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

[Tryzon]

*snip, it's a reaction to my post*

Oh, I'll agree that Valve isn't exactly Shakespeare in terms of storytelling, but what they *do* put out still feels much more fleshed out than most of the other "You're the stalwart hero of the land, go kill stuff" games you'll find out there. The worst recent offender being RAGE. Dan Hagar pulls you out of your first major bind, drives you to his settlement while shitting exposition in your face, and then hands you a gun, flat out *assuming* you're going to be fit for the job of murdering a gang outpost.

I'm sorry, when was it established that my character is some sort of military-trained guy? When was it established that I know how to use a gun? When was it established that I know how to drive an ATV and a dune buggy? To put it shortly, RAGE gives you no sense of place, and utterly fails to give you a personal sense of character - an identity.

On the other hand, Half-Life's always focused on who Gordon Freeman is. He's a scrawny MIT nerd with Hipster Glasses who just so happens to have handled Black Mesa's Hazard Course and to be ever so slightly qualified with blowing extra-dimensional aliens to pieces. He might not talk, but we definitely know who he is. We can get a sense of his life, his nature, and of how far he's come into his life. Considering this, it's easier to extrapolate on what Freeman might feel, when thrust into this position as the "One Free Man".

I mean, he's an egghead who happens to be good with guns, and the G-Man more or less drops him in the middle of a theatre of war in the second game. The G-Man is trusting that Freeman will make the right choices as an agent of change - which is a pretty risky gamble. Realistically, if I were Gordon, I'd have handed my guns over and bent over for Wallace Breen to screw me at his leisure, as much of a chickenshit as I am.

As I've said above, I understand that Valve doesn't reinvent the wheel, narratively speaking. However, judging by my ability to shit out the above synthesis and personal perception of Freeman's character, they have to have done something right. The very fact that I can do this is unique, in a landscape where even the Master Chief doesn't have an ounce of discernible personality and where the norm is more along the lines of mistaking juvenile slurs for character-defining traits, or a burly physical presence for an indication of underlying depth.

In other words, I think Gray from Bulletstorm and Marcus Fenix are empty and impossible for me to identify with. They're crude caricatures of human beings, whereas Freeman - for all of his silence - comes a lot closer to being believably human.

Yeah, I've only watched a bit of a Rage let's play and I still questioned why that bloke thought some confused dude from the past with fancy pyjamas was apparently qualified to take down a bunch of mad bandits. Seemed to be like he wanted you dead.

HL2's intro is indescribably better and may actually be one of the cleverest openings to a story-driven game I've ever seen. I do question why the Combine just start chasing you at one point, but that's a niggle even I can't be bothered to pick. As for Gears and such, I just can't stand the space marine-esque art style, where even the scientists look like they could beat Arnie at arm-wrestling. I can't suspend that much disbelief.

 

[Tryzon]

To put your list (I agree with some of it) in perspective, what games are in your top ten liked games?

Oooh, I wanna know this too!

I did already answer this, but here you go: "I could never write a concrete list of my favourite games, but regulars include Soul Reaver, TimeSplitters 2, GalCiv 2, and definitely the nightmare-factory that is Amnesia. You wanna talk about atmosphere and immersion? That one pretty much wrote the book."

 

[EzraPound]

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.

"mostly a point/shoot affair"

What an underhanded and pointless statement, that does nothing but belittle ALL games with a shooting mechanic and COMPLETELY IGNORES the challenge of damage and defence management statistics. You act as if it is simple to aim at a moving shooting target while you are moving as well and fire at just the right moment while not wasting bullets, and while I'm not saying you are swimming in ammo you MUST conserve your shots in Bioshock or you will quickly find yourself without any bullets when you most need them.

"that would seem new"

I'm sorry, but is this an attempt at an argument of "novelty as value" that something has inherent value simply because it hasn't been done before and is completely new? Bollocks. Bioshock's mechanics aren't good because they aee new, they are good because they are altogether very challenging, interesting and engaging that make you think about far more than point and shoot. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You could say Final Fantasy is simple "select attack and X", really shooters can have incredible depth in controls if you'd just stop and appreciate them for a moment.

" dark, linear corridors you had to saunter through"

Dark... so a game isn't that good because it has a consistent theme of being in a claustrophobic underwater city. Is ANY game that isn't an open world game inherently bad? Corridors are of course linear but if you are implying the game is, it is not. You don't know the meaning of linear, as each area is a labyrinth searching around and around, going back and forth and . You are most certainly NOT railroaded through the game, you are given so much freedom and encouraged to use it!

"casette book, effectively killing immersion."

I don't follow, how does listening to audio-diaries (that could very reasonably be all the craze over written diaries in Rapture) about the people of Rapture vividly describing their circumstance ruin immersion? It doesn't.

"in the age of Halo and Modern Warfare--gamers seeking alternative experiences will enjoy any FPS that diverges from the status quo"

EXCUSE FUCKING ME!! Are you saying Bioshock was just made for the Halo crowd who wanted a mere "divergence"?!?!? Halo and MW fanboys HATE Bioshock! Bioshock was a critical darling of old school critics but was mostly a popular failure with the Halo/COD buyers.

