I buy games largely based upon Metacritics scores. For the most part, they've been a great resource. Here's a list misses...

1. Resident Evil (GC).

The controls are insufferable. I tried to play it for about 2 hours, but eventially quit.

2. Splinter Cell (Xbox).

No freedom, no choices. You wonder around until you happen upon what you're supposed to do (you finally find that hole in the wall behind the bushes, or figure out that you're supposed to double jump over a fence, etc). No exploring because you'll get caught/killed. I've probably wasted 15 hours trying to like this game because how can everyone be wrong? I keep quiting in disgust, and then trying again. I still want to like this game. There's a lot of great ideas here, but it just doesn't work. I think Thief: Deadly Shadows was many times better.

3. Beyond Good & Evil

There's nothing horribly wrong with this game, but it's just mediocre in every way.

4. Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Horrible graphics and there's one, maybe two sound tracks during the entire game. I only played for about 4 hours...1 was spent reading, the other 3 were spent running.


5. Deus Ex: Invisible War. I played for about 3 hours until I realized that it sucks as a FPS, I got sick of the damn inventory thing, and I could care less about the story.

I'd have to go with these 3 games (They're all pretty good games, it's just that the noted issues I had really put me off):

Metroid Prime - Too much backtracking, really dull, lifeless world, and a real lack of innovation.

Ninja Gaiden - Too much trial and error gameplay, a broken save system (saving anywhere should be an option), and derivative gameplay.

Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind - Bland world, broken combat system, and too much reading.

Topspin's great but you can't save during tourneys; WTF? they last like half an hour. glaring oversight.

Also Tony Hawk's underground 2 simply because Bam Margera sucks and the gameplay's pretty stale. less of a story than the first one and that's pretty bad.

Dance Dance Revolution-I don't really see why so many people like this games. It has a couple good techno beats, but all you have to do is keep the rhythm. Maybe I don't like it because I am not any good at it and my friend got a 170 something combo, but I just don't like it.

Dance Dance Revolution (DDR) can be a lot of fun as a party game. I have some friends that are crazy good at it. Hardest difficulty, fastest speed, toughest song...200+ combo. It's insane.

The problem is you have to buy a good foot button pad, they're around $150. The cheap mats are no good. Otherwise it's great cardio excercise....

quote:

Originally posted by Nate:
Metroid Prime - Too much backtracking, really dull, lifeless world, and a real lack of innovation.

I'm going to have strongly disagree about that "dull, lifeless world" bit. It's one of the most immaculately detailed game worlds I've seen, even though a lot of the area designs aren't terribly original (ancient ruins, volcanic caverns, snow-fields, biotechnological laboratory place towards the end). It's certainly not an easy game to play through, though. There were many times when I got stuck and stopped playing the game for a few months before eventually finishing it.

I must whole-heartedly agree with the topic starter on Splinter Cell. And Morrowind; even though D&D-style RPGs aren't generally my cup of tea anyway, Morrowind is one of the most tedious.

Also, Hattori_Hanzo, note the difference between "overrated" and simply "bad". After the massively-hyped original, THUG 2 was such a flop that no magazine I've read has even reviewed it.

Halo 1 and 2 for reasons I've already mentioned.

Zelda 64. Not that it was a bad game it just really was nothing special. There was nothing original about the story or setting or music. Actually when I think about it there was very little if nothing that was original about it. It was just a pretty version of the third Zelda. It had a great fighting system but it rarely gave you the chance to use it. The game was just too easy and too slow paced. I enjoyed playing it at times but I don't consider it a perfect 10 of a game as so many people will argue.

I'll third DDR.

I'd also throw in all the new FPS games for the PC to the list. Games like Doom3, Far Cry, and Unreal 2000-whatever were all disgustingly overrated. Pretty graphics only carry so far, especially when it costs about $200 worth of upgrades for most people to play them.

I wouldn't say Morrowind was overrated as it actually did something different. I don't know why everyone feels that graphics and nonstop combat are what make good games. And if it's graphics that really matter, you might want to take a look at Elder Scrolls IV previews. That game is just ridiculous.

granted, doom 3 gets stale after an hour or two but Far Cry and unreal tourney04 are incredible games. stop whining you don't have the system, that's not the games' fault. and what are you talking about "It had a great fighting system but it rarely gave you the chance to use it" in zelda? sounds like you barely played it. what "third zelda" are you talking about? there's more originality in that game than in twenty EA titles. you must be very confused.

This doesn't have to do with the fact that I can't play them. No matter how good my computer was I wouldn't waste the $50 to play a game that I have played countless times before. It's the same thing over and over. Run, jump, hold down fire key, kill, die, revive, run jump, hold down fire key... and so on. "Incredible" indeed.

Zelda 64 was one of the easiest games I have ever played. The only fights were in the dungeons. Hyrule field was enormous and if you were lucky you'd see one enemy every 10 runs through. The fights were all waiting for you.

Zelda 3 was A Link to the Past a game for the Super Nintendo. My guess is you've never heard of that particular console let alone played Zelda 3. If you do get a chance to play it you'll notice that the games are clones right down to the soundtracks. The only difference is that A Link to the Past was challenging and for its time was original. I think the horse was as original as Zelda64 got.

