Forums

Topic: Games You Feel are Overrated

Posts 481 to 500 of 507

MarcelRguez

@shaneoh While that's true, I'm just asking that in a tongue-in-cheek way because I imagine not many people in this forum have played much of it, let alone finish it.

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

FireMario887

Overrated, huh? I'm likely to turn some heads (even my own) by saying this. There are two games that I deemed to be amazing games, but that was mostly a result of their presentation and not necessarily their gameplay.

Super Mario Galaxy - Don't get me wrong, creativity at is critical maximum with the gravity mechanics and interesting level designs, however, the more experimental approach does sacrifice some of the meat to the levels I feel. Also, I feel as if what is touted as awesome about this game has to do with its marvelous aesthetics and other technical aspects-- The orchestral music and the galactic visuals, those are all delightful, but I feel as if the gameplay is more experimental than anything. Refined in the much better Super Mario Galaxy 2.

Zelda: Twilight Princess - The dungeons are darn good in this game. Great puzzles and items, but everything else is a bit flat. I'm not much interested in exploration in games, but Hyrule still felt lackluster and the enemy encounters were stupidly easy. I adore the attempt at realism in the game though.

Don't get me wrong, there are things of which I strongly appreciate in these games, and they have highlights that outshine the other titles in their franchises, but for the most part, these games I view with more of a nostalgic bias and thus tend to overlook their flaws.

FireMario887

CanisWolfred

The new God of War...would've been my answer, but it actually sounds like it's in Hellblade's corner right now, where it sounds like it should be really enjoyable on paper, but watching videos makes it look so dull and clunky that I know I wouldn't enjoy it even half as much as other people seem to. Plus, it still seems finisher-heavy, which turned me off of the PS2 God of War games. That stuff just kills the flow in an action game, which is very important to me when I play those games.

I dunno, I just really want there to be more Hack 'n' Slash games, but I mean more like the stuff the PS2 & Xbox had. Onimusha, Devil May Cry, Otogi, and Ninja Gaiden. I want a challenge, but one that's also exciting, and rewards fast combos. They're an evolution of the Beat 'em up Genre, so why does it look like they're getting simpler, easier, and more boring when even new Beat 'em ups still seem to celebrate high-octane action? Do I really need to rely solely on Platinum games to get a good action action game these days? That's such a bummer, dude...

FireMario887 wrote:

Zelda: Twilight Princess - ...I'm not much interested in exploration in games, but-

Wait, then why are you even playing Zelda?

Edited on by CanisWolfred

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun

3DS Friend Code: 1418-6849-7569 | Nintendo Network ID: CanisWolfred

Haru17

Because the vast majority of Zelda games aren't open worlds or the 'explorative experience' type of game? They were well-made singleplayer adventure-puzzler, RPG-lite-on-a-Tuesday things in their own niche genre.

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

MarcelRguez

@Haru17 Most of them definitely are. A game doesn't need to offer Morrowind's degree of free-reign to be considered an "explorative experiences". When you take the competition into account, games like Link's Awakening or Ocarina are some of the most exporation-based experiences on their respective systems.

Edited on by MarcelRguez

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

Haru17

I'm saying "explorative experience" while thinking of games like No Man's Sky or even things like Minecraft. As a genre of game, not a label to be attached to games that are something else already.

Ocarina of Time is obviously not built around exploration. You do tasks, complete dungeons, and get items to progress — that's metroidvania. Now, you can mean 'exploration' as in 'there are levels and exploring is sometimes an aspect of gameplay,' but that's not what Canis or I were talking about.

Also, competition whaa? Works are what they are, they don't change definitions in relation to other works or hindsight.

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

MarcelRguez

@Haru17 Minecraft and No Man's Sky aren't even the same genre, so you'll have to be more specific.

Haru17 wrote:

You do tasks, complete dungeons, and get items to progress — that's metroidvania.

So Ocarina doesn't put a focus on exploration, but it can be labeled as a genre in which exploration is the main drive.

