The most overrated game/series?

[ShinySpidey]

This thread is toxic 

People who say Dark Souls is overrated I’m pretty sure they haven’t even finished the game nor have they reached Anor Londo. 
It’s not even that difficult to be honest, you just need to learn how mechanics work. I think it’s the best game of al time. 

The Last of Us and Uncharted series are not overrated, yes there are some problems and you may not like the story or the gameplay but in their genre they are  almost flawless.

From my experience, there’s no game really overrated. 
I would say Journey. It’s been a fun and relaxing experience but I wouldn’t say it’s one of the best games of all time. Also

Horizon Zero Dawn is a great game but not a masterpiece, but I don't think it is actually overrated, people generally do recognize its flaws. 
 

There is one game in particular people love but I hate from the bottom of my heart: Heavy Rain. The controls are the most torturous I’ve ever experienced. 
 

Edited February 16, 2021 by ShinySpidey

[Raidou Kuzunoha XIV]

Pokemon

 

I used to love this series for nearly my whole life. It was the focal point of my entertainment in my childhood, I used to be big into all things Pokemon: The mainline games (and all versions as well), the side/spin-off games, the trading card game, the merch, the anime (though even I kinda stopped watching early into Advanced, continued to watch the movies for another few years though), etc.

 

But there's always been some glaring issues with Pokemon, a lot I largely ignored because in my mind "well, it's still Pokemon, I still have to buy and play the new games every year because I love this series to death". But then Sword and Shield came along, and I just couldn't ignore the issues any more, especially not with the developers flat out lying and making excuses for all the cut corners. I don't blame Gamefreak by any means, they clearly stopped caring that much about the franchise a long time ago, not like they've ever been good developers anyway, and had to get others to help them out on a few occasions. I think it's moreso the fault of the Pokemon Company and/or Nintendo at this point for not giving the series to people more competent and more "passionate" about the series, but why should they? They still sell like hot cakes because millions of people still buy the games because "it's Pokemon", never mind that a lot of the BS that people let fly in Pokemon would be getting criticised into the dirt if it was any other big (non-Nintendo) franchise.

 

Anyway, enough of me ranting about their development. The reason why Pokemon is so popular really just comes down to its core concept: There's these unique monsters you can catch and train, you can form your party however you like based on this. There's also literally nearly a thousand Pokemon for you to obtain nowadays. It creates a simplistic but fun and addictive gameplay mechanic. The problem is... everything else.

 

Now I'm not expecting them to be something avantgarde or anything, they are just kids games first and foremost at the end of the day. They don't need to tell particularly interesting stories or have overly interesting characters, they don't need any of that to just be fun. But that's still not really my problem with the games, my problems really boil down to 2 major issues: 1. The continued unnecessary dual versions and sometimes even still "third" versions (Ultra Sun and Moon) and 2. Introducing gimmicks to try and keep the games "fresh" and then removing them next gen.

 

I'll focus on the second point because that's the main one: With every new gen, they generally introduce something new, since the games are pretty much just the same thing of getting and training Mons, and then going to 8 gyms and beating the Elite Four. They can't keep it too stale, even something as fun as Pokemon is going to get boring if the only new things you introduce each new game is a new region and some new monsters. The problem is, it's not unusual for them to just flat out remove new gimmicks and features from the next game in the series.

 

They added the day/night cycle to Gold/Silver, and removed it in Ruby/Sapphire (even though the games still had an internal clock system). They introduced the underground and a new form of contests and poffin making in Diamond/Pearl, and removed them in Black/White. Black/White introduced seasons, removed in X/Y. X/Y introduced mega evolutions, which might as well be a thing of the past now. And they just flat out removed some Pokemon from existence in Sword/Shield, even though every single Pokemon game before them was capable of having every Pokemon currently in existence in them after trading/transferring them over, they removed this core feature entirely from their newest entry, causing the whole "Dexit" controversy. And I'm just skimming the surface here.

 

Why do they do this? Well, to make each region feel "unique" in their own words. Problem is, with each new generation it feels like the games take a step forward, then take two steps back with the next. Sure, the general QQL improvements might continue to improve, but some things will literally be removed along the way. These games should feel like they're improving and dare I say, evolving as they go along. The games could be absolutely amazing at this point, we could have something akin to a Pokemon MMO with more lively and characteristic battle animations like those in Stadium/Battle Revolution/etc. The worlds could feel vibrant and genuinely fun to explore. Instead, we're stuck with the newest game looking like a Wii game, with draw distance of about 5 feet, Blastoise still can't shoot water from his cannons and the scaling of the Pokemon in battle is all off. It's honestly really just pathetic that a series that's literally up there with Disney for how much money they make, can only produce sub-par games that look they have less budget than some Idea Factory/Compile Hearts JRPGs. I don't understand the immense praise these games get when they're all literally the same thing, with no memorable stories or characters to really tell them apart (at least not any more), the worlds and monsters themselves often feel lifeless now, and it just screams "we know you'll buy any old shit we slap the Pokemon logo onto, so just give us your money already" at this point, and people continue to lap it up. I think Pokemon deserves a whole lot better, and could be a lot better, but it's sadly doomed to wallow in mediocrity for however long it continues to last.

