Forums

Topic: Games You Feel are Overrated

Posts 401 to 413 of 413

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?

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?

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

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

LuckyLand

@Snaplocket I have always felt like Mario games are pointless story-wise, so for me Mario Odyssey ending was just a way to make fun of that in an unexpected and creative way.
I love Mario Galaxy much more than I like Odyssey, but the ending is much better in Odyssey in my opinion. It is the perfect ending for a Mario game for me because it really captures the spirit of those games. We probably just have completely different tastes in that regard.

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

Tiefseemiez

This is not a reaaaally popular game, but I see it recommended a lot, especially on top lists. It even was added on the last Alex made on the Youtube channel:
Ironcast
I do not think this is a bad game. The combination of match-3, a little bit more strategy and the dieselpunk-aestethics was appealing to me and combined with the great reviews made me buy the game.
In the end it was a disappointment though.
The strategic elements got kind of ruined by luck and the unforgiving permadeath.
The storytelling was really superfluous and boring and could have been so much more interesting and deep. Also the game had really little content. If it weren't for the permadeath-system and the spicy difficulty, it would have lasted maybe 1 hour.
After all it was still an alright game, addicting and with an original premise.
I would see it as a 6/10, probably. But I don't get how it got so much praise (80% metascore; on here it got a 9/10). Somehow I always had the feeling that I was missing a significant part of the game that made it so great.

Never want to come down, never want to put my feet back down on the ground.

LuckyLand

I really dislike the last two worlds of Tropical freeze, I feel like DKTF is overrated because of those. Overall it is not as great and fantastic as Country returns is imo (another reason why it is overrated: many people say it is better), but it is still a very good game, and the ability to swim is a big plus that unfortunately was missing in the previous game, but the last two worlds really ruin it for me, almost completely. I just don't like the setting, it is not that they are less fun gameplay wise, they just are boring and unpleasant to look at but this is enough to ruin the experience for me.

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

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.