Overrated Video Games: Your Opinions

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by roberttitus

Dude... just because a series gets widespread popularity doesn't mean that it sucks. I get that some people think that being underground is cool & liking anything mainstream is a crime against humanity (I think that philosophy is idiotic personally, but to each there own), but if you honestly think that just because Bethesda "screwed up the canon" that Fallout 3 sucked, then you are crazy. I played 2 before 3 even came out & thought it was the biggest piece of garbage that I had ever played (enter Sonic 06)... as a matter of fact, the only reason that I even considered playing it is that I loved the Elder Scrolls series & was hoping it would be similar (thankfully it was). This is why it is so hard to work with established IPs... there will always be at least one bitter fanboy who will claim the game sucks just because one little detail doesn't add up. That being said, I do admire Telltale for having the balls to work exclusively with other people's shit... I mean it has to be disheartening to hear your games

No, it doesn't suck because it sold a lot of copies, it doesn't suck ONLY because it fucked with a canon that is INTELLIGENT and WELL-ESTABLISHED(though it's certainly a huge detraction). It sucks because it's easy, because the idiots that play Fallout 3 can't stand a game that has any measure of challenge. It sucks because the story is insanely weak and full of plot-holes even when you DON'T consider the rest of the series. It sucks because EVERY CHARACTER you make will play EXACTLY THE SAME no matter how hard you work to differentiate them, and that's inexcusable in an RPG. It sucks because it cuts off the ability to kill off quest-important characters, destroying a level of freedom that was a huge part of the original Fallouts and Morrowind. It sucks because it's insanely linear. It sucks because it takes factions with BELIEVABLE motives and turns them into heroic fantasy knights in shining armor. It sucks because playing on Insanity actually made the game EASIER because it barely affected combat and it insanely supercharged your leveling. It sucks because the [Intelligence]-dependent responses are always your character REPEATING WHAT THE NON-PLAYER CHARACTER SAID in layman's terms. Great, so just in case you were way too stupid to understand the very simple exposition given, an Intelligent character can explain it to you, I guess. They don't get to have any intelligent revelations or ideas, they're just parrots. Fallout 3 sucks because dialog is insipidly basic. Fallout 3 sucks because the combat is STUPID, compared to Fallout 1 and 2's intelligent grid-based tactical combat. Fallout 3 sucks.

Why yes, the MAIN REASON the game sucks is that it takes what is a well-known and beloved franchise and replaces it with something that has only passing, cosmetic similarities to it. That tends to make something a HORRIBLE SEQUEL in almost anybody's eyes. And no, not in the tiny details. The entire moral of the story is raped by Mothership Zeta's audio logs. The very character of the Brotherhood of Steel is changed completely. The black humor is almost completely removed in favor of something a lot safer. The core values of atmosphere, of how the stories are told, of how the game is played? EVERYTHING. No, it's only in the small details that you find something that was done even remotely right.

But it's also a terrible game in its own right.

[Comrade Pants]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

No, it doesn't suck because it sold a lot of copies, it doesn't suck ONLY because it fucked with a canon that is INTELLIGENT and WELL-ESTABLISHED(though it's certainly a huge detraction). It sucks because it's easy, because the idiots that play Fallout 3 can't stand a game that has any measure of challenge. It sucks because the story is insanely weak and full of plot-holes even when you DON'T consider the rest of the series. It sucks because EVERY CHARACTER you make will play EXACTLY THE SAME no matter how hard you work to differentiate them, and that's inexcusable in an RPG. It sucks because it cuts off the ability to kill off quest-important characters, destroying a level of freedom that was a huge part of the original Fallouts and Morrowind. It sucks because it's insanely linear. It sucks because it takes factions with BELIEVABLE motives and turns them into heroic fantasy knights in shining armor. It sucks because playing on Insanity actually made the game EASIER because it barely affected combat and it insanely supercharged your leveling. It sucks because the [Intelligence]-dependent responses are always your character REPEATING WHAT THE NON-PLAYER CHARACTER SAID in layman's terms. Great, so just in case you were way too stupid to understand the very simple exposition given, an Intelligent character can explain it to you, I guess. They don't get to have any intelligent revelations or ideas, they're just parrots. Fallout 3 sucks because dialog is insipidly basic. Fallout 3 sucks because the combat is STUPID, compared to Fallout 1 and 2's intelligent grid-based tactical combat. Fallout 3 sucks.