[DrBloodmoney]

On 16/02/2021 at 10:02 AM, ShinySpidey said:

This thread is toxic 
 

What is the term for a thread that is just bait for Click-bait posts?

 

‘Click-bait-bait’ I suppose? 
A bit unwieldy, but it’ll do.

It is a little disheartening that a thread about ‘Overrated’ series’ has over 3 times as many responses as the ‘Underrated’ games one ?

 

[nolanexpress08]

Honestly, I think TLOU Part 2 is over rated

[Dreakon13]

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

It is a little disheartening that a thread about ‘Overrated’ series’ has over 3 times as many responses as the ‘Underrated’ games one ?

 

 

Well, two things...

1. People tend to confuse not liking a game with it being overrated.  You can subjectively dislike something, while objectively acknowledging a games quality and influence.

2. Admitting something is underrated, means you have to actually like something.  And where's the fun in that? /s

Edited February 25, 2021 by Dreakon13

[DrBloodmoney]

2 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

People tend to confuse not liking a game with it being overrated. 

 

Word ??

[sealightbreeze]

Call of Duty and also the Tom Clancy games

[GoonerLukeThe]

any sonic game, journey is a good shout as well (someone posted it at the top of the page)

[Darling Baphomet]

Literally came here to say Overwatch, then remembered I just did that last page, LMAO.

 

Okay, here's a spicy one. Uncharted. Sort of. I've tried playing these games; all four of them, actually, and they're pretty, very action oriented, but they've never stuck with me. I don't get what people like about them. Uncharted 4 is a visually stunning masterpiece I can say, but it's still just so hard to get into for me. That being said, I think the games definitely have merit, so this is probably a personal preference versus genuinely overrated thing.

 

Besides that, I'm going to go with Soulsborne games. They're no doubt very fulfilling, fun games, but they're also so clunky and... punishing. I imagine they got as popular as they did because people are getting tired of ultra-polished games that hold your hand the entire way - there is some fun in learning how to exploit a game's mechanics, in having to deal with the challenge of clunky game design. I've tried to play Bloodborne ~three times, and it's a good game, but eventually I get to a point where I have to grind blood vials, or just walk for several minutes to get to a boss (this is what happened on my longest attempt, where I got to The One Reborn), and I'm like, "why am I doing this?" I greatly prefer series like Hotline Miami, Super Meat Boy, or Trackmania, where they allow you to instantly retry when you fail. Honestly though, I'm glad these games serve their niche well, I just wish every other game wasn't trying to copy their mechanics now.

 

On 2/16/2021 at 0:02 AM, ShinySpidey said:

This thread is toxic 

People who say Dark Souls is overrated I’m pretty sure they haven’t even finished the game nor have they reached Anor Londo. 
It’s not even that difficult to be honest, you just need to learn how mechanics work. I think it’s the best game of al time. 

 

Toxic positivity is just as toxic as toxic negativity. You can like a game, or dislike a game, without forcing the opinion onto other people or insisting that they hold the wrong opinion. Soulsborne games are deliberately clunky and inaccessible and that means a lot of people aren't going to like them, and that's completely fine. 

[ThirdAwakening]

Final Fantasy

[Montyzu]

For me its Uncharted, its a basic cover shooter without any deep mechanics not even a weapon shop/upgrades, and there isnt any relevant story or development. The only thing going for it its the big budget for graphics and action scenes and that makes it an average hollywood movie, but a terrible video game

[TomataEighty9]

On 1.8.2014 at 3:02 PM, freddie1989 said:

The Yakuza series is dreadful!!

 

I felt the same when i tried Yakuza 6. I really tried to like the game, but damn it's not my game...

[Z1MZUM]

What about Fortnite? This piece of crap has literally destroyed online multiplayer. And it's the gamers complaining about paying for these games that led to this. Is it overrated? Millions of players like it. The same people who probably still play Candy Crush Saga.

