The Most Overrated Games that Aren't
- Thread starter SnakeTrousers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Huh, my take on GH is almost the opposite.SKBPinkie said:
When the story is all said and done it's just another tale of star-crossed lovers (an archetype that's been stale since Romeo & Juliet), but the act of exploring the house is in fact one of the better examples of that sort of "archaeological storytelling".
Granted, the actual story isn't told through the environment but instead through the magic audio logs, and that single ball-less cop-out on the dev's part hits the game like a shotgun to the knees. The cop-out you find in the attic (which changes the story from a bittersweet struggle in a broken world to a tryst in which everything turns out perfectly fine and nobody grows or changes in any way) hits the game like a shotgun to the heart.
Might be right with the Jarl's houses now that you mention it. Can't remember exactly. The one in Winterhold is like this log-house kind of design and they have a similar one in Morthal from what I remember. I'd have to check to see if they're exactly the same. The inns and shops are always going to be similar (but not identical), because they're using the same palette. All the modern TES games use a palette system like that.RubyT said:
Ok, are there any two caves in Skyrim, and by caves I mean the dungeons using the cave symbol on the map, that share the same layout? I've never found two the same, and I've found plenty the same in Morrowind.
THANK YOU! Jeez, I thought I was the only one who, while well aware of the issues Dragon Age 2, thought it was quite a solid game in its own right. I wouldn't say "great" (the repeating mobs and environments got old fast), but I actually quite liked the story, and LOVED how they handled party interaction. For that matter, I enjoyed 95% of the party members as characters, and still regularly hold up Aveline as an example of how to do a successful female character without making her overly feminine or a "man with boobs". *shoots the first person who snarks about Aveline's lack of attractiveness*FateWitch13 said:
Anyways, yeah, DA2 would get my vote. Probably the worst Bioware game, but that doesn't make it a bad or even mediocre game, to me. It's just that it had huge shoes to fill, and didn't entirely succeed. Does that make it bad?
Someone else already mentioned it but I'll say it again:
Tomb Raider
Tomb Raider
Seriously, mention the original series nearly anywhere online and the majority of comments will be all 'lol triangle boobs' followed by stupid debates over sexism and whatnot. It's ridiculous. It's like there's this entire invented narrative that the only reason Tomb Raider was successful was cheap titillation because it's a game with a female protagonist, which is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. It's not like there were then or are now are any lack of games out there that try to achieve success through cheap thrills alone and they don't all become mega-blockbusters with comic, book, and movie tie-ins.
Tomb Raider was successful because they were really good games. Some better than others obviously and honestly the first few games haven't exactly aged all that well, but there's no denying that Lara Croft's adventures were so influential as to have changed gaming as we know it. Puzzle-platforming wasn't a new concept but it's one that was revolutionized with Tomb Raiders 3D take on the idea, giving players massive and elaborate levels that tested their reflexes as well as their brains. Even today some of Tomb Raiders levels can be held up as amazing examples of level design that few games can match.
Add in a charmingly cheesy B movie style plot and protagonist and Tomb Raider was a hit. A hit that unfortunately seems to have been completely glossed over in recent years to the point where the popular new reboot of the franchise has about as much to do with the original games as Game of Thrones does to The Princess Bride, and people love it for that...
I believe that gameplay and story should be on the same level. Other than that, I totally agree with what you said there. If you're not utilizing gameplay, why make it a game to begin with?SKBPinkie said:
Now, do I think that Spec Ops did this badly? Not really, even though, as you said, the shooting itself is really bland. But it is part of the overall narrative the game provides, and the team was faced with a huge dilemma when they decided to tell an anti-war story with traditional TPS mechanics: if it had actually turned out fun to play, the story would have been completely absurd, kinda like what happened with the Tomb Raider reboot, but even worse.
Though I also think that those three games didn't really excel in gameplay (least of all Bioshock), all of them did tell some aspect of the story with their gameplay, and all of them were better for it. More than half the point of Gone Home was the mystery imho, and that just worked better when I wasn't provided with a predetermined flow of events, but had to figure stuff out by myself - even if there were very few actual puzzles.SKBPinkie said:
The intro of TLOU is actually an even better example, I think. It just wouldn't have had the same impact had I not been able to walk around and examine stuff at my own pace, constantly being worried about what might just happen to me.
