Gaming Most Overrated Game

[Guest The Bouncer]

A game that was highly overated was Halo.. I played the game and its not all that everyone claims it to be. im you cant even hide up agains walls. roll or anything.. it was all jut hold the trigger and fire.

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SilpheedPilot [/i]
[B]I'll have to detest on the whole Soul Calibur II over-rated ness...What about Soul Calibur? or Soul Edge? The previous ones? They got almost no hype, so for thinking that Soul Calibur II is over-rated is kinda selfish, dont ya think? I mean it deserves the hype its getting. Which personally its my favorite fighter to date.[/B][/QUOTE]

What? Soul Calibur has been the bar of excellence fighting games have had to live up to since its release. I don't think there was a problem with it getting the recognition it deserved--that's evident by the long line I had to wait in to purchase Soul Calibur 2. It just never found the audience it deserved because of the platform it was on. Which is a shame too. Everyone should have had a DreamCast in my opinion.

[quote][b]Really, I never enjoyed Resident Evil. I think games have to actually have some semblance of a control scheme for me to enjoy them (what? Good controls? Horrors!).[/b][/quote]

After spending time with the games I became accustomed to the controls. They weren't ideal--but they did become second nature for me. The gameplay sure was flawed though. No more could this be evident by the fact that every damn Resident Evil game has you doing the [i]same[/i] "puzzles" as the last. There's almost zero evolution or innovation to speak of.

Resident Evil 3 made some nice adjustments with the spin and Resident Evil Zero was a nice step in the right direction with its character switching. But, the fact that I was [b]still[/b] (after all these years) pushing crates and finding cranks is [i]terrible[/i].

Now, to throw my opinion into the hat, I'll say that the first Turok was overrated. I couldn't stand it. The environments were too foggy, the controls were clumsy and I found no fun with it.

Also, Windwaker was overrated to a certain extent. Don't get me wrong--I adore the game. But, putting visual splendor aside, I have to say it's a far cry away from being a huge leap over Ocarina of Time.

[Semjaza]

I've never met a person who gushed over the controls in RE, so that's a rather null point. In a game where the camera angles are static and change constantly, do you honestly want the controls to be like Super Mario 64 and change constantly based on camera placements? I sure wouldn't. You'd have to adjust your directions on every new screen.

The games were good in the first place, it's just that they never really evolved much. RE4 looks like it will fix a lot of these problems, to me. Controls are supposedly being adjusted and since it's 3D, you won't have as much of that static problem.

I still think Majora is the best 3D Zelda. I wouldn't call it overrated, mostly because a vast majority of the people I know think it's pretty crappy... while a handful of others seem to think it's the best one yet.

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B]I've never met a person who gushed over the controls in RE, so that's a rather null point. In a game where the camera angles are static and change constantly, do you honestly want the controls to be like Super Mario 64 and change constantly based on camera placements? I sure wouldn't. You'd have to adjust your directions on every new screen.

The games were good in the first place, it's just that they never really evolved much. RE4 looks like it will fix a lot of these problems, to me. Controls are supposedly being adjusted and since it's 3D, you won't have as much of that static problem.

I still think Majora is the best 3D Zelda. I wouldn't call it overrated, mostly because a vast majority of the people I know think it's pretty crappy... while a handful of others seem to think it's the best one yet. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, I'd rather the controls were more like the controls in Devil May Cry. That game had some rather static backgrounds and constantly changing camera angles and I thought the controls worked great even with all of that.

Survival Horror games have never really been my favorite of genres, anyway...I'm probably not the person you want to go to for an unbiased opinion about them lol.

It's pretty much the opposite around my area (except for my best friend, who absolutely hated Majora's Mask...the poor fool :p). A lot of people I know think it's the best Zelda ever. To me, it's not, but opinions seem to vary a lot according to what you said, heh. I think Ocarina of Time is better than Majora's Mask but I'd definitely put Majora's Mask up there with it...it's not like Ocarina of Time blows Majora's Mask out of the water, which a lot of people I've seen on the internet think as well.

