Top 10 Overrated Games

[Red]

But there are already like 8 cod games. There is a difference between continuing a story and just straight up milking a franchise. And I don't feel your comparison to movies works here, because a movie only tells a story a game is interactive and after 3 games, I think it is unacceptable to have the gameplay be exctly the same.

 

 

Then you're gonna have a problem. Mario, until Super Mario 64, was functionally the same. Zelda on everything before the N64, plus on Gameboy, was functionally the same. Half Life is functionally the same across the series. Assassin's Creed is functionally the same across the 4 "main" games. Uncharted 1, 2, 3 is all the same. They change locales, settings, setpieces, plot points. They add some new mechanics, while keeping the base mechanics the same. In Mario, you had new powerups. In Zelda, new weapons. In Half-Life, new ways to abuse the physics engine. In Assassin's Creed, mechanics that alter how you play the game without changing the gameplay (Second added jumping to slightly out-of-reach places, brotherhood added the parachute and intakill button, revelations added the hook claw so you can jump wider gaps). In Uncharted, it's mostly been to polish the mechanics. The gameplay is slightly altered, but the core stays the same.

 

You know, how about this. We have different perspectives, nothing I'm going to say will change your views on what you think is a franchise that just milks money from the customers, and nothing you're going to say is going to change the fact that for me, there's sentimental value in the series. I may be a fool for throwing $60 at each new game, but I do it willingly and happily because I enjoy the games.

[The Scoutman]

Red, there is a huge difference between changing the genre of the game and changing his gameplay, all the early super mario games were 2d platformers, and thats it. In every game they added a bunch of new content, just compare SMB 1 with SMB 2, new characters with unique abilities, new enemies with an entirely different AI and design, a brand new map design...

 

May i remind you that in the first Half-Life game there was barely any physics whatsoever? So i guess the physics engine alone was enough to alter the gameplay. But they also added new enemies, new map design, new weapons (not only the same weapons with another skin and some small modifications on the gun stats).

 

Same goes for the changes from Assassins Creed 1 to Assassins Creed 2, but i can pretty much render your argument invalid just by quoting it: "In Assassin's Creed, mechanics that alter how you play the game without changing the gameplay" , but i do agree that Brotherhood and Revelations were pretty much just addons.

 

Look, you dont mind the Cod developers updating the same game every year and charging it for the same price as a real brand new game, Fine. But the idea of comparing their work with the work of other developers like you did just makes me sick.

[Red]

Look, you dont mind the Cod developers updating the same game every year and charging it for the same price as a real brand new game, Fine. But the idea of comparing their work with the work of other developers like you did just makes me sick.

 

This frustrates me. It is not the same game. They alter setpieces and plotpoints with the Call of Duty gameplay mechanics. "Same game" means everything is functionally the same - same plot (granted, much of the plot is), same locations (I think you can already guess this is wrong, unless you played one CoD and assume that its the same for all because gameplay alone makes a game). Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 3 are a LOT closer to being the same game than Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3. Hell, "Every other year" would be more accurate because of the content of the games.

 

So, let's make a deal. I'll stop comparing CoD to games you like, you stop saying it's the exact same game, and everybody just moves to a new damn game.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I agree, let's not turn this into a Call of Duty thread. Continue that discussion here, please: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=679

[Shadowshayde]

Thank you!!!!! I don't get what the frig COD has that is so appealing! As for Halo: CE.... to each his own. And the others. Could anyone tell me what any elder scrolls game is about? Cause IDK. I like Legend of Zelda for a while, but now, it's just so odd playing them. Ocarina of Tome especially. I don't get to skip puberty, why should he? GTA..... Just an excuse for a overly violent rape game. Never played metroid..... I see amnesia just like I see scary movies (as in movies just made to scare you, not like serenity and alien, they have stories.) an excuse for people to crap themselves. Mario 64.... no. 2d was good and then 3d. No. Don't know enough about the rest.

[Kirkreng]

GTA..... Just an excuse for a overly violent rape game.

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ

[Martin]

I see amnesia just like I see scary movies (as in movies just made to scare you, not like serenity and alien, they have stories.)

I liked Amnesia's story.

[Chuckthe2nd]

I see amnesia just like I see scary movies (as in movies just made to scare you, not like serenity and alien, they have stories.)