I'll have you bloody well know I was playing Quake and Counterstrike back when the halo-kiddies of today were just a twinkle in their parents eye! I played these games and RPGs of the day while I DREAMED about a way they could be combined! The engagement and personal challenge of a shooter with the depth and character progression of an RPG and the best narrative of all!

It is the RPG-fanboys of today who most scorn Bioshock, because they assume limited controls are some sort of defining element of a true RPG, that the action of FPS games would corrupt the "purity" of the RPG type games, that should be JUST about the stats and strategy, that there should be no place for the challenge and involvement of gunplay and dynamic melee fighting with split second timing. That's their problem, a game is an RPG or "just a shooter" and with prejudice that an RPG with shooting is tainted to be only a shooter and not an RPG.

Where is the room for the Fighting General? Not the one who stays miles behind the front line looking at maps, telling people what to do (the separation of the player from character control), but the one who goes right on the front line an applies their strategy themselves! That's what I see with RPG purists who prefer to have a button and % chance of headhsots, they are asking someone else to do the job rather than applying their tactics themselves.

I mean you are clearly prejudiced. After saying Bioshock is "mostly content to copy games released over a decade ago" You say Shadow Warrior is on the same level of quality as Bioshock. It's quite clear you are willing to block out and be a denialist about bioshock's acumen as an RPG and a game of great narrative.

It's easy to deny, to make spurious dismissive claims. But it's not easy to just say that without a bit of logic to back you up.

I'm calling you out on this.

1)Um. . . wait--so your argument for BioShock's quality is that ammo conservation, fire damage, having to shoot whilst moving, and lite RPG elements somehow elevate it to more than a point/shoot affair? These features would've been worth remarking about in 1999. Also, I beat the fucking game, and I still don't know what "defence management statistics" are.

2) You shouldn't accuse someone of underhanded argumentation if you're just going to throw adjectives at something in order to make your point. How are BioShock's game mechanics "altogether very challenging, interesting and engaging"? The game's difficulty varies depending on the skill level you select--though on Normal, it's not anything approaching hard. And frankly, a point-and-click shooter set in dark, stylized corridors with a few RPG elements and a lame hacking mini-game is not "interesting", nor "engaging."

3) My point is that the audio logs are a textbook example of lazy narrative exposition--compare, for example, how Half-Life 2 weaves your interactions with NPCs into the arc of in-game events. There's a reason voice-overs are considered taboo in films, y'know.

4) I actually didn't say that BioShock was popular with the Halo/Call of Duty crowd--just that its militant fanbase seems to be comprised of youngish gamers who lack the memory to recall the frequency with which better shooters were released in the nineties, or nostalgic thirtysomethings who are willing to settle for homage rather than innovation.

I stand by the statement that Shadow Warrior is as good as BioShock--better, maybe. It pioneered the use of sticky grenades (later seen in Halo), was one of the first first-person shooters to include usable vehicles, featured a highly inventive weapon arsenal, and--especially at the beginning of the game--excellent level designs. Basically, it was ignored because its graphics were sub-par--a fate BioShock would avoid, even if its gameplay (see: annoying respawning enemies) did not measure up.

Also, while it's nice that you "DREAMED about a way [RPGs and FPS'] could be combined", I don't know how this vindicates BioShock--System Shock 2 did the same thing in 1999, and Deus Ex surpassed it one year later. That BioShock was hailed as brilliant in 2007 is more depressing than anything else; attesting as it does to the post-Halo drought of great single-player shooters, Valve's output notwithstanding.

Oh, by the way--Deus Ex: Human Revolution showed BioShock up, whatever its faults.

 

[FilipJPhry]

For some reason, I read this in Yahtzee's voice.

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

While you make some good points, I have a few disagreements.

1: BioShock's story is brilliant, the fact that it's supposedly, I haven't played either of the games, like system shock is irrelevant ad it's made by the same people basically and, as said earlier, that doesn't make it any less of a story. Also, can you seriously look at the mainstream games that are popular right now and honestly say BioShock is only slightly better on an intellectual level? Most game stories are basically fairground rides with characters who serve only the barest of utilitarian functions.

2: I think your critiscisms of Red Dead Redemption's story are less to do with the game and more to do with the inherent gap between the character and the player which is present in all games which have a fleshed-out protagonist. I'm pretty sure there's an article about it here somewhere.

There's also the fact that I actually like RDR's controls but that's just me.

Anyway, I enjoyed this and hope to god that not all of your stuff is this long because i'll give it a look at some point. If this response is a bit incoherent it's probably because it's late at night and my brain still hurts after being ground against that wall of text.

 

[Tryzon]

1)Um. . . wait--so your argument for BioShock's quality is that ammo conservation, fire damage, having to shoot whilst moving, and lite RPG elements somehow elevate it to more than a point/shoot affair? These features would've been worth remarking about in 1999. Also, I beat the fucking game, and I still don't know what "defence management statistics" are.