[Semjaza]

I've never understood why RE games never even gave you the option. How hard would it be for them to do this? SH3 gave you a choice between normal 3D controls and RE-style.

Like I said, RE4 supposedly will address this. I hope so, because even though I've grown used to RE's setup, I wouldn't mind a change. Playing ED is a hell of a lot more enjoyable even in the most basic ways because of its easier control scheme.

I still thought RE on GCN was awesome though.

[Shinmaru]

I've heard Capcom give many reasons for the control scheme. None of them have been particulary good reasons, though. The worst was that the control scheme makes the game "scarier." Scarier only because you have to repeat a ton of crap if you die because of the controls...though, that could be just me, heh.

If RE4 does address the control issue, then I'd be more than happy to play it. With great controls, a Survival Horror game can be really great, especially due to the amazing atmosphere (which RE for the GameCube had in spades).

[James]

[color=#707875]As much as I know it sounds lame, I somewhat agree with Capcom's thoughts about the controls in RE. I mean, really...it wouldn't be hard for them to make RE a more "Devil May Cry"-esque game, when it comes to controls.

They say that the controls are more realistic...in terms of the fact that real human beings can't do backflips and double jumps, etc. I mean, you know...it feels very "confined" and almost "heavy".

But, I wouldn't object to a totally redeveloped control system in RE4. Personally, I'm so used to the controls in RE that they don't bother me anymore. But that doesn't mean that Capcom can't or shouldn't change them.

And I agree about the puzzles and so on.

Also, about Wind Waker...I agree to an extent. Some overrated it, many underrated it.

However, I would say that Wind Waker wasn't Nintendo's greatest effort. In my opinion, the gameplay didn't advance nearly as much as the visuals. I'd have liked to see another two dungeons in there, rather than a very forced and sloppy Triforce collecting task.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]As much as I know it sounds lame, I somewhat agree with Capcom's thoughts about the controls in RE. I mean, really...it wouldn't be hard for them to make RE a more "Devil May Cry"-esque game, when it comes to controls.

They say that the controls are more realistic...in terms of the fact that real human beings can't do backflips and double jumps, etc. I mean, you know...it feels very "confined" and almost "heavy".

But, I wouldn't object to a totally redeveloped control system in RE4. Personally, I'm so used to the controls in RE that they don't bother me anymore. But that doesn't mean that Capcom can't or shouldn't change them.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, I wasn't really going for backflips and double jumps in RE games lol. I was going for something more akin to Eternal Darkness, which uses something similar to the DMC style control scheme, in that up always goes up, down always goes down, left goes left and right goes right.

I just feel that there shouldn't be any excuses when it comes to bad controls...I enjoyed Eternal Darkness much more than Resident Evil because I had a much easier time with the controls. I never felt I had to wrestle with the controls or wonder which control goes where when the camera angle shifts, etc. When you don't have to worry about things like that, it allows you to get more immersed in the atmosphere.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i]
[B]Well, I wasn't really going for backflips and double jumps in RE games lol. I was going for something more akin to Eternal Darkness, which uses something similar to the DMC style control scheme, in that up always goes up, down always goes down, left goes left and right goes right.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]I wasn't really referring to you with that comment. I was basically trying to point out that fundamentally, Resident Evil lends itself to the current control scheme.

It's obviously not a perfect control scheme (I think an ED-like system would be much better), but I wouldn't say that the controls in RE are terrible or unmanageable.[/color][quote][b]

I just feel that there shouldn't be any excuses when it comes to bad controls...I enjoyed Eternal Darkness much more than Resident Evil because I had a much easier time with the controls. I never felt I had to wrestle with the controls or wonder which control goes where when the camera angle shifts, etc. When you don't have to worry about things like that, it allows you to get more immersed in the atmosphere. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Well...the only problem I ever had with the controls was turning quickly. In the later games though, you had a 180 spin option, so that basically eliminated any problems I'd had previously. Also, turning while running can be somewhat slow in Resident Evil, which isn't very good. However, you're rarely in large, wide open spaces...so smoothe turning ability isn't necessary.