Why yes, the MAIN REASON the game sucks is that it takes what is a well-known and beloved franchise and replaces it with something that has only passing, cosmetic similarities to it. That tends to make something a HORRIBLE SEQUEL in almost anybody's eyes. And no, not in the tiny details. The entire moral of the story is raped by Mothership Zeta's audio logs. The very character of the Brotherhood of Steel is changed completely. The black humor is almost completely removed in favor of something a lot safer. The core values of atmosphere, of how the stories are told, of how the game is played? EVERYTHING. No, it's only in the small details that you find something that was done even remotely right.

But it's also a terrible game in its own right.

So... no high hopes for New Vegas? It said my post wasn't long enough, so here's some filler.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan

So... no high hopes for New Vegas? It said my post wasn't long enough, so here's some filler.

I have TREMENDOUSLY high hopes for New Vegas. Obsidian is on it, so anything that is actually finished will be excellent, from the point of game mechanics and writing. Writing especially, because Chris Avellone, writer of Fallout 2 and the very best writer in the gaming industry is on this one. There is going to be a hardcore difficulty mode that has realistic survival conditions and difficult gameplay. I'm EXCITED.

[roberttitus]

You weren't lying when you called yourself forum dickhead. See, there is a difference between stating the reasons you dislike a game (much like I did in the thread about the IGN score of the Penal Zone) & blatantly calling someone an idiot multiple times for disagreeing with you tastes.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by roberttitus

You weren't lying when you called yourself forum dickhead. See, there is a difference between stating the reasons you dislike a game (much like I did in the thread about the IGN score of the Penal Zone) & blatantly calling someone an idiot multiple times for disagreeing with you tastes.

Hardly. Any disparaging comments about intelligence are the obvious implications of the DEVELOPER'S OPINION OF THE PLAYER. Bethesda treats the player like a moron, and it's INSULTING. Granted, I have no idea how an intelligent person COULD enjoy what is essentially hour after hour of being insulted by the product you paid for, but I'm not going to judge the person. I'll just think their tastes are extremely poor.

[PariahKing]

I think Sam and Max is both good yet overrated.

[DoctorCello]

Originally Posted by PecanBlue

Oh and Persona 3. My friends wouldn't stop talking about this damn game. Thus I am playing it RIGHT NOW so I can get to playing the supposedly superior Persona 4. Now the story can get pretty interesting and it has hilarious moments, (holy crap you have a knife-wielding dog for a party member) but the gameplay is so horrid. Normally I dislike mostly all other turn-based rpg's but at least some of them have interesting settings. Tartarus is soooo boring to explore and the full moon bosses are nothing special.

Yeeeeeeeeah uh. I'm not really sure why you played Persona 3 if you don't like turn-based RPGs. While I absolutely LOVED that game for a variety of reasons (deceptively simple battle system, great art design, super catchy music, BABYBABYBABYBABY, characters I cared about, etc.), it really is a game just for people who are used to turn-based RPGs. However, if you still want to try Persona 4, go ahead! The games all take place in the same world, but the stories are completely separate, so there's no need to beat Persona 3 in order to 'get' Persona 4. Also, there is definitely a wider variety of environments (each dungeon is themed around a victim's inner turmoil, which is pretty interesting by itself), so maybe that'll be more to your fancy.

Back to the subject at hand, I've, uh... Actually, I don't think I've ever played a game that I thought was overrated. Sure, I've played games that I didn't like as much as most people did, but in all such cases I felt like it was more my problem than the game's. Take most 3D fighters other than Soul Calibur. For some reason, I just can't get into games like Tekken and Virtua Fighter. However, these are games that a lot of people enjoy for whatever reason, and who am I to deny their appeal? If something is really popular, it's popular for a reason, you know? I'm not going to judge other people's tastes just because they like Halo or whatever (which, by the way, I've never played myself, and I'm not really sure how many people who claim to hate 'Halo' have either).

[Giant Tope]

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

It sucks because EVERY CHARACTER you make will play EXACTLY THE SAME no matter how hard you work to differentiate them, and that's inexcusable in an RPG.

There must be a lot of RPGs out there that piss you off then, because quite a lot of them do this as long as you grind enough levels.

Originally Posted by PariahKing

I think Sam and Max is both good yet overrated.

Overrated by whom? Having only learned about the TTG Sam & Max games after ToMI was accounced, I really haven't read up on any of the ratings or media/gamer hype that Sam & Max have recieved besides what people may say on these forums (which I find to be a biased source,) so I don't know in what way the Sam & Max games wouldn't living up to expectations.

