluffy controls but very particular controls all about exploiting the long jumps getting them just right. It's a game where you have to THINK about every step you make and think 3-4 steps ahead.

I'll have you know I go into games blind whenever possible. For instance, I've deliberately avoided all the Skyrim information that I can so that I can go in and find out what my honest opinion of it is.

And what does it mean for something to be overrated? The general consensus doesn't match my opinion, so I think it's overrated. Seems simple to me. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill there, though that's apparently a theme of my piece.

I've played outlandish, action movie-esque shooters. Urban Chaos: Riot Response comes to mind, and that has shooting that never feels anything other than satisfying and fair. Guys take a while to die if you just hit their torsos, but unlike Black, headshots are considerably easier, so it's not a problem. Play that on its hardest and it IS hard until you earn enough upgrades, so don't think I just want an easy shooter. For me, Black is underwhelming and not even supremely good soundwork solves that. Speaking of which, I did point out the awesome sniper rifle sound, at least. Were this a full review, I certainly would've made more fuss about the sound, but 'tis not the case.

And I said I played Tomb Raider! All the PS1 ones, if I recall! Not right to the end, sure, but I said I played them and didn't enjoy them. What's not to understand? Something like the Prince of Persia trilogy requires planning too, but the controls are nowhere near as awkward, likely because they were made at a time when 3D was well-established as the industry norm. I feel like we're going in circles now. Thought we'd cleared this up already.

Well I don't think that is fair, to go into games blind.

In games you as the player are given so much agency, you are not passive, and the developers try so hard to prep you for games. Things like advertisements are not just soulless marketing, they are part of the experience to slowly immerse you in the world. The publishers control what they release, what would be spoilers and what they wouldn't consider spoilers.

I'm not saying COD is easier or harder, enemies take less hits but then so do you.

You are clearly TRYING to kill in a few bullets with this focus on headshots when black isn't about that. You have weapons with implausibly high capacities, fast fire rate, and low recoil... it's all about charging in and killing through volume of fire on them, not getting the headshots.

The "problem solved" with Prince of Persia is not a matter of "finally understanding 3D environments", it was simply the implementation of analogue-stick controls in a loose way. I hate to break it to you, but there is a lot of direction assist with these types of games. Tomb Raider is a methodical game, not a bopping around play it by ear kind of game. This is about mastery of your environment, this is something supremely suitable to a challenging speed-run because of that. It is a game you MUST NOT go into blind, there are subtle aspects of the control like how you have to HOLD DOWN SQUARE to jump off a ledge right at the edge as you run over it, not tap it.

What you call "awkward" seems a lot more like a poor understanding and approach, like someone who went into the game blind making expectations at face value.

I'll admit the more recent analogue-controlled Tomb Raider games are easier to get into and more fun, but far less satisfying. There is an inherent 'guesstimation' to your interaction, Tomb Raider Classic you don't take a single step without knowing exactly what will happen. As someone who has played through the entire classic series I'll tell you the game would be ruined by free-flipping analogue type controls.

What is wrong here is Tomb Raider and Black and others is clearly not to your style of play, yet you call it overrated.

That pisses people off.

I don't like football, i can't stand it. Football video games even worse, I'd rather dig a ditch than have to play FIFA 12 but would I call FIFA 12 a bad game or overrated? Even if I didn't understand it and hated it? No. I'd understand it is an acquired taste and respect the industry consensus that is made up by people who like that sort of game... it is very good at what it is trying to do and be.

I don't like Skyrim of Bethesda style RPGs but I respect it enough to not say Skyrim is overrated even with a 96% metascore... even though I personally would not rate it that high based on my honest personal opinion. I know for that type of game it ticks every box with gusto.

Overrated would be games where the industry has been clearly biased, like giving uncharted 1 an 88% yet Uncharted 2 a 96% to spite being very similar in standard. The Former came out in a time when Playstation 3 had burned its users with a huge launch price and a sudden price cut, it had been a bad year, it was a new franchise. I'd say THAT is an example of a game being under-rated, by the industy's consensus. Or maybe halo 3, with such anticipation when 360 had just been going up and up.