In any case, I can see where you are coming from. Maybe I've just been playing the RE games for so long that I'm completely used to the controls...I've adapted to them and become comfortable. So, to me, they are second nature.

However, I believe there is a [i]lot[/i] that Capcom can do with Resident Evil, in terms of player movement and interaction. It's possible to make the game more fluid and realistic without actually turning it into something that resembles a more outlandish game like Devil May Cry.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][/b]

[color=#707875]I wasn't really referring to you with that comment. I was basically trying to point out that fundamentally, Resident Evil lends itself to the current control scheme.

It's obviously not a perfect control scheme (I think an ED-like system would be much better), but I wouldn't say that the controls in RE are terrible or unmanageable.[/color] [/quote]

Yeah, I posted that before I got the story from you, heh. I apologize if any offense was taken ^_^ I'm just not really a big fan of clunky controls. Most games I've played have had really good control schemes...I guess I'm just spoiled lol.

[quote][i]Originally posted by James[/i]

[color=#707875]Well...the only problem I ever had with the controls was turning quickly. In the later games though, you had a 180 spin option, so that basically eliminated any problems I'd had previously. Also, turning while running can be somewhat slow in Resident Evil, which isn't very good. However, you're rarely in large, wide open spaces...so smoothe turning ability isn't necessary.

In any case, I can see where you are coming from. Maybe I've just been playing the RE games for so long that I'm completely used to the controls...I've adapted to them and become comfortable. So, to me, they are second nature.

However, I believe there is a [i]lot[/i] that Capcom can do with Resident Evil, in terms of player movement and interaction. It's possible to make the game more fluid and realistic without actually turning it into something that resembles a more outlandish game like Devil May Cry.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, Resident Evil type controls have never really been my style. I've found it hard for me to really get into those types of games that use this control scheme (like RE, Fear Effect, Silent Hill, etc.) because I'm [i]not[/i] used to it. Someone who's played RE for years (like yourself) can easily adapt to the controls, while someone who doesn't play it very often (like me) will have a hard time with them. I think the biggest problem with me is patience, heh. I'm not a very patient person, especially with things like this.

And maybe I was going a bit overboard by suggesting a DMC-style control scheme, heh. I should've mentioned a more Eternal Darkness style control set. The pace of DMC doesn't really fit RE, anyway. To me, ED strikes a middle ground with the pace and style of the control. Too bad I didn't realize it until now :p

[James]

[color=#707875]I agree that ED's scheme is pretty suitable. In some ways, it's still quite "slow" (it maintains realism) but it's also more fluid than the current RE system.[/color]

[Guest Magnamon]

going back to the whole pokemon thing as a game, you do have to admit that each set that they come out with they add something that hasn't been done before in any other game. in r/b/y it was the being able to catch what you are fighting and make it permanantly yours, true the graphics sucked, but they fixed that.

in g/s/c it was the holding of items, how those items affected evolution when traded, and breeding (and breeding of moves). i haven't played ruby or saphire, so i don't know about it. i do agree on the fact that the basic storyline hasn't changed, and that sucks.

on majora's mask, i liked the fact about changing forms, which is basically being able to learn five different characters (link, deku, zora, goron, and the fierce diety). i liked being able to go back and kill bosses that i liked again. and the three day limit adds a new flare to the game in general. in OoT, you could take as much time as you wanted, but Majora's mask had a sense of urgency to it. the only thing i didn't like about Majora's mask was the fact that there were only 4 dungeons to it, if there had been more, the game would've been much better.

[Shinmaru]

Hmm...I somehow managed to avoid this for a while.

Anyway, if anything, the orignal Pokemon games are [i]underrated[/i]. It's just that they get tremendous loads of hatred vented against them because of all the exploitation it's gone through via Nintendo (really...I'm a huge fan of Nintendo...and even [i]I[/i] thought it was too much).

Pokemon Red, Blue, Silver and Gold are all good, addicting games. Yellow and Crystal I could've done without, since they didn't add too much to the gameplay of Pokemon.

I found Pokemon Snap interesting, if a bit short. And Pokemon Pinball owns you and your mother. Seriously, if you even remotely enjoy pinball, Pokemon Pinball would be a great pickup. I've wasted so much time with it, it's amazing o_O

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i]
[B]Hmm...I somehow managed to avoid this for a while.

