It also has awful graphics, which is why it doesn't qualify for this thread.

It seems to me a lot of people buy games on hype and looks, not whether they would actually like to play the game.

Open world games are always more safe since you can make your own game play. That doesn't mean you can't still call the game play bad. RDR2 had horrible mission design and a bounty system undermining the fun. However it was an amazing exploration, hunting, canoeing simulator.

Games like Uncharted, TloU, if you don't like the game play, not much else you can do. Same reason I stay away from Cod, Gears and Halo. I'm sure they have great game play for many people, just not for me.

DmC: Devil May Cry

The  art design ranges from generic to bad. Technically it looked good for 360/PS3 and good use of UE3. That's the only positive I can say. This game was terrible in tone. Writing. Bosses. It felt like what a Jr high kid thinks is cool in 2003 but put this out in 2013. So it felt dated in its lame edgy emo shit. It tried to be a Devil May Cry game...in 30 frames per second. Top it off the combat was shallow for a Devil May Cry game. Western studios struggle with good melee combat in the same way Japan struggles with good shooters. There have been good Japanese shooters and good western melee combat but it's an exception, not the rule. So the combat is lacking the depth of a DMC game and it runs at 30 FPS when it came out. Then we have the level design. DMC series and DmC are linear and they should be but DmC has those pull yourself along sections. It serves no real purpose other than padding. It had one interesting concept in the Raptor fight but in reality, was just Jester from DMC3. Tho the presentation was different. If it was its own IP it would have been half decent at best. As a DMC game (or DmC) it was bad. With a couple of impressive looking areas for the hardware, it was on.

Thankfully DMC5 happened. Looked amazing. Had some serious depth to combat esp, Dante. Gone was Dino(Dante In Name Only)/Donte and DMC5 brought Dante back in full force.

Or maybe people just have a different opinion to you.

I thought TLOU was a good game myself; certainly no masterpiece, but a solid 8/10. I can easily see why a lot of people might find it a chore though. There's a lot to nitpick in terms of its AI and some of the more remedial gameplay sections like the rafts and stuff, and while these didn't bother me too much I imagine others might find them harder to forgive.

It all depends on what qualities and types of gameplay one values, or by contrast finds horrible.

Exactly that. Not sure why people get so defensive about TLOU as if they lived would change if the world thought the game sucked. I mentioned MGS as a comparison. I completely loved that game when it came out and it was stealth based. And I don't think anyone has said the game is mediocre just that the gameplay was boring. And it is very flawed too. I can count the hundreds of times the little girl or whatever added character in the storyline was within sight of the AI and the character just moved as if nothing was in front of them. Again, this is a good game with a boring and slow stealth element. I would give it a 7 out of 10 but nowhere a game of the year. I feel the reviewers were just fascinated with the storyline which was pretty darn good for videogame standards.

HAZE, can't remember if it was a looker just got out of decade long therapy after playing it. but game play was crap, The Order was out of order . liked tlous but uncharted by the time I finished UC2 I got tired of the gunplay.

Even for the time I remember Haze being pretty ugly. 

All the modern Tomb raiders , the challenge they provide is boring.

Final Fantasy XIII is the main one that springs to mind.