 

[Tryzon]

Huh, I kind of came in here expecting a hotbed of controversial claims and acclamations. When I first read the thread title, immediately my mind was filled with a list of game titles so ingrained in gaming and fanboy culture that the mere though of pointing out their obvious flaws would turn the ne'er-do-well into a pariah. I expected lengthy explanations calling out the flaws of titles that included Deus Ex (the good one), Final Fantasy VI, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and perhaps a cursory look at Portal and the System Shock series and delved into whether or not they could really be called "perfect" examples of their genre and medium in retrospective. The only 2 games I found on the list that I actually called out ahead of time were KotOR (which to be fair was improved dramatically thanks to its modding community that unearthed extensive parts of the game that were cut out at the last minute but still on the disk) and Half-Life 2. A good 70% of the list (to my knowledge at least) was already publicly lambasted to popular furor by much bigger and better critics years ago. If anything this reminds me of a blog post, full of personal insight but really just a retread of old news. Unless they were accompanied by marketing campaigns similar to the one for Dante's Inferno, I would hesitate to call most of your games "overrated".

And yes, TimeSplitters WAS a good series. We get it. Stop hitting us over the head with it.

Funnily enough, it says it's a blog post above the original post. I share these things on The Escapist and then people tell me to get a blog, not realising that it is. Funny how that works. And since when does the fact that someone else looked at something years ago mean someone new can't?

On a happier note, I find your avatar hypnotic

 

[Tryzon]

I'll debate people when they have real criticism, but nitpicky attacks on games because they are popular is not a valid platform for any debate.

Excuse me. I don't hate things because they're popular, but if I happen to to hate something that's popular, then I'll write about it. Besides, it's called my top 10 list of the most overrated games I've ever played. Kind of hard to write that without featuring some well-liked games, eh?

 

[oktalist]

Most non-controversial post ever.

However, camelCaseMeansFirstLetterIsLowerCase.

 

[Tryzon]

You know what your problem is, you hate games for not being what you expect them to be... rather than appreciate them for what they are!

Also, your post is insultingly meandering and pedantic. You go off on a 3 paragraph spiel about your personal situation before you even start on the actual relevant subject.

And the arrogance to say that games that simply don't suit your personal tastes are "over-rated". Ratings are industry consensus. Over-rated would mean the consensus of the industry isn't really as high as the actual score but that it was somehow inflated for whatever reason.

Black is not Modern Warfare or Rainbow Six, it is like an action movie where you are supposed to empty a long burst of awesome full sounding machine gun fire, not a tight neat burst or single shot. And you have to give appreciation to the sound an effects of explosions, though low res they were just the best ever shown.

You don't even play Tomb Raider games and you call them over-rated. You don't seem to even understand HOW the controls work! It's not supposed to have light easy fluffy controls but very particular controls all about exploiting the long jumps getting them just right. It's a game where you have to THINK about every step you make and think 3-4 steps ahead.

I'll have you know I go into games blind whenever possible. For instance, I've deliberately avoided all the Skyrim information that I can so that I can go in and find out what my honest opinion of it is.

And what does it mean for something to be overrated? The general consensus doesn't match my opinion, so I think it's overrated. Seems simple to me. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill there, though that's apparently a theme of my piece.

I've played outlandish, action movie-esque shooters. Urban Chaos: Riot Response comes to mind, and that has shooting that never feels anything other than satisfying and fair. Guys take a while to die if you just hit their torsos, but unlike Black, headshots are considerably easier, so it's not a problem. Play that on its hardest and it IS hard until you earn enough upgrades, so don't think I just want an easy shooter. For me, Black is underwhelming and not even supremely good soundwork solves that. Speaking of which, I did point out the awesome sniper rifle sound, at least. Were this a full review, I certainly would've made more fuss about the sound, but 'tis not the case.

And I said I played Tomb Raider! All the PS1 ones, if I recall! Not right to the end, sure, but I said I played them and didn't enjoy them. What's not to understand? Something like the Prince of Persia trilogy requires planning too, but the controls are nowhere near as awkward, likely because they were made at a time when 3D was well-established as the industry norm. I feel like we're going in circles now. Thought we'd cleared this up already.

Well I don't think that is fair, to go into games blind.

In games you as the player are given so much agency, you are not passive, and the developers try so hard to prep you for games. Things like advertisements are not just soulless marketing, they are part of the experience to slowly immerse you in the world. The publishers control what they release, what would be spoilers and what they wouldn't consider spoilers.

I'm not saying COD is easier or harder, enemies take less hits but then so do you.

You are clearly TRYING to kill in a few bullets with this focus on headshots when black isn't about that. You have weapons with implausibly high capacities, fast fire rate, and low recoil... it's all about charging in and killing through volume of fire on them, not getting the headshots.