Anyway, if anything, the orignal Pokemon games are [i]underrated[/i]. It's just that they get tremendous loads of hatred vented against them because of all the exploitation it's gone through via Nintendo (really...I'm a huge fan of Nintendo...and even [i]I[/i] thought it was too much).

Pokemon Red, Blue, Silver and Gold are all good, addicting games. Yellow and Crystal I could've done without, since they didn't add too much to the gameplay of Pokemon.

I found Pokemon Snap interesting, if a bit short. And Pokemon Pinball owns you and your mother. Seriously, if you even remotely enjoy pinball, Pokemon Pinball would be a great pickup. I've wasted so much time with it, it's amazing o_O [/B][/QUOTE]

Shin, it's scary how alike we think sometimes. Pokemon Red and Blue are very underrated, good call.

Red and Blue are excellent games. I played them constantly as I sat in the auditorium during Drama club rehearsals. They're very good timekillers, and fun to boot.

But the backlash against N for the vast commercialization of the franchise really put some hurting on the fun factor of Pokemon, and fans' attitudes were shaped by the outrageous and lunatic exploitation. I would go as far as to say, the exploitation of Pokemon added to the fanboy hatred of Nintendo.

To talk about what I think is the most overrated game...I would usually say OOT, but Nightfire comes in VERY VERY close second.

I love the Zelda series, but OOT just didn't do anything for me. I didn't feel the freedom that I felt in the original, I didn't feel the exhilaration of the NES edition. OOT felt really restricted. I missed searching 8 dungeons for the 8 pieces of the Triforce. I missed Death Mountain...the feel of a massive labryinth, dead-ends, death in almost every room. 4 LikeLikes and 6 Wizzrobes in a room that gave you very little maneuvering space. I missed that in OOT, and miss that in WW, too. I still have not found the Red Ring in LoZ, but I've gotten every piece of equipment in OOT. I suppose, my biggest disappointment with OOT is that it tells you exactly where to go, the levels are really linear, and it's not epic.

Nightfire. I'm a GoldenEye veteran, so really no other FPS Bond game can impress me. Not too many games have captivated me for that long...the list is actually pretty small. LoZ, SMB Trilogy (NES), Contra, Mutant League Hockey, GE, MGS1, Smash Bros. Some call me a snob, some call me an idiot, but GE is the FPS Bond master. It's not that I'm bigoted against EA (they had a hand in Mutant League Hockey), it's just that Nightfire failed on so many levels. Really, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that I hate it...it's going up against one of my favorite FPS of all time. I've heard a small rumor of EA making a GoldenEye 2...but I haven't heard anything more except an announcement. If EA does indeed remake GE, and if the remake is inferior...they're going to lose so many gamers. I've already jumped ship to TimeSplitters 2, as have all my GE vet friends.

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]But the backlash against N for the vast commercialization of the franchise really put some hurting on the fun factor of Pokemon, and fans' attitudes were shaped by the outrageous and lunatic exploitation. I would go as far as to say, the exploitation of Pokemon added to the fanboy hatred of Nintendo.

I love the Zelda series, but OOT just didn't do anything for me. I didn't feel the freedom that I felt in the original, I didn't feel the exhilaration of the NES edition. OOT felt really restricted. I missed searching 8 dungeons for the 8 pieces of the Triforce. I missed Death Mountain...the feel of a massive labryinth, dead-ends, death in almost every room. 4 LikeLikes and 6 Wizzrobes in a room that gave you very little maneuvering space. I missed that in OOT, and miss that in WW, too. I still have not found the Red Ring in LoZ, but I've gotten every piece of equipment in OOT. I suppose, my biggest disappointment with OOT is that it tells you exactly where to go, the levels are really linear, and it's not epic.[/B][/QUOTE]

I would definitely say, at least in my experience, that Nintendo's commercialization of Pokemon has added to the fanboy hatred of Nintendo. I've seen more than a few message boards and the amount of hatred vented towards Nintendo, simply because of Pokemon, is astounding. Sad, as well, because those people who choose to hate Nintendo are missing out on the greatest gaming company in history.

And, as for OOT, I think that it's really hard to capture the same kind of feel that the 2D Zeldas had when the transition is made into the 3D realm. The whole level design is vastly different. In the 2D Zelda, the whole idea of integrating multiple floors into puzzles was a rarely used idea. In OOT, it was used at least once per dungeon. That's just one example but the transition to 3D changes the whole dynamic of the series.

I agree, though, that it was a lot more linear than the previous Zelda games (though, Link to the Past was pretty linear, as well). There are still a fair amount of side quests and minigames to take you off the beaten path but there wasn't as much of an element of pure exploration in the game. Basically, some character gave you an obvious hint and you were off.

I still love OOT, though, if only for the amazing dungeons. I love them to death.

[James]

[color=#707875]I think it also has to be understood that Ocarina of Time was largely bound by technical limitations. That is, it would have been impossible for Nintendo to replicate the physical size of the older games (like Link to the Past) in 3D, because even Ocarina of Time itself utilized about "95%" of the Nintendo 64's capabilities.

So, for what it was...and for the games that it stood up against during its release, it was a pretty epic title. There was a lot to do and the day/night aspects were quite unique.

This is why I was a little disappointed in the water/sea aspects of The Wind Waker. The vast ocean gives you the illusion that the game world is massive -- yes, it's incredibly large -- but how much of that game world exists as land that you can actually walk around on and explore? Not much. Most of the islands were pretty small.

However, imagine if that entire world in Wind Waker was covered with mountains and rivers and swamps and forests. Not only would there be so much more variety, but you could spend forever exploring the many different parts of the world.

*shrug* I'm sure it could be done, given the larger media format with the GameCube...as well as it's superior technical capabilities (compared to its predecessor). I hope that the next Zelda title is more like that.[/color]

[Brasil]

Shin, the only thing I'd mention about 3D level design...LttP featured some multi-layered levels. I think the multi-tiered dungeons worked really well.

Granted, of course, that kind of 2D overhead with 3D wasn't possible with NES...although, Link's Adventures was almost what LttP featured. Side-scrolling, but did feature multi-layered dungeons. Perhaps LttP was where "rarely used idea" came from?

James, good point. Technical limitations are a ***** and a half. What I'd love to see...if they could create a LoZ or OOT on Cube, with WW graphics (I love the WW graphics. They fit the series so well. ^_^).

As not to be Off-Topic, lol...what game do I feel is overrated...

Metal Gear Solid 2. I felt like it was just an overblown sequel to a very poignant original. Everything about MGS2 felt...drab. The protagonist was annoying, the CODEC went off at the worst times and often with Rose on the other end chatting some inane romantic banter. MGS2 was filled with boring characters and backstory. Fortune was the only villain to live up to the caliber of MGS1. MGS2's plot was...convoluted and unfocused. It went in 10 different directions at a time. It didn't feel coherent and the dialogue was substandard. Overall, a disappointing sequel.

[Shinmaru]

Just about all of LttP's dungeons are multi-tiered; it's just that a lot of the time, multiple levels weren't taken into account for a lot of the puzzles. Blind the Thief's level and, I think, Turtle Rock are two dungeons that took advantage of the whole "multiple-floor puzzles" concept. With that said, though, LttP still has my favorite dungeons because I find their puzzles the most interesting.

And I forgot about Adventure of Link...for shame! I remember that it had at least one level with a multi-tiered puzzle. [spoiler]I can't remember which dungeon, but you fell through a camoflauged floor and you kept falling forever unless you could stop yourself on the correct floor.[/spoiler] Rather devious, considering it was pretty simple, heh.

And just so I don't drag this thread into one big Zelda fight lol...here's another game I feel is overrated: The whole damn Mortal Kombat series. I just never got it. To me, all it had was the novelty of blood and that's it. You could easily button mash and get pretty far in the game. Plus, it's a member of the Tekken school of "a bazillion buttons per move" and I've always found that to be extremely annoying. I always wished someone would've told them that you [i]don't have to use every button on the controller![/i]

[Pagan]

Mortal Kombat is alittle over rated considering that there are alot of better fighting games out there. I used to like Killer Instcints way more then Mortal Kombat. Mortal Kombat was a huge turing point in fighting game history though. I think it was the first to have blood and have charactert that had their own personal moves. Before Mortal Kombat each character in a fighting game used the same moves as the other and the player had to rely more on their skills at using those moves. It didn't matter what character you choose because they would be exactly the same in almost every aspect(one may have been alittle stronger and the other may have been alittle faster).

Here is a question what came first Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter? If Street Fighter came first then i just wasted my time.

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hells Fire [/i]
[B]Here is a question what came first Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter? If Street Fighter came first then i just wasted my time. [/B][/QUOTE]

The original Street Fighter came out years before the original Mortal Kombat did. Street Fighter came out around 1987 or 1989, I believe (my memory is a bit rusty) and the original Mortal Kombat came out in 1992. Either way, Street Fighter has been around way longer than Mortal Kombat.

[Brasil]

Haha. Not "Zelda fight." "Zelda [i]discussion[/i]."

[url]http://yesterdayland.elsewhere.org/popopedia/shows/arcade/ag1142.php[/url]

1987. Who would have thought that the Street Fighter debut only featured 2 (!!!) fighters? And now we have mega Capcom/SNK/Marvel cross-overs featuring upwards of 40 characters...wow.

Hmm...Mortal Kombat. If we're talking about any MK related games between II and Deadly Alliance, then oh yeah, they're crap. 3 on through...Trilogy, was it? Gold? 4? Anyway, the individual titles don't matter...I feel Deadly Alliance saved the MK series. 1 and 2 were great games, original, injected new life into the fighting genre (and gave those Street Fighter fanboys a twist in their panties hehehe). 3 began the series downfall, leading the series into abysmal crap like Mythologies (sure, Mythologies was fun to play for a bit, then you realized just how bulky it was lol) and Special Forces.

I wouldn't necessarily call the entire MK series overrated, just 3 through whatever came before Deadly Alliance.

MK shouldn't be a button masher, and for the most part, it isn't. When you compare it to Tekken, MK isn't too much of a button masher.

Come to think of it, MKDA isn't a button masher at all. Successful victories require timing, pacing, strategic movement, and the moves are linkable--not very effective when smashed alone. They almost require combos in order to be useful.

3 through Gold were certainly overrated regardless of the minute praise they may have received. Granted, 3 [i]did[/i] introduce a nice combo idea, but that same combo idea was being used in Virtua Fighter already with a much higher success (Right? My fighting genre history isn't too solid.).

Thinking about the series even more, MKDA incorporated all of the gameplay ideas of the series (combos from 3, 3D and weapons from 4) and used them very well.

I don't think one can write off the entire MK series as overrated, as 1, 2, and MKDA are truly excellent games.

Now, as not to turn this into a "Mortal Kombat fight," lol, I'm thinking Serious Sam is overrated.

Serious Sam received very high ratings and positive reviews, but the game is most definitely overrated. For one, it's glitchy beyond anything. The copy I rented wouldn't even load singleplayer, and I've heard this is a rampant problem with 75% of the copies. The deathmatch was nothing spectacular, TimeSplitters 2 beats the living piss out of it.

The Hippie Blood, which the reviews called "ingenius," was shoddily executed. Based on the reviews, I expected to see massive amounts of flowers pouring out of my enemy's body. That's not the case. It's a short spurt and that's it. The body leaves a giant flower on the ground, but the flower is kind of muted and colorless. I suppose I kept picturing something like Paintball Mode from GE.

I think Serious Sam is a budget title now, under 20 dollars and with good reason. It's way overrated. There are much, much better FPS out there.

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]Haha. Not "Zelda fight." "Zelda [i]discussion[/i]."

Hmm...Mortal Kombat. If we're talking about any MK related games between II and Deadly Alliance, then oh yeah, they're crap. 3 on through...Trilogy, was it? Gold? 4? Anyway, the individual titles don't matter...I feel Deadly Alliance saved the MK series. 1 and 2 were great games, original, injected new life into the fighting genre (and gave those Street Fighter fanboys a twist in their panties hehehe). 3 began the series downfall, leading the series into abysmal crap like Mythologies (sure, Mythologies was fun to play for a bit, then you realized just how bulky it was lol) and Special Forces.

I wouldn't necessarily call the entire MK series overrated, just 3 through whatever came before Deadly Alliance.

MK shouldn't be a button masher, and for the most part, it isn't. When you compare it to Tekken, MK isn't too much of a button masher.

Come to think of it, MKDA isn't a button masher at all. Successful victories require timing, pacing, strategic movement, and the moves are linkable--not very effective when smashed alone. They almost require combos in order to be useful.

3 through Gold were certainly overrated regardless of the minute praise they may have received. Granted, 3 [i]did[/i] introduce a nice combo idea, but that same combo idea was being used in Virtua Fighter already with a much higher success (Right? My fighting genre history isn't too solid.).

Thinking about the series even more, MKDA incorporated all of the gameplay ideas of the series (combos from 3, 3D and weapons from 4) and used them very well.

I don't think one can write off the entire MK series as overrated, as 1, 2, and MKDA are truly excellent games.[/B][/QUOTE]

Okay, maybe "fight" was the wrong word to describe it :p

I was just never able to fully get into Mortal Kombat...though, admittedly, I was never a big fighting game fanatic back then (it took Marvel vs. Capcom to convert me). Mortal Kombat brought in some interesting ideas and MK2 is definitely the best in the series...I just don't think it's as good as a lot of people say.

So, yeah, I guess the series [i]as a whole[/i] isn't overrated but a few games (MK3 in particular) were praised even though they had minute differences, at best, when compared to the other games. Deadly Alliance is pretty decent, I'll admit. Loads better than the crap in between that and 2, heh.

And about the button mashing...I regularly play fighting games with a bunch of button mashing bastards lol. That's probably where my whole perception of that came fom.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i]
[B]And about the button mashing...I regularly play fighting games with a bunch of button mashing bastards lol. That's probably where my whole perception of that came fom. [/B][/QUOTE]

That would affect most gamers' opinions. I've fought against some pretty bad button mashers in my time. ::glares at RPCrazy:: heh. The button mashing subsides as the gamer becomes more in tune with the game.

I've found that button mashing derives out of lack of understanding of game mechanics. Smash, for instance. Gamers button mash because they don't realize just what a player can do with Sheik or Mario...or Peach, for that matter.

It's interesting to see what kind of awards one gets in Smash Melee. I very, very rarely get "Control Freak." While my opponents may move the joystick much faster than me, and while they may slam those buttons more than I do, I still achieve the upper hand through timing and pacing, planning ahead, in a sense.

In MKDA, I have the most fun fighting against my brother. He and I use the same exact fighting style: timing. Of course, our hits will connect occasionally and cause massive damage as we exploit the opening and link a combo, but for the most part, hit-block-hit-block.

We have swordfights all the time. I play as Kenshi, he plays as Shang Tsung and there are clangs of clashing steel every second. It's good stuff. Then he slices me in the knee, then stuns me with a stab to the face, but doesn't continue the attack as one would in Smash, because MKDA isn't that fast-paced fighting game. Methodical, timing.

I get up, send him airborne with a vertical slice (he hates that, heh), then Force push him away. We go back to the center of the ring and start circling, looking for that prime opening to cause the remaining 50% damage. :D I really am pleased that there are no cheap hits in MKDA, apart from Sonia and the corner traps.

You're fighting against the wrong people, Shin. You should fly out to the East Coast sometime, visit Philly and make a stop in Cinnaminson. There are excellent fighters in South Jersey who don't button mash.

Wow...that was entirely Off-Topic.\

EDIT: Oh, and what is your avatar, Shin? It looks like...Fry from Futurama in a Fat-Batman/Dr. Livingstone Pith Helmet.

[James]

[color=#707875]The points about MK are well made here, I think.