2) You shouldn't accuse someone of underhanded argumentation if you're just going to throw adjectives at something in order to make your point. How are BioShock's game mechanics "altogether very challenging, interesting and engaging"? The game's difficulty varies depending on the skill level you select--though on Normal, it's not anything approaching hard. And frankly, a point-and-click shooter set in dark, stylized corridors with a few RPG elements and a lame hacking mini-game is not "interesting", nor "engaging."

3) My point is that the audio logs are a textbook example of lazy narrative exposition--compare, for example, how Half-Life 2 weaves your interactions with NPCs into the arc of in-game events. There's a reason voice-overs are considered taboo in films, y'know.

4) I actually didn't say that BioShock was popular with the Halo/Call of Duty crowd--just that its militant fanbase seems to be comprised of youngish gamers who lack the memory to recall the frequency with which better shooters were released in the nineties, or nostalgic thirtysomethings who are willing to settle for homage rather than innovation.

I stand by the statement that Shadow Warrior is as good as BioShock--better, maybe. It pioneered the use of sticky grenades (later seen in Halo), was one of the first first-person shooters to include usable vehicles, featured a highly inventive weapon arsenal, and--especially at the beginning of the game--excellent level designs. Basically, it was ignored because its graphics were sub-par--a fate BioShock would avoid, even if its gameplay (see: annoying respawning enemies) did not measure up.

Also, while it's nice that you "DREAMED about a way [RPGs and FPS'] could be combined", I don't know how this vindicates BioShock--System Shock 2 did the same thing in 1999, and Deus Ex surpassed it one year later. That BioShock was hailed as brilliant in 2007 is more depressing than anything else; attesting as it does to the post-Halo drought of great single-player shooters, Valve notwithstanding.

I realise I wasn't part of this conversation, but I read through it and I don't think anybody can really deny that elements of BioShock are dumbed down a bit, like the lack of an inventory and relatively slim number of customisation options. Not saying that's automatically a bad thing, but it's definitely simpler than, say, Demon's Souls, to use an extreme example.

 

[Tryzon]

While you make some good points, I have a few disagreements.

1: BioShock's story is brilliant, the fact that it's supposedly, I haven't played either of the games, like system shock is irrelevant ad it's made by the same people basically and, as said earlier, that doesn't make it any less of a story. Also, can you seriously look at the mainstream games that are popular right now and honestly say BioShock is only slightly better on an intellectual level? Most game stories are basically fairground rides with characters who serve only the barest of utilitarian functions.

2: I think your critiscisms of Red Dead Redemption's story are less to do with the game and more to do with the inherent gap between the character and the player which is present in all games which have a fleshed-out protagonist. I'm pretty sure there's an article about it here somewhere.

There's also the fact that I actually like RDR's controls but that's just me.

Anyway, I enjoyed this and hope to god that not all of your stuff is this long because i'll give it a look at some point. If this response is a bit incoherent it's probably because it's late at night and my brain still hurts after being ground against that wall of text.

I said BioShock's "style and themes are undeniably far above the intellectual level of the great majority of big-name releases". That's a bit more than "only slightly better". So I agree with you, basically.

I didn't express my problem with RDR's story very well, but what I meant to say was that so much of the game rates you on how much of a git or saint or are, yet the cutscenes always assume you're a saint, which creates a massive discrepancy if you're not. It's definitely something a lot of games have, but it seemed particularly pronounced because in every other respect, RDR keeps track of your alignment. Moral choice systems are a sticky business, but I feel that implementation is notable.

Anyway, glad you liked the piece overall. I do have some shorter ones, including some I prefer to this. I recommend searching for my Penumbra: Black Plague review, which is much happier than this AND a slim 2000 words. That might suit your needs

 

[Gottesstrafe]

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

Thank you for that compliment, honestly you're the first one to comment on it since I changed it months ago. Is your own custom made? It sort of reminds me of the Dragon graphic from one of the early Ultima games.

Alright, while I admit to simply skipping to the prologue my earlier point still stands. You say that this isn't meant to be taken as a review, but it most certainly reads like one. I get WHY you don't like the games you've listed, but it doesn't really bring up anything new that wasn't rehashed by other reviewers ages ago. This is especially important given the fact that you claim that many of these games are overrated, yet outside of a small, core fanbase the majority of these games (with a few exceptions) aren't really the type of games the majority at large would defend well enough to earn the "overrated" title. Are there still people defending Doom 3 and the Tomb Raider franchise? Was there ever really an enduring fanbase for Black? Even in the Halo fanbase Halo 2 is regarded as the ugly, neglected middle child when compared to its older brother Halo 1 and its younger siblings 3 and Reach. The only legitimate targets I felt you've tackled at all would be Half-Life 2, KotOR, Bioshock, GTA4, and MGS4 (which would still be tenuous at best since it's completely inaccessible to non inducted players and only the hardcore MGS fans are actually applauding it). Maybe if these games were newer/fresher in the mind or more iconic you could take out the old Overrated stamp, but with the amount of that's passed by since most of their releases the idea of banging on about how they're still overrated seems quaint at best.

