Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

gaming What video games do you think are overrated?


tailsprower

Recommended Posts

Destiny, The Division and any bullet sponging shooter with grinding. Grinding is SO boring! Why is this now a gamplay mechanic? Next using glitches and explits will be it's own genre. Not to mention these games don't have an in-game story impressive enough to hold its own. GTA is a popular franchise, but deserves to be, as it contains everything great about a game in grand quality. I simply don't see how anyone could spend over 100 amout of their money on an incohesive game (that isn't even completed yet); its behond me.

Edited by Flutterstep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Ridge Racer and many racing Games in general are overrated, most racing games are forcing me, to drive the same roads over and over and over again, just to unlock everything and often have frustrating difficulty.

 

What is supposed to be fun about them? Or maybe i just suck. Yeah, i think thats it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would have to say No Mans Sky.

Just look at it. it's NOTHING that E3 promised!

I completely agree. I'm just glad I got my refund in time. I was so hyped to get it. :(

Edited by WitchGoddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stated games that I thought were overrated, it doesn't matter if it's original or not.

I don't think it's valid at this point considering the consensus

If CoD was "overrated", it would have way fewer entries in this thread.

But again, the concept of a game being "overrated" is completely retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's valid at this point considering the consensus

If CoD was "overrated", it would have way fewer entries in this thread.

But again, the concept of a game being "overrated" is completely retarded.

Not necessarily, if more people think that cod is an overrated game, then that means that cod must be a very overrated game, you don't need to overthink it. If you don't like the concept of games being overrated then that's your problem.

Edited by Rawzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily, if more people think that cod is an overrated game, then that means that cod must be a very overrated game, you don't need to overthink it. If you don't like the concept of games being overrated then that's your problem.

The problem is, the more "overrated" a game would be, the less people there would be to see it as overrated, and the concept of a game being overrated is inherently wrong because it implies that whether or not a game is good is objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@@Rawzy,@,

 

The fact that Call of Duty is one of the best selling franchises out there and is played by so many people inherently proves that it's not overrated. It's rated by millions to be the best. Millions. Being overrated implies that it gets higher scores than it deserves. Unless you're going to tell me the opinions of a few are more valuable than an overwhelming majority the series is not overrated at all. It's rated exactly how it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pokemon:  Take the random, menu driven elemental rock-paper-scissors combat of the Final Fantasy series, cut the size of the party down to one, and remove the epic stories, character development and fantastic environments of the series and replace it with a kid playing hokey to carry out animal abuse, and you get Pokemon.  I tried playing one of these games a while back but they get boring really fast.  With only one combatant in combat, tactics simply are too limited to be interesting, exploration is dull, and there really isn't anything to see or do in these games, and yet they seem to be as popular as peppermint flavored crack.  I just don't get this series.

 

I digress, and while I don't want to get into a serious argument over gamer opinions I kind of want to say that ever since Generation IV (Diamond/Pearl/Platinum) the game has changed significantly enough that it's far from an actual rock-paper-scissors combat system. There are also abilities which ignore type weaknesses or benefit your Pokemon in some way , moves that enhance or weaken certain types, and Pokemon stats play a significant role as well. More and more items can be held and used to gain an advantage, and many Pokemon can learn moves that don't match their types (though those that do get a damage bonus). 

 

Also, there are such things as "double battles", which use two Pokemon at once in combat...which doesn't sound like much but it changes team tactics completely (since some moves are "all-damaging" or "team beneficial", or require double battles to have any sort of usefulness). You can do it online against a trainer or do an actual 2v2 multiplayer battle. In newer games since Black and White there are also "triple battles", though it's not as popular online (but again even more complicated as certain moves depend on Pokemon placement).  In the upcoming Sun and Moon they're releasing a new kind of battle called "Battle Royale", too. 

 

Trust me, competitive Pokemon gets complicated. People who start playing Pokemon and meet up with competitive players realize there is much more: natures, abilities, breeding, and hidden stats calls "IVs" and "EVs". Pokemon get divided into tiers based on what they're capable of.

 

Seriously, this game is crazier than competitive Super Smash. I agree though, the storyline for those games suck and most NPC trainers are hilarious easy to beat. There was only one generation where I found the storyline actually pretty interesting and the trainers harder to beat. 

 

Also, I think Dark Souls is pretty overrated. Not as much as GTA though, I don't see how people find it fun. I tried it for several days and didn't really find it interesting, though that's just me. I like playing survival and sandbox games more. Building stuff is my thing. 

Edited by Sealand
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally find traditional turn-based RPGS (such as Pokemon and Final Fantasy) extremely overrated. It doesn't make sense to be forced to watch your characters just stand there and take hits! Thus, I would rather play Mario & Luigi and Undertale, which DO let you actively dodge attacks. (None of the 10,000 different Pokemon will allow the player to do this.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally find traditional turn-based RPGS (such as Pokemon and Final Fantasy) extremely overrated. It doesn't make sense to be forced to watch your characters just stand there and take hits! Thus, I would rather play Mario & Luigi and Undertale, which DO let you actively dodge attacks. (None of the 10,000 different Pokemon will allow the player to do this.)

It's a different style of game that requires use of your head rather than your reflexes. It makes perfect sense to not want to have to deal with character movement and want to deal with how to strategically take down your opponent.

 

Pokemon and Final Fantasy are on the lower end of the spectrum for turn-based combat though as they don't really use their own systems to the fullest. It's easy enough to spam the same moves over and over again rather than have to think about what you're doing and the consequences of acting too late.

  • Brohoof 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo's reason for being popular only in part has to do with the game itself. Accessibility, timing and marketing played large factors. As a game where it was most people's first "wow" game for the console, as a game where people who generally didn't like shooters still found the game enjoyable, the game isn't popular by pure chance. But what people think of the actual game will still vary but it doesn't change the fact that it altered the course of the genre or the popularity of online gaming.

 

See, that is kind of the point.  Factors that had nothing to do with the games quality propelled it beyond what a game of similar quality would be unable achieve without that aid of Microsoft's marketing clout and good fortune.  Its reception went beyond what the game could achieve on its own merits and now there exist a gulf between the game's appeal and the game's quality.  This is precisely the sort of disparity the term overrated is supposed to encapsulate. 

 

 

 

I generally find traditional turn-based RPGS (such as Pokemon and Final Fantasy) extremely overrated. It doesn't make sense to be forced to watch your characters just stand there and take hits! Thus, I would rather play Mario & Luigi and Undertale, which DO let you actively dodge attacks. (None of the 10,000 different Pokemon will allow the player to do this.)

 

When it comes to turn based games, you have to remember that individual turns are actually representations of something that is going on in real time and the individual turns are something that exist for the player's convenience.  If you can get past the abstraction that a turn based system represents, and I know many people who just cannot, you can find some amazingly deep and rich gameplay.

 

Of course the turn based system has to be done well.  There is an art both to enabling the player to ignore the abstraction of turn-based play and for pulling deep, rich gameplay out of a turn based system and as Discordian pointed out neither Pokemon or Final Fantasy tend to do a particularly good job at this.  If you want to see turn based gameplay done right, play games like X-Com, Civilization and Divinity: Original Sin.

Edited by Twilight Dirac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that is kind of the point.  Factors that had nothing to do with the games quality propelled it beyond what a game of similar quality would be unable achieve without that aid of Microsoft's marketing clout and good fortune.  Its reception went beyond what the game could achieve on its own merits and now there exist a gulf between the game's appeal and the game's quality.  This is precisely the sort of disparity the term overrated is supposed to encapsulate.

At the same time though you'll get just as many people who play Halo because they do believe it's the best game out there. It wouldn't be quite as popular without that in combination with all the other stuff. No matter how much publicity a game gets it won't sell for long if it doesn't live up to the hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a different style of game that requires use of your head rather than your reflexes. It makes perfect sense to not want to have to deal with character movement and want to deal with how to strategically take down your opponent.

 

Pokemon and Final Fantasy are on the lower end of the spectrum for turn-based combat though as they don't really use their own systems to the fullest. It's easy enough to spam the same moves over and over again rather than have to think about what you're doing and the consequences of acting too late.

 

Spamming the same moves is usually not a good idea beyond NPC gameplay and usually you spend a lot of time researching and looking over the best movesets to put onto your Pokemon. Pokemon doesn't just require strategic thinking like Fire Emblem, but with frequent switching in online Pokemon battles you also need to predict your opponent's actions, like poker. 

 

I generally find traditional turn-based RPGS (such as Pokemon and Final Fantasy) extremely overrated. It doesn't make sense to be forced to watch your characters just stand there and take hits! Thus, I would rather play Mario & Luigi and Undertale, which DO let you actively dodge attacks. (None of the 10,000 different Pokemon will allow the player to do this.)

 

There's only 721 Pokemon, and there's a hidden evasion and accuracy stat that is dependent on what moves you play, which Pokemon you are using, and what item they are holding. It's RNG, but it can be altered and those stats are one of the most important in the game and are game-changers in their own right. In fact a few moves based on RNG evasion alone can be ridiculously overpowered...which is why Double Team is banned in competitive. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy enough to spam the same moves over and over again rather than have to think about what you're doing and the consequences of acting too late.