Of course Ocarina has exploration as one of its main traits. Zelda in general can be summed up as puzzles + exploration. You do tasks and complete dungeons by solving puzzles and exploring your environment. And you are disagreeing with the main point of Canis' question, so if anything he also considers exploration a main trait of Zelda.

And again, the exploration aspect is much more obvious in 2D Zelda games, which are less gated than the 3D ones (Wind Waker and Breath of the Wild notwithstanding) and still comprised "the vast majority" of Zelda games the last time I checked. Even with a few outliers like Zelda II and Spirit Tracks, all others feature an overworld to explore freely.

Haru17 wrote:

Works are what they are, they don't change definitions in relation to other works or hindsight

I'm literally asking you to do the opposite and take into account the games in their original context (platform limitations + what other games on those platforms do), not in hindsight. If anything, changing definitions retroactively is what you're doing by applying modern standards to games from generations 5-6 and below.

Edited on by MarcelRguez

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

FireMario887

@CanisWolfred I know the series emphasises exploration as it main aspect, but I play them for the linear dungeons with their structured puzzles and combat sequences. I think that's an area that Zelda thrives on, particularly TP

FireMario887

Haru17

@MarcelRguez Metroidvanian games limit your progression. In the broadest sense you're 'exploring,' but it's in no way comparable to the open world genre which tends toward unrestricted movement and relatively flat, sparse, and uninteractive environments. Meanwhile the 3D Zelda series + Okami has more metroidvanian progression and environmental interaction than almost any other game — the complete opposite of an open world game.

Also, the first half of The Wind Waker is very gated, it just has an overworld like an open world game (where none of the actual Zelda parts of the game take place).

And you are certainly the only one in this conversation trying to reframe the Zelda series as explorative open world games. The Zelda team didn't, in the 80s, say 'we're creating a modern open world game' because they had no concept of what that would be. They said 'we're creating a 2D top-down adventure game that loads in rectangles.' You have a whole series built on progression gating, level design, and the careful metroidvanian interplay. They're not suddenly like modern games because you got it in your head that they were 'more exploration-based' than other games.

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

MarcelRguez

Haru17 wrote:

Metroidvanian games limit your progression. In the broadest sense you're 'exploring,' but it's in no way comparable to the open world genre which tends toward unrestricted movement and relatively flat, sparse, and uninteractive environments. Meanwhile the 3D Zelda series + Okami has more metroidvanian progression and environmental interaction than almost any other game — the complete opposite of an open world game.

Nobody is denying that. What I'm challenging is this bizarre golden standard you seem to have by which anything that doesn't feature a completely open world can't classify as an "explorative experience" (again, whatever you mean by that). My point in short: a game doesn't need to have an ungated open world for it to be an exploration-driven game.

And about the bolded, you're still cherry-picking examples. We're either talking about Twilight Princess in particular (as mentioned in the first post of the discussion) or the Zelda series as a whole (as mentioned by Canis and yourself with "the vast majority of Zelda games"). "The vast majority of Zelda games" encapsulates much more than just the Ocarina/TP template.

Haru17 wrote:

And you are certainly the only one in this conversation trying to reframe the Zelda series as explorative open world games [...] They're not suddenly like modern games because you got it in your head that they were 'more exploration-based' than other games.

I'm not doing that, my dude. The problem I have, again, is with your restrictive definition of what you call an "explorative experience", since it implies exploration-driven games didn't exist before GTAIII.

What you communicated with your original post was that a game needs to either feature a modern open world or be an "explorative experience" (again, not a genre) for it to satiate someone's craving of exploration, while implying that Zelda does neither. That's just a bizarre mindset to have about this franchise. For many people (and especially here on a Nintendo site), Zelda is the de facto series to scratch that itch, so it's generally defined as an exploration-driven game (aka "explorative experience"). Other (more modern) games building on that trait, iterating on it and eventually surpassing what the series offers in terms of sheer openness doesn't rob Zelda of that status. In short, Zelda games are not exactly the same as "those other games", but they don't need to be to fall under the broader category of exploration-driven games.

