The Most Overrated Games that Aren't

[the_great_cessation]

Ocarina of Time

The holy grail of "overrated titles" due to it being the go-to choice when gaming magazines and websites want to crown a game the "best of all time". For years this title was a sacred cow but as of late it is probably one of the most dissected and criticized games in all of gaming. I really don't get this. For it's time, it was really miles ahead of what was released and holds up well to this day (which can not be said to the majority of games from it's time). It was a technical masterpiece and was the grandfather for both cinematic and open world gaming. It was also decidedly subtle for a video game (in both design and theming) and as a result is still discussed to this day. I feel as though a lot of the criticism comes from thre camps.

1) The 2D Zelda purists who feel Ocarina of Time ruined the series (ie; Egoraptor and his "sequelitis" video)
2) Younger gamers who have never lived in a world without 3D and fail to understand the significance of a game as cinematic and polished as Ocarina of Time during it's release.
3) Hardcore Zelda fans who feel that Ocarina of Time is too "vanilla" and "archetypal" in relation to the "true" masterpieces (Wind Waker, Majora's Mask, Link's Awakening - basically any game that has something distinctivly non-traditional about it)

As far as I'm concerned though, Ocarina of Time was a milestone title that impacted millions of kids and young adults the world over and is THE standout title of early 3D gaming.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well, I have a problem with the concept of "overrated", but as Vigor points out, the OP is asking for opinions, so whickering away about how poncey it is to consider something overrated to begin with is kind of needlessly antithetical.

So, let's see some of the common ones. I'll try concentrate on contrasting common complaints against common praises, to elucidate how certain games have appeals that might not be universal, so rather than being "overrated" perhaps they are just not for you. I'll bold titles that I myself bitched hard about.

1. BIOSHOCK INFINITE

Why they hates it - Bad gunplay, "plot holes", arguments the game was thematically hypocritical

Why it appealed - As a story it was an emotional/character driven piece about redemption, not a rube-goldberg puzzle about multiple dimensions and alternate realities. The science fiction/fantasy was secondary to the characters and themes being explored. It was also aesthetically beautiful.

2. MASS EFFECT 3

Why they hates it - One of the worst endings in modern fiction, lots of janky engine issues, pacing problems

Why it appealed - Some people did very well at viewing the entire 30 hour experience as an extended "ending", others liked the attempt if not the result to do a hard left turn into "thinking man's sci-fi" from the previous space opera. Some just liked the multiplayer.

3. DARK SOULS

Why they hates it - Repetition, repetition, repetition. Shitty controls. Washed out graphics. Opacity.

Why it appealed - The Sisyphean nature of the game play combined with the melancholy atmospherics made it one of the rare games to communicate complex emotions (sadness, dread, loneliness) without relying on traditional narrative formats.

4. SKYRIM

Why they hates it - "Width of an ocean, depth of a wading pool". Shallow RPG mechanics.

Why it appealed - It's a mod-friendly sandbox and seems to delight actual roleplayers. This is true of all Bethesdas games. Those interested in systems-heavy meta-gaming often find them befuddling embarrassments to the genre, those capable of willful suspension of disbelief and immersion find them near bottomless rabbit holes of entertainment.

5. THE LAST OF US

Why they hates it - Shockingly shitty/formulaic game play for a "survival" game, lots of QTEs, cheatin' AI

Why it appealed - Like Infinite it's a game where game play takes the back seat and lets story and characterization take over. Both of them are stories about bad men, father-daughter relationships, and redemptive paths. They are both differently cynical. I found Infinite the more elegant, less frustrating title, but they share a lot of strengths.

6. THE WALKING DEAD/TO THE MOON/GONE HOME/ETC

Why they hates it - It's not even a gaaaaaaaaaaaame / it's part of a SJW conspiracy

Why it appealed - Oh just shut up you plonkers.

7. HALF LIFE/HALF LIFE 2

Why they hates it - It's 10+ years old and the game play is no longer revolutionary

Why it appealed - At the time of their release, the game play WAS revolutionary. Both titles were masterworks of pacing. While there is little to no character or storytelling in either title, there's pretty strong indirect storytelling/ambient storytelling through good level design.