I used to be a big MK addict (MK to MK3). I also really enjoyed Ultimate MK3, but only because of the extra characters. MK Trilogy was good; but [i]only[/i] if you didn't own MK3. Afterall, it was simply MK3 with double the characters or something. And I really disliked all of the console ports...none of them felt right to me. They were messy.

MK4 was a terrible, terrible game. It was poor quality by most standards -- I think any positive rating of this game would be an overstatement of how good it is. lol

To give you an idea of how much I dislike it, I bought the game for PlayStation...played for [i]five minutes[/i] and said "No, I'm taking this back right now."

It was [i]that[/i] bad. I've never done that before in my life; but I wasn't even willing to give MK4 more of a chance. It was a shoddy, clumsy game.

On the other hand, Deadly Alliance has really revived the series. It should not be overlooked. Even though there are design issues that I think are silly (character models are pretty laughable for example), the fundamental gameplay is very strong. The different fighting styles work really well; they're not a gimmick. All-in-all, I think that DA stands up against other major fighters quite well. It [i]isn't[/i] a Tekken or a Soul Calibur. But it isn't far behind, honestly.

I think it's good that Midway learned some lessons with the lukewarm MK4. Deadly Alliance isn't a rehash and it demonstrates some great ideas. I would really like to see another MK again in the future; a further improvement on Deadly Alliance would be fantastic.

In regard to MK3...I think it was far better than the other 2D MK titles. I say that for a variety of reasons, but primarily, I say it because MK3 was so much smoother; it was more fluid, it felt more natural and it had a stronger emphasis on combos (and thus, felt like a more complex fighter).

Pulling off large combos in MK3 isn't the easiest thing in the world, but it's [i]incredibly[/i] good fun if you can do it well. It's so much fun to pull off a 12-hit combo with Sub Zero in MK3. Everything about the connection between each move is completely seamless and painless. It just feels good.

I ended up getting to a point where I learned all the moves of most MK3 characters; I became very skilled at that game, perhaps more than most others. I was even able to achieve a 99-hit combo with Shiva (although there is a "cheat" way of doing the same thing).

And...the run feature. Very important part of MK3. Definitely not a gimmick, either; it was the one thing that made the battles quite insane and intense. It also added a lot of strategy; if you could lunge at your opponent and begin a combo chain, you were in a good position. But if your opponent blocked when you lunged, they'd have the upper hand. The timing played a big role in that.

In any case...MK does frustrate me somewhat, beause I think there are things they could be doing that they aren't. MK always had a relatively strong plot for a fighting game and in my view, MKDA's plot is really boring. It just feels thrown together. But if you look at the instruction manual to the very first game, you get a stronger sense of story and character. I don't know, it just had a more interesting vibe about it.

Anyway, that's my somewhat-rambly take on it. ~_^[/color]

[Shinmaru]

Somewhat rambly? You're not giving yourself enough credit, James :p

Anyway, another game I feel is overrated are those darn Gran Turismo games. Now, before you crazy racing fans jump all over me and tear me limb from limb, let me explain myself. I'm not a very big racing game fan. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that the only racers I've enjoyed are RC-Pro AM and the Mario Kart series. Nothing else has really done it for me.

With that said, every time a new Gran Turismo comes out, all I see and read is how they're "the greatest racing games ever" and how "they'll convert non-believers of the racing genre." I've played all three Gran Turismo games and they haven't come close to doing that.

Gran Turismo is supposed to be realistic. I know that. But they're so realistic, that they border on unenjoyable for me. When I play games, I find it fun to bend the rules of reality and to be able to do things that you wouldn't be able to do in regular life. With Gran Turismo, it's all realism, realism, realism. And I just don't care for that. It makes me wish that people would take that into account before saying something is "the greatest of all time."

So, there's my take on why the Gran Turismo games are overrated. They're certainly good games and they're great at what they do but they're not nearly as good, to me, as people say they are.

Oh, and PoisonTongue, the person in my avatar is The Zookeeper from the episode of Futurama where Fry, Bender and Leela become supheroes. The Zookeeper is the villain in the episode. The episode is titled "Less Than Hero."