I liked Amnesia's story.

It was interesting, but stupid. If Daniel knew the castle was haunted, why the fuck would he go back there in first place? Oh yeah, to make an interesting horror game plot.

 

Not to mention the execution was terrible. As I think Alyxx pointed out, how is it scary or fun to have your character keel over on the floor whimpering like a puppy every 2 minutes? It doesn't frighten me, it just makes me yell at the computer screen.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I see amnesia just like I see scary movies (as in movies just made to scare you, not like serenity and alien, they have stories.) an excuse for people to crap themselves.

The problem with Amnesia is that it isn't scary to me.

[BugoTheCat]

Doom- Where do I start. No free-aim, no jumping, monsters that are indistinguishable from the background, bad game mechanics, no premise, textures where each pixel is easily visible, bad gunplay and the fact that every other arcade FPS does it better. Doom is nothing more than a museum piece in my opinion.

 

What? This is like taking the first game of a kind ever and claiming it's bad because it doesn't have what the evolved doom-clones have. Ok, it's not the first, there was wolfenstein before and maybe few others, but the first with more complex engine that started also the doom-clone craze. And I don't think gunplay was bad, in fact I still play and the gameplay holds up well (nothing like mowing tons of monsters coming to you), I still adore the sprites and texture design, they might be low detailed for today but were really good at the time, also the level architecture still works very well. That's my opinion, the fact that at the time all these elements where more than well done for the year being and that it's still playable with modern ports if one wants jump and mouselook and all that.

 

In fact, I thought that the Marathon series were overrated (and that's how I discovered this forum), because I never played Marathon when it was released at the time (I never owned a Mac). So, many years later into now, I discover that there was this game which people say was revolutionary, much better than Doom at the time, and it was called Marathon. So, I was curious to see it, and see what happens when you see it now under modern eyes. My first impression was that the weapons, enemies, level design, colors and all that are too bland. If the levels were designed as a 3rd party MOD for Doom, I am sure many reviewers would give negative votes because of how bland and uninteresting the levels look. It even reminds me some later mediocre doom-clones of the era. I am not trying to say it's bad though, I am saying that after hearing from Marathon fans how underrated it was and how it was so much better than Doom and a hidden gem and all that, I failed to see what's the fuzz about it, but maybe because I never played it during it's time. Maybe that's how you feel about Doom, you were born with Marathon, but never cared about Doom at the time and you see it with modern eyes and can't appreciate.

 

I do want to play it though. I want to see history. I don't get the fuzz yet but maybe I have to play further. The innovations I hear is that it really was the first game with mouselook (Not Quake, neither Terminator Future Shock too) and also featured some kind of scenario, terminals with story, maybe more, I really have to try to like it to play further and discover what it did right. So, these were improvements over Doom, but I am not sure if they hold so much. I played other really improved games like Duke Nukem 3D (so many innovations over Doom, so much interactivity you don't even see today) and Strife (great use of Doom engine, dialogues, missions, changing environments, great atmosphere, three finale). I will give it a shot though if I find out how the hell I can invert mouse in Aleph One port. It really gets me motion sickness now, it's now how I am used to.

[Presence]

Assuming by "overrated" we mean "popular/common/selling well" and "definitely bad"

 

1. Dragon Warrior One. I have no idea how kids ever got though it. I think it still holds the record for grindiest game I ever played. It took about 8-12 hours going in a circle in the last castle to get the exp to reach the dragon lord. The series improves, but one was horrid. Two was ok. Three was good. Four was a flat out classic, and I must say Nara and Mara's outerworld music was quite beautiful for a NES game.

 

2. Pitfall I. It's just maze wandering till the timer runs out. Admittedly that was in and of itself fancy stuff for the period, but I still didn't see the point. Pitfall II on the other hand was among my very favorite Atari games.

 

3. FTL. It's beautiful and has variety, but it's the paragon of everything that's wrong in Roguelikes. It boils down too much to rote memorization and luck to justify the rave reviews.

 

4. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I finished this for the first time like four days ago. Kind of wish I hadn't. When people praise it, I usually seem to hear "It's a completely finished game." Well, I guess. It does give the full Star Wars experience.

 

That being said...I don't know how anyone can tolerate the ethics system or the dialogue choices, especially towards the end. Most of the endgame conversations I really wanted a dialoge option: 1. "You're being stupid. Why are you being so stupid?"

 

After being dismayed by both Kotor and the Baldur's gate games I may refuse to ever play another Bioware game.

 

5. The Longest Journey. I wanted to love this game so much. I got like a third of the way though. It was brutally trite to me. College level liberal arts essay trite. Let me guess the plot: Actually half/full dragon or something, no meaningful plot branching, can't choose to help the "bad" guys, some deus ex machina at the end keeps her out of a light beam for a thousand years? The cosmos really, really loves you, just not enough to do anything concrete for anyone? Am I close or should I give it a second chance?

 

6. Double Dragon (nes). A fantastic opening theme and a pretty good level up system did not compensate for the lameassed traps near the end game. Being perhaps the single glitchiest game for the nes does win it some nostalgia points though.

 

7. Star Control 2. Nah, I'm just yanking your chain. Star Control 2 is one of the greats.

 

8. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Arcade game. I'm not saying I didn't like it as a kid, but it was a quarter sucker and the actual gameplay was meh.

 

9. Magicka. Some games are objectively bad in their single player context; this is one of them. That's an approach that doesn't really leave much room for fun debate though.

 

10. Minecraft. I don't like games without a win condition, but that'd be more of a scholarly debate thing, i.e. is a game you can't win a game etc. A pile of legos can bring much fun, but that doesn't make them a well designed game.

 

 

Underrated games: Almost anything by Epic Megagames.

[BTGBullseye]

I have to touch on your #3... It isn't a roguelike, never been marketed as such, and never will be. Don't compare it to roguelikes unless it's a roguelike.

 

That said, it is a bit overrated.

[Presence]

I have to touch on your #3... It isn't a roguelike, never been marketed as such, and never will be. Don't compare it to roguelikes unless it's a roguelike.

 

That said, it is a bit overrated.

 

It's a procedurally generated game with random maps, encounters, and item drops, widely different starting builds that aren't well balanced, turn based movement, combat that is effectively turn based, a save system that doesn't work against permadeath, and is user tagged as roguelike in steam. Call it a "roguelite" if you must be pedantic, but my terminology is not very wrong, if it's wrong at all. The only meaningful differences are that it's not tile based and I don't think you can't dig through your inventory for consumables that grant last minute attempts to save yourself. It is very like Rogue.

[BTGBullseye]

Similar to a roguelike, but missing several mandatory aspects of a roguelike, doesn't make it a roguelike IMO.

[Presence]

Similar to a roguelike, but missing several mandatory aspects of a roguelike, doesn't make it a roguelike IMO.

 

You uh, should say what those aspects are.

[BTGBullseye]

Not tile based, not a tiered dungeon style, you can't reverse course back to the previous level, you can't stay on the same level indefinitely, there are no items that you can't ever mount on one of the ships, there are more, but I'm about to go play games that are more entertaining than listing off features from Rogue that aren't in FTL.

[Presence]

I feel like one could use the same kind of logic to say Super Mario 64 isn't actually a platformer. I did read one argument about roguelike combat needing to be non-modal that I rather liked.

[BTGBullseye]

Wait, someone used "non-modal" as an argument for or against something being a roguelike? I want this link. That is the most absurd argument I've ever heard.

 

Oh, and I don't actually consider SM64 to be a platformer, but more of a 3rd-person adventure/puzzle game.

[Presence]

It's used in the Berlin Interpretation, which seems to be the interpretation you're arguing for and that I think is too exclusive.

 

I also argue that cheese isn't an anvil because purple is more dense.

[BTGBullseye]

Though there are parts of that Berlin Interpretation that I disagree with, (the non-modal and ASCII/Dungeons requirement) I do believe they have the majority of the idea correct when it comes to defining a roguelike. Roguelike is a subgenre of RPG, it is meant to be far more specific than the normal genre listings. (like RPG/FPS/Turn-based Strategy/Third-person Shooter/RTS/etc.)

 

This is really more of a discussion between "roguelike" being a subgenre or a supergenre... It is without a doubt a subgenre, and shouldn't be treated as anything else.

 

Oh, and I agree... Cheese isn't an anvil, and purple is very dense when properly cooled.