Gaming Most Overrated Game

[James]

[color=#707875]I don't think that Gran Turismo is overrated at all. It would have to be one of the most lifelike and accurate games, in terms of what it seeks to portray.

[i]You[/i] may not care for it, but that doesn't make the game itself overrated. It achieves what it wants to achieve -- realistic driving -- and simultaneously blows every other "realistic racer" into the water. Even if you're not a racing game fan, it's hard not to be utterly blown away by the incredible attention to detail; Gran Turismo 4 in particular has some really insane detail when it comes to vehicle physics. I don't think that GT has the same creativity as most of NCL's games, but at the same time...you can't compare them. They're apples and oranges. Where Nintendo's games are creative in concept and ease of play, Polyphony's games are creative in terms of the way they solve physical problems through extremely solid technical design.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

Yes, very good point. I tend to fall into that trap when it comes to my thinking about overrated and underrated games; if I don't care for it, and everyone else does, it's overrated lol.

However, I do agree that Gran Turismo is very good at what it strives to do, and that is to be a very realistic racer. Also, I do recognize the attention to detail that the developers try to put into the game. The game is very realistic and I commend it for being so. But, with that said, it is not enjoyable to me.

The way I see it, what is overrated and underrated is very subjective. Every person has a different perspective on these types of matters. While I may think that Gran Turismo is overrated, you believe that I'm speaking nonsense lol. It's the same with your opinion of Super Mario Sunshine; lots of people didn't like it, but you think it's a fantastic and supremely underrated game (and I agree with that).

Though, also, I should recognize the fact that Gran Turismo is not meant to be played by every gamer. Mario Kart is meant to be a fun, easy to play game for the entire family. Gran Turismo is meant to be played by those who enjoy the thrill of racing and want a very realistic racer (which is why I don't enjoy it).

So, in the end, all our perceptions of overrated/underrated are limited to our tastes, unless we're willing to acknowledge something even if we don't like it.

[James]

[color=#707875]Well, I only partly agree with you there.

While a discussion of what is over/underrated is somewhat subjective, there are some very objective benchmarks out there.

I wouldn't say that Super Mario Sunshine is a "fantastic and supremely underrated game", but I [i]would[/i] say that much of the criticism placed upon it isn't particularly fair. That is, people who complain about the game's visuals are, in my view, looking at a shallow issue.

I also believe that you have to compare the media response to the public response. Some games (ie: Enter the Matrix) receive a pretty lukewarm response from the media in general -- but receive amazing sales at the end of the day. You could say, based on that information, that Enter the Matrix is definitely "overrated".

Unfortunately, not enough games sell based purely on good gameplay. I mean, Metroid Prime establishes so many new standards that other games will no doubt follow -- but a copycat game may sell better than MP itself. You know what I mean? There are objective elements to all of this.

So, with SMS...I personally don't feel that I overrated it, because there were many aspects of it that I felt were pretty slack. However, when I see GameSpot attacking it primarily on its "shoddy FMV quality", I have to wonder what they are smoking. Since when does one judge a game based primarily on that standard? It's not even like there was much FMV in SMS in the first place. lol

Again...a rambly post. But, I hope it made [i]some[/i] sense. ^_^;[/color]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]Well, I only partly agree with you there.

While a discussion of what is over/underrated is somewhat subjective, there are some very objective benchmarks out there.

I wouldn't say that Super Mario Sunshine is a "fantastic and supremely underrated game", but I [i]would[/i] say that much of the criticism placed upon it isn't particularly fair. That is, people who complain about the game's visuals are, in my view, looking at a shallow issue.

I also believe that you have to compare the media response to the public response. Some games (ie: Enter the Matrix) receive a pretty lukewarm response from the media in general -- but receive amazing sales at the end of the day. You could say, based on that information, that Enter the Matrix is definitely "overrated".

Unfortunately, not enough games sell based purely on good gameplay. I mean, Metroid Prime establishes so many new standards that other games will no doubt follow -- but a copycat game may sell better than MP itself. You know what I mean? There are objective elements to all of this.