 

[Tryzon]

Thank you for that compliment, honestly you're the first one to comment on it since I changed it months ago. Is your own custom made? It sort of reminds me of the Dragon graphic from one of the early Ultima games.

Alright, while I admit to simply skipping to the prologue my earlier point still stands. You say that this isn't meant to be taken as a review, but it most certainly reads like one. I get WHY you don't like the games you've listed, but it doesn't really bring up anything new that wasn't rehashed by other reviewers ages ago. This is especially important given the fact that you claim that many of these games are overrated, yet outside of a small, core fanbase the majority of these games (with a few exceptions) aren't really the type of games the majority at large would defend well enough to earn the "overrated" title. Are there still people defending Doom 3 and the Tomb Raider franchise? Was there ever really an enduring fanbase for Black? Even in the Halo fanbase Halo 2 is regarded as the ugly, neglected middle child when compared to its older brother Halo 1 and its younger siblings 3 and Reach. The only legitimate targets I felt you've tackled at all would be Half-Life 2, KotOR, Bioshock, GTA4, and MGS4 (which would still be tenuous at best since it's completely inaccessible to non inducted players and only the hardcore MGS fans are actually applauding it).

Legitimate points. I've just noticed over the years that Black seems to turn up in all those "favourite PS2 games" threads and such, along with a number of professional lists. I've never understood the appeal and in particular felt my trusty mag had betrayed me. I've become a very different person since the OPS2 days, but it's still a sore spot.

As for my avatar, it's actually a close-up of something I drew for one of my short stories. It's literally the absolute limit of my drawing talent, trust me. I'd give you a link, but you might've seen what happened when I tried that on the original post. Just search Tryzon on deviantART and flick a few pages back through my gallery, if you're interested.

Fun fact: Highlander is my favourite fantasy movie EVER so I 100% approve of your photo.

 

[Arkynomicon]

Yeah gotta say that I found Red Dead Redemption to be pretty mediocre. Then again I feel the same way about the entire wild west genera. I found myself enjoying the mini-games a lot more then the actual combat in it. The story was okay but at the end of the day I did not care for the main character at all. But the biggest sin that games commits is acting like a sandbox game without the sandbox fun I have associated with Rockstar games from PS2 era.

As for Bioshock I just enjoyed it as an FPS that is actually located in a cool (not grey/brown) setting, not being a war story, had some fun game mechanics with the whole magic shtick. I actually enjoyed Bioshock 2 more with it's fine-tuned combat mechanics, the bad guy options actually being relevant to the story more and the challenge of protecting the little sisters.

I didn't really get around to play the Bioshock games until this year and greatly enjoyed them for not being a cover-based FPS with regen-health system. It's a shame the upcoming game seems to use just those game mechanics. So after that fresh breeze of olden FPS fun with modern graphics my enthusiasm went down again.

 

[SpaceBat]

And I totally agree with all the people who call the story brilliant, being well-told, epic, true to the classics (yet still unique), featuring lovable personalities with noticeable character arcs and one atom bomb of a shock three quarters in.

I am still trying to understand this part. I still don't see how Kotor's story is anything brilliant. Yes, it's well told and the pacing is good, but that's basically about it. It suffers from the same problem you say Half Life 2 suffers. It's a brilliant team, brilliantly trying to get across an unremarkable story.

When it comes to the actual plot itself, it has nothing that puts it above other games. The story is treated black and white, even though it isn't so. The game throws you into the middle of all the action and then nearly entirely disregards the story behind everything.

This is all opinion, of course. It's just that I simply can't see why KotoR's story gets praised to high heaven.

...wow. I've not played BioShock 2

Keep it that way. When it comes to writing (both the plot/characters and narrative), it's absolutely atrocious.

 

[Tryzon]

Yeah gotta say that I found Red Dead Redemption to be pretty mediocre. Then again I feel the same way about the entire wild west genera. I found myself enjoying the mini-games a lot more then the actual combat in it. The story was okay but at the end of the day I did not care for the main character at all. But the biggest sin that games commits is acting like a sandbox game without the sandbox fun I have associated with Rockstar games from PS2 era.

As for Bioshock I just enjoyed it as an FPS that is actually located in a cool (not grey/brown) setting, not being a war story, had some fun game mechanics with the whole magic shtick. I actually enjoyed Bioshock 2 more with it's fine-tuned combat mechanics, the bad guy options actually being relevant to the story more and the challenge of protecting the little sisters.

I didn't really get around to play the Bioshock games until this year and greatly enjoyed them for not being a cover-based FPS with regen-health system. It's a shame the upcoming game seems to use just those game mechanics. So after that fresh breeze of olden FPS fun with modern graphics my enthusiasm went down again.

