Tbh I wouldn't call them overrated, most people recognise they are pretty shit now.
No white text?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Most overrated video/computer game ever?
- Thread starter Peanut Butter
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I'm not a fan of Fallout 3 and 4. Think I've said it in a previous thread but I feel that the post apocalyptic wasteland that is depicted in these games is just dull. They have basically bought new meaning to 50 shades of grey. Also found the characters and gameplay pretty uninspiring too.
I much prefer the world and characters presented in more fantasy rpgs such as Final Fantasy X or Witcher 3.
I much prefer the world and characters presented in more fantasy rpgs such as Final Fantasy X or Witcher 3.
Overrated: GTA (All of them).
I'd have to say Skyrim, it's not a bad game by any means, but not a 10/10 game it was lauded as by the gaming press.
Pinball.
Are you saying the reviews never once mentioned the mechanics, or are you saying they should have guessed and singled them out based on a hunch players might not like it? You really are spoiling it for yourself going into the game thinking they are actual issues btw, especially the rain. It opens up a whole world of new gameplay options, it's there to help as much as hinder or at least to teach a valuable survival lessonWhen it's something that make people not enjoy the game, then it needs a mention.
If you had a review of MGS 2 and someone said you'll play as another character than Snake, and that he's a whimp in comparison (note for MGS fans, I don't play that series either, just the first example I could find) you'd be a bit turned off, but at least you'd know what you're going to.
Angry Joe i found a bit later (since he puts so much work on his reviews), and I think he got it spot on in terms of mentioning what can be annoying but still praising the game (going by how many truly see it as a masterpiece, not by anything I've seen for myself yet for those who may just now read this convo) and giving it a great score.
I really should just get to play it so I can have feelings to base it on instead of speculated feelings. Anyone wanna ship their switch to northern Norway with a copy?
In any case, those mechanics that keep being brought up are in most cases seen as problems to fix, but they aren't actually. Hence why I guess loads of people didn't bother to mention them as such. But unless I'm wrong, the reviews did mention they are part of the game?
I do get where you are coming from and this is an interesting topic. I'm not sure why the scores shouldn't be as high as they are based on what people 'might' think though. That's not how it works.
It's similar to the framerate criticism. Why is Zelda particularly singled out all of a sudden, when other games the person saying it likes have the same problems, if not worse? Is it just because Jim made a big deal of it? Does it not count if it's fixed now anyway?
BTW @Ødegaard when you do finally get around to playing it, let me know first so I can give you some tips on how to help truly enjoy it. It feels like people miss so much, especially with the weather system. There's a whole level of weather reading and using it to your advantage that is incredibly easy to miss!
League of legends
It was just the moment when Elder Scrolls got cool wasnt it
Will do. But as mentioned before, will take some time. Have some economic issues these days due to my doctor fecking up. ^^
That sucks, it's always so amazing we live in 2017 and shit like this still happens
Well in any case, I wish you all the best my friend!The rain stuff I don't see as issues, that just sounds good. It's just something others have noted as making the game less enjoyable. (which I don't understand but accept since not everyone likes the same stuff. Few people love to grind as much as I do to be insanely overpowered in rpgs, and find heavy grinding for single player games to be ruining the experience)Are you saying the reviews never once mentioned the mechanics, or are you saying they should have guessed and singled them out based on a hunch players might not like it? You really are spoiling it for yourself going into the game thinking they are actual issues btw, especially the rain. It opens up a whole world of new gameplay options, it's there to help as much as hinder or at least to teach a valuable survival lesson
In any case, those mechanics that keep being brought up are in most cases seen as problems to fix, but they aren't actually. Hence why I guess loads of people didn't bother to mention them as such. But unless I'm wrong, the reviews did mention they are part of the game?
I do get where you are coming from and this is an interesting topic. I'm not sure why the scores shouldn't be as high as they are based on what people 'might' think though. That's not how it works.
It's similar to the framerate criticism. Why is Zelda particularly singled out all of a sudden, when other games the person saying it likes have the same problems, if not worse? Is it just because Jim made a big deal of it? Does it not count if it's fixed now anyway?