So, with SMS...I personally don't feel that I overrated it, because there were many aspects of it that I felt were pretty slack. However, when I see GameSpot attacking it primarily on its "shoddy FMV quality", I have to wonder what they are smoking. Since when does one judge a game based primarily on that standard? It's not even like there was much FMV in SMS in the first place. lol

Again...a rambly post. But, I hope it made [i]some[/i] sense. ^_^;[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah, I see. I misunderstood your position on Super Mario Sunshine. I was trying to use it as an example but I guess I went a bit overboard, heh.

I agree that a [i]lot[/i] of the criticism put on the game was unfair, especially about the visuals. I believe that the game looked pretty good, even spectacular at certain points. My main beef with the game was that the difficulty was supremely unbalanced; certain parts were very easy, while others were extremely tough (I'm looking at you, bonus stages).

And I agree that there is an objective element to all this, as well - you can only go so far with gut feeling, unfortunately. There has to be some tangible fact to base everything on.

So, I basically agree with you. A person can feel that a game is overrated based on their personal tastes but it's good to be objective about these types of things, too.

And, no, I have no idea what GameSpot was smoking. <_<;

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i]
[B]
I agree that a [i]lot[/i] of the criticism put on the game was unfair, especially about the visuals. I believe that the game looked pretty good, even spectacular at certain points. My main beef with the game was that the difficulty was supremely unbalanced; certain parts were very easy, while others were extremely tough (I'm looking at you, bonus stages).

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I also have one major beef with gamers; especially those who tried to compare Super Mario Sunshine with Super Mario 64 (by saying that it looks like a second generation N64 title).

The biggest problem I have with these complaints isn't that people are saying that there aren't enough polygons or lighting effects or whatever. More specifically, I am annoyed that people worry [i]more[/i] about technical merits than aesthetic merits.

If you go and look at some of the levels in SMS (particularly Noki Bay and even Isle Delfino), you'll see some very nice texture design. Forget whether or not these textures are ever blurry or pixelated; but consider their design and their theme. While I disliked the fact that ALL of Super Mario Sunshine took place in the one "tropical theme", I also found the aesthetic design to be very refreshing and appealing. It was truly a game that you could play on a lazy summer afternoon. It felt like a "summer game", because of the fantastic aesthetic design.

So, that's one distinction that I'd make. My problem is that not enough people are prepared to make these distinctions.[/color]

[Brasil]

Not to keep going on MK, lol, but James said something that I feel is very important.

[quote][i]Originally posted by James[/i]
[b]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).[/b][/quote]

That is one of the criteria that should always make or break a fighting game. Regardless of personal opinion, regardless of how many people think what, a smooth and fluid fighting engine [i]should[/i] be required.

Some of this deals with technology, of course, I mean, we shouldn't expect something like MKDA or Soul Calibur 2 on NES, but for this day and age, with the gaming advancements we have, we should not stand for a fighting game in which you can't link attacks and a game in which the fighting feels like it's underwater (unless, of course, you have entered a bizarre cheat that alters the gameplay mode...). That's just not acceptable, lol.

I only mention NES because there were some very great and fluid 16-bit fighting games. Killer Instinct and Street Fighter, for example. Even a lesser-known title called Eternal Champions was, in my opinion, extremely fluid and intuitive--plus original. I had never seen such a wide variety of character designs before Eternal Champions.

I can't think of any long-lasting fighting games that didn't possess a smooth and fluid fighting engine.

I felt that Ballz, which was a pretty short-lived pseudo-3D fighting game, was overrated. I found it extremely unwieldy and hard to play. For a game that reveled in the idea of character transformation and such, it didn't feel fluid and smooth; it felt sloppy. Plus, half of the time, I couldn't tell where my fighter ended and my opponent's began.

Every fighting game I've played that I've loved has had a smooth engine. Soul Calibur 2, Smash Bros (Original and Melee), MKDA, Killer Instinct, and to a lesser extent, the recent Capcom/SNK offerings.

OK, lol.

SMS. I found the visuals to be stunning, really, I did. The reflective surfaces in the water were remarkable, the liquid nature of the FLUDD, the mud, and the paint was a visual feast. The use of FLUDD was very fun, and I found myself outright ignoring finding the Shines, and just having fun, throwing myself off of buildings just to see how effective those water jets really were...hehe. But my time with SMS was short-lived, as I had lost interest in the platformer genre a few months prior.

