5 critically acclaimed games that reviewers were wrong about

[Jabberwocky]

stuff about black & white

I would also be pissed off if a writer called one of my favorite games rubbish. But I have some appreciation for writers who goes against popular opinion, and is honest about what they like or not.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I would also be pissed off if a writer called one of my favorite games rubbish. But I have some appreciation for writers who goes against popular opinion, and is honest about what they like or not.

There's a minor difference between calling a game rubbish with valid reason and calling a game rubbish just for the sake of being inflammatory.

Can you give me one valid reason to justify calling any of those games rubbish? See Psychotoxic linked above, give it a play-through and experience the word rubbish in all its glory.

It's a silly and sensationalist title for a column about good-to-great games with mostly minor flaws.

Oh, and I'm not "pissed off." Mostly just trying to figure out the yellow journalism and giving my opinion on it.

 

[Wlad]

I agree with MW2 being rubbish. IMO it is exactly that, a steaming pile of rubbish. Black & White was OK, not all bad but not all that good either. Fable II was really disappointing, only played it for like 10 minutes before stopping. GTA IV never worked (as intended) on my PC so I just stuck to the X360 version back then. Can't comment on Empire as I haven't played it and never will.

 

[Jabberwocky]

There's a minor difference between calling a game rubbish with valid reason and calling a game rubbish just for the sake of being inflammatory.

Can you give me one valid reason to justify calling any of those games rubbish? See Psychotoxic linked above, give it a play-through and experience the word rubbish in all its glory.

It's a silly and sensationalist title for a column about good-to-great games with mostly minor flaws.

Oh, and I'm not "pissed off." Mostly just trying to figure out the yellow journalism and giving my opinion on it.

In my case GTA4 had no textures, making it nothing more than rubbish in a nice box. (imo)

You also have to remember the hype that surrounded B&W, while not a bad game, compared to its hype(and previous bullfrog titles) It was full of disappointment (imo)

While MW2 wasn`t a bad game(if you consider it to be an addon)... it came with the bitter taste of pure ripoff (imo)

 

[Lycanthrope]

In my case GTA4 had no textures, making it nothing more than rubbish in a nice box. (imo)

lol That must've been a fun experience. I haven't come across a single problem with GTAIV Well, aside from the asinine DRM *gag*

You also have to remember the hype that surrounded B&W, while not a bad game, compared to its hype(and previous bullfrog titles) It was full of disappointment (imo)

I was immune to the hype since I was entirely ignorant of it until I saw it on a shelf one day. If we're going to compare B&W to other Bullfrog/Lionhead games, then it was no more "tedious" than Theme Hospital, and that was fantastic

While MW2 wasn`t a bad game(if you consider it to be an addon)... it came with the bitter taste of pure ripoff (imo)

Meh, there are very few FPSs that actually interest me so I don't really do more than occasionally lift an eyebrow when something seems appealing (FEAR). I find that the appeal of FPS is largely competitive online play and that doesn't interest me. I'd much rather shoot through a story and than just shoot pixels for the hell of it.

 

[Tinman]

Actually the article heading did not have the word 'rubbish' in it.

We have to rename the forum threads otherwise Google gets confused when indexing and comes back with duplicate page errors. None of these games were rubbish and it was not Chris' intention to suggest they are.

I was a callous when I named this thread, and will rename it to something less sensational.

Chris is really just pointing out critically acclaimed games which didn’t do it for him. Anyone could write a similar article. Mine would include Gears of War, Unreal, Quake, Dragon Age, Half Life and many, many more.

And regardless of what the games are trying to do, anyone is well within their rights to say they did not like X-game because of feature-Y. Chris is not really saying that the games are rubbish, just that there are things about them which put him off. Whether those things were implemented for a specific reason, or to appeal to a certain audience is immaterial.

 

[Wlad]

Anyone could write a similar article. Mine would include Gears of War, Unreal, Quake, Dragon Age, Half Life and many, many more.

And all this time I thought I was the only person who doesn't like Half Life

 

[Necuno]

And all this time I thought I was the only person who doesn't like Half Life

only those with no life dislikes half life

 

[RaFi]

Wait, what, why don't you like Half-Life? Perhaps for the same reason that I hated Quake.