Can you give an example as to why?

[PariahKing]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

Overrated by whom? I haven't read up on any of the ratings or media/gamer hype that Sa & Max have recieved besides what people may say on these forums (which I find to be a biased source,) so I don't know in what way the Sam & Max games wouldn't living up to expectations.

Can you give an example as to why?

Internet adventures that focus on adventure gamery stuff.

I think it's a good series, but the stories lack cohesiveness to make them really, really great in my opinion. That's a major flaw.

Don't get me wrong, I still bought S1 and S2 and enjoyed them.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

There must be a lot of RPGs out there that piss you off then, because quite a few of them do this as long as you grind enough levels.

At least for the majority of RPGs, maxing everything is such an obscene time-sink that growing into a new trade is hard enough that starting a new character is a far more efficient way to start a new playstyle. Also, it's not only that you can grind your way up to something super powerful: Fallout 3's characters have stats that for the most part literally do not matter. A character that I try VERY HARD to make suck by understanding the value of each stat and actively trying to go against them will play almost exactly the same as a character that is built with statistics in mind. Compare this to Fallout 1 and 2, in which a character with an Intelligence of less than 4 would be unable to even obtain the majority of quests because he's such a bumbling retard that he can't communicate properly. And yet, you know, you were free to do that. A proper RPG should say that the player is free to screw up. If you can't get serious consequences by screwing up, your choices have no weight or importance, because the game is holding your hand to make sure you can't fail: the game feels like you aren't smart enough to make your own decisions. "Oh, you don't want to do that. I made that quest person immortal so you don't accidentally kill him. Oh, you want to hold onto that. No, there is no reason you'd want to let go of that item. Oh, you don't want to make that character. I won't change it for you, but don't worry, I'm not going to punish you for it either."

[PariahKing]

help my avatar is being crushed by a wall of text ^^^

[Secret Fawful]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

Hardly. Any disparaging comments about intelligence are the obvious implications of the DEVELOPER'S OPINION OF THE PLAYER. Bethesda treats the player like a moron, and it's INSULTING. Granted, I have no idea how an intelligent person COULD enjoy what is essentially hour after hour of being insulted by the product you paid for, but I'm not going to judge the person. I'll just think their tastes are extremely poor.

Well I'd like to see you do any better. How many RPGs have you made recently? None. And if you could and had the resources, I think you'd find it's not as easy as you'd think it is to put a good game together. I notice you don't like it when a video game treats you like a moron but you sure are willing to treat someone else like a moron whenever you feel like it. You can dish it out but you don't leave any room for anyone else to send it back. Because for you their credibility or opinion is already a piece of dung. Look at Yahtzee, one of the biggest video game critics there is. Well when he actually got to make some games of his own, he succumbed to a lot of the same sort of problems he'd eat a video game and spit it back out for. Sure, the Chzo Mythos were great games, but they weren't perfect games and they had a lot of problems in their story. If you made a video game I think you'd find the writing a bigger trial than it seems, and if you had a famous game you'd find yourself under the same sort of sharp scrutiny you like to put into everyone else and everything else. You're pretentious, and if you made a game I think it would be pretentious too. You're damn quick to judge a persons tastes, and praise Fallout 1 and 2 as the greatest gift to the video game industry there ever was, but your opinion is so intelligent and perfect that you don't need to actually provide examples or proof or solid facts and reasoning behind what you're saying. Oh no. You don't need any of that to automatically begin to bash and ridicule as many people and stories and ideas as you see fit. You are so pretentious. And I like you man, and I like your opinion, and how harsh you are, and I admit I don't know you or anything about you, but you don't know anything about the people who wrote or made these games or how they were made, or anything about the production (because interviews and internet articles don't count, you weren't the one making the game), or the fan feedback that may or may not have gone into the production, and taking all that into account, you are damn quick to ridicule as many people and as many things as your massive intellect allows or requires. Oh, and in my opinion, the entire Fallout series is not my thing, and it's not fun either, and it's very very overrated. But I'm going to give it the credit of its huge fan base, and all the effort that went into the making of each and every Fallout game that was made, and I have friends who are die-hard fans of it who swear by it every day they continue to breathe.

[PariahKing]

my avatar has now been brutally suffocated under a mass of vowels and consonants ^^^^

no mercy or paragraphs were given

[Rather Dashing]

I don't think that it is that large of a wall of text, PariahKing. As far as walls go, it's relatively stout. It's the kind of wall that a small child or an energetic dog could jump or climb over fairly easily. It's just not this long, essay-length post that you're making it out to be. I'm not even going particularly in-depth with the posts, and I think I'm being relatively vague compared to my posts on the matter in Bethesda's forums. 'Here! you may nurse it a bit, if you like!' the Duchess said to Alice, flinging the baby at her as she spoke. 'I must go and get ready to play croquet with the Queen,' and she hurried out of the room. The cook threw a frying-pan after her as she went out, but it just missed her.

Alice caught the baby with some difficulty, as it was a queer-shaped little creature, and held out its arms and legs in all directions, 'just like a star-fish,' thought Alice. The poor little thing was snorting like a steam-engine when she caught it, and kept doubling itself up and straightening itself out again, so that altogether, for the first minute or two, it was as much as she could do to hold it.

As soon as she had made out the proper way of nursing it, (which was to twist it up into a sort of knot, and then keep tight hold of its right ear and left foot, so as to prevent its undoing itself,) she carried it out into the open air. 'IF I don't take this child away with me,' thought Alice, 'they're sure to kill it in a day or two: wouldn't it be murder to leave it behind?' She said the last words out loud, and the little thing grunted in reply (it had left off sneezing by this time). 'Don't grunt,' said Alice; 'that's not at all a proper way of expressing yourself.'

The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it. There could be no doubt that it had a VERY turn-up nose, much more like a snout than a real nose; also its eyes were getting extremely small for a baby: altogether Alice did not like the look of the thing at all. 'But perhaps it was only sobbing,' she thought, and looked into its eyes again, to see if there were any tears.

No, there were no tears. 'If you're going to turn into a pig, my dear,' said Alice, seriously, 'I'll have nothing more to do with you. Mind now!' The poor little thing sobbed again (or grunted, it was impossible to say which), and they went on for some while in silence.

Alice was just beginning to think to herself, 'Now, what am I to do with this creature when I get it home?' when it grunted again, so violently, that she looked down into its face in some alarm. This time there could be NO mistake about it: it was neither more nor less than a pig, and she felt that it would be quite absurd for her to carry it further.

So she set the little creature down, and felt quite relieved to see it trot away quietly into the wood. 'If it had grown up,' she said to herself, 'it would have made a dreadfully ugly child: but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think.' And she began thinking over other children she knew, who might do very well as pigs, and was just saying to herself, 'if one only knew the right way to change them—' when she was a little startled by seeing the Cheshire Cat sitting on a bough of a tree a few yards off.

The Cat only grinned when it saw Alice. It looked good-natured, she thought: still it had VERY long claws and a great many teeth, so she felt that it ought to be treated with respect.

'Cheshire Puss,' she began, rather timidly, as she did not at all know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider. 'Come, it's pleased so far,' thought Alice, and she went on. 'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'

Of the grand order of folio leviathans, the Sperm Whale and the Right Whale are by far the most noteworthy. They are the only whales regularly hunted by man. To the Nantucketer, they present the two extremes of all the known varieties of the whale. As the external difference between them is mainly observable in their heads; and as a head of each is this moment hanging from the Pequod's side; and as we may freely go from one to the other, by merely stepping across the deck:—where, I should like to know, will you obtain a better chance to study practical cetology than here?

In the first place, you are struck by the general contrast between these heads. Both are massive enough in all conscience; but there is a certain mathematical symmetry in the Sperm Whale's which the Right Whale's sadly lacks. There is more character in the Sperm Whale's head. As you behold it, you involuntarily yield the immense superiority to him, in point of pervading dignity. In the present instance, too, this dignity is heightened by the pepper and salt colour of his head at the summit, giving token of advanced age and large experience. In short, he is what the fishermen technically call a "grey-headed whale."

Let us now note what is least dissimilar in these heads—namely, the two most important organs, the eye and the ear. Far back on the side of the head, and low down, near the angle of either whale's jaw, if you narrowly search, you will at last see a lashless eye, which you would fancy to be a young colt's eye; so out of all proportion is it to the magnitude of the head.

Now, from this peculiar sideway position of the whale's eyes, it is plain that he can never see an object which is exactly ahead, no more than he can one exactly astern. In a word, the position of the whale's eyes corresponds to that of a man's ears; and you may fancy, for yourself, how it would fare with you, did you sideways survey objects through your ears. You would find that you could only command some thirty degrees of vision in advance of the straight side-line of sight; and about thirty more behind it. If your bitterest foe were walking straight towards you, with dagger uplifted in broad day, you would not be able to see him, any more than if he were stealing upon you from behind. In a word, you would have two backs, so to speak; but, at the same time, also, two fronts (side fronts): for what is it that makes the front of a man—what, indeed, but his eyes?

Moreover, while in most other animals that I can now think of, the eyes are so planted as imperceptibly to blend their visual power, so as to produce one picture and not two to the brain; the peculiar position of the whale's eyes, effectually divided as they are by many cubic feet of solid head, which towers between them like a great mountain separating two lakes in valleys; this, of course, must wholly separate the impressions which each independent organ imparts. The whale, therefore, must see one distinct picture on this side, and another distinct picture on that side; while all between must be profound darkness and nothingness to him. Man may, in effect, be said to look out on the world from a sentry-box with two joined sashes for his window. But with the whale, these two sashes are separately inserted, making two distinct windows, but sadly impairing the view. This peculiarity of the whale's eyes is a thing always to be borne in mind in the fishery; and to be remembered by the reader in some subsequent scenes.

A curious and most puzzling question might be started concerning this visual matter as touching the Leviathan. But I must be content with a hint. So long as a man's eyes are open in the light, the act of seeing is involuntary; that is, he cannot then help mechanically seeing whatever objects are before him. Nevertheless, any one's experience will teach him, that though he can take in an undiscriminating sweep of things at one glance, it is quite impossible for him, attentively, and completely, to examine any two things—however large or however small—at one and the same instant of time; never mind if they lie side by side and touch each other. But if you now come to separate these two objects, and surround each by a circle of profound darkness; then, in order to see one of them, in such a manner as to bring your mind to bear on it, the other will be utterly excluded from your contemporary consciousness. How is it, then, with the whale? True, both his eyes, in themselves, must simultaneously act; but is his brain so much more comprehensive, combining, and subtle than man's, that he can at the same moment of time attentively examine two distinct prospects, one on one side of him, and the other in an exactly opposite direction? If he can, then is it as marvellous a thing in him, as if a man were able simultaneously to go through the demonstrations of two distinct problems in Euclid. Nor, strictly investigated, is there any incongruity in this comparison. You don't really know what a text wall is, do you PariahKing? I mean, I don't think that making posts that are greater than a line or two is really a negative thing. It means that there is something to contribute. I would take a wall of text that I disagree with any day over someone that simply quotes my post and replies with "I agree" or something along those lines.

[PariahKing]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

I would take a wall of text that I disagree with any day over someone that simply quotes my post and replies with "I agree" or something along those lines.

I like paragraphs.

[Giant Tope]

Originally Posted by Secret Fawful

Well I'd like to see you do any better. How many RPGs have you made recently? None.

Oh geez that is never the right thing to say. That's never a good argument for anything.

[Secret Fawful]

Originally Posted by Giant Tope

Oh geez that is never the right thing to say. That's never a good argument for anything.

Why not? Oh and you know what, Dashing. I notice you don't work at Bethesda. Why don't you go work there? It wouldn't be hard for you. You seem to know everything about what Fallout needs, so with some writing training and experience I'm sure you could get a resume and a job. And then you could work at Bethesda and help them make Fallout 4 and make it right, right? Oh wait, you're not, you're just complaining. And insulting the people who made it and play it when you're not exactly actively trying to do anything to change it. Good for you. How much time did you spend in those forums and this one complaining about it, by the way? Did it help? Huh? Did it?

[DoctorCello]

Originally Posted by Secret Fawful

Why not?

Because if your argument was credible in any way, then almost every critic of every form of creative talent in the world would have to quit their job. Just because you don't have the talent to physically create something doesn't necessarily mean you don't know what works.

[Secret Fawful]

Originally Posted by DoctorCello

Because if your argument was credible in any way, then almost every critic of every form of creative talent in the world would have to quit their job. Just because you don't have the talent to physically create something doesn't necessarily mean you don't know what works.

Rather Dashing isn't a credible critic because he's only interested in looking down on what he doesn't agree with and everything and everyone involved. Who is he to look down on anything or anyone? Real, good critics don't do that, and when they do no one listens to them anymore or they get fired. Because they were jackasses. Yahtzee is a bit of an exception because his reviews are done more for comedy, but I don't take them seriously because they look down on everyone and everything involved, but it's funny because it's meant to be funny.