[Property_Damage]

Call of duty

Fifa

Madden

NBA2k

 

I mean, theyre all just the same shit year after year with a slight change in the previous roster

i remember this one call of duty youtuber venting his frustration in one of his videos about activision and cod in general and he made a good point which is a good idea and ill share it 

 

Call of duty should be a cloud based service with dedicated servers.  Charge a flat subscription fee and it gives you access to every call of duty game ever, even future titles until your subscription ends.  Every game, every gun, every camo, every map, every mode, campaign, battle royale, zombies, i mean everything, dump it all onto 1 giant system of dedicated servers and have it live forever, imagine big leagues in black ops 2 still being obtainable, or just playing older games without needed to boot up an older system or even needing a disc, you’d download an application like netflix or whatever and theres everything at your finger tips readily available and continuously updated and supported

i think every yearly franchise release should do something like this.

i mean if youre playing fifa 18,19 and 20...odds are youre gona play 21 aswell.  So on and so forth

[Rando-Calrisian-]

1 hour ago, Property_Damage said:

I mean, theyre all just the same shit year after year with a slight change in the previous roster

 

More to add to that list that im guilty of playing:

- Assasins Creed

- Far Cry

 

I cannot for the life of me understand how they score so highly, each year, on OpenCritic. The last few entries of each are typically > 80%. I know they are not considered the greatest things ever but I don't think they should be getting anywhere near average scores they get.

 

I have a few (conspiracy) theories:

1. The reviewer has only played one or at best a few entries into the series so the formula is not stale for them yet. I have played them all, liked them at first then got sick of them. 
   • However, my friend who is a very casual gamer who never played and assassins creed game played Valhalla and was not impressed at all saying gameplay was very shallow and plot was extremely bloated.
2.   Video game reviews are not impartial, the developer / publisher has some influence on the review. If you read reviews from the main sites (ign, gamespot etc) you see patterns over time on how they review specific publishers games. One site will consistently give a higher score than the OpenCritic average from certain developers / publisher and lower scores compared to the average for other developers / publisher. The other site will do, seemingly, the opposite. There may be multiple reviewers each time so personal bias of the reviewer can be discounted.
   • You would think, if this did occur, the effect of this would be washed out on a site like MetaCritic.
   • However, the video game industry has been bigger than the film and music industry, combined, for many years now so it is not beyond the realm of possibility they could influence enough reviewers to shift the score upwards on the Critic sites.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Rando-Calrisian-

[DrBloodmoney]

10 hours ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

Besides that, I'm going to go with Soulsborne games. They're no doubt very fulfilling, fun games, but they're also so clunky and... punishing. I imagine they got as popular as they did because people are getting tired of ultra-polished games that hold your hand the entire way - there is some fun in learning how to exploit a game's mechanics, in having to deal with the challenge of clunky game design. I've tried to play Bloodborne ~three times, and it's a good game, but eventually I get to a point where I have to grind blood vials, or just walk for several minutes to get to a boss (this is what happened on my longest attempt, where I got to The One Reborn), and I'm like, "why am I doing this?" I greatly prefer series like Hotline Miami, Super Meat Boy, or Trackmania, where they allow you to instantly retry when you fail. Honestly though, I'm glad these games serve their niche well, I just wish every other game wasn't trying to copy their mechanics now.

 

 

Toxic positivity is just as toxic as toxic negativity. You can like a game, or dislike a game, without forcing the opinion onto other people or insisting that they hold the wrong opinion. Soulsborne games are deliberately clunky and inaccessible and that means a lot of people aren't going to like them, and that's completely fine. 

 

Well, look - I'm someone who absolutely loves Soulsborne games. 

I'm not going to go off on a rant about how "You just don't get it man..." or anything like that...

...but I do think the idea that these games are deliberately 'clunky' is misconception, and is reductive.

 

Part of the appeal of games like these - and the reason so many people keep playing them over and over and over, is that the base mechanics are designed to allow a huge variety of different builds. The practical upside of that is that the replayability of those games is huge, as playing with, say, a magic build is incredibly different from a Tank build, or a Dex build, but the inherent 'downside' is that the mechanical base game is required to be built in a way that can support that, without allowing any particular build to be overpowered. 

The way Soulsborne games do that is with animation priority, (which can feel stilted in a world of super-smooth combat in AAA games) and with unforgiving environments and enemies.

 

I don't think it actually is clunky, but I'll accept it can feel that way if you are coming from other games that are more fluid, and designed around a single play-style or much more limited play-style in terms of build-variety and combat.

Of course the combat in Dark Souls looks and feels less fluid and sleek than, say, God of War - because in something like God of War, everything in the game is tailored around the one specific way Kratos fights, and is designed in service of that.

