Most Over-rated/Under-rated and the most Disappointing/Surprisingly good Games? (1 Viewer)

[Legham]

I think it's just that when you were younger you were more easily entertained by the games.. As you mature it takes more to impress you, gaming-wise.

 

[stazi]

That is your opinion. Graphics and better physics don't mean a better game at all, and they usually have a predictable and boring as plot. Anyway, my all time favourite game was released four years ago, hardly when I was young and all so impressionable. Games now just target mass audiences due to the realised and expansive audience of videogames today compared to years ago, when they weren't as popular, and audience specific. I never liked Pac-Man really either.

You were like 13. .... I call that very young and impressionable. What game was this?

 

[Serius]

That is your opinion. Graphics and better physics don't mean a better game at all, and they usually have a predictable and boring as plot. Anyway, my all time favourite game was released four years ago, hardly when I was young and all so impressionable. Games now just target mass audiences due to the realised and expansive audience of videogames today compared to years ago, when they weren't as popular, and audience specific. I never liked Pac-Man really either.

well what makes a good game for you then?

for me its about
storyline
multiplayer
stuff that i wish i could in irl, or just cool stuff in general e.g slowing down time in jedi knight 2
graphics
physics
a twist or a catch to the genre that makes it special, like warcraft3 when they brought the RPG ellement of heroes into an RTS environment and it worked well.

 

[S1M0]

I agree video games aren't as a majority, as good as they used to be.

True that.

Reason why is because publishers are just sticking to a risk-free game model and just bumping up the graphics. End result is that the game ends up boring, and the quality of games decline.

Which is why i admire the wii so much. Its a welcome innovative change to gaming as a whole.

 

[jumb]

Magic the gathering: battlegrounds: Was so underrated. It's such a fun acardey sort of game that uses all the creatures and such from the MTG card game. I want to play it again but one of my cd's is scratched so I can't install it

 

[runtlocks]

...how do you conclude this? nostalgia doesn't equal a better game. Games have better physics, better graphics, at times better storylines, and all of these factors amount to better gameplay. It's easy to think back and go "oh yeah, that game made a huge impact on me" as you were young and more impressionable at that time, but ultimately, games have improved a shitload since pacman. In fact, Pacman is a horrible game.

Do I really have to bring up the "Bomberman" arguement again on ya, stas? Ahh hell, I think I will anyway:

 

[stazi]

that wasnt a good argument. if a sequel is worse than its predecessor how does that automatically mean that games are worse now than before?

Lolz the remake of Alfie is crap, therefore the movie industry is much worse now than it was 40 years ago.

 

[runtlocks]

...how do you conclude this? nostalgia doesn't equal a better game. Games have better physics, better graphics, at times better storylines, and all of these factors amount to better gameplay. It's easy to think back and go "oh yeah, that game made a huge impact on me" as you were young and more impressionable at that time, but ultimately, games have improved a shitload since pacman. In fact, Pacman is a horrible game.

This game has got a lot better graphics than the predecessors of the franchise, and being put on the 360 has a lot more hardware to work with to produce better physics, enviroments, create a more stylistic storyline and therefore better gameplay by your standards. Not to mention it's in 3D.

But it doesn't play better than the classic Bomberman games. Why? Because there are a lot more facets of games outside of graphics and physics that determine gameplay. Those morons at Hudson have blemished a great franchise of theirs, and I attribute that to trying to go with the times, making the game tough and whatnot. And being a 360 exclusive, on a console with so many games trying to tie in with realism, it's a shame to see they've cracked and given Bomberman this Terminator exterior that just doesn't quite fit the bill.

Trends of today in videogames push towards realism, though. Just a sign of the times, I guess. FPS and sport games are now very dominant genres as opposed to, say, platformers when we were growing up. And it is important to have your heroes looking pixel perfect because of the nature of these genres. Realism is becoming very important and thus graphics will be more scrutinized within games in comparison to the 16-bit days.

Having said that, I myself am not too fussed about graphics. I'd much rather play NBA Jam on the SNES then say EA's latest churned out NBA Live tripe. Technically it does give a more realistic demonstration of the game, with better graphics, more thinking required etc. but I just don't have fun with it. I don't base it on a nostalgic factor either, I only started to play NBA Jam when my cousin rediscovered his SNES about a year ago. Comparing the two games based on gameplay, they are very different, NBA Jam taking on a much more simplistic but outrageous take, and Live giving a more authentic feel. And that in itself is enough to warrant a decision in me saying that NBA Jam is a lot more fun, therefore better than NBA Live.

 

[stazi]

Bomberman plays completely differently to the original, though. They didn't try to improve it. They tried to revolutionise it and failed.