And as a slight aside:

Haru17 wrote:

The Zelda team didn't, in the 80s, say 'we're creating a modern open world game' because they had no concept of what that would be. They said 'we're creating a 2D top-down adventure game that loads in rectangles.'

Either your phrasing is a bit wonky here or this is one heck of an argument. By all means, the Zelda team of the 80s were, for all intents and purposes, creating a "modern open world game" relatively speaking. As in, as open the worlds of games were at that time. They were creating a 2D top-down adventure game that loads in rectangles, but the player also transitioned from rectangle to rectangle not by a hard cut (like, say, Castle Wolfenstein), but by scrolling, which created the impression of a larger, interconnected world. Their intent was, unarguably, to create a vast map for the player to explore. An open world of sorts, if you will.

The term metroidvania (as the name of a sub-genre) wasn't coined until the early 2000s, yet we still consider games like the original Metroid or Blaster Master early examples of the template. You yourself are describing Ocarina as a metroidvania despite the term not being a thing at the time of its release. "Open world" as a label work just the same, you can apply it to games released before the term was actually coined, even if the term varies slightly to accommodate context.

Edited on by MarcelRguez

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

CanisWolfred

MarcelRguez wrote:

@Haru17 Most of them definitely are. A game doesn't need to offer Morrowind's degree of free-reign to be considered an "explorative experiences". When you take the competition into account, games like Link's Awakening or Ocarina are some of the most exporation-based experiences on their respective systems.

Oh wow, yeah, I didn't think we'd be having a big discussion over this, but I always felt that Zelda emphasised enough of the "adventure" part of Action-Adventure that it's sort of synonymous with it for fans of the series. Adventure games aren't necessarily "faff-about" games, but they're games where you're allowed to explore and find out where you're supposed to go (and more importantly, how to get there, as there might be some sort of puzzle or mechanism even once you've fund your intended location), often without being directly told where to go, and hidden secrets and items are littered throughout that make the journey to the next area rewarding. Honestly, I love adventure, but I'll admit that open world games can take it too far by removing any sense that you're on a journey - there still has to be a destination, after all.

But, if FireMario887 is willing to see the dungeons and combat aspects of Zelda appealing enough, I'll readily conceed, especially since that part is usually more structured (which admittedly I've never been fond of. I always saw dungeons in Zelda as "That boring prerequisite to exploring more of its fascinating world." Needless to say, the more recent Zelda games have exceeded my expectations and sit quite high on my Favorite Games list).

Edited on by CanisWolfred

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun

3DS Friend Code: 1418-6849-7569 | Nintendo Network ID: CanisWolfred

Kinoen

All those "Super Mario Bros." games Nintendo started shelling out, out of nowhere (a whiiiile ago). They are all the same with the only change being 1 power-up or something of very slight change.

Pokemon series, same as Super Mario Bros, each game is virtually the same.

Overwatch. Game plays well, looks nice and the characters aren't generic soldiers, but, the game launched void of content and even compared to it now, the only significant difference is the amount of skins that was dumped into the game.

PubG. Game looks bland, bad and un-interesting, nothing stands out about it. I'm surprised how it spring-boarded the Battle Royal genre.

Zelda: BoTW. After taking a step back, it's a huge world, with hardly anything in it. Hardly any quests/things to do outside of climb mountains, kill enemies and cook. Breakable weapons is a terrible, everyone weapon of it's type does the same thing minus attack power and elemental status, no story, no memorable music, only a handful of enemies with color variations, Ganon fight was incredibly easy and we didn't even get to fight the "Dragon" Ganon we constantly saw flying around, and it has DLC. I still find it hard to say "Zelda" and "DLC" in the same sentence, but worse yet, its not even good DLC (IMO)!

Mario Kart 8/Deluxe. To many Koopalings, Baby forms and Mario/Peach variations, where's Birdo?!

Kinoen

AxeltheBuizel

Fortnite. I've never understood why it got so popular.

AxeltheBuizel

CanisWolfred

AxeltheBuizel wrote:

Fortnite. I've never understood why it got so popular.

Oh, the why is pretty easy, actually: It's aping off of a popular game in terms of sheer mechanics, while also looking better and injecting its own personality than its major competitors completely lack. The gameplay style is complex and difficult to figure out by nature, therefore breeding a lot of discussion and a general "look how awesome I am" feeling when you do well, or even just slightly better than last time. It has a lot of popular streaming and Youtube personalities that play it, and people are going to want to seek them out, as well as discuss on major communities like Reddit, so they can try to get an edge, since it really is too time consuming to play it without that level of communication. It's survival of the fittest at its core, and so I don't think its appeal is difficult to grasp....with that said, I do think its cutthroat nature could lead to severe burnout, and that could lead to a domino effect, causing the popularity and sustainability of the genre to plummet once that sets in for enough people.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun

3DS Friend Code: 1418-6849-7569 | Nintendo Network ID: CanisWolfred

AxeltheBuizel

@CanisWolfred to be honest, I tried to play it to see what the hype was all about, but gave up after getting confused by the lack of a tutorial. I guess it's just not my kind of game.

AxeltheBuizel

LuckyLand

MarcelRguez wrote:

Is it too early to mention the new God of War?

In my opinion God of war is a fantastic game, it is a masterpiece imho, but it is NOT a God of war game. If you want a God of war game, it can look like trash because it is completely a different thing.
I would never say it is overrated, it is great imho, but for sure many fans could be disappointed and feel betrayed.

Edited on by LuckyLand

I used to be a ripple user like you, then I took The Arrow in the knee

Megas75

I marathoned the Zelda series right before BOTW came out, and I remember being severely underwhelmed by Windwaker, which has become a franchise darling in the same FFIX has(it's underrated but not really because everyone and their freaking moms say it). Sailing sucks, it's really tedious getting through the whole ocean, dungeons were really easy, and the final dungeon/endgame was really garbage

Steam/NNID/Xbox Gamertag - Megas75

Snaplocket

Super Mario Odyssey - It's ironic I'm putting this here because before I said this was better then Xenoblade 2 but now? Not so much. I really enjoyed this the first time I played it but returning to another playthrough, not so much. The platforming is too easy to really feel satisfying and most of the fun challenges don't show up until the postgame. Cappy is cool but after seeing all the gimmicks, they lack punch. If the game wasn't gonna put effort into the story, then there shouldn't be so many cutscenes. Even the postgame doesn't feel very satisfying since the power moons ultimately mean NOTHING in the postgame and aren't worth the effort. I still consider this an 8 out of 10 gem but out of all the 3D Mario platformers, this might be my least favorite. I'd rather play 3D World, Sunshine, the Galaxy games, maybe 64 (haven't played it for 6 six years), and I know I'm gonna receive a lot of hate for this but I'd even rather play 3D Land. Also, this game has one of the worst endings in any Mario game. It makes the whole game feel completely pointless.

Switch FC: SW-0930-5375-7512
3ds FC: 3539-8977-1109

LuckyLand

Super Mario Odyssey is a very good game, but Super Mario Galaxy 1 is so much better. It is more entertaining, it is more crazy, its structure serves the game better and makes it more replayable (this is true for every other Mario game too except Odyssey), and I really don't like the art style they used for Mario Odyssey, it is almost completely out of place in a Mario game and a lot less pleasant than the classic one. There are many good things in this game, but most of them were a given for a Mario game, something I expect there must be in a game like this.
I was used to outstanding, unbelievable Mario games that surprised and excited me in so many ways, this one is good, but not much more than that.
But at least it is not as bad and disappointing as Mario Galaxy 2 was.
PS: I liked the ending though. It was fun and one of the few unexpected things I found in this game.

Edited on by LuckyLand

I used to be a ripple user like you, then I took The Arrow in the knee

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic