I thought Half-Life was amazing when it first came out. Even if you didn't enjoy it, were the advancements in technology really just hyped and "old news" for you by the time it was released or something? ... Of course mine is even harder to understand for some I'm sure:
- Sonic
I have never, ever liked a Sonic the Hedgehog game, since the beginning of Sonic the Hedgehog games (well Sonic Pinball was okay for a pinball game 20 years ago). I just can't get into the style of play. My 6 yr. old son would have a little conniption fit if he heard me say that - he can't get enough of Sonic games.
Most over-rated game of all time
118
April 18, 2012 05:24 PM
Dead island was painful i really looked forward to that game but it disappointed me in so many ways i never bothered to compete it.
I agree, i played for ~2 hours then took it back to the shop, but i suppose the trailer was the thing that killed Dead Island
395
April 18, 2012 05:35 PM
Sure they might not try to introduce some new game mechanic, sure they might not have the best stories in the world and they might not have Farcry level of graphics but then again they aren't trying to do any of those things.[/quote]
Isn't this a valid reason for "hate"? If they're not trying to be interesting, does that not make the entire series "overrated": i.e., undeserving of the accolades it receives? It's not about the series being popular, it's about the base product being the same level of mediocre when compared to similar titles, and its sequels as much if not more so, and the only distinguishing factor being the amount of money spent on marketing. There is nothing wrong with something being popular, but the assumption of quality is undeserved. The entire point of something being "incredible" or "awesome" is that it is unique in some respect - it has a high standard of quality for something, be it graphics or story or mechanics.
It is a minor pet-peeve of mine that society is incapable of distinguishing between popular and good and that the former is mysteriously preferred for decision making. It's amusing how, if you ask most people, they'll tell you that "Marketing is ineffective, I don't understand why companies waste so much money on advertising! I'm immune to it!" as they run off and buy MW3 even though they haven't finished the second one yet. I've had many people tell me that they didn't really care for MW2/3/etc. but they bought it anyway because even though they had no expectations of there being any improvements or enjoyable playing experience(s), going through the motions brought them some level of comfort. Seems to be the case for all major franchises these days.
As for the actual topic at hand, in my opinion pretty much anything produced by Bioware in the past ~4 years.
793
April 18, 2012 07:38 PM
Isn't this a valid reason for "hate"? If they're not trying to be interesting, does that not make the entire series "overrated": i.e., undeserving of the accolades it receives? It's not about the series being popular, it's about the base product being the same level of mediocre when compared to similar titles, and its sequels as much if not more so, and the only distinguishing factor being the amount of money spent on marketing. There is nothing wrong with something being popular, but the assumption of quality is undeserved. The entire point of something being "incredible" or "awesome" is that it is unique in some respect - it has a high standard of quality for something, be it graphics or story or mechanics.
This entire paragraph feels like you are making the incorrect connection between innovation and 'interesting'/good. There are plenty of non-original great things and plenty of totally unique terrible things.
11,263
April 18, 2012 08:14 PM
This entire paragraph feels like you are making the incorrect connection between innovation and 'interesting'/good. There are plenty of non-original great things and plenty of totally unique terrible things.
Indeed, this was the point I was trying to make in my post. They might not have innovated in the MW games but they were still good.
11,263
April 18, 2012 08:18 PM
I thought Half-Life was amazing when it first came out. Even if you didn't enjoy it, were the advancements in technology really just hyped and "old news" for you by the time it was released or something?
Nope, saw it at release - let my flat mate at the time play it on my PC and spent a fair wack of time watching him play it. The only reason I owned a copy of HL was so that I could play CS back when it first came out (the betas, this is).
HL2 I got for free and still didn't enjoy it... some nice rendering tech in there but game wise it was very meh... in some cases it was like 'LOOK AT OUR PHYSICS ENGINE! LOOK AT IT! LOOOOOOOOOK!' and others it was just boring. I didn't even finish it... I got to the final boss fight, realised it was going to be a pain in the arse and walked away. (I only got that far because I pretty much had nothing else to do at the time...)
April 18, 2012 08:18 PM
This entire paragraph feels like you are making the incorrect connection between innovation and 'interesting'/good. There are plenty of non-original great things and plenty of totally unique terrible things.
To everyone saying MW3 was a good game, nobody here can rightfully deny that (although there are certain things that I've always hated about CoD which take away its appeal to me, but that's beside the point). However, the point isn't that it's bad, although I did say it was a "bad" game in my previous post but I was just trying to keep it brief. My point is that from what I've heard, MW3 is almost literally just a map pack for MW2 (assuming you don't care about single player like me and probably most MW3 players). [Opinion Alert] So to say that MW3 is over-rated is to say that a $60 map pack (with a dull 6 hour campaign) that is rated high enough to be worth buying by anyone, let alone to break record sales, is over-rated.
Some may see this as a bad example, but if I were to sell you a black TV today and two years later I was selling the exact same TV but I just painted it grey, would you buy it from me?
773
April 18, 2012 08:19 PM
[quote name='swiftcoder' timestamp='1334675668' post='4932152']
QFE. The main audience is whatever audience will drive the most sales.
You may not like any of Angry Birds, Draw Something, or Modern Warfare 3 - but their profit margins demonstrate admirably that they did indeed find a suitable audience.
Yeah, sucks don't it
[/quote]
Perhaps... but why did they target the 15-22 year old audience, when the 30+ audience is much much larger? Oh, and they have expendable income too, so they have less barriers for purchases! The average gamer is in their mid to late 30s, so why do they continually target the minority of the community? That is what I was getting at. Everything seems to be based around this imagined average gamer age of 15-22 years old.
April 18, 2012 08:25 PM
The average gamer is in their mid to late 30s
I'm really interested to see where you heard that
793
April 18, 2012 08:25 PM
cut
Don't get the wrong impression from my posts. I do think CoD is overrated (mostly because it's rated absurdly high by the public, less because of the quality of the gameplay).
I just don't like the notion that just because something isn't innovating it's not good. Apple exploded back onto the scene by evolving older concepts and delivering high quality. There's very little they've done that wasn't done years previously. The products they make are still unquestionably great products. I don't buy them because I think they're overpriced, but I can still appreciate that they are good products.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