Just walking around in Infinite being able to look at things enhanced it in my opinion. Sure, that's nothing special, but still better than just watching a longplay on Youtube. There was also this scene where Booker and Elizabeth make music together that's completely out of place, but put in between those over-the-top gunbattles I thought it stood out as a semi-cutscene and was all the better for it.
Now I admit, none of them pulled it off perfectly, not by a long shot, and I think that's the #1 challenge for gaming in the future, especially for those games that want to tell a serious story without being total shit in the gameplay department.
I keep churning out these walls of text, I apologize. Jeez.
Spec Ops isn't nearly as subtle and extensive as KS. If you're into that kind of thing, though, that shouldn't be reason not to play it, though. The two do things differently, most importantly because Spec Ops can utilize gameplay instead of "just" text.deathbydeath said:
I definitely believe DA2 would've done leagues better in reviews and the onslaught it recieved from the fans if it had just been a side game in the dragon age world, because since it took the direct sequel's spot, the fans were expecting something faithful to the first game....to which DA2 is not, it's a rough gem in its own rights, but there are lots of things about it that just fucked over the first game (including anders...he was awesome in awakening, but the fucker turned into a total ponce in the 2nd game.)FateWitch13 said:
at least that's how I personally feel, if I would've came into it expecting a game that was in the dragon age universe, but not a sequel to the first game, then I would've been a bit more open minded.
I disagree on your last point, if the game is a sequel to something, it shouldn't be deviating so much as to change what fans it had in the first place (you can see this in the differences from mass effect 1 to 2 as well, although the changes weren't as extreme.) The whole point that a sequel has a chance at existing in the first place is because of the profit/overhead that the fans of the first game generated for it, why would you possibly alienate them by taking chances just for the sake of taking them?
Out of interest, and because so many people have brought it up, what was wrong with the Tomb Raider reboot? Seemed like an ok game to me.
I imagine a lot of it has to do with disregard for prior installments, dumbing-down of mechanics, etc. etc. I liked it myself, but then I also liked DMC and I can understand why a lot of people didn't.Prince of Ales said:
Black and White.
It received ridiculously high scores in the magazines when it first came out, and after a while there was a major backlash against it, often from the same magazines. But I never really lost my enthusiasm for it. It has a lot of tedious flaws (difficulty spikes, obligatory training missions that take up the first two massive levels, an over-emphasis on creature handling, and a lot of annoying noises) that grate on you after prolonged play, but B&W was offering something that hadn't really been done before, even by its forefather, the populous franchise. And it looked gorgeous! And it was hilarious to lob peasants around the map, or crush their houses with giant boulders.
It received ridiculously high scores in the magazines when it first came out, and after a while there was a major backlash against it, often from the same magazines. But I never really lost my enthusiasm for it. It has a lot of tedious flaws (difficulty spikes, obligatory training missions that take up the first two massive levels, an over-emphasis on creature handling, and a lot of annoying noises) that grate on you after prolonged play, but B&W was offering something that hadn't really been done before, even by its forefather, the populous franchise. And it looked gorgeous! And it was hilarious to lob peasants around the map, or crush their houses with giant boulders.
I'm thinking Morrowind. It's one of my favourite games, it has huge scores on most review websites, but it seems like everywhere I read about it, people just say "Oh..THAT game with the F**ed up combat system". Well yeah I still love it and you have to admit most games that are 10 years or older, have plenty of flaws even if the general delivery was awesome.
Mass Effect 3.
The multiplayer is still meaty after all this time, and if you can block out the reflex rage at the original ending it's one hell of a ride through a great setting.
Bonus points for mentioning MGS 4.
Mechanically it was the series at it's peak, but christ so many of the plot and character choices were agonizingly bad.
MGS is such a tainted brand for me. I love, LOVE the sneaking and tacticool and it's solidly anti-War message, but goddamn Kojima wrote some wincingly stupid, sexist crap.
The multiplayer is still meaty after all this time, and if you can block out the reflex rage at the original ending it's one hell of a ride through a great setting.
Bonus points for mentioning MGS 4.
Mechanically it was the series at it's peak, but christ so many of the plot and character choices were agonizingly bad.
MGS is such a tainted brand for me. I love, LOVE the sneaking and tacticool and it's solidly anti-War message, but goddamn Kojima wrote some wincingly stupid, sexist crap.