8. ANY MMO, MOST PARTICULARLY WOW

Why they hates it - They knew a guy who knew a guy who got addicted once, the game play is repetitive

Why it appealed - The better designed ones DO appeal to the systems/meta-gamey crowd, and offer nigh bottomless content for people who relax easily into reward loops. Even the least grand amongst their number tends to offer in the hundreds of hours of game play.

 

[veloper]

I was gonna be all snarky and say, "None", since the entire notion, either way, is subjective. But then I realized two things:

1) OP is asking for our OPINIONS, so chiming in with a subjective answer is warranted

THANK YOU.

I hope you're enjoying all the tame and boring answers here, because I don't see how you're going to discover any unknown gems with such a question.

So, "The Most Overrated Games that Aren't"...

The correct answer can actually still an objective one: none.
Goes like this:
By definition, an overrated game will be more highly rated (higher than the subject thinks is reasonable) somewhere. Usually this will be some place where you can actually gage the average rating, like on Metacritic.
So you're basicly asking for games that are on average rated too highly (our opinion), that aren't on average rated too highly (again our opinion). 1=0? FALSE
***

The most informative posts you're now getting, interpreted the question this way: name game(s) about which it was said, that on average it is rated too highly (always a MINORITY opinion), that are on average NOT rated too highly (poster's opinion, which will in this case will coincide with the MAJORITY opinion) and you can always find some dissenting opinion on just about everything.

Those just boils down to: a bunch of highly rated games (on Metacritic for example) that some random, anonymous handles on the Escapist also happened to like.

So for the list, just go to metacritic already. Works faster and you actually get the full list.

For potential hidden gems ask for "underrated" games instead. Results may still disappoint with random, anonymous handles though.
Still, in that case, play Marlow Briggs (only rated 65 out of 100 on M). Game's dirt cheap and a barrel of laughs.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Usually the only ones where it sort of bugs me is when people hate on games for what seem like really arbitrary reasons. Not really criticisms of the gameplay, but just a sort of vague dislike of the game 'type'.

For example,

Gears of War: A lot of people seemed to hate on these games for no other reason than "oh they're 'bro' games starring giant roided-up meatheads", but at the end of the day, I just thought that they were really, really fun games. Isn't that the point of gaming?

God of War: "Kratos is an unlikeable asshole". That's true, but that's sort of the point. And same as before, I just had a lot of fun playing them.

X-Com: Enemy Unknown: "The game is too 'dumbed down' from the original". I get this point too, but sometimes 'dumbing down' is a good thing. In the original, you could literally get screwed because you forgot to give one of your guys ammo prior to the mission. We're supposed to be believe these guys are humanity's best Soldiers, yet someone needs to remind them to bring ammo to a battle?

Skyrim: "It doesn't have __________". True, but a game of the size and scope of Skyrim can't possibly be all things to all people. The problem with games like this is that the more they add, the more people want. Not to mention that, whatever your "_________" is that you're missing, there's probably a mod for it.

 

[jhoroz]

I was gonna be all snarky and say, "None", since the entire notion, either way, is subjective. But then I realized two things:

1) OP is asking for our OPINIONS, so chiming in with a subjective answer is warranted

THANK YOU.

I hope you're enjoying all the tame and boring answers here, because I don't see how you're going to discover any unknown gems with such a question.

I don't think he was looking for hidden gems, just popular games that he believes don't deserve the mess people seem to talk about them and reasons as to why that's so.

 

[veloper]

I was gonna be all snarky and say, "None", since the entire notion, either way, is subjective. But then I realized two things:

1) OP is asking for our OPINIONS, so chiming in with a subjective answer is warranted

THANK YOU.

I hope you're enjoying all the tame and boring answers here, because I don't see how you're going to discover any unknown gems with such a question.

I don't think he was looking for hidden gems, just popular games that he believes don't deserve the mess people seem to talk about them and reasons as to why that's so.

So just about every popular game ever made, plus reasons.
Go aggregate!

 

[DementedSheep]

Mass effect 3, yes the ending was shit. I particularly dislike the Synthesis option (the other two at least feel like they belong in the series. Synthesis just come out of nowhere and feels too much like space magic) and hate how much they push it as the "best" but the rest of the game was pretty good. Not without flaws and it's not the best game ever but better than ME1 and 2. There are a lot of stories I like that have terrible endings. It doesn't erase the enjoyment I had getting there. Perhaps it's because I wasn't a die hard fan of the series on the first place so my expectations weren't set that high or because the "illusion of choice" doesn't bother me that much.

 

[Prince of Ales]

I've never understood how someone can like Morrowind without liking Skyrim. They're two iterations of the same general idea. Sure, you've got issues with combat and balance, but that's a recurring complaint through the series. Oblivion was along the same lines (probably more issues with that game compared to Morrowind and Skyrim admittedly).

So yeah, if someone doesn't like TES games generally, I can sort of get it. But all these obligatory "Morrowind was better!" comments you get every time Skyrim is mentioned, those just come across as pretentious to me.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The Halo franchise.

Show me another multiplayer game where you can play 4 player split screen online from a single account. Can't do it? No, didn't think so.

Halo is one of the best multiplayer party games because you can get 4 people on a single console playing against other players from around the world. It's fucking great and it's something no other game does.

.... Uh CoD?

I guess that might as well be my entry. Contrary to popular belief (well obviously its just my opinion), CoD's gameplay doesn't actually suck, its just gotten stale. Eat bacon for a year and you'll end up regurgitating everything once you see some delicious deep fried pork.

You can't play 4 player online splitscreen in COD. You can do it in private matches on lan but not online.

 

[RubyT]

You weren't supposed to feel guilty because of a scripted sequence. You were supposed to feel guilty about buying a military shooter game for your personal enjoyment.

Did the developers feel guilty about selling me a military shooter game for my personal enjoyment?

I don't think so, since their next game is "Dead Island 2". Way to drive home their point. If hypocrisy is their point.

That is correct. Murdering people is bad, and the game acknowledges that. Let's not forget that pretty much every other game of its genre does not.

Well, at least every other game understands that NPCs aren't people. What's next, Dragon Age driving home the point that there aren't really dragons.

I never got the greatness of Bioshock's twist either. So we do whatever games tell us to do without thinking much about it. No shit! Hadn't really noticed while I spent two hours roaming around trying to find some rare herbs for that tertiary side quest in my favorite RPG.

And did Irrational Games, after that clever meta commentary on games, actually innovate mission design for BioShock Infinite...

 

[Signa]

While there are some valid complaints about Spec Ops, I can't stand people who obviously played the game because they heard it's a deconstruction and then say "it's obvious what will happen in the phosperous scene", the whole point is that someone who hasn't heard of the game won't expect the outcome, don't act like some know it all pricks.

My problem with that is simply the giant heat signature. Unless I somehow forgot to eject RF: Armageddon and jammed Spec Ops in on top of it, I could tell there was something off.

Going to have to spoiler a bit of my input

Spoiler

Totally agree. I knew that there was something that was going to be tragic in the game, but I had no idea what or when it was going to happen. I got to that scene, and saw the pool of signatures, and was like "hey, look at all of those non-combatants," so I didn't bomb them. Then suddenly, I couldn't get out of bomb mode until all the signatures was gone, and I felt really cheated once I bombed them. They stopped being innocents, and became just a trigger for the next cutscene. It would have been completely different if I had killed a bunch of them while blasting everything up, but that's not how it went down. I haven't played the game since that scene.

 

[DerpHerpilous]

I'm going to come right out and say Morrowind as my choice for this category. Yes, the gameplay is simplistic and the UI kind of a pain in the ass. The combat is floaty and generally unsatisfying, but the huge continent you are dropped in to explore is a rich and varied place and was the primary reason that I picked up Skyrim in the first place because you get to go back there. The storytelling is done primarily through text, despite the fact that they managed to get a few voices done for things like guards yelling at you for being a no good thief/murder-hobo. I frankly miss that about the TES games and I think they have gotten slightly worse for it. The conversation system seemed more conversation-y than my silent mage staring unblinkingly slightly to the right of someone while I choose what to say to them. The use of effectively hyper-linking certain conversation topics to make them available for use later was pretty cool at the time.

Morrowind was a very light hearted game at it's core, unlike it's successors. They gave us funny events like the Colovian mage falling from the sky leaving us with 3 scrolls that could lead us to a far flung death if we weren't careful or a few more gold for selling some scrolls made by a crazy person who thought jumping was the best method of travel. It gave us a pair of boots that gave you something like a 1000% speed increase but also made you 100% blind. As anyone who has played the game extensively will tell you, Mark and Recall were some very useful and neat spells, which sadly were removed in lieu of Fast Travel on a map screen.

Let's not forget spellcrafting while we are at it. Skyrim marked the death of spellcrafting, which was one of the most enjoyable things to do in both Morrowind and Oblivion. They gave us necromancy, shouts, and better spell balance in return but it got rid of one of the things that set the TES games apart from other RPGs.

The aesthetics alone were leaps and bounds more interesting than "Welcome to Scandinavia with Lizard and Cat People!" Guards were decked out in gold armor with blue and purple mixed in. The architecture was nothing like what we would see on our planet. They had land squids which they used as transportation around their continent. Now we have bland guards in armor that is either just iron or plastered with the emblem of their city, more traditional architecture for Earth inhabitants, and horses.

Do the newer games play better? Yeah, they certainly do. But they lost a lot of what made Morrowind so special while doing so.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I probably have a bunch of new suggestions I could make but I don't want to make one for now because all the discussion of Spec Ops The Line makes me want to comment on that for now. I only ever played it through once...just once. But it was still one of the most important gaming experience I've ever had and a favourite game of mine.

I feel that Spec Ops The Line requires a few things from its player to actually really "get" it as a game. Which is why a lot of people don't.

For one...how you're introduced to it is important. I bought it because I'd basically read the equivalent of "get this game, its different to other shooters" which I think is one of the best ways to get introduced to it. Basically the best effect is if you go into it with no more than a hint that something might be off.

Second it requires you to understand that you chose to play the game. And you chose to continue playing it. A lot of the criticism I see about it is "what am I supposed to do? I bought the game, I'm just supposed to not play it? That's stupid." Which is the entire point of course. Its like a soldier being given orders. You bought the game and therefore you're going to play it. More generally its trying to call into question "why are you buying these types of games?" because it strips away the glory to let you see the ugly side where things DON'T go your way at the end and there isn't a happy ending to look forward to. MMS games are a never-ending stream of violence in a way that lets you be the "hero". But what if you take away the chance to be a hero? What happens to the player and the character if you take away the ability to be the hero of the story? Well, you end up with Spec Ops The Line, which is an endless stream of bad situations getting worse and worse, all in the service of "I've got to keep going because it'll all turn out alright in the end when I get the head bad guy, I'll achieve redemption for what I did that way".

Ok so I recognise its somewhat unrealistic to expect people to just stop playing a game they've paid for; but I think there are two other aspects to this that you can take away from it apart from the "just stop playing" thing. One is whether or not you recognise what is happening and where it is going and the other is the particular reason why you kept playing. If you identified what was happening and completed it out of a fascination of how far it would go then its not really criticising you as much as others I feel. But if you didn't and you just kept playing because "well I paid for this so I'm going to keep going" or "there must be an upturn in the story, there's got to be" then its asking you to start re-evaluating yourself.

At a late point in the game it asks you "Do you feel like a hero yet?" and I think the answer to that question is the line between those who hated it and those who loved it. The answer from both is almost certainly "No", but the "because" for a person who didn't connect with the game is "...because you're making me do all these horrible things to progress". Whilst the "because" for a person who did connect was "...because I'm not a hero, am I?"

It forces you to rationalise your actions. And it forces you to recognise the reasons for you choosing to go on in a way that people find uncomfortable.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Also agree with Skyrim.

It's really stupid too because when it first came out, almost EVERYONE was singing its praises. Talking about how great it was for RPing and how much it improved Oblivion's/Morrowind's combat and etc.

And then after a while, everyone just started to hate it.

Because the fanboys stopped being so ridiculously annoying about how the game is the best thing ever so now you can actually see the unpopular opinions that where there since the beginning.
The fact that the game forces you to use the quest markers is enough to make the game an infinitely worse RPG than Morrowind, meaning the game actually is overrated.

 

[00slash00]

The Final Fantasy 13 series. I feel, as I always have, that they were good JRPGs but bad Final Fantasy games (much in the same way Fallout 3 and New Vegas were decent RPG shooters but bad Fallout games). They changed too much about the basic formula, to the point that 13 and 13-2 barely felt like Final Fantasy games and Lightning Returns was like the socially awkward love child of a JRPG and Majora's Mask. But I had fun with all of the 13 series (though less so with 13-2) and as much as people complain about the story being confusing or just simply bad, I never had trouble following the plot and was consistently interested. I will say, however, that Hope can suck it

 

[Smigglebops]

Every goddamn game I have ever enjoyed is over/underrated to someone. I just ask that people don't beat me over the head with their opinions or try to pass them off as anything other than subjective.

 

[Gladion]

I can see what you're getting at, since the whole game is about a situation spiraling horrifically out of control. The thing with the WP scene is that you're obviously meant to be in the dark about it. Your character certainly is and it is presented in a way that the player should be as well.

Spoiler

So that once the smoke clears that feeling of satisfaction at what you thought were enemy troops turns to shock when you realize you've burned a bunch of innocent civilians to death.

That was not exactly what I was getting at and I'm also not quite sure why you say that the character was in the dark about what was going to happen. Sure, the three didn't know that

Spoiler

there were civilians there, but other than that, as I said, it was pretty clear from the get-go that what was about to happen would be a bad decision that gets no justification except a desperately ignorant "it has to be done." So what if it's soldiers you're about to burn alive? And the scene wasn't played for glory at any point in time, there was no satisfaction to be felt by killing this camp of enemy soldiers who were only half your enemies.

But I'm not here to tell you to feel anything about that scene. If it didn't work for you, then it didn't. I'm just saying that there was no "twist" in it, and that, even though I knew what was about to happen (both times), I thought it was impactful.

Did the developers feel guilty about selling me a military shooter game for my personal enjoyment?

I don't think so, since their next game is "Dead Island 2". Way to drive home their point. If hypocrisy is their point.

That really doesn't make any sense. They didn't sell you a military shooter game for your personal enjoyment, they sold you a military shooter game for your personal reflection.

Neither does your comparison to Dead Island 2. Spec Ops never claimed that it's inherently immoral to play violent video games. And even if it did, so what? The game is over and the point was driven home with the ending, not with an entirely different game that comes out 3 years later. By that logic, Steven Spielberg wouldn't have been allowed to make Schindler's List, because it makes no sense in context with E.T.
What's more, a person/developer must always, for the rest of their existence, keep saying the same one individual statement and never, ever say anything that could even in the slightest contradict that, because that will instantly refute every point they said before?

That is correct. Murdering people is bad, and the game acknowledges that. Let's not forget that pretty much every other game of its genre does not.

Well, at least every other game understands that NPCs aren't people. What's next, Dragon Age driving home the point that there aren't really dragons.

Oversimplification for the sake of being in the right, and you managed to try and counter three times in one post with stuff that has nothing to do with what was being said. Of course it's not wrong to kill fictional characters in a virtual environment, and Spec Ops never said it was (which, by the way, I did state in the post you quoted, you just skilllessly removed it to make your point). The game has no interest whatsoever in making people feel guilty about killing people (well, maybe a little, but it's certainly not the point of the game). It wants to make us feel stupid and possibly ashamed for feeling like a badass when killing ficional characters in a non-fictional scenario while we're in our safe home, craving that next fix of feeling like a great hero without actually doing anything.

As I said to CS above, I'm not here to tell you you're wrong about not enjoying that game (it has more than enough flaws), but it's irritating when you're so smug about it, latching onto the simplest possible interpretation and then claiming the game is too simple.

Not quite sure out of where you pulled Bioshock in this aspect, but if you were actually thinking "what am I doing with my life" after two hours of mindless grinding and then continued to grind, then I can't really hold it against Bioshock for not being able to drive its point home to you, which wasn't just about video games in the first place.




And just for the sake of being on topic at least once in this thread: God of War 1-3. Yeah, QTEs, I know, but I didn't care. The games scratched an itch that was really bad after Devil May Cry 3.

 

[RubyT]

That really doesn't make any sense. They didn't sell you a military shooter game for your personal enjoyment, they sold you a military shooter game for your personal reflection.

And then they make Dead Island 2. Seems like there wasn't much personal reflection for them.

Spec Ops never claimed that it's inherently immoral to play violent video games.

Then why did you say, and I quote, "You were supposed to feel guilty about buying a military shooter game for your personal enjoyment."
If it's not immoral, why am I supposed to feel guilty?

By that logic, Steven Spielberg wouldn't have been allowed to make Schindler's List, because it makes no sense in context with E.T.

No. A correct analogy would be Spielberg, following Minority Report, making a movie about how great it would be to prevent crimes by weeding out criminal thoughts.

The game is over and the point was driven home with the ending, not with an entirely different game that comes out 3 years later.

What's more, a person/developer must always, for the rest of their existence, keep saying the same one individual statement and never, ever say anything that could even in the slightest contradict that, because that will instantly refute every point they said before?

I'm sorry if the irony is lost on you.

Of course it's not wrong to kill fictional characters in a virtual environment, and Spec Ops never said it was (which, by the way, I did state in the post you quoted, you just skilllessly removed it to make your point)

Then skillfully point me to where in your original post you say that. Because I can't find it.

The game has no interest whatsoever in making people feel guilty about killing people (well, maybe a little, but it's certainly not the point of the game). It wants to make us feel stupid and possibly ashamed for feeling like a badass when killing ficional characters in a non-fictional scenario while we're in our safe home, craving that next fix of feeling like a great hero without actually doing anything.

Uh-huh. So when you said, and again I quote, "You were supposed to feel guilty about buying a military shooter game for your personal enjoyment.", you actually meant something else entirely.

As I said to CS above, I'm not here to tell you you're wrong about not enjoying that game (it has more than enough flaws), but it's irritating when you're so smug about it, latching onto the simplest possible interpretation and then claiming the game is too simple.

I never claimed the game was too simple. And I wasn't being smug about anything. You are actually the smug one.

Not quite sure out of where you pulled Bioshock in this aspect

Because the twist was kind of similar.

but if you were actually thinking "what am I doing with my life" after two hours of mindless grinding and then continued to grind,

Where did I say I continued to grind?
You go around accusing me of misquoting, and here you are putting words in my mouth twice in one post.

 

[Gladion]

snip

I have to give you that point on Bioshock. You didn't say you continued to grind, you just said that you collected herbs for 2 hours in your favourite RPG and I simply assumed that you didn't significantly change your playstyle.

For the other stuff it's getting a bit convoluted, so I'll continue without these quotation blocks:

Recap: Spec Ops wasn't about making its players feel guilty for killing fictional characters. It was about making the players feel guilty/ashamed/whatever for indulging in the power fantasy for going to a non-fictional (albeit virtualized) war and winning it all by themselves while not actually risking anything.
So the reason is important: it isn't fictional killing that is being declared as immoral, but a fictionalized, trivialized mediation of a very current, very real situation, and utilizing it for personal enjoyment: Not personal enjoyment of virtual killing, but of being the self-imagined hero of the war on terror.

That's also why there's no point in dragging Dead Island into this, because while yes, Spec Ops is, in essence, anti-violence and Dead Island is very clearly pro-violence, the latter doesn't contradict the former's actual message: "using real war for fictional fun is bad".
And you still haven't told me why that would matter anyway. How would that diminish the point Spec Ops makes?

And when you say "other games understand that NPCs aren't people" then it's clear to me that you're criticizing the game for sillily being about violence against virtual people. You then add "what's next, Dragon Age saying dragons don't exist." If that's not a comment about the game's simplicity, what was that?