The only thing I have a slight worry about is really how my mind will take to the idea of weapons as consumables but our talk back when the game came out made the breaking of weapons seem to happen less frequently than I was lead to believe by the people who did point it out as a potential stumble-block for enjoyment.
When it comes to reviews, I think it should include what the reviewer liked and disliked and also talk about how the game feels (as in how smooth controls, cameras is, bugs, voice acting, animations etc), mechanics that make the game-play (weapons being consumables, how frequent it is, whether there are ways around it or if they felt its something you're likely to get used to, how often you find other weapons). Most reviews I read back when the game came out sang its praise as a masterpiece of a open world with tons of interesting interactions with elements and stuff like that (lighting arrow fishing, fire burning grass, rain climbing) but very few mentioned the weapons breaking as a thing to get used to, likely because they got used to the idea fast.
I honestly don't remember 100% certainly if they mentioned it or not, but I didn't get the impression that it could be a stumble block like it's been for so many. But as you say, should they guess on what's enjoyable or not for people or just comment on whether it by design works or not? I tend to read reviews and watch gameplay videos purely to see if I like the mechanics for leveling up when I look for new rpgs to play. I can feast on just about any standard fantasy story, so that's never a big issue for me.
People who come from my "background of gaming" enjoy a sort of progress that traditionally isn't in the Zelda games, like leveling up character or strengthening weapons you get attached to. Or in my recent case I've grown fond of how dark souls does it with styles of attacks mattering a lot more than just the damage output for your individual playstyle. That doesn't mean it'll be impossible for me to enjoy weapons as consumables, but not knowing anything about it and just feeling like I need to find a way to preserve my weapons so I can get attached wouldn't go away if I wasn't able to dwell on it like now before I have the experience. So for a Zelda fan, it wouldn't change much, but for me it's quite a big change. Yes it's by design so I'm not saying it's wrong, but there is a reason I listed gta, any shooter and all of those as "overrated games", they aren't enjoyable for me, and I'm the kind of patient at hospitals who need to know what's going to happen. I need to know when the next biopsy comes, when and how painful stuff are likely to be so I can mentally prepare for it. Others like it best when they look away and suddenly have the needle pierce their skin.
Sorry for how much I ramble on about something that can probably be summed up in a line or two. I've never been very good at shortening down things.
Never say sorry for rambling! I'm about to ramble myself
I actually agree with a lot of what Jim says in that review, and that includes the weapons. Well mostly. He makes an excellent point, that the weapon system is designed to make you (much like you can, though not forced in Dark souls) learn and adapt. In fact the whole game is actually that, the main point a lot of the detractors seem to miss for one reason or another, it's about adapting and surviving. But what it can do, if you don't embrace that or if you just don't have the patience/like for that kind of thing, is make you wary of using certain weapons and in fact missing out. That is a very good point he made. Luckily for me, and it seems most, I thrived under those rules and the reason is because the world is so consistent. Sure you lose a lot of weapons, but if you take a few seconds to plan your next move, you don't necessarily need a lot of weapons (which, btw you can carry loads of anyway). But I did find myself falling foul of that early on, keeping weapons and not exploring their use. The weapon degrading is a very good idea for me, but it does need tweaking imo. However, it all works in sync, because going in with weapons is not the only way forward. The way the Witcher deals with weapons is far worse btw, because in that they don't even matter at all. I'd rather have the option and have to keep switching, than stuck with the same old shit seeing loads of potentially cool stuff just be absolutely pointless.
Which brings us to the biggest problem of his review, the rain. The rain and the issue of it is perhaps the biggest thing that sums up what people miss about this game. He calls it a "silly Nintendo touch" put in for the sake of it. He was completely wrong and people still read the rain wrong. For a start, he clearly didn't understand that you can read the rain and tell when it's coming, through clever audio and visual design and when to maybe not climb. He doesn't mention at all using the shield slide in the rain to actually travel quicker (try across a field) or that in doing that you open up new combat options. He didn't acknowledge that the world is far more filled than people understand, so instead of climbing use that opportunity to explore, or what about the survival element? Unlike most games that either force you to find a campfire, or open up quick travel (which you can do here too) losing time and progress, you can just find shelter and build a camp fire and then skip the rain or use the time to prepare. He clearly didn't realise that if you want to not put the time and effort in to learn this stuff, then just look at the fecking weather forecast his screen shots show yet he never once mentions! It is a survival game at heart, that's the part he specifically mentions in his review and then blatantly misses. Again this is far more consistant and interesting a mechanic, than say Horizon, where one minute you are climbing mountains and the next minute you can't climb a fecking rock
So what do you want these guys to do? Knock a few points off for those who might not 'get' the point of fully functioning design choices? Fine. But then what about our old mate Jim here adding a few points for those that do? Is that not then a thing?