I haven't touched a "True" platformer since. The genre doesn't appeal to me anymore. Whiplash will probably change my opinion, however. It's described as a buddy adventure on crack. We play as a weasel with a ball-and-chain bunny to use as our weapon. The premise is to escape from some lab/product testing facility and destroy as much as we can along the way. There are no items to collect, no stars, no gems...just pure, unadulterated mayhem, with a healthy dose of comedic dementia liberally added in. :D

As many of you know, I very much enjoy comedic insanity (go Marx Bros!), so I'm definitely looking forward to Whiplash.

James tells me that Sam And Max is similar to what Whiplash is said to be, so I just might check that out...

But yes, I didn't feel SMS was overrated; I found it quite fun. I just wasn't interested in platformers.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]
James tells me that Sam And Max is similar to what Whiplash is said to be, so I just might check that out...

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Oh, no...I said that I didn't know much about Whiplash. I have no idea of Sam & Max is similar.

Sam & Max is just one of those old games that I really enjoyed. I am so annoyed that Full Throttle 2 has been cancelled...I can't tell you how much that disappoints me. I think those games were probably underrated, if anything. ~_^[/color]

[RPCrazy]

I would just like to pop in and defend myself against the horrible title of "Button Masher" my dear friend PT has bestowed upon me...

Granted, while I do BM in SCII, I'd like to point out that I [I]am[/I] improving... -glares at PT- And one of these days I am going to so royally kick your *** in SSBM (yes, spelling the title correctly would be helpful, no?). -firm nod, and trots off-

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]Oh, no...I said that I didn't know much about Whiplash. I have no idea of Sam & Max is similar.

Sam & Max is just one of those old games that I really enjoyed. I am so annoyed that Full Throttle 2 has been cancelled...I can't tell you how much that disappoints me. I think those games were probably underrated, if anything. ~_^[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

If you cared for FT, you shouldn't be disappointed. That game was looking terrible and was apparently cancelled for good reason. Good riddance, in my opinion. I'll wait for them to make a good sequel... and if they don't, then fine. I don't want them to ruin my memories lol.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B]If you cared for FT, you shouldn't be disappointed. That game was looking terrible and was apparently cancelled for good reason. Good riddance, in my opinion. I'll wait for them to make a good sequel... and if they don't, then fine. I don't want them to ruin my memories lol. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Absolutely. I didn't read up about FT2 at all, but based on what you're saying...yeah...I'd rather have no sequel than a bad one.

It's such a shame; Full Throttle was such a cool game. Blah.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]I also have one major beef with gamers; especially those who tried to compare Super Mario Sunshine with Super Mario 64 (by saying that it looks like a second generation N64 title).

The biggest problem I have with these complaints isn't that people are saying that there aren't enough polygons or lighting effects or whatever. More specifically, I am annoyed that people worry [i]more[/i] about technical merits than aesthetic merits.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

This is my biggest pet peeve in gaming, really. Too many people overstate the importance of graphics. Are graphics important? Well, sure they are. A bad graphical experience can ruin a game, no doubt. However, a lot of people seem to think that graphics are the end all-be all in decided whether or not a game is good. It's sad when graphics are held to a higher standard than gameplay.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i]
[B]This is my biggest pet peeve in gaming, really. Too many people overstate the importance of graphics. Are graphics important? Well, sure they are. A bad graphical experience can ruin a game, no doubt. However, a lot of people seem to think that graphics are the end all-be all in decided whether or not a game is good. It's sad when graphics are held to a higher standard than gameplay. [/B][/QUOTE]

Graphics.