In Dark Souls, the world and the enemies are built to withstand every possible build, and so they way to do that without allowing for a certain clever builds rail-roading through it is to simply make it incredibly punishing, and by doing so, reward players for coming up with their own play style, by making them feel like anything they can do do get through it is a real achievement.

 

In terms of environmental difficulty (the peculiar and sometimes punishing methods of traversal around the areas), I think that is absolutely critical to these games. The areas, while beautiful in terms of art-design and detail, are not particularly big, and so in a game where you can roam around freely without having to really work for it, you would blast through them in a few minutes and see everything. Finding a shortcut that you missed the first 20 times you went through an area only feels amazing if finding it really makes a big difference, and that will only happen if you really had to work to find it in the first place.

 

I do think you are in some respects correct when you say 'deliberately' - I could accept an argument that some elements of Demon's Souls' peculiar gameplay mechanics and difficulty might have been an accident, but given the enormous success of these games and the amount of money they make now, I think it would be wilfully ignorant to believe that by the time they got to Dark Souls 3 or Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, that anything in those games was not purposeful - but to call them 'inaccessible' is simply counter to the evidence. These games sell gangbusters, have spawned a litany of other games aping their style, and are arguably - at least in part - responsible for the massive renaissance in rogue-like games; so there is something that a lot of people want in them. They are certainly 'accessible' to many.

 

 

 

My personal feeling on why the Soulsborne games are as successful as they are - and certainly a big part of why I love them - is that nowadays, in an age where -for better or worse - most big budget games are extremely polished (in terms of difficulty and 'hand-holding') and have all the sharp edges sanded down to make the experience fun but never too hard, there is a sense of wonder and discovery that has been lost.

 

When I was a young kid (all those many, many, *sigh* MANY(!), years ago, there was something truly mysterious about games.

I would rent a game I hadn't heard of from Blockbuster for the weekend, and I would know nothing about it. I would just learn what I was doing by poking and prodding at the game. I never really had the time to learn much, or make any real progress before I had to return it, but when I did manage to figure something out, it felt fantastic.

I really felt like I had achieved something, and was making progress in a journey against the odds.

Like I was succeeding where I wasn't rightfully supposed to!

 

The Soulsborne games - and some of their best brethren (The Surge / Salt and Sanctuary etc.) - are among the only games in modern times to give me a flash of those memories again.

They are a Madaline Moment for a time when games seemed confusing and mysterious, and fumbling in the dark against the odds was gaming for me.

 

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if a lot of fans of those games really examined their own feelings about them, they would say some version of the same thing.

 

Praise the Sun! ?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Darling Baphomet]

12 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

[A cornucopia of language]

 

Like I said, I'm not a hater; I've casually enjoyed Bloodborne, just never had the interest to finish it. It's a decent game with a great setting and the combat isn't bad. Mostly I just don't like Soulsborne leaking into other games, lol. Like Jedi Fallen Order absolutely did not need Soulsborne mechanics.

 

I think you can have build diversity without the clunky features present in Souls games - e.g. needing to grind for blood vials in Bloodborne, or needing to run for several minutes to retry a boss, or the fact that controls aren't explained to you. I think it scratches the niche of games with less intuitive game design, where you need to figure out what to do with very vague, sometimes frustrating tools. But yes, I think it's a result of weariness with too much hand holding in AAA games; that sense of conquering a hostile game is what I mean when I call the game clunky.

 

Also worth noting that inaccessible does not mean "unpopular", it means that the game is not easy to access. For instance, lacking a proper tutorial or proper instructions, it makes you work to figure out how to play the game, as opposed to most games which will give you detailed tutorials. Accessible would be the game reaching out to you, not the other way around, which is what Souls games seem to do. Like, I wouldn't tell someone new to games to play the Soulsborne games, because they're inaccessible. From my perspective, they exist for experienced gamers to get to relive the experience of being bad at or frustrated by video games.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Darling Baphomet

[DrBloodmoney]

50 minutes ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

Like I said, I'm not a hater; I've casually enjoyed Bloodborne, just never had the interest to finish it. It's a decent game with a great setting and the combat isn't bad. Mostly I just don't like Soulsborne leaking into other games, lol. Like Jedi Fallen Order absolutely did not need Soulsborne mechanics.

 

I think you can have build diversity without the clunky features present in Souls games - e.g. needing to grind for blood vials in Bloodborne, or needing to run for several minutes to retry a boss, or the fact that controls aren't explained to you. I think it scratches the niche of games with less intuitive game design, where you need to figure out what to do with very vague, sometimes frustrating tools. But yes, I think it's a result of weariness with too much hand holding in AAA games; that sense of conquering a hostile game is what I mean when I call the game clunky.