I've always been one of the biggest critics of reviewers on here, by quite some way. I've dealt with these guys and I know how it works. As a gamer, I'm also very wary of being stung, after all despite the fact Skyward Sword is still a great game, it definitely did get the 'Nintendo' treatment. BotW didn't specifically because of this though, it's a bonafide masterpiece. Through the whole game you still will never learn all the little things that make the eco system work, just look at some of the youtube vids or watch some of the talks done by game designers/developers. Sure people can dislike it and not agree, that's absolutely fine, in fact that's great as it's what keeps things moving forward. But expecting people to drop points because of what some players 'might' think? That's not cricket for me. Not if it doesn't work both ways at least. Consistency.
BTW, for balance, let me point out I do watch and read a lot of his stuff. His Splatoon 2 review is very reflective of how I think, though even in that he fails to understand the idea of the Salmon run. This is why I chose to have a little fun the second his name was mentioned
Think you have me completely wrong here.Never say sorry for rambling! I'm about to ramble myself
I actually agree with a lot of what Jim says in that review, and that includes the weapons. Well mostly. He makes an excellent point, that the weapon system is designed to make you (much like you can, though not forced in Dark souls) learn and adapt. In fact the whole game is actually that, the main point a lot of the detractors seem to miss for one reason or another, it's about adapting and surviving. But what it can do, if you don't embrace that or if you just don't have the patience/like for that kind of thing, is make you wary of using certain weapons and in fact missing out. That is a very good point he made. Luckily for me, and it seems most, I thrived under those rules and the reason is because the world is so consistent. Sure you lose a lot of weapons, but if you take a few seconds to plan your next move, you don't necessarily need a lot of weapons (which, btw you can carry loads of anyway). But I did find myself falling foul of that early on, keeping weapons and not exploring their use. The weapon degrading is a very good idea for me, but it does need tweaking imo. However, it all works in sync, because going in with weapons is not the only way forward. The way the Witcher deals with weapons is far worse btw, because in that they don't even matter at all. I'd rather have the option and have to keep switching, than stuck with the same old shit seeing loads of potentially cool stuff just be absolutely pointless.
Which brings us to the biggest problem of his review, the rain. The rain and the issue of it is perhaps the biggest thing that sums up what people miss about this game. He calls it a "silly Nintendo touch" put in for the sake of it. He was completely wrong and people still read the rain wrong. For a start, he clearly didn't understand that you can read the rain and tell when it's coming, through clever audio and visual design and when to maybe not climb. He doesn't mention at all using the shield slide in the rain to actually travel quicker (try across a field) or that in doing that you open up new combat options. He didn't acknowledge that the world is far more filled than people understand, so instead of climbing use that opportunity to explore, or what about the survival element? Unlike most games that either force you to find a campfire, or open up quick travel (which you can do here too) losing time and progress, you can just find shelter and build a camp fire and then skip the rain or use the time to prepare. He clearly didn't realise that if you want to not put the time and effort in to learn this stuff, then just look at the fecking weather forecast his screen shots show yet he never once mentions! It is a survival game at heart, that's the part he specifically mentions in his review and then blatantly misses. Again this is far more consistant and interesting a mechanic, than say Horizon, where one minute you are climbing mountains and the next minute you can't climb a fecking rock
So what do you want these guys to do? Knock a few points off for those who might not 'get' the point of fully functioning design choices? Fine. But then what about our old mate Jim here adding a few points for those that do? Is that not then a thing?