...wow. I've not played BioShock 2, but apart from that, I agree with every word you just said. That's pretty freaky. We were clearly separated at birth O_O

 

[Tryzon]

And I totally agree with all the people who call the story brilliant, being well-told, epic, true to the classics (yet still unique), featuring lovable personalities with noticeable character arcs and one atom bomb of a shock three quarters in.

I am still trying to understand this part. I still don't see how Kotor's story is anything brilliant. Yes, it's well told and the pacing is good, but that's basically about it. It suffers from the same problem you say Half Life 2 suffers. It's a brilliant team, brilliantly trying to get across an unremarkable story.

When it comes to the actual plot itself, it has nothing that puts it above other games. The story is treated black and white, even though it isn't so. The game throws you into the middle of all the action and then nearly entirely disregards the story behind everything.

You are completely right when you call it overrated.

I should quantify this: I find the story brilliant in that it not only fits into the Star Wars mythos without opening up a thousand plotholes or seeming like a predictable re-hash, but crafts characters that are more than memorable. HK-47 is probably one of my favourite personalities in any game ever, and I also like the relentless pessimism of Jolee. I genuinely would talk to them every time something interesting happened just in case they made some interesting comment on the situation. How many games can genuinely claim to have characters you give a damn about? Not a whole lot, I'd imagine. As well-crafted as Half-Life 2 is, I can't say I'd honestly care if Alyx died. Does that make me heartless? Maybe. I also like that KotOR's alignment system can make significant changes to the plot. Yeah, you end up going to the same places, but who you get there with and what your ultimate objectives are can differ wildly. That's something else you don't see too often.

But in every other respect, I can't stand the game, for the reasons you read about. Far as I'm concerned, it's a wonderful universe and story undermined by monotonous combat and tedious backtracking.

 

[Captain Booyah]

3) My point is that the audio logs are a textbook example of lazy narrative exposition--compare, for example, how Half-Life 2 weaves your interactions with NPCs into the arc of in-game events. There's a reason voice-overs are considered taboo in films, y'know.

Just out of curiosity, what better alternative would you recommend? The Half-Life 2 method isn't really feasible, because the vast majority of people who were giving the backstory on life in Rapture in the audio diaries were, by the time you find them, either dead or insane. That, and to an extent, it did employ that method in terms of the countless environmental details that fleshed out the world further.

But anyway, the only other options I can think of is one big exposition scene where absolutely everything is spelled out for you (which everybody hates) or replacing the audio diaries with written text, Dragon Age-style, which is even worse. The audio diaries were useful in that they provided the viewpoints and positions of every kind of person that lived in Rapture's society, and built up the narrative gradually, layer upon layer, again with different characters. If you didn't care about the story at all and just wanted to shoot things, then you weren't even obligated to pick them up. I'm no game designer and that probably shows, but as "simple" as the audio diaries were, I can't imagine anything more effective in terms of what they were trying to convey.

 

[drummond13]

Why do people put so much time and effort into writing about games they didn't like? Why is so much energy on this site channeled in such a negative direction?

There's a lot of great games out there, including some on this list that you apparently have major problems with. If you don't like them, hey, that's totally cool. I love BioShock and Half Life 2 and could write my own wall of text on exactly why they're amazing games, but there's no game that's going to please absolutely everybody. Still, the time it took you to write all this out could have been better spent elsewhere. Doing almost anything else.

I DO usually write about games I love, but this one piece filled with hatred just happens to have been the one everybody wants to read. What does that say about us, I wonder? More to the point, I did make very clear that this was an opinion piece, as if that wasn't clear enough from the venom dripping from every orifice. Try finding my Penumbra: Black Plague review on here if you want to see me make love to a game through words ^_^

Fair enough, this is the only piece of yours I've seen. I'm more reacting to these forums as a whole. The most positive posts seem to be along the lines of: "I love Skyrim, but what flaws has everyone found so far." It's a bad trend.

 

[SpaceBat]

I should quantify this: I find the story brilliant in that it not only fits into the Star Wars mythos without opening up a thousand plotholes or seeming like a predictable re-hash, but crafts characters that are more than memorable.

I partially agree with you on the memorable characters subject, but the first part of your post is exactly what disappointed me in the first place. I got bothered by the fact that it simply nested itself within the universe and did not do a single remarkable thing. We already had a Star Wars universe, we already had a compelling good vs bad story (the first three movies) and Kotor merely added more to that. I wanted something along the lines of what Kotor 2 partially delivered us (partially because the game is incomplete), a look outside the standard star wars universe and storytelling, a grey story filled with grey characters that not only make you interested, but also make you think. That's what I was expecting, that's what it didn't deliver. Perhaps it's just me, perhaps my expectations are what's at fault, because it was the first good Star Wars RPG, but I just can't really praise a story that basically re-does the same kind of story the series has been using the entire time, but just in a refreshing way.

HK-47 is probably one of my favourite personalities in any game ever, and I also like the relentless pessimism of Jolee. I genuinely would talk to them every time something interesting happened just in case they made some interesting comment on the situation. How many games can genuinely claim to have characters you give a damn about? Not a whole lot, I'd imagine.