[quote]XtremeVerbatage: it doesn't matter how hyperadvanced a graphical system is
XtremeVerbatage: it only matters if the system is effective
XtremeVerbatage: take for example
XtremeVerbatage: the original Contra
XtremeVerbatage: the graphics weren't terribly flashy
XtremeVerbatage: very colorful
XtremeVerbatage: but still basic
XtremeVerbatage: but they were effective
XtremeVerbatage: and I think that's the problem with many gamers today
XtremeVerbatage: they look at a game
XtremeVerbatage: like SMS
XtremeVerbatage: "******* horrible graphics" (exaggeration)
XtremeVerbatage: but don't think,
XtremeVerbatage: well, is this graphical system effective for the game?
JamesOtaku01: *nods*
JamesOtaku01: And there is a difference between technical and aesthetics.[/quote]

Technical versus aesthetics.

A few games come to mind.

Contra. The graphics were nothing mind-blowing nor revolutionary, but were colorful, fast, and totally effective for the purposes of the game. The gameplay was tight, controls felt like the controller was just a part of your hands...an extension of your body. They were THAT good. Come to think of it, NES games had some of the best gameplay ever.

When talking about aesthetic versus technical, Silent Hill is required to be discussed. Silent Hill is the kind of game that exudes creepy. Many considered the graphics half-rate at its debut. But gamers failed to realize that the grainy graphical system was intended and was [i]incredibly[/i] effective. Silent Hill was, for the most part, the horror genre's game.

SMS. Tropical theme. Tropical graphical system. Tropical colors...a summer game. And when was it released? Summer. Coincidence...I think not, lol. :) SMS's graphical system had aesthetic quality. While it may have not had top-notch technical achievement, it had effective graphics.

I think that's the most important distinction when talking about graphics:

Are they effective?

[Shinmaru]

Yeah, that's what a lot of people misunderstand about graphics. Too many expect games to be amazing graphical achievements that redefine gaming and only a few games actually accomplish something like that.

What matters more to me is whether or not the graphics do their job.

Take Super Monkey Ball, for example; the graphics are by no means mind-blowing. However, they do the job that they're meant to do. The graphics are bright, colorful and the frame rate moves at a good speed. The graphics are meant to make them game inviting and playable and that's what they do.

If the graphics are beefed up to look better and end up hindering the gameplay, then they haven't done their job. I much prefer simpler graphics that make it easy to play a game over graphics that make playing a game needlessly complicated. Of course, good graphics with good gameplay doesn't hurt, either.

[I, Colossus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]
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. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#006699]I don't know what your opinion on the game was when it came out. But pretty much everyone was impressed with it, they loved it, praised it. Now a few years later it's being bashed repeatedly by the same people that loved it. Because they are comparing it to 2nd generation PS2 games. A lot of times even wonderful games can look bad next to games that come out 1 or 2 years later. MGS2's story was boring, in that aspect it didn't live up to MGS at all. But the game play aspects were improved ten fold, for that reason I enjoyed MGS2 more than the original MGS. Which is [i]also[/i] why I can't wait for MGS: Twin Snakes, MGS' story, MGS2' game play.

Another game that this has happened to (being praised at release and trashed a year later) is SMS. [/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i]
[B]
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] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#006699]I'm a fighting game junkie and in terms of game play, Tekken is the series with the most depth. Now before all of you tell me how short the game was and that SCII has a long arse weapon mode and tons of extras. I said game play, the different combos and juggles you can incorporate into the game play are amazing. The a bazillion buttons per move thing doesn't bother me at all. Unless you have some annoyingly slow fingers, you can pull off moves pretty fast, regardless of how long the move is.
[/color]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i]
[B]Gran Turismo is supposed to be realistic. I know that. But they're so realistic, that they border on unenjoyable for me. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#00669]Ditto.[/color]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shroom [/i]
[B][color=#006699]I don't know what your opinion on the game was when it came out. But pretty much everyone was impressed with it, they loved it, praised it. Now a few years later it's being bashed repeatedly by the same people that loved it. Because they are comparing it to 2nd generation PS2 games. A lot of times even wonderful games can look bad next to games that come out 1 or 2 years later. MGS2's story was boring, in that aspect it didn't live up to MGS at all. But the game play aspects were improved ten fold, for that reason I enjoyed MGS2 more than the original MGS. Which is [i]also[/i] why I can't wait for MGS: Twin Snakes, MGS' story, MGS2' game play.