I've always been one of the biggest critics of reviewers on here, by quite some way. I've dealt with these guys and I know how it works. As a gamer, I'm also very wary of being stung, after all despite the fact Skyward Sword is still a great game, it definitely did get the 'Nintendo' treatment. BotW didn't specifically because of this though, it's a bonafide masterpiece. Through the whole game you still will never learn all the little things that make the eco system work, just look at some of the youtube vids or watch some of the talks done by game designers/developers. Sure people can dislike it and not agree, that's absolutely fine, in fact that's great as it's what keeps things moving forward. But expecting people to drop points because of what some players 'might' think? That's not cricket for me. Not if it doesn't work both ways at least. Consistency.
BTW, for balance, let me point out I do watch and read a lot of his stuff. His Splatoon 2 review is very reflective of how I think, though even in that he fails to understand the idea of the Salmon run. This is why I chose to have a little fun the second his name was mentioned
I'm not saying Sterling rating it right because others support it. I'm not a professional critic, journalist or gamer. I'm just saying that gamers can rate the game as a 7/10 and the reason they give weight to sterling is because he was the only one that wasn't singing its praise with top scores.
People will always be attracted to similar views. I liked sterling review apart from a few hiccups here and there, but I'm not in a position to say if a game critics score is the right one or the wrong one as it's not my profession. I put very little into what scores say about a game as opposed to what's in the review. But I think there is nothing wrong when a private person says that mechanic x, y or z lowers or ups their rating, because that's subjective and perfectly fine. It's why we can have threads such as these were we can comment our beliefs on what's been overrated by others or by critics.
If someone gives dark souls a 1/10 I'm fine with that if they for example say that it's due to the game being too hard, that it doesn't explain anything and they didn't find enjoyment in bashing their head against a wall until it breaks and they'd much rather spend their time and money on a gta game where they start up, grab a car and get going.
These people will agree with reviewers that say that dark souls is too bad at directing the player etc and give it low scores.
So again, my issue isn't with Jim stealing, or having to agree with him. I just think everyone should be able to say what they enjoy and not without being looked down upon (apart from friendly banter of course).
No, it's you who has completely got me wrong here
No one is saying people can't have their own opinions and views! I've said it to you from the off, and I'll say it again, Jim Sterling and BotW opens up certain opportunities to have a little fun. That's all I was doing with the guy
I mean, come on, when do you ever hear reviewers named by name as part of a point? In only happens really with Jim and that's always in connection with Zelda, so I figured I'd show a point that it's easy to be a wind up. You've read waaaaaay too much into a little harmless fun. That being said, the discussion is still a valid one based on the amusing way we all see things in one thing we don't in another.
Call of Duty for me, definitely. It's always been shit, even MW2. The only one I liked was World at War, and the new WW2 one looks good.
This. Easily one of my all time favorite games.
Goodie then.No, it's you who has completely got me wrong here
No one is saying people can't have their own opinions and views! I've said it to you from the off, and I'll say it again, Jim Sterling and BotW opens up certain opportunities to have a little fun. That's all I was doing with the guy
That being said, the discussion is still a valid one based on the amusing way we all see things in one thing we don't in another.
The only reviewer I find myself agreeing with most of the time is Chris Stuckman. The rest I just try to decrypt info from.
Not proving a popular opinion! Where do you rate it in GTA series, top?
- Dark Souls: The fake difficulty and cheap mechanics ruined this game for me. Rolling off a cliff due to awful camera angles and getting hit through walls isn't fun. I love the World that they created and the Lore is great but the game feels cheap and unfair rather than genuinely challenging.
- Gonna get slaughtered for this but Ocarina of Time: I never had Nintendo growing up, was a Playstation kid and all through primary school I heard about this amazing game and it frequently comes up in the GOAT game discussion. As I said, maybe its because i didn't grow up with Nintendo but I played it 5 years ago when I was 15 and it didn't really blow me away. It wasn't a bad game but it didn't do anything for me
Cheap mechanics like being hit through are walls are definitely annoying but what is the fake difficulty in DS?
I can agree about the PC version, since the graphics were outdated by otherwise it was good, IMO.
L.A. Noir.
Rockstar had the chance to make another truly revolutionary game but was only able to produce some unplayable trash. The ability to make decisions and change the outcome of the story-mode was overshadowed by an absolutely dreadful plot with a ridiculous ending and an even worse free-roam. It ran on the coat tails of GTA but there was so little to explore and keep me occupied. They really dropped the ball on that one guys. Pathetic. A lot of people forget to include it when they mention Rockstar titles - it blew chunks and it's just best to forget about it and hope they can produce another historical piece from the mid-20th century.
Rockstar had the chance to make another truly revolutionary game but was only able to produce some unplayable trash. The ability to make decisions and change the outcome of the story-mode was overshadowed by an absolutely dreadful plot with a ridiculous ending and an even worse free-roam. It ran on the coat tails of GTA but there was so little to explore and keep me occupied. They really dropped the ball on that one guys. Pathetic. A lot of people forget to include it when they mention Rockstar titles - it blew chunks and it's just best to forget about it and hope they can produce another historical piece from the mid-20th century.
Wowzer. What games do you like??
Reviewers are annoying, but to be fair it's always been about siding with the guys you like most! Well the ones you continue to have a similar mindset too, after all for all I slag some of them off (Edge cnuts, I'm looking at you most!...) They are all human. Watch these fully, they won't ruin the game for you, in fact they'll take that negative shit you've heard away and make you appreciate it even more. Trust meGoodie then.
The only reviewer I find myself agreeing with most of the time is Chris Stuckman. The rest I just try to decrypt info from.
Story mode easily top imo. Overall GTA V because both the story and online were/are still great.
Remind me, was this overrated? I'm not sure I've seen anyone actually rate it after playing it. Maybe the first reviews were high because it's Rockstar
Is it overrated, though? Pretty common opinion is that it sucks ass, to be blunt.
Recently played Horizon Zero Dawn which was excellent.
Sorry, I just read your post again and your age.
Don't get me wrong my friend, I'm not going to say you know nothing or any of that, just saying you probably won't appreciate OoT the same way. It makes sense in that respect and fair play to you. But DS being cheap?? You've grown up with Horizon and Witcher 3, two games who actually have cheap and simplistic difficulty, DS is the exact opposite of that! It's not cheap, the enemies aren't bullet sponges, you just need to learn the best way to beat them and thus getting better at the game as you go. it's about your own skills, not just pressing a single button and upgrading what you have, then pointing and clicking!
Yeah I guess you're right, Dark Souls just felt super uncompromising a lot of the time and I really didn't playing through it which was a shame since I love the lore and the setting.
Yeah I was talking about the initial fanfare it received and the opinions of people I knew when it was released. Nowadays it's forgotten about but I'm reacting to the aura that came with it back in 2011.
If the majority of people love a game and you say it's overrated, isn't your point totally ... moot?
Overrated to me means a game that got great reviews at the time but is now looked back as being undeserving of them by the general public. GTA IV being a prime example, or MGS4.
You can't really call Witcher 3 or BotW overrated because most people who've played them love them and the love has only gotten stronger the more time has passed!
Overrated to me means a game that got great reviews at the time but is now looked back as being undeserving of them by the general public. GTA IV being a prime example, or MGS4.
You can't really call Witcher 3 or BotW overrated because most people who've played them love them and the love has only gotten stronger the more time has passed!
Dead Space.
All COD games.
WoW.
All COD games.
WoW.
You really should mate, and I mean that. Don't get me wrong, early on it's annoying and frustrating and some things don't seem right but believe me there is a certain point, and it differs for everybody, when it clicks. And when it does, you realise that it's an amazing game and when you start bossing the enemies and right until the end the gameplay then matches the lore!
This.
Which makes this:
More correct.
Dead space 1 was great and didn't get much praise at all at the start IIRC. Went downhill after that though, 2 was heavily dumbed yet heavily praised and EA knew 3 was a turkey yet bought hype.
Forgot dead space series
What a great game part 1 was. And I liked two a lot as well. Never played the 3rd but did try the one on the Wii which was really awful
What a great game part 1 was. And I liked two a lot as well. Never played the 3rd but did try the one on the Wii which was really awful
How is any of that overrated then?
Are you sure you get the point of the thread gramps?
I was continuing the flow of the conversation dickwad
So, shiney things! Allow me to help focus that ageing mind.
We are talking about games you think are overrated. Not games you like and forgot about, until someone mentions them...