 

Also worth noting that inaccessible does not mean "unpopular", it means that the game is not easy to access. For instance, lacking a proper tutorial or proper instructions, it makes you work to figure out how to play the game, as opposed to most games which will give you detailed tutorials. Accessible would be the game reaching out to you, not the other way around, which is what Souls games seem to do.

 

Yeah, no, absolutely man - don't take my post as an attack or an accusation of being a 'hater' - if anything, it's just an excuse for me to write a little love letter to a series I adore ?

 

 

Oh yeah - and that thing about farming blood vial is Bloodborne - Agreed. That was a bad change from the norm in From Soulsborne games. I thought that was a step backwards, as that mechanic was dropped after Demon's Souls, and only made a comeback in Bloodborne for some reason.

 

ps.  

 

...I just bought Jedi: Fallen Order the other day, simply because I heard it had some Soulsborne mechanics ?

 

Personally, I couldn't care less about Star Wars stuff (I think I'm the only person left who is still sticking to my words that I - and as I recall everyone else - uttered upon leaving the movie theatre after Episode One: "I am never seeing another Star Wars Movie!"...everyone else forgave and forgot, but not me! NEVER!!)....

....but I've run out of Soulsborne games to platinum, so even the whiff of souls was enough to pique my interest ?

Edited February 26, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[milanbarca82]

Zelda series.  Good games but they do have glaring flaws which somehow reviewers often brush it off.  Biased, much?
Oh, and GTA series for the same reason as above.

[Boycee92]

I would say Arkham City.

 

Very fun game, but didn't think it was nearly as great as most make it out to be. Story was very anticlimatic and forgettable, the Boss fights were underwhelming, voice acting was dull and many known villains only made a short cameo. Gameplay and story, however, was very enjoyable.

 

I enjoyed the metroidvanian style of the game were you came back to an earlier stage to retrieve collectables you couldn't on your virst visit due to not having required gadgets. Didn't really bother to start a nee playthrough after I finished it. Will do that later though, good game

[TomataEighty9]

21 minutes ago, milanbarca82 said:

Zelda series.  Good games but they do have glaring flaws which somehow reviewers often brush it off.  Biased, much?
Oh, and GTA series for the same reason as above.

 

Why?

[Tsundokuist]

On 27/02/2020 at 3:59 PM, entonces55 said:

I’d have to say Uncharted and the last of us are the most overrated imo

I haven’t played/have no interest in these so I can’t really comment on if they are infact any good but for me videogames just aren’t an efficient way to tell a story so whenever titles like this are acclaimed for being the absolute totem of story-driven gaming I always find that suspect.

[DrBloodmoney]

27 minutes ago, milanbarca82 said:

Zelda series.

 

Those games command a lot of respect, and are all pretty well made, though I do think there is something to be noted about a series that has 19 entries, and peaked at the 3rd one.

 

A Link to the Past is basically the perfect video game, and that does mean something, but it was 30 years ago, and there have been 16 inferior games since then.

(Inferior being relative of course - there are many good games, but none that beat A Link to the Past)

 

That does mean the reputation is a little bit based on nostalgia, rather than current output....

....but then, Super Mario World was 30 years ago too, and I don't even know where to begin counting how many Mario games have come along since that was released!

[thefourfoldroot]

I’d say any elder scrolls after Morrowind. Combat is simplistic, story verges between dull and non-existent, there’s no real diversity to activities in the game such as mini games and such to break the monotony, and they are often full of bugs and poor performance areas.

[mysticmosh]

Definitely GTA. I loved it up to and including San Andreas, but since IV and Bellic, it has become a total load of shit. I bought GTA V on release hoping it was going to be better, played it for a few hours and sold it for more than I paid for it!. I know people love it, but nearly 8 years squeezing shit out of a single game is beyond me.

Assassin's Creed since Origins. I loved this franchise as well and loved the fact that I knew (roughly) what was going to be required in the games. What I don't need is it to be turned into some sort of massive RPG with stupid size maps and the worse incarnation of 'eagle vision' ever seen. I haven't played Valhalla, but the 2 previous games were awful. Long live Ezio!

Borderlands. Tried them, hate them.

Uncharted 4

Guess what I'm really saying is that when you have a winning formula (which they undoubtedly were), sometimes trying to improve things turn it to shit. Newer players who haven't been there since the start will love this era's games (as will a lot of early players), but a lot of players like me, think that "I liked it better the way it was!".