I played GTAIV on a slow PC and now on a okish PC and have never experienced any problems. While its not everyone's cup of tea, I felt that it was the most mature GTA yet, but I suppose to the wizard and magic geeks it would not be appealing.

MW2 was just another COD, every year they change a few things, but it still remains COD, with a lot of problems on the one side and a lot of players having fun despite the problems on the other side.

Can't really comment on the rest though.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Actually the article heading did not have the word 'rubbish' in it.

Ooooh, so it's you I have to flog! Well, critics weren't "wrong" as such either >.> Hrrmph!

We have to rename the forum threads otherwise Google gets confused when indexing and comes back with duplicate page errors. None of these games were rubbish and it was not Chris' intention to suggest they are.

I see.

I was a callous when I named this thread, and will rename it to something less sensational.

Chris is really just pointing out critically acclaimed games which didn’t do it for him. Anyone could write a similar article. Mine would include Gears of War, Unreal, Quake, Dragon Age, Half Life and many, many more.

Alright, alright. Striking a bit of a chord there with Gears and Dragon Age, but it's fine, I'm not going to go all vicious on you just yet, but I'll remember this for that one day >:3

And regardless of what the games are trying to do, anyone is well within their rights to say they did not like X-game because of feature-Y. Chris is not really saying that the games are rubbish, just that there are things about them which put him off. Whether those things were implemented for a specific reason, or to appeal to a certain audience is immaterial.

Well, sure, and I agree (with anyone being well within their rights to say that they didn't like X-game because of feature-Y) but in the same space I feel that there are certain games (like Fable, or Overlord, for example) which don't aim at hardcore RPG gamers, similarly Dragon Age doesn't aim at Diablo-esque hack-and-slash multiplayer/co-op and GTA doesn't aim at people who play... Pong. I feel that it's silly to criticise a game because "Oh well, gee, I just don't like it."

Like Oblivion, I can't stand that game but it has a market that loves it and that's fine too but when Bethesda tried to turn Fallout into Oblivion with guns (it's what they did, for true) that was utterly horrendous because they sold the label to a heavy RPG market not interested in the Oblivion-style gameplay. Yes, it was successful, but it was entirely awful.

A game like Black & White didn't try to be anything but itself, it didn't profess to wear the label of any other game, it stood on its own foundation and its premise, it's idea, was inarguably fantastic. You might not have liked the gameplay for whatever reason but it broke the conservative mould and took risks and many did like it. To say, "I didn't like it because I found it tedious" is so self-centred and arrogant and sort of says that people who did love it to bits were idiots for doing so. Yes, yes, I think people who like Fallout 3 are idiots but that's not the point!

Meh... It's just that "5 well-reviews games that critics were WRONG about" bit, they are games that even players loved, that averaged excellent player reviews, you're not just saying that the critics are wrong, but that the people who like them are wrong too. It gets personal

Arrrg

 

[Tyger]

...To say, "I didn't like it because I found it tedious" is so self-centred and arrogant...

No that looks like an opinion to me. I share his opinion, and not for lack of trying. I really tried to like Black and White, at first I played until about 3rd level (3rd level of Black and White being the most tedious part of any game I've EVER played)

Then my PC died, I lost the saves and started again played until 3rd or 4th level again and gave up, it really was more time than a game deserves, while I thought, "I should be having fun now, surely?"

Thats why I play games, for fun

I was very disappointed with this game, especially since this is from the same game designer that gave us Dungeon Keeper, easily one of my top 10 PC games.

If others seem to think the tedium of Black and White is enjoyable then thats great. I don't, neither does this columnist, and thats great too, we just end up playing something else instead

These days I'm happy that Molyneux is developing exclusively for MS, it limits his reach so that others don't get to fall for the hype again and again. Yes I also considered Fable boring. That was the last time I bothered to play a game designed by Molyneux. If I ever give his games a try again it will be because somebody with a similar taste in games to me recommended his latest game.

 

[Wlad]

Wait, what, why don't you like Half-Life? Perhaps for the same reason that I hated Quake.

I have no idea dude, there is just something inside me that doesn't want me to like Valve games (except Portal). Maybe it's something about the source engine, I'm not sure. I've just never really liked Half-Life or Left 4 Dead.