 

Sealand's already explained well enough, but if you're interested, here's a clip of a competitive Pokemon battle. You don't have to watch all of it, but a few minutes should suffice to show that playing against people is rather more difficult than playing against an AI and involves a lot of thinking and planning.

 

Of course, if you're talking about the sort of fights you encounter in game, then your criticism is legitimate. You don't really go against anything that Nintendo wouldn't expect an 8-year-old to be able to handle, there. However, despite how simple it may seem while you're crushing hapless gym leaders, there's enough complexity within the combat system itself to support a thriving competitive community.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOIS! HERE IT COMES

 

Garry's Mod

Never in my life have I been so bored with a game. I've literally played 15 hours and just gave up. It's a sandbox game, sure, but still. Aren't sandbox games supposed to keep you entertained by mindlessly throwing things at you? I feel like it's overrated, but then again, I don't have any friends to play it with, so this isn't what I call a "fair review". Still, I find it overrated. 

 

Undertale

Yes, I know this one's been said about a thousand times, but I think I have more to add to the pile. Why do I think Undertale is an overrated game? Let's see, the gameplay is repetative and set off systematically, enemies are not encountered randomly and are instead set off by tiles, many of the graphic sprites were made in paint for about 10 seconds, game can be beaten in 4 hours if not less (I timed). I'll give a kudos for being innovative with the character's based around fonts, but other than that? Nah. 

 

Five Nights at Freddy's

Now I can proudly say, I was in that fandom since the very beginning (I left after 4), and, well... it's just a bit old now. Sure, I'll see the movie, sure I'll play Sister Location, sure I've played 35 hours of FNAFWorld (not joking), but it really got a bit tiring. Being one of the fans drawing up theories, I began to see that Scott was really just screwing with us and for some reason, MatPat was always right. 

 

Destiny

I'm probably not going to get a lot of facts straight with this one, but from what I've heard, it's got some issues. Bungie should've stuck with Halo, 'cause buying popular voice actors isn't going to make a good game. I think the reason people bought this game was because Bungie's name was proudly slapped on it. (Come on! The real story is online and locked with flash cards!)


-----

 

Wow, looking back, I'm the only one who said Garry's Mod.  What a noice fresh comment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@,@,

 

Yeah, I know that PvP and professional play is completely different. I've never really tried it before. I don't do multiplayer in general that's not coop.

 

But as far as the base game goes it's definitely not the best example of RPG combat in general. I can think of several games besides the ones Twilight Dirac mentioned that have much better battle systems that require legitimate thought. :P

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say Fallout. I gave the third one an honest try for over 6 hours at once, and I didn't find it appealing, but found it quite boring. I only got the game because I was getting into the Fallout Equestria story.

 

 

The Smash Bros games. There is no strategy, it is just button mashing.

Are you sure? Because there is a lot more than that in competitive play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsurprisingly, 90% of these responses are from people who have absolutely no clue about most of the games they're talking about, and are just circlejerking popular games

The Smash Bros games. There is no strategy, it is just button mashing.

Button massing is the one thing you never want to do in Smash. It almost guarantees that you'll get you ass handed to you

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@,@,Yeah, I know that PvP and professional play is completely different. I've never really tried it before. I don't do multiplayer in general that's not coop.But as far as the base game goes it's definitely not the best example of RPG combat in general. I can think of several games besides the ones Twilight Dirac mentioned that have much better battle systems that require legitimate thought. :P

Part of that has to do with because the creators of Pokemon never had competitive play in mind up until Generation V or VI, so you had Pokemon that were inherently weaker than certain other Pokemon, and even without legendary Pokemon some Pokemon can be outright game-breaking. Blaziken and Greninja are considered ridiculously overpowered and they evolve from two starters, and Charizard, to a lesser extent.

 

So playing competitive with Pokemon was initially very messy, confusing, and poor until a community called Smogon came around after Generation III (though they really started developing around Generation IV Platinum and HG/SS) and set up competitive tiers and certain rules to allow competitive play to be as strategic as possible without relying on pure chance or overpoweredness. Namely one tier, Uber, is where all the OP Pokemon go so it can be banned in most tournaments.

 

So like Super Smash Bros the competitive community tries to balance something that is inherently unbalanced and does a pretty good job of it. The strategic RPG combat you are probably seeing most likely already had competitive play as a core gameplay trait to begin with and generally have a smaller amount of characters to deal with and balance out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...