Another game that this has happened to (being praised at release and trashed a year later) is SMS. [/color][/B][/QUOTE]

Considering I never compared MGS2 to any 2nd generation PS2 game, or for that matter, any PS2 game at all, I fail to see how you are able to bring in later games. Considering also, that I played MGS1 until the disc wore out (Literally. It doesn't work anymore.), and my MGS2 disc still works perfectly...should tell you something about where my comparison draws from.

I really couldn't care less about what more recent games blew MGS2 out of the water, or what games fans praised more highly. My comparison is to MGS1...the game to which MGS2 is a sequel.

While MGS2's gameplay may have been very sweet, I still found more thrill from [i]not[/i] being able to shoot in first-person--not even having the option to. What's more of a white knuckle experience?

Running around in broad daylight and not having to worry about enemies, because you can simply press a button to see them clearly [i]and[/i] shoot them at the same time?

Or, sneaking around in an enclosed basement armory, with very little maneuvering space, having to avoid trapdoors and infrared beams, as 3 armed guards steadily patrol the area. And not forgetting, you just caught a cold from a sick soldier moments before.

Yeah, rolling was neat and a fun little addition, and the corner glance thing was cool, but regardless of how those additions made the game easier, it didn't necessarily make it more enjoyable. I enjoy tense and tight gameplay. I prefer it over having 4 different motions attributed to one button. I most certainly prefer the press-and-release firing of MGS1's SOCOM over the user-unfriendly pressure sensitive addition in MGS2.

You want to talk gameplay? Let's talk gameplay.

Did you enjoy being an errand boy in MGS2? Did you enjoy the gameplay of having to sniff out C4 and disarm them? Did you enjoy the gameplay of just firing Stinger missiles at the RAYs? Did you enjoy the gameplay of the (basic) swordfight against Solidus? Did you enjoy the gameplay involved in defeating Fatman? Was there any gameplay involved in defeating Fatman? Oh, defusing C4. :rolleyes: What about Vamp? Just running around and shooting, knock him into the water. Did you enjoy the 30 minutes spent protecting Emma on the bridge things, only to [spoiler]have Vamp kill her?[/spoiler]

Now, let's take a look at MGS1.

The first boss battle has you frantically shooting at Revolver Ocelot, but ALWAYS making sure that you don't fire an errant bullet at his hostage, who is tied up in the center of the room, surrounded by C4.

Subsequent boss battles pit you against a tank, in which you need to run up and toss a grenade into the?cockpit. And if you happened to forget to pick up those Claymores before the fight, you?re in for a nasty surprise should you run the wrong way.

The fight with Psycho Mantis [spoiler]requires you to use the Player 2 controller[/spoiler]. Otherwise, you?ll never hit him. Isn?t that gameplay much better than anything MGS2 sends our way?

EDIT: About TwinSnakes. My copy has been reserved since Feb 03. I'm really looking forward to it. :D

[I, Colossus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]Considering I never compared MGS2 to any 2nd generation PS2 game, or for that matter, any PS2 game at all, I fail to see how you are able to bring in later games. Considering also, that I played MGS1 until the disc wore out (Literally. It doesn't work anymore.), and my MGS2 disc still works perfectly...should tell you something about where my comparison draws from.

I really couldn't care less about what more recent games blew MGS2 out of the water, or what games fans praised more highly. My comparison is to MGS1...the game to which MGS2 is a sequel.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#006699]Yes, I realise that. I was stating that [i]most[/i] people loved it when it came out, but now they bash away. I was just trying to establish that. For...some...reason. ^_^;[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]
While MGS2's gameplay may have been very sweet, I still found more thrill from [i]not[/i] being able to shoot in first-person--not even having the option to. What's more of a white knuckle experience?

Running around in broad daylight and not having to worry about enemies, because you can simply press a button to see them clearly [i]and[/i] shoot them at the same time?
[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=006699]I think the first person perspective added postively to the game. What's so bad about being able to see and shoot in the first person view? Because it's easier? It's what Snake (er...Raiden) would have seen in the first place.

The FPV also gave you a chance to hold guards up. [b]That[/b] was fun, albeit unimportant, but fun anyway. Collecting dogtags added quite a bit of time into the game, if you're into that type of thing.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]
You want to talk gameplay? Let's talk gameplay.