NBA Live is horrible and everyone recognises that. Play NBA 2k7 and I don't see how someone could come back to a much older game in which you can hardly do anything.

 

[runtlocks]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8dU37OLKzUI

Looks pretty similar in gameplay to me. Lol at that scream when one of the robots get's toasted.

In conclusion, while graphics are important and can enhance gameplay, they do not define it. Though with the concept of realism being pushed in games they are under constant gaze and IMO tend to be a bit overrated nowadays

Yep, the 2k series is a lot better than the Live series. Though I still prefer NBA Jam

 

[stazi]

Graphics + innovation in gameplay (as well as the possibility to enhance gameplay thanks to improved phyics, etc) lead to better games.

Just watch the physics engine (Euphoria I think) in indiana jones. The AI's reactions aren't scripted and they react in real-time with the environment (for instance grabbing a railing if they're falling, or putting out their hands to cushion their fall if they are thrown against a car).

On the whole, though, you don't need fantastic graphics to have a fantastic game (I'm using old adventure games as my main reference), but games with better graphics are so much more immersive. For instance, when I play the ancient Sam and Max game, I feel like an outsider looking in and laughing at the gags and jokes. When I play the newer games, I feel like an insider and like I'm actually helping them do stuff.

 

[watkinzez]

To the people who think games aren't as good as they used to be- it helps to stop playing sequels to franchises and instead try something new. Who cares if Wind Waker might not have lived up to Ocarina of Time? Beyond Good and Evil made up for it.

 

[stazi]

oh Beyond good and evil was amazing! i think i listed it as one of my most underrated games. if i didnt, i wish to list it now.

listed.

 

[uhawww]

To the people who think games aren't as good as they used to be- it helps to stop playing sequels to franchises and instead try something new. Who cares if Wind Waker might not have lived up to Ocarina of Time? Beyond Good and Evil made up for it.

I loved Wind Waker

 

[runtlocks]

Yep, stuck in the Factory where Pey'j gets caught, and it freezes at a certain point...

 

[Bacilli]

What do you guys think is:]

1)The most over-rated game?

Manhunt

2)The most under-rated game?

Area 51

3)The most disappointing game?

50 Cent Bulletproof was the worst game ever created, Space Invaders was more entertaining! Waste of a disk and cover paper.

4)The most surprisingly good game?

Halo: Combat Evolved demo for PC. It may be old, but online play is halirious.

Free Demo Here:

http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.aspx?view=22&pcid=d48b101e-2004-4da3-987f-285dd6dd5b6c&crumb=catpage&catid=9d273393-92c9-4807-be9c-515a0d152415

 

[stazi]

1)The most over-rated game?
Manhunt
2)The most under-rated game?
Area 51
3)The most disappointing game?
50 Cent Bulletproof was the worst game ever created, Space Invaders was more entertaining! Waste of a disk and cover paper.
4)The most surprisingly good game?
Halo: Combat Evolved demo for PC. It may be old, but online play is halirious.
Free Demo Here:

1) Manhunt wasn't critically acclaimed or highly rated. It was considered an OK game.
2) To disapointing, doesn't the game need to have higher expectations for it? Everyone knew that 50 cent bulletproof was going to be shita
3) how is Halo surprisingly good? its well-known that it's good, I don't understand how someone could be surprised?

 

[_dhj_]

I don't like the idea of moving towards "realism" in games. Games should provide an escape from real life not an imitation of it. That's the main reason why games aren't as fun as they used to be.

 

[Gigabyte89]

2)The most under-rated game?
Mafia - Excellent storyline and some features are better then the GTA series, eg wanted system system.

4)The most surprisingly good game?

God of War - I wasn't expecting much but wow this is a very, very, very good game, and it's sequal comes out very soon, it got at least 9/10 by various raters.

 

[stazi]

I don't like the idea of moving towards "realism" in games. Games should provide an escape from real life not an imitation of it. That's the main reason why games aren't as fun as they used to be.

I think that there's a divide between what games are realistic and which games aren't. There are two main groupings: Simulations and Arcade titles. Both have their merits.

For example:
SPORTS:
NBA 2k7 which is a simulation sports title (i.e. Realism to the max)
vs.
NBA Homecourt which is an arcade sports title (i.e. abandoning any sort of realism)

FIGHTERS:
Ultimate Fighting Championship games (simulation)
vs.
Dead or Alive 4 (arcade)

FPS:
Call of Duty 3 (quasi-simulation): I mean you really feel like you're in a war, which is an amazing experience
vs.
Halo 2 (arcade): no realism, but lots of fun