The "problem solved" with Prince of Persia is not a matter of "finally understanding 3D environments", it was simply the implementation of analogue-stick controls in a loose way. I hate to break it to you, but there is a lot of direction assist with these types of games. Tomb Raider is a methodical game, not a bopping around play it by ear kind of game. This is about mastery of your environment, this is something supremely suitable to a challenging speed-run because of that. It is a game you MUST NOT go into blind, there are subtle aspects of the control like how you have to HOLD DOWN SQUARE to jump off a ledge right at the edge as you run over it, not tap it.

What you call "awkward" seems a lot more like a poor understanding and approach, like someone who went into the game blind making expectations at face value.

I'll admit the more recent analogue-controlled Tomb Raider games are easier to get into and more fun, but far less satisfying. There is an inherent 'guesstimation' to your interaction, Tomb Raider Classic you don't take a single step without knowing exactly what will happen. As someone who has played through the entire classic series I'll tell you the game would be ruined by free-flipping analogue type controls.

What is wrong here is Tomb Raider and Black and others is clearly not to your style of play, yet you call it overrated.

That pisses people off.

I don't like football, i can't stand it. Football video games even worse, I'd rather dig a ditch than have to play FIFA 12 but would I call FIFA 12 a bad game or overrated? Even if I didn't understand it and hated it? No. I'd understand it is an acquired taste and respect the industry consensus that is made up by people who like that sort of game... it is very good at what it is trying to do and be.

I don't like Skyrim of Bethesda style RPGs but I respect it enough to not say Skyrim is overrated even with a 96% metascore... even though I personally would not rate it that high based on my honest personal opinion. I know for that type of game it ticks every box with gusto.

Overrated would be games where the industry has been clearly biased, like giving uncharted 1 an 88% yet Uncharted 2 a 96% to spite being very similar in standard. The Former came out in a time when Playstation 3 had burned its users with a huge launch price and a sudden price cut, it had been a bad year, it was a new franchise. I'd say THAT is an example of a game being under-rated, by the industy's consensus. Or maybe halo 3, with such anticipation when 360 had just been going up and up.

We seem to have about ten conversations going on here. Can we at least narrow it down?

Let's just accept that I've hated Tomb Raider for a long time now and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Let's also accept that my talk about the headshots was just an example and not the way I play any given shooter. By extension, let's just accept that I don't care for Black. We clearly have different definitions of overrated. Let's accept that as well.

What I'm more interested in discussing now is what I mean by going into something blind. When I boot up a game, I like to let it present itself and not have my expectations coloured by things. As mentioned, I know only the basics about Skyrim, because I very consciously avoided reading any articles about it so basically all I know comes from the adverts that have popped up everywhere. The way I see it, if you know that you're pretty much definitely going to play something at some point, why spoil it by looking into it beforehand? The process of discovery is one of the big appeals for wide-open things like Elder Scrolls, so going in blind enhances that experience for me.

That's what I mean. What do you make of it?

 

[Xaio30]

That ain't a wall. That's a god damn FORTRESS! Are you planning on killing someone with that thing?

 

[Terramax]

But you took particular offense with the old Tombraider games controls. If you have a problem with the controls well then either you must be pretty bad at the games or you just don't get them.

I think it's that this gentleman doesn't get Tomb Raider. The reason why she runs 'like a tank' is largely because it isn't a fast paced platformer such as Mario or Sonic. It's an action adventure game. The original at least was much about taking your time to explore the locations and solve puzzles rather than rushing to the finish.

And it's ironic the guy mentioned Soul Reaver as being a game that nailed 3D controls when it doesn't really play any different.

I can understand if someone doesn't like the controls to the old Tomb Raiders, but to imply they're broken is silly.

Also comments about Lara and sexism are dumb. The games were good that's why people bought them. And to think people bought them to stare at jagged breasts is equally stupid.

I disagree on this to a point. I know for a fact that many people in my high school obsessed over the Tomb Raiders greatly due to the sexed up heroine. That being said, sex doesn't sell an entire franchise. If Tomb Raider really played that bad, they may have just about gotten away with a sequel, but not selling a new installment once a year.

My opinion is that the original TR is a fantastic game. I still play it every year or so even now. I've never had a problem with the controls, even after playing current gen action games, the graphics on the PC still nail the atmosphere, the music is outstanding, locations great to explore and puzzles fun to solve.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You are critical (of the smallest, most insignificant things) but you are not a critic.

The qualifications for being a critic are incredibly low.
Perhaps not a credible critic ("credibility" being based solely on popularity since criticism of this sort is ENTIRELY subjective), but a critic all the same.

I find it odd he got slapped with a warning for that post though; are we truly that afraid of dissenting opinions now? Yeah, there's spots of rants in that mess, but nothing that overtly pissed me off.