 

[RaFi]

Mmm, like I said, when Quake was released I hated it, refused to play it on grounds that it looked bland, it had no strippers(no points for guessing what my favorite game at that time was), the weapons looked funny and not like weapons at all. My friends went on and on about the textures, the actual 3D aspect, the design, I stuck to my guns despite being a minority.

However, did you play HL at the turn of the century, or are do you refer to the Source engine HL?

 

[iamthestig]

I have been meaning to check Dead Space out
Modern Warfare 2 was SICK! You guys are crazy

 

[Wlad]

Mmm, like I said, when Quake was released I hated it, refused to play it on grounds that it looked bland, it had no strippers(no points for guessing what my favorite game at that time was), the weapons looked funny and not like weapons at all. My friends went on and on about the textures, the actual 3D aspect, the design, I stuck to my guns despite being a minority.

However, did you play HL at the turn of the century, or are do you refer to the Source engine HL?

Both of them. I've always had a problem with Valve games (except Portal) since Half-Life first came out in 1998 (I think?). Portal has been the only exception apart from the occasional game of Counter-Strike at a LAN.

I have been meaning to check Dead Space out
Modern Warfare 2 was SICK! You guys are crazy

Get Dead Space, finish it and get Dead Space 2, you won't regret it. If you own a PS3, get the Limited Edition (DS2) so you can get Extraction as well.

 

[Tsar]

I have been meaning to check Dead Space out
Modern Warfare 2 was SICK! You guys are crazy

Mw2 was shit that is that. I was bored through out the single player.(played it at a friends)
Doing the same things over and over from cod 4.

 

[shadowfox]

I wouldn't go as far as saying MW2 was shit ... like Tinny pointed out - it's more of a personal opinion thing. As you say, it mainly seemed like a rip-off and a rehash of MW1 - and since I never played MP - that's all I have to base my opinion on. Well, and the price. It does have a certain level of appeal - but I didn't feel that MP in itself could bring enough to the table to make me want to buy it.

As regards the GTA series ... I played the first one and enjoyed it for a while ... the second one kept my attention for about 30 minutes, but after that I lost interest. By the time GTA 3 and onwards came out, I just couldn't see what engaged people so much about it.

 

[Subversion]

Oops, I've been making people mad again

Sorry I haven't responded, I'm on holiday, writing this to you from Thailand. I feel Lycan deserves a response though Thanks a lot Nic for defending me so well though, you've been bang-on

What I think some of you may not be getting, is that I'm simply saying the critics were WRONG about these games, i.e. they do not deserve metacritic scores in the 90s.

That does not mean they deserve below 50, it could simply mean they deserve a more modest 75. I'll try explain myself briefly, apologies if I'm just repeating myself though.

1. B and W - This game was different and innovative, and I think I said as much. But Molyneux was so focused on being different that I think he forgot to include a lasting element of fun. I feel critics played the game for 2 hours, were blown away by the mechanics and Molyneux's hype-train, and just wrote a 90+ review. Meanwhile, the innovative mechanics were interesting, but a lot more shallow than expected imo, and the game just became a little bit linear and boring after quite a short time.

2. Fable II - Certainly not a terrible game, and fun enough. But once again, not even coming close to touching the hype that Molyneux created - I expected to be blown away with innovation, what I got was a fairly depthless RPG without much new being brought to the table. Sure it was okay, but its certainly not deserving of its 90+ scores.

3. Empire: Total War - They may have worked this one out eventually, but in the beginning, and for the first few patches, it was a total crapfest, absolutely riddled with bugs. Nic said it best, I have no sympathy for games that are released unfinished. Games are reviewed upon release, and a game this broken does not deserve that kind of score.

4. GTA IV - This game, for a large, large amount of people, was pretty much unplayable on the PC. It was utter garbage, and that is evident just by doing a google search, or looking at that huge bug list posted in the article comments. It was completely broken, and lazy developers who port a game without bothering to even test it properly deserve a terrible score, not 9s and 10s.

5. MW2 - This I get it upset some people. This is by no means a terrible game, and the gameplay was good. I just don't think it was 90+ good. The campaign was REALLY short, the story was utterly preposterous, and the MP system, while kind of working out eventually, was just a product of Activision greed and was ultimately much less than it could have been. The game was neutered before release, and the single-player was fun, but not mind-blowing.