In RPG's. Not a whole lot indeed. I completely agree with you on Jolee bindo and I find him, together with HK-47 and Bastilla to be the deepest, most interesting and most compelling characters in the game. They are also the reason why I don't dislike the story of the game, but merely find it to be overrated and not worth all the praise it gets. The problem to me is that these were the only characters that weren't shallow. Neither Carth, Zaanbar, Mission or anyone else had some depth to them, mainly because they barely had anything interesting to say during the entire game. They barely added anything to the story, aside from a personal quest.

As well-crafted as Half-Life 2 is, I can't say I'd honestly care if Alyx died. Does that make me heartless? Maybe. I also like that KotOR's alignment system can make significant changes to the plot. Yeah, you end up going to the same places, but who you get there with and what your ultimate objectives are can differ wildly. That's something else you don't see too often.

I wouldn't care either. Alyx is well characterized and not who I'd call shallow by any means, but I don't find her to be one of the most compelling of characters. The changes the alignment brings was indeed interesting to see, but in return most of our conversation options revolved around getting that meter up (or down). I can't remember a single meaningful and long conversation in the game that wasn't cluttered by blatand Jedi/Sith choices.

But in every other respect, I can't stand the game, for the reasons you read about. Far as I'm concerned, it's a wonderful universe and story undermined by monotonous combat and tedious backtracking.

Ah, the combat is beyond help, so I'm not going to disagree with you there.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

Couple things...

First, I did not read all of the way through your laborious wall of text. That was astonishing. I actually RESPECT the laborious wall of text. I respect that you love games so much you have a ton of opinions on them and you spent that much time spilling them out. Unabashed enthusiasm is an admirable quality. But, as an editor, that was horrifying. Consider your audience. If you're going to put that up for public consumption, you need to find a way to whittle it down into a more digestible format. You're not writing the next great American Novel here. You're writing capsule reviews summarizing why you find certain popular titles overrated. I can tell you there is a healthy population on this forum who would find this paragraph I'm writing right now to be grotesquely overlong.

Second, in reference to the quoted above:

A) Dirty pool. If you're going to put sarcasm quotes around "surprising" you need to elucidate why you thought the much celebrated twist was worthy of scorn. Just tossing some quotes around it is lazy criticism.

B) You what now? Half of your Bioshock rundown was comparing it unfavorably to a game you never even played? If you were here, I would slap your face. Don't get me wrong, I ADORE System Shock, and I'm THRILLED to see it get recognized, even by someone who hasn't even played it. Was it better than Bioshock? Eh...I dunno. It was definitely years ahead of its time, though, which is something Bioshock cannot as readily lay claim to. Still, condemning a game as overrated because it dared to follow up on one of the most criminally under appreciated titles of all time (And did you know they WANTED to make System Shock 3, but EA wouldn't let them? Did you? I bet you didn't), a series Ken Levine himself was the lead developer for...well, that's just silly.

 

[Treblaine]

1)Um. . . wait--so your argument for BioShock's quality is that ammo conservation, fire damage, having to shoot whilst moving, and lite RPG elements somehow elevate it to more than a point/shoot affair? These features would've been worth remarking about in 1999. Also, I beat the fucking game, and I still don't know what "defence management statistics" are.

2) You shouldn't accuse someone of underhanded argumentation if you're just going to throw adjectives at something in order to make your point. How are BioShock's game mechanics "altogether very challenging, interesting and engaging"? The game's difficulty varies depending on the skill level you select--though on Normal, it's not anything approaching hard. And frankly, a point-and-click shooter set in dark, stylized corridors with a few RPG elements and a lame hacking mini-game is not "interesting", nor "engaging."

3) My point is that the audio logs are a textbook example of lazy narrative exposition--compare, for example, how Half-Life 2 weaves your interactions with NPCs into the arc of in-game events. There's a reason voice-overs are considered taboo in films, y'know.

4) I actually didn't say that BioShock was popular with the Halo/Call of Duty crowd--just that its militant fanbase seems to be comprised of youngish gamers who lack the memory to recall the frequency with which better shooters were released in the nineties, or nostalgic thirtysomethings who are willing to settle for homage rather than innovation.

I stand by the statement that Shadow Warrior is as good as BioShock--better, maybe. It pioneered the use of sticky grenades (later seen in Halo), was one of the first first-person shooters to include usable vehicles, featured a highly inventive weapon arsenal, and--especially at the beginning of the game--excellent level designs. Basically, it was ignored because its graphics were sub-par--a fate BioShock would avoid, even if its gameplay (see: annoying respawning enemies) did not measure up.

Also, while it's nice that you "DREAMED about a way [RPGs and FPS'] could be combined", I don't know how this vindicates BioShock--System Shock 2 did the same thing in 1999, and Deus Ex surpassed it one year later. That BioShock was hailed as brilliant in 2007 is more depressing than anything else; attesting as it does to the post-Halo drought of great single-player shooters, Valve's output notwithstanding.