Honestly Spec Ops:The Lines infamous scene didn't hit me very hard, probably due to the whole being spoiled. One scene however still sticks at me very prominently and it was IN game which made it better.
Relatively early on when you start fighting American soldiers, there's a large skirmish and lots of confusing rockets, etc. But at some point a civilian runs out in fright straight towards you, I blew that ***** away, without hesitating. Only until after I shot them did I realize who I shot, that hit me WAAAAAAAY harder then any other.
Relatively early on when you start fighting American soldiers, there's a large skirmish and lots of confusing rockets, etc. But at some point a civilian runs out in fright straight towards you, I blew that ***** away, without hesitating. Only until after I shot them did I realize who I shot, that hit me WAAAAAAAY harder then any other.
I've seen Bioware's games as a whole catch some more flack than they used to, and granted, Dragon Age II was a cut below their old work, and Inquisition comes up aces in almost every area, except the one that matters most (Story).
While it's true that Bioware have been telling the same basic story their whole career, let's not forget that they're really fucking good at it, in fact I'd say their good enough at it that even when their boilerplate plot is actively sabotaging their games, they still turn out great.
I've long said that the Reapers were about the least interesting thing about the Mass Effect universe, but Bioware have such a grasp of characterization and pacing that they managed to turn an entire trilogy whose focal point was this incredibly one-dimensional antagonist into some of the best games ever made.
Admittedly, things are getting worse. Like I said, Inquisition's story greatly disappointed me, due in large part to the fact that the game seems to go out of it's way to preserve the tired, insipid, idiotic, simplistic, corny, contrived Chosen One VS Cartoonishly Evil Monster plot. The game actively downplays and ignores other story possibilities that are both much more evocative, unusual and intriguing, and much more befitting the setting and the plots of the previous games.
Bioware needs to drop the Mono myth like a coke addiction, but like a lot of coke addicts, they manage to function pretty well regardless.
While it's true that Bioware have been telling the same basic story their whole career, let's not forget that they're really fucking good at it, in fact I'd say their good enough at it that even when their boilerplate plot is actively sabotaging their games, they still turn out great.
I've long said that the Reapers were about the least interesting thing about the Mass Effect universe, but Bioware have such a grasp of characterization and pacing that they managed to turn an entire trilogy whose focal point was this incredibly one-dimensional antagonist into some of the best games ever made.
Admittedly, things are getting worse. Like I said, Inquisition's story greatly disappointed me, due in large part to the fact that the game seems to go out of it's way to preserve the tired, insipid, idiotic, simplistic, corny, contrived Chosen One VS Cartoonishly Evil Monster plot. The game actively downplays and ignores other story possibilities that are both much more evocative, unusual and intriguing, and much more befitting the setting and the plots of the previous games.
Bioware needs to drop the Mono myth like a coke addiction, but like a lot of coke addicts, they manage to function pretty well regardless.
Half Life 2, Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy 7, really any of those games that came out years ago, someone plays for the first time today and says that they weren't impressed.
It's like they forget that since that games success in the past, almost every game like it has been trying to emulate it's success. No duh you've probably played better, the developers have had over 10 years to make a game like it and now you've probably played 16 games like it! It's about appreciating what the game offered at the time.
It's like they forget that since that games success in the past, almost every game like it has been trying to emulate it's success. No duh you've probably played better, the developers have had over 10 years to make a game like it and now you've probably played 16 games like it! It's about appreciating what the game offered at the time.
You know, I never hear people talk about this scene, but I had pretty much the same reaction. Big twist spoiled way before hand, so it didn't have the same impact on me as it did many others (even if I do feel it works well in the context of the story) but when I accidentally gunned down the fleeing civilian, THAT made me feel like a bit of a shit-head.MrHide-Patten said:
The best games take chances. The first Mario was worlds away from the second which fostered a market which wanted innovation. Not everything works. I'm not saying they should take a game and completely slaughter it. They didn't make Dragon Age 2 a platformer or a point and click adventure. Combat is still the main mechanic. They took risks with the storytelling, character arcs and setting but not so much so that you don't know it's a Dragon Age game. Risk taking is important. Sometimes it leads to failure. But any game could fail. A game that is the exact duplicate of the first could fail. We should not fear the new.gmaverick019 said: