Forums - Gaming Discussion - What's the most overrated game ever in your opinion?

KLXVER said:

Probably Yoshis Island. Its a beautiful looking game, but it just have some really annoying gameplay mechanics.

I have a gigantic list of games that everybody seems to love and I think that are overrated, but I'll go with Yoshi's Island too because it's the type of game that I like the most (Nintendo platform games), yet I cannot understand why everybody praise it so much. Even worse: why call it Super Mario World 2? Super Mario World truly is a masterpiece. Yoshi's Island? Nope.



Around the Network
TranceformerFX said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
I really don't understand the point in berating people for, or acting like people are less valid for, critiquing games with a modern lense. Most good art stands up to the test of time, and that's the same with video games. You don't see people ridiculing Ocarina of Time for ridiculous reasons, like "the graphics are bad!" or "there's no HDR!". You DO see people critiquing aspects of the game that were always bad, but less noticeable in the past, however.

My only problem is when someone plays a 10 year old game and bases their examination and critique with modern games in mind. Not only is that unfair in a critic sense, but also in a biased sense. The only two mediums where its acceptable to grade a product where 10 years have gone by is Music, and Books. 

Video games, as well as movies - isn't one of them. 

That's why I find it particularly jarring when a 16 year old who's accustomed to playing modern games on a PS4 (or whatever it'd be) and bases their critique from his "modern" taste when he plays a retro game from the 90's.

Not only is that single minded, but it's also unprofessional. That's kinda why paid critics don't pull that crap - because they'd eventually get fired for subconscious bias.

So when ever I see someone saying that Final Fantasy VII is overrated, I literally roll my eyes so far back into my head that I might as well be cosplaying Scorpion from Mortal Kombat.

But that's the thing - it is unfair to judge an older games by modern standards in terms of things like graphics, physics, animations etc. Because they were working with the best they had at the time. But some things like game play mechanics, level design, character design, sound design, story etc.. These things are for all intents and purposes independent of the available technology of the time.

For example, let's say the next Zelda game features gameplay mechanics incredibly similar to Breath of the Wild, with one key difference, they've removed the weapon durability system featured on most weapons in the game and replaced it with the weapon durability feature similar to the one used on the Master Sword. This change is well received, and as a result, most reviewers, critics and fans consider this new game to be better than Breath of the Wild.

Is it then unfair to criticize Breath of the Wild for having a weapon durability system that now again for all intents and purposes demonstrably made the game worse? Is it unfair for anyone to say "well I wasn't too bothered by it at the time, but now that I've played this new Zelda game, I find it really hard to go back to playing BotW and not find it really frustrating".

I would say no. That weapon durability system is not at all dependent on the technology at the time. It's not like there was some hardware limitation that made the game designers decide that going through multiple weapons to defeat a strong enemy was something they had to do. They chose that gameplay mechanic. It wasn't forced on them. It wasn't the best they could do at the time. It wasn't a work around like the blood moon system, for example.



MarkkyStorm said:
KLXVER said:

Probably Yoshis Island. Its a beautiful looking game, but it just have some really annoying gameplay mechanics.

I have a gigantic list of games that everybody seems to love and I think that are overrated, but I'll go with Yoshi's Island too because it's the type of game that I like the most (Nintendo platform games), yet I cannot understand why everybody praise it so much. Even worse: why call it Super Mario World 2? Super Mario World truly is a masterpiece. Yoshi's Island? Nope.

I just recently beat Yoshi's Island and did a completionist run (100 on all levels, including the bonus levels), and I can say without hesitation that it might be the first game in Nintendo's long-running history that kicked off the idea that every single level in a game introduces a new mechanic or idea, and that - alongside its crayon aesthetic - puts it well ahead of its time. 

The game controls flawlessly.

The game looks charming even to this day.

The game's level design is progressive in many ways, and every level is in some way or another unique. One level introduces fuzzy, another focuses on rolling rocks, another has poochy, etc. As the game progresses, new ideas and themes are introduced, and the game is better for it. 

Sure, the whining baby mechanic is just the worst, and there are some elements of frustration throughout, but to say it's not a masterpiece is a little misguided. 



potato_hamster said:

But that's the thing - it is unfair to judge an older games by modern standards in terms of things like graphics, physics, animations etc. Because they were working with the best they had at the time. But some things like game play mechanics, level design, character design, sound design, story etc.. These things are for all intents and purposes independent of the available technology of the time.

For example, let's say the next Zelda game features gameplay mechanics incredibly similar to Breath of the Wild, with one key difference, they've removed the weapon durability system featured on most weapons in the game and replaced it with the weapon durability feature similar to the one used on the Master Sword. This change is well received, and as a result, most reviewers, critics and fans consider this new game to be better than Breath of the Wild.

Is it then unfair to criticize Breath of the Wild for having a weapon durability system that now again for all intents and purposes demonstrably made the game worse? Is it unfair for anyone to say "well I wasn't too bothered by it at the time, but now that I've played this new Zelda game, I find it really hard to go back to playing BotW and not find it really frustrating".

I would say no. That weapon durability system is not at all dependent on the technology at the time. It's not like there was some hardware limitation that made the game designers decide that going through multiple weapons to defeat a strong enemy was something they had to do. They chose that gameplay mechanic. It wasn't forced on them. It wasn't the best they could do at the time. It wasn't a work around like the blood moon system, for example.

But the weapon durability system didn't make the game worse. I understand that some people don't like it, but it doesn't make the game worse. It's a conscious decision to keep you on your toes, to make you experiment and scavenge what you can. It's there to force you to appreciate certain styles and skills and added another element of survival to the game. Sure, it made no logical sense for weapons to break that quickly, but it was integrated well and was balanced properly. 

in my 250+ hours in that game, I rarely ever felt like I was running low on weaponry. I rarely got to the point where I wasn't inundated with too many weapons because while you went through them quickly, the game gave you weapons at such a pace that it was never an issue. 

Again, I understand WHY people hated the weapon durability system (and I was fully expecting to hate it myself), but in practice, it fits the survival theme of the game very well and was integrated in such a way that it's well balanced and fair. That is purely subjective, and while I respect your opinion that it sucks, it hasn't 'demonstrably made the game worse'. 



I have to say the Dark Souls series may a bit overrated as well.

It's my favorite franchise of the last two generations, but they're buggy, have bad performance, and handle side quests in a ridiculous way where it's way too easy to screw up quest lines and cutting the player out of content until they start a new game.

Honestly, the fact that, despite so many problems, Dark Souls is still one of the best series ever speaks volumes about its appeal.



Around the Network
Alara317 said:
potato_hamster said:

But that's the thing - it is unfair to judge an older games by modern standards in terms of things like graphics, physics, animations etc. Because they were working with the best they had at the time. But some things like game play mechanics, level design, character design, sound design, story etc.. These things are for all intents and purposes independent of the available technology of the time.

For example, let's say the next Zelda game features gameplay mechanics incredibly similar to Breath of the Wild, with one key difference, they've removed the weapon durability system featured on most weapons in the game and replaced it with the weapon durability feature similar to the one used on the Master Sword. This change is well received, and as a result, most reviewers, critics and fans consider this new game to be better than Breath of the Wild.

Is it then unfair to criticize Breath of the Wild for having a weapon durability system that now again for all intents and purposes demonstrably made the game worse? Is it unfair for anyone to say "well I wasn't too bothered by it at the time, but now that I've played this new Zelda game, I find it really hard to go back to playing BotW and not find it really frustrating".

I would say no. That weapon durability system is not at all dependent on the technology at the time. It's not like there was some hardware limitation that made the game designers decide that going through multiple weapons to defeat a strong enemy was something they had to do. They chose that gameplay mechanic. It wasn't forced on them. It wasn't the best they could do at the time. It wasn't a work around like the blood moon system, for example.

But the weapon durability system didn't make the game worse. I understand that some people don't like it, but it doesn't make the game worse. It's a conscious decision to keep you on your toes, to make you experiment and scavenge what you can. It's there to force you to appreciate certain styles and skills and added another element of survival to the game. Sure, it made no logical sense for weapons to break that quickly, but it was integrated well and was balanced properly. 

in my 250+ hours in that game, I rarely ever felt like I was running low on weaponry. I rarely got to the point where I wasn't inundated with too many weapons because while you went through them quickly, the game gave you weapons at such a pace that it was never an issue. 

Again, I understand WHY people hated the weapon durability system (and I was fully expecting to hate it myself), but in practice, it fits the survival theme of the game very well and was integrated in such a way that it's well balanced and fair. That is purely subjective, and while I respect your opinion that it sucks, it hasn't 'demonstrably made the game worse'. 

It's a game design decision. You can say it didn't make the game worse, but that's just your opinion. My point was, we could look back on this game a decade from now, acknowledge what the game designers were attempting, look at other more contemporary works that have built upon what BotW has done (such as the next Zelda game), and still say they missed the mark.

Literally any frustrating game design feature can be chalked up to something that "forces you to keep you on your toes", but that doesn't mean the game is actually better for it. For example, Resident Evil's control scheme. It's absolutely terrible, but it was justified by some as being done that way to increase panic in the player because of how obscenely precise you had to be. Yet, it was dropped in later games, because no one is putting up with that nonsense 15 years later.



Night Trap easily....



Pokemon....
There I said it.....



Xen said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

There have never been so many story-driven games in the market as there is today.

Yup. And god damn are they bad IMO.

Exactly. Took the words right out of my mouth.



TranceformerFX said:
Xen said:

Yup. And god damn are they bad IMO.

Exactly. Took the words right out of my mouth.

You just said that devs don't make as many story-driven games anymore. A lot of them being bad doesn't take away the fact that there have never been so many story-driven games being made. People saying that The Last of Us is overrated doesn't stop anyone from making story-driven games, that's stupid to think.



G O O D B O I