Oh, by the way--Deus Ex: Human Revolution showed BioShock up, whatever its faults.

1) I'm sorry, I didn't know a games worth was measured in their gimmicky novelty of "oooh, never seen that before" the point is what bioshock brings together adds up to more than the sum of its parts. You are breaking Bioshock down to its individual elements for individual dismissal rather than viewing the game as a whole. I'm not talking in terms of novelty, I'm talking in terms of ACTUAL engagement. It is NOT a simple matter of point and click, it is NOT a simple flash-game however much you may wish that it is, there is depth of tactical movement that you may refuse to use but it IS there and there are benefits to using it.

2)"throw adjectives"
Forgive me for using adjectives. By interesting in engagement I mean in stark contrast to the likes of Oblivion or Bethesda style combat. In bioshock you have to learn to dodge, to time your strikes to really think about you engage with the enemy with tactical use of distance and quick dynamic use of cover (NOT "lock to cover"), rather than just bring up VATS targeting and have the computer fight for you with stylised slow-mo. How can a secret underwater city in extravagant art deco styling inhabited by insane gangsters and monsters addicted to genetic self-modification all run by a mysterious arch capitalist... not be interesting? I smell prejudice. I think you are being a snob refusing to acknowledge greatness as it doesn't fit with your views.

3) "There's a reason voice-overs are considered taboo in films"

"...taboo in films..."

"...taboo in films..."
[HEADING=2]"TABOO IN FILMS!"[/HEADING]

IN FILMS! Bioshock is not a film! It is a game! Narration doesn't work in film for how it is used to state what is better shown, an audio trace is FAR PREFERABLE to a cardinal sin of video games: cutscenes. Bioshock could have been told through films, flashbacks, Bioshock could simply give up trying to be a game and be a film. The point of a game is to create a whole world, you are searching for clues like a detective, listening to people's accounts is a vital part of being a detective. The diaries are made audio so that the player can remain on the move guarding for enemies and searching for supplies.

And that's not to mention how much you hear from the splicers, this is a game unlike any other where the characters talk a legible language and even talk do you other than a cop simply saying "Halt!". This gives you insight into what kind of foes you are facing, they are not fighting you under blind orders but the kill-or-be-killed desperation that you can leave any time you quit the game but they can't.

How can you call this lazy? If you only think about this a game in terms of nit picking over "well they could have spent more money" you are deliberately discarding your suspension of disbelief to nitpick, you aren't finding holes you are making them!

4) I'm sorry, are you saying system shock 2 was better? With the dissolving guns, repetitive enemies and just the same narrow corridors?

HOW DO YOU HOMAGE YOUR OWN WORK!?!? And what is the matter with a homage? Why is it forbidden to return to something that has vaguely been done before?
Face it, Ken Levine wanted to improve on his past work and he has every right to do so and his work deserves every bit of consideration. He didn't - like Lucas - try to butcher past work with endless alteration or a belittling prequel. We still have System Shock 2 as it is. He started something new but with a familiar idea that he had every right to approach in a different way, and you have no reason to value the older version over this version simply because it got there first. I'm sorry Bioshock is not System Shock 3 but you know what: get over it.

And again with the innovation for innovation sake. You act as if innovation is so important that past innovations cannot be even used! Bioshock DID innovate, it has such an incredibly innovative location and premise, 1950's/60's in an undersea objectivist dystopia.

Yes, system shock 2 did combine them but it was broken by incredibly dumb design decisions like guns that dissolved as quickly as if made of plastic! It wouldn't be a shooter for more than 12 shots at a time!!! Deus Ex also is far too much a first-person RPG with some shooting, it is NOT a game with in-depth combat mechanics, or RPG elements that change how you fight whether as a slow tank or melee machine or fast hit-and-run guerilla. I haven't played DX:HR but does it have anything like:
-super-powerful fast-deployed melee that is delivered by your control, rather than a cut-scene of pre-animated takedown
-ability to levitate objects and throw them at lethal speed
-stun enemies at a distance
-hypnotise foes to attack their comrades or even join you
-summon a swarm of something to hunt down enemies
-shoot lightning from his fingertips to stun enemies
-set people on fire with a snap of their finger
-cast a decoy element to give a tactical advantage in a fight

 

[silasbufu]

Wow I'm surprised you didn't put Skyrim up there, for the drama.

I will honestly say I'm not capable of reading all of that without fainting, but I'll just agree with titles such as Bioshock, RDR and that's about it ( I have no idea what Black is, never played it, only know it's an FPS ). Sure, there are other titles up there I'm not 100% fond of, but "most overrated" of all time is not what I would call them. What came first in my mind is the Final Fantasy series. Sure there's like a billion of them and people say some are masterpieces, some are junk, but I just didn't get into the series as a whole at all.

But that's the problem with opinion threads. Opinion is a *****.
You can be the most intelligent being in the Universe and tell me a certain game is the best ever made. If I didn't like it, that opinion is void to me.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Hmmm, interesting read.

Here's my little retort:

BioShock

The so called 'niggles' you touch upon are really just that, 'niggles'. Just like there is no perfect movie, there is no perfect game (don't you dare say Citizen Kane). You say there are "just too many constant niggles for it to be the masterpiece so many see it as". I say "The level design and the way the dystopian 50's atmosphere (and propaganda) seeps through every aspect of the game, makes you forget the little flaws".

As for the comparing with System Shock 2, I really don't see the problem. I've seen many shooters rack up incredible scores, despite the fact that many of them do something that has been done countless times before. If anything, I would see it more as a tribute, a very big wink to those who played SS 2. It reminds me of Shadow Hearts Covenant. SH Covenant is the sequel to Shadow Hearts, a brilliant RPG when it came to story, characters, music and atmosphere, but flawed in gameplay and graphics (oh Lord, the graphics). However, they managed to get a much bigger budget for the sequel and the result was amazing. They also wanted to do a some things from the original they just couldn't do right the first time around. So they did. Fans loved it, newcomers didn't care and I don't think anyone complained.

Black

This got on your list of overrated games, really? I remember there being a very small hype prior to the release, but when it finally came out... I know they praised the game for having the balls to try and make a "single player only" FPS, but when it was finally released, things got pretty quiet really quick. People found out how short it was and that it didn't have anything spectacular to offer besides the "gun porn".

Doom 3

I remember many people criticizing this game. The main complaints being focused at "style over content" and "everything's too damn dark". Pretty much like you wrote. This one got a lot of hype before it was released, but once it hit the shelves... Again, wouldn't really count this one as an overrated game. Pretty much everyone knows and excepts it is flawed.

GTA IV

There are two types of people in this world: those who love GTA IV and those who hate GTA IV. And what's all the bitching about? Realism. I remember GTA IV being the game for many people to say: "We've come very far in our journey to attain realism and now that it is within our grasp, we've come to realize it just isn't worth it." This is, of course, utter bullshit. GTA IV introduced a change, not in gameplay (not by a long shot) but in tone. When people like something as it is, they don't like change.

Stating the obvious, really.

This reminds me Jak II: Renegade. There were also people who didn't like the new, darker tone or the use of flying cars, weapons and technology in lieu of nature, sunshine and rainbows. However, it turned out to be a milestone of a game. GTA IV is not a bad game, it is just not the game meant for YOU. I mean, I like surrealism, dear God do I like it. My favorite genres are RPGs and platformers for crying out loud. But you just have to accept that it isn't the game, it's you.

And about the music... No matter how much I like the old GTAs and their soundtracks, I can't think of any way to justify saying that GTA IV sucked in the music department. It had a surreal amount of songs and I find it very hard to believe you didn't find anything to your tastes. I personally loved Radio Broker and Vladivostok FM. And if I'm not mistaking, GTA IV also featured the awesome I Wanna Be Your Dog from Iggy And The Stooges - so it can't all be modern music, right?

Half-Life 2

The genius of Half-Life mainly resides in the feats it achieved concerning graphics and physics. A game (especially a shooter game) that has those aspects as its merits, automatically ends up taking a blow in the department of timelessness.

If there was a scale showing how timeless a game can be based on its genre, I'd say puzzle games would be at one end of the scale and shooters on the other.

As for the story... it wasn't as much the plot as it was the mythos it is supposed to set up. You shouldn't treat the plot as that of a Persona game, instead try to compare it as that of an Elder Scroll title. It is as you say, "a brilliant team using intelligent storytelling techniques to tell an unremarkable story". The plot isn't the driving force behind the storytelling element, that's what makes it unique. Think less Pitch Black, think more 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Halo 2

I'm not going to comment on this one because it features points of critique I've read about thousand times before. I've heard that Halo 2 is often considered "the black sheep" of the main series.

I remember playing it with a couple of friends on a private, little LAN-party. I liked it. I mean, the dual wielding sucked, it destroyed the Needler and the Pistol, but it was fun. Even managed to roadkill a Banshee with a Warthog. Good times.

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

Not a big fan of stealth games, so... I haven't played it and can't really comment on it.

Red Dead Redemption

I've got it lying here, but I still haven't had the time to play it - like so many other games on my to-do pile.

Knights of the Old Republic

I've got an old X-Box copy... On my to-do pile.

Tomb Raider

I've got Tomb Raider Legend laying around... Strike three for the to-do pile.

Now, I'm not some English teacher or anything. Hell, English is only like... my fourth language (though I can speak it better than my second and third). Nonetheless, I'd like to leave you with a piece of advise: try not to be too smug and cynical. A few nudges here and there are always good for laughs, but too much of a good thing and you will look like some biased snob (like a lot of reviewers eventually turn out, really). Exception of this rule are video reviewers - but even then, only if it's meant to have a satirical undertone.

Oh, and little tidbits like "it is 'id' as in 'kid', not 'id' as in 'eye dee'" aren't really relevant. (And I think most people already knew that anyway.)