And who are you to call someone a whiner in this thread? It's called "Overated Games" what the hell do you expect?

Well after much trying, I finally learned to love Splinter Cell. The trick is get a guide and read it when you get stuck....I feel like Wilson in 1984...He finally learned to love Big Brother.

Anyway, I've beat it twice in a row now, the second time on hard difficulty. I love stealth action. Splinter Cell still has a lot of problems, but it does a few things remarkably well. I'm addicted.

I love stealth action games. I wish someone would take the sound/light stealth of Splinter Cell, and the freedom, multiple options/methods of Hitman 2: Silent Assassin, throw in improved AI and combine them to get the perfect stealth game. I'd never leave the house again.

Anyway, for the record Splinter Cell goes from being overrated, to one of my all time favorites...easily in the top 5.

Link to the Past was a fantastic game, but OoT brought the series into 3D almost flawlessly, and the game is really fun. I believe that LttP was surpassed on most (but certainly not all) levels.

Also, most people refer to those games by their titles rather than their "numbers", so to speak, so you can't really blame him for having no idea what you were talking about. Hell, there were two Zelda games on the 64.

As far as graphics and presentation go I agree it was a flawless transformation. And I don't want to give the impression that Zelda64 bored me. It's just that the most frustrating thing for me in a game is when a good game falls short of being great. Because you want to play through but the whole time you're thinking "Man, it would have been great if they..."
There's nothing wrong with taking a winning formula and reusing it over and over, but at LEAST change the plot. Do something different. The creators are obviously damn good at what they do.

It's like Soul Caliber and Soul Caliber II for the PS2. The first was a damn near if not perfect arcade fighting game. The second one was the exact same thing with a few improvements. Yeah, you'd choose the second over the first if you owned both but you can't claim it's a brilliant one of a kind game.
My problem isn't with people calling Zelda64 fun. My problem is with people calling it a perfect masterpiece of a game.

And finally... I doubt he's played Link to the Past or even knew that is what I was referring to. Even if I called it just Zelda 3, anyone who's played it would have immediately caught on to what I was saying when I called 64 a "pretty version" of it.

It's arguable that LttP is a much prettier game <_<

I don't get this argument about Ocarina of Time being just a "pretty version" of Link to the Past (yes, the "third Zelda" bit was rather ambiguous).

It makes about as much sense as calling Metroid Prime a "pretty version" of the original NES Metroid, or saying that Final Fantasy Tactics is just "Final Fantasy I in 3D with squares".

I've never played Metroid so I wouldn't know about the two. But comparing Final Fantasy Tactics to Final Fantasy I? You weren't kidding about not getting it. I really didn't think it was that complex an argument so I'm not sure how you don't understand. All I can think of doing is rephrasing what I've already said until it clicks, but I get the feeling you didn't read everything I said.

I still don't get how "third zelda" is such a confusing concept to everyone. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to argue that any further without insulting anyone so forget it.

Uh, there's not much to "not get". I guessed that "the third Zelda" you referred to was Link to the Past (just because that bit of your first post was poorly-phrased didn't mean that no-one understood it).

Yes, your argument is rather simple, and fundamentally flawed. The point I was trying to make is that any attempt to move a series into 3D, no matter how successful it might be, will be dismissed by some as "old game with pretty new graphics". Perhaps my examples weren't the best, I'll admit.

Right, the very point of sequels is to take a formula that people loved and improve on it. People loved LttP. Nintendo took the formula, updated the graphics and gameplay, and people loved it again. The gameplay isn't even that similar, soley due to the extra dimension.

Link's Awakening is better than both of them, anyway <_<

quote:

Originally posted by CompmanJX3:
Right, the very point of sequels is to take a formula that people loved and improve on it. People loved LttP. Nintendo took the formula, updated the graphics and gameplay, and people loved it again.

Exactly. And this is why it was a good game and not a great game. A game deserves only so much credit for remaking a successful game for a new system. And none of this still explains why they made it so easy and slow paced.

Biggles, I know what you're saying but that's not always the case. Look at games like Final Fantasy VII. That brought the series into 3D. Yes, the overall format for the game was similar, but the music changed, the story changed, the combat system changed, the characters changed. It wasn't just a visual upgrade of VI which would have been equally successful. I know for a fact that if they remade VII in the future for the PS3, I would buy it and play it in a second, but I wouldn't be calling it a brilliant, groundbreaking, and original game. Considering that Zelda64 was pretty weak when it came to action, you wouldn't expect the story and dialogue to be so pathetic.

The Zelda series has never been one to have deep or complex stories. That's not the point of the game, and not what it's trying to accomplish. You really can't fault it for that.

Well, I guess you can... but it seems like an inaccurate judgement.

You're right that it isn't fair to judge the game based on the depth of the story. I never intended to suggest that it was a fault. I just mentioned that because I thought the action in the game wasn't all that great. Usually games balance action and plot when they can't achieve both. So if it's gonna be slow paced you can at least anticipate a good story.