Did you enjoy being an errand boy in MGS2? Did you enjoy the gameplay of having to sniff out C4 and disarm them? Did you enjoy the gameplay of just firing Stinger missiles at the RAYs? Did you enjoy the gameplay of the (basic) swordfight against Solidus? Did you enjoy the gameplay involved in defeating Fatman? Was there any gameplay involved in defeating Fatman? Oh, defusing C4. :rolleyes: What about Vamp? Just running around and shooting, knock him into the water. Did you enjoy the 30 minutes spent protecting Emma on the bridge things, only to [spoiler]have Vamp kill her?[/spoiler]

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#006699]Check, check, check, and check. :p[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]The fight with Psycho Mantis [spoiler]requires you to use the Player 2 controller[/spoiler]. Otherwise, you?ll never hit him. Isn?t that gameplay much better than anything MGS2 sends our way? [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#006699]Yes. It is. But it's also better than anything [i]any game[/i] sends are way. That was the most innovative thing to be placed in a game EVER if you ask me. [spoiler]He could also read your memory card, now that was awesome. "I see you've played some other Konami games".[/spoiler][/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]EDIT: About TwinSnakes. My copy has been reserved since Feb 03. I'm really looking forward to it. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#006699]You lucky dog you. I'm going to have to wait myself. My wallet still hasn't recovered from SCII, Viewtiful Joe, and Fire Emblem.[/color]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shroom [/i]
[B][color=#006699]Yes, I realise that. I was stating that [i]most[/i] people loved it when it came out, but now they bash away. I was just trying to establish that. For...some...reason. ^_^;[/color][/b][/quote]

Hehe. :) No worries. Hey, "realise." Nice. Gotta love the British spelling. The reason, I think, that MGS2 was met with positive reaction, was simply due to initial...amazement, I suppose. It was a flashy debut, but when gamers got down to it, explored the game, and played it through, realised, "WTF." It was an example of style over substance...wait a minute...MGS2 was re-released with extra content, some content that was designed to appease those disappointed with the original game...and what was the re-issue subtitled...[i]Substance[/i]. :eek: :D

[quote][color=006699]I think the first person perspective added postively to the game. What's so bad about being able to see and shoot in the first person view? Because it's easier? It's what Snake (er...Raiden) would have seen in the first place.

The FPV also gave you a chance to hold guards up. [b]That[/b] was fun, albeit unimportant, but fun anyway. Collecting dogtags added quite a bit of time into the game, if you're into that type of thing.[/color][/quote]

It was the only puzzle aspect in the game. Only good thing I can think of, is that it required gamers to think logically. Which dog tag were you getting first on the Tanker's lounge floor?

[quote][color=#006699]Check, check, check, and check. :p[/color][/quote]

You saucy fellow. Mr. Ambiguous there. "Check" as in you enjoyed the "gameplay," or "check" as in you were agreeing with me. Saucy, saucy fellow. :p

[quote][color=#006699]Yes. It is. But it's also better than anything [i]any game[/i] sends are way. That was the most innovative thing to be placed in a game EVER if you ask me. [spoiler]He could also read your memory card, now that was awesome. "I see you've played some other Konami games".[/spoiler][/color][/quote]

Knowledge about the self. Knowing about knowing. Metacognition. Or in this case, meta-gaming. MGS1 is the ultimate gaming adventure because it's self-knowledgeable. [spoiler]I mean, what other game has you looking on the back of the game disc's actual jewel case to find a CODEC frequency? Or, "Tap the circle button repeatedly to regain strength. Don't think about using Auto-Fire, or I'll know." Or even the support team suggesting pressing up against a wall to see Otacon. Brilliant gameplay. MGS2 can't even begin to match that ****.[/spoiler]

[quote][color=#006699]You lucky dog you. I'm going to have to wait myself. My wallet still hasn't recovered from SCII, Viewtiful Joe, and Fire Emblem.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Such is the life of a gamer. Search for a good deal and you shall receive. And oddly enough, Walmart, who used to advertise low prices, have higher prices than Gamestop. Quite odd.

I go through Gamestop or Best Buy for my gaming needs, and occasionally Amazon. That method has served me well...

[Guest Oo Haruko oO]

[quote name='Dan Rugh']I don't care what anyone says, the Grand Theft Auto games are highly over-rated. And I've played them too, this is not just a jealous Nintendo fan venting on PS2's success. They might be kinda fun, but they're not as great as people say.[/quote]
I agree that GTA was overrated, i dont like when you can get cheats for the games since it needs to have a challenge. Half the people I know who played it just went online, got the cheats and beat the game. What fun is that? :huh:

[Shinmaru]

[quote name='Oo Haruko oO']I agree that GTA was overrated, i dont like when you can get cheats for the games since it needs to have a challenge. Half the people I know who played it just went online, got the cheats and beat the game. What fun is that? :huh:[/quote]

I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of Grand Theft Auto (in fact, quite honestly, I'm not really a fan of the series at all), but saying that a game is overrated because you can use cheats with it seems sort of silly to me lol. I'd be willing to bet that you could use cheats on more than half of the games that have been released on consoles...probably more. Are all those games overrated, too?

I'm sure that you have other reasons for thinking that GTA is overrated, so I don't think you'd want that as the basis of your argument, heh.

[Zero Tolerance]

Final Fantasy VIII is also a game that stands out for me. I have that necklace that Squall Leonhart wears. I never take it off. I love it so much.

[DetectiveMikeRS]

I liked Starfox Adventures, which was well overrated. But I hated the searching for odd items just so you can get another item so you can enter a level for another item to get a spirit. I only have 1 spirit, and I'm about 65% done with the game, then button mashing mini games (which I'm no good at) get in the way.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zero Tolerance']Final Fantasy VIII is also a game that stands out for me. I have that necklace that Squall Leonhart wears. I never take it off. I love it so much.[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding how...loving a game so much that you own Squall's necklace has anything to do with the game being overrated. So you own jewelry from the game...how does that pertain to FF8 being overrated?

FF8 is vastly overrated for me simply because the battle system is pure crap. It's clunky, the Draw system is utterly half-baked, and the Junctioning is overly and needlessly complicated. Quite frankly, if they were going to go for a Junctioning system, why not use Final Fantasy VI? The Esper system was amazing, and damn easy to use.

[Semjaza]

I realized that I posted in here, yet never said what games I particularly found "overrated". There's quite a few.

I think the biggest in recent memory is Kingdom Hearts. Even here at OB, where we had a massive thread on the game, I seem to find the same general opinion: "It had Disney in it, so I thought it would suck, but it's great! FF characters!! Awesome story!!"

The first thing that annoys me is the general anime fan's dislike for Disney classics, but that's another argument for another thread. The fact that someone can cite that as a problem is beyond me because it's really the only thing that gives the game any sense of flow or interest. The problem here is that Square [i]completely[/i] dropped the ball with usage of the license. What they had was a gold mine. What resulted was a flawed piece of garbage.

My favorite Disney film is Alice in Wonderland. What stage comes first in KH? Likely Wonderland. I was quite excited about this, until I actually got there. The Queen's court is basically just a room that happens to be textured as if you were outdoors. Hell, you can even see the seams where the "walls" would be. This is connected by a handful of other rooms, all of which seem to have been designed by an amateur (and that would be generous). It's nothing compared to the tripe that is the Tarzan planet, though.

Absolutely nothing that could have resulted from the license was utilized. A couple of characters here, a weird thing there and a "shrinking" puzzle (I hesitate to even call it that, it's so unimpressive). This just sets the tone for the rest of the game, which wasn't even that exciting to begin with since the game throws you into a mindless, annoying fetch quest at the start of the game. One that gives Rare titles a run for their money.

This just continues. Planet after planet of just absolutely horrible level design (honestly [b]the worst[/b] I've seen in a major game in [i]years[/i]) and as little homage to the Disney universe as possible. I love Disney, but I can't delude myself into thinking that this game even remotely represented it well. I can think of so many examples, but the most bizarre is probably [spoiler]Clayton from Tarzan unexplainably riding a giant Chameleon that can turn invisible at will.[/spoiler] What the ****?

Do I even have to [i]mention[/i] the Gummi Ship? And the sad thing is that redesigning the ship was probably the most "enjoyment" I got out of the entire title. Well, that and the opening scenes with the stainglass windows and the opening boss fight... that was kind of fun.

Then you have the issue of extremely generic main characters. None of them are interesting in personality or design. The translation, while not bad, is just goofy. And I'm not faulting the English localization team, as it obviously has to do with the moronic qualities of the original Japanese text. Characters attempt to sound heartfelt or deep and just wind up sounding ridiculous.

The battle system is just crap. I don't know how else to put it. You run up and mash the buttons forming basic combos. The lock on system fails constantly. The friendly AI is terrible and results in countless needless usage of items. It just goes on and on like this.

The Heartless themselves would have been a bit more interesting if there was more to them. They're really just the same handful of designs over and over with a couple unique ones thrown in for good measure. Eh.

I have NO idea what people like about this game. I can only attribute it to two things: 1.) It's from Square and people are so dimwitted that they convince themselves that everything out of this company is gold and 2.) It has FF characters in it, which apparently is a major selling point despite them being inconsquential to most of the game's plot or development. The only other possible choice is that you're a huge Disney fan and you're willing to put up with this mess, but they're definitely the most miniscule minority.

[Erika]

[quote name='Siren']FF8 is vastly overrated for me simply because the battle system is pure crap. It's clunky, the Draw system is utterly half-baked, and the Junctioning is overly and needlessly complicated. Quite frankly, if they were going to go for a Junctioning system, why not use Final Fantasy VI? The Esper system was amazing, and damn easy to use.[/quote]

[size=1][color=purple]Yeah, I totally agree. To me that's the only complaint I have of that game, but other than that I love FFVIII. :whoops:

I have a game I personally think is overrated. I'm sure it's for legitimate reasons, but it's just to the point to where I can't help but roll my eyes at it, even if I like the game. Well, it's mainly the fans of the game that annoy me a little.

Final Fantasy VII. Period. I'm a big fan myself (my favorite game ever), and y'know what they say, it takes one to know one, and that can't be any truer. Honest to God, the fans drive me insane. Sometimes I even drive [i]myself[/i] insane! :cross:

A few plot twists maybe a few deaths, and fansites sprout up like mold on bread. That, and almost everyone keeps calling themselves "DarkSephiroth", "Sephy", "Sephluver56" or some other stupid wannabe name. Ggh--!!!! >_O; *twitches*

And [spoiler]Aerith's death[/spoiler] does my irritation no justice. Yeah, it made me cry first time through, but I mean, I never liked her to begin with. It's not the scenario, but yes, the fans that tried finding stupid plotholes and theorized connections--connections that went as far as pre-rendered background "glitches" or something. I dunno. Although I find it temptingly sweet for an RPG to have this effect, it bothers me how people freak over it, and even today, I don't see anything that has surpassed its overrated-ness. 9_9[/color][/size]

[Semjaza]

The problem with FF8 is mostly that I see people ***** about it more than I see them praise it. Honestly, when was the last time you saw an entire group of people proclaim the greatness of FF8? It never happens. I don't think the title itself is overrated, it's just caught up in an overrated series.

FF8 has problems, yeah. I don't feel the Junction System was complex in and of itself, but it is made complex because the game never really explains to you how damn important it is to making any progress. Add to this the absolutel horrible Draw system and the fact that most of the good Summons are only attainable at specific points in the game and it becomes a problem.

While I don't think FF8 is the greatest, I don't think it was terrible. It had one of the more interesting stories of the PSX FF games, despite following the same basic plot core that literally every FF since VI has followed.

As for FFVII, I do think that is massively overrated for many reasons. However, I think it's a bit more understandable because for many people it was their first RPG. Many of those people have honestly not even attempted to go beyond FF-related games because they feel "safe" with them. I think a lot of people tend to overrate any title that might have gotten them into a new genre and for many people, FFVII was their first RPG exposure.

I could list a couple dozen RPGs I consider better for me personally, but it wouldn't prove anything for those people. They like what they like, I guess lol.