I try to be honest with my opinions, and the point of these kinds of articles isn't to be imflammatory, these are after all my honest opinions, its to propagate interesting discussion. And to that end, I think it has succeeded.

Thanks for reading

 

[Lycanthrope]

Oops, I've been making people mad again

Sorry I haven't responded, I'm on holiday, writing this to you from Thailand. I feel Lycan deserves a response though Thanks a lot Nic for defending me so well though, you've been bang-on

What I think some of you may not be getting, is that I'm simply saying the critics were WRONG about these games, i.e. they do not deserve metacritic scores in the 90s.

That does not mean they deserve below 50, it could simply mean they deserve a more modest 75. I'll try explain myself briefly, apologies if I'm just repeating myself though.

Yay!

Thailand? THAILAND? Envy, I have it.

Well, I have to still disagree :3

1. B and W - This game was different and innovative, and I think I said as much. But Molyneux was so focused on being different that I think he forgot to include a lasting element of fun. I feel critics played the game for 2 hours, were blown away by the mechanics and Molyneux's hype-train, and just wrote a 90+ review. Meanwhile, the innovative mechanics were interesting, but a lot more shallow than expected imo, and the game just became a little bit linear and boring after quite a short time.

I have to disagree with where you write that Molyneux forgot to include a lasting element of fun. As I said, it was a game I played and replayed countless times at its release. I loved my pet, I loved being good and I loved being evil. I loved the consciences and I loved that silly innocent atmosphere which is evident in all Lionhead games.

Just because you didn't find replayability in it, doesn't mean others didn't >.>

2. Fable II - Certainly not a terrible game, and fun enough. But once again, not even coming close to touching the hype that Molyneux created - I expected to be blown away with innovation, what I got was a fairly depthless RPG without much new being brought to the table. Sure it was okay, but its certainly not deserving of its 90+ scores.

Hmm... I haven't played it but even if all it did was just rehash much of the same as the original, I'd say it deserves its 90+ scores.

I'm starting to suspect that the only real problem so far is the hype train which is nothing more than a marketing scheme and sales pitch. It doesn't make a good game any less good.

4. GTA IV - This game, for a large, large amount of people, was pretty much unplayable on the PC. It was utter garbage, and that is evident just by doing a google search, or looking at that huge bug list posted in the article comments. It was completely broken, and lazy developers who port a game without bothering to even test it properly deserve a terrible score, not 9s and 10s.

Maybe I'm biased because I was one of those who never had a single problem with it (aside from DRM issues with SecuRom wetting itself over DaemonTools at the time). The game itself was great, it was enjoyable and a vast improvement (especially mechanically) on its originals. You could actually AIM your weapons instead of firing them at insane trajectories.

This is part of the reason why I posted the bit from GameSpot's player reviews: of 8,500-odd PLAYER votes, it averaged an 8.1. I think on Metacritic only about 800 people came along to vote it to an average of 6. Did many players have issues? Sure but the vast majority still felt it was worth an 8.1 rating.

In my opinion it may not have been a perfect game, perhaps not even a great game but it was good and it was enjoyable and I don't feel that critics were really "wrong" about it.

If I had a hundred issues with it then sure, maybe my feelings on it would've been different but I experienced the game as it was and I enjoyed it.

I try to be honest with my opinions, and the point of these kinds of articles isn't to be imflammatory, these are after all my honest opinions, its to propagate interesting discussion. And to that end, I think it has succeeded.

Thanks for reading

I appreciate an article that gives me something to go off on a rant about but I'd prefer something provocative rather than inflammatory :3 Although, I think what got me was Tinman's use of the word "Rubbish" in the thread title :x

 

[Azimuth]

Mine would include Gears of War, Unreal, Quake, Dragon Age, Half Life and many, many more.

FUCK OFF AND DIE, RANTRANTRANT.

:<

Also, I totally disagree with most of Chris's article. I also totally disagree with most of the posts in this thread.

^5 for the inflammatory stuff, Chris! I get it. ^__________________^

PS. Modern Warfare 2's Spec Ops was all kinds of awesome.