| 8 AUG 2011 at 11:27am |
FnordSchattenjger
Posts : 2758
Joined: 15 SEP 2008
Location: SE, Stockholm
Status : Offline | Culpa Innata is one that I think got far too high score on almost every site. Only IGN seem to have disliked it, but there were several people here who voiced their opinions against the game.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 12:01pm |
OrmworIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 24
Joined: 4 AUG 2011
Status : Offline | Fnord, you're not right. Culpa Innata got 69% on average: http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/930765-culpa-innata/index.html
To my mind the most underrated games are as follows:
(ratings by GameRankings.com; my grade is straight A's or 90-95%)
Another World (Out of this World) - 73% (15th Anniversary Edition)
American McGee's Alice - 82%
Full Throttle - 79%
Hitman: Codename 47 - 73%
Perimeter - 77%
Soldiers: Heroes of World War II - 78%
Sudden Strike - 76%
Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat - 54%
Possible reasons: they were poorly marketed, or they were developed and/or published by little-known companies, or they were too different from mainstream games, or they were too arduous for an average player/reviewer.
The most overrated: Dune II and its clones (C&C, WarCraft, StarCraft etc), Wolfenstein 3D and its clones (Dooms, Quakes, Half-Life, Call of Duty etc), Diablo series, Left 4 Dead, GTA4, Black & White etc.
Possible reasons: they were professionally marketed, or they were released in the right moment (e. g. Call of Duty was released after Medal of Honor and in the middle of WWII craze in videogaming industry), or they were simple for an average player/reviewer but not too simple, or they had professional multiplayer support, or they had state-of-the-art visuals.
I like some of them (Diablo, Quakes, HL 1-2) but I don't think they are the best games of all time as they are called by many. They are repetetive and they are simply not what reviewers see them being blinded by marketing campaigns.
General Note: I'm Russian and my English is not good. If you think that I'm rude, it's just wrong selected translation of what I politely mean.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 12:24pm |
FnordSchattenjger
Posts : 2758
Joined: 15 SEP 2008
Location: SE, Stockholm
Status : Offline | For an adventure game, that is very high in the mainstream media. On most sites focusing on adventure games, it got really good reviews.
I can understand the score for Hitman & Warhammer: Shadow of the horned rat. While I like those games, Hitman 1 was buggy and some levels did not feel properly tested (many of hitmans issues were fixed in part 2). And shadow of the horned rat was just so incredibly unforgiving, resulting in most people simply not enjoying the game.
Also, if we are talking about non-adventure games, then there are two that really stands out in my mind as overrated:
Donkey Kong country. This game got a perfect score of 100 in the local gaming press, and a score of 99 in challenge (which really meant lasting appeal in this particular magazine). Well, the game was relatively short and very easy. Graphics was of course good for its time, and most things in it worked, but considering the perfect score it got, it was rather disappointing.
Black & White. It got a 96 in Swedish PC-gamer, a score that only 2 other games had managed to get at that point (Half-Life & Outcast. Neither of which I think deserved it (and don't get me wrong, I really like Outcast, but the game was buggy and not always well paced)). Black & White was a frustrating mess. Taking care of the animal was fun, but sadly its AI was too limited to really work as it should (you could teach your animal something, but it would forget it as soon as it got something else to do, all you really did was impact a few behind the scenes sliders), and worst of all, you ended up not even having your pet in a relatively large portion of the game.
I also think that Ocarina of time, Secret of mana & Final fantasy 7 are overrated (not bad, just not as good as they are given credit for, well actually I think that Secret of mana is bad), but I'll save that for another day. Oh, and I do actually believe that I know why these games (sans secret of mana) became so popular when they were first released.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 1:37pm |
OrmworIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 24
Joined: 4 AUG 2011
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Fnord (8 AUG 2011 12:23pm)
For an adventure game, that is very high in the mainstream media.
No, it's not: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=pc&cat=50&year=0&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=
Originally Posted By Fnord (8 AUG 2011 12:23pm)
On most sites focusing on adventure games, it got really good reviews.
No, it didn't:
Adventure Classic Gaming - 3/5
Adventure Gamers - 3.5/5
Originally Posted By Fnord (8 AUG 2011 12:23pm)
Hitman 1 was buggy and some levels did not feel properly tested (many of hitmans issues were fixed in part 2).
Unfortunately, the number of bugs (I didn't notice any - maybe I played patched version) in the game is perceived by many reviewers as a criterion. This is one of the reasons that may undervalue a good game. This is ridiculous. Nowadays almost all games have bugs, so what? In my opinion, bugs are the technical side of a game which is easily fixed with patches. With regard to the levels in Hitman: Codename 47, I do not see anything strange in them. In my opinion, Hitman 1 has perfectly made [ch8203][ch8203]levels that encourage the search for different solutions and allow to perform the task in different ways. In my opinion, Hitman 2 lost everything that made the first part of the game shine with greatness.
Secondly, I don't think the level of complexity is a good criterion too. Almost all game reviewers are average-player-oriented. This is ridiculous too. Let us attack Beethoven then just because his music is more complicated that one of Lady Gaga!
General Note: I'm Russian and my English is not good. If you think that I'm rude, it's just wrong selected translation of what I politely mean.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 1:59pm |
markornikovJourneyman
.jpg)
Posts : 1312
Joined: 28 OCT 2011
Location: BE, Antwerp
Status : Offline | Most Myst games got poor reviews (JA not included)
Like this Myst III review, which is completely inaccurate :
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/373/373235p1.html
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 2:05pm |
walshSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 384
Joined: 15 DEC 2010
Status : Offline | Al Emmo got an A from JA and did well elsewhere, thought it was mostly rubbish. It was compared to Freddy Pharkas which I thought was inaccurate.
The Tales of Monkey Island games were praised way too highly I thought, I didn't think they were nearly as good as the previous games. I think they overlooked that all the previous games had their own unique feel, while Tales borrowed from each game and thus felt bland.
The Carol Reed games always get average to negative reviews, and while they're certainly not masterpieces, they're not meant to be either. The thing I never see in the reviews is a mention of how unique of a game it is, that you can't get anywhere else.
Callahan's Crosstime Saloon got a C from Ray Ivey, something I didn't understand. Thought it was brilliant.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 2:22pm |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | Like this Myst III review, which is completely inaccurate
Wow! I missed that one. That is one of the most ridiculous reviews I have ever read Myst Exile: a '1' (out of 10) for gameplay. Amazing. Goes to show that some reviewers do not care about truth, common taste or genre at all.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 2:38pm |
FnordSchattenjger
Posts : 2758
Joined: 15 SEP 2008
Location: SE, Stockholm
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Ormwor (8 AUG 2011 1:36pm)
Originally Posted By Fnord (8 AUG 2011 12:23pm)
For an adventure game, that is very high in the mainstream media.
No, it's not: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=pc&cat=50&year=0&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=
Originally Posted By Fnord (8 AUG 2011 12:23pm)
On most sites focusing on adventure games, it got really good reviews.
No, it didn't:
Adventure Classic Gaming - 3/5
Adventure Gamers - 3.5/5
Originally Posted By Fnord (8 AUG 2011 12:23pm)
Hitman 1 was buggy and some levels did not feel properly tested (many of hitmans issues were fixed in part 2).
Unfortunately, the number of bugs (I didn't notice any - maybe I played patched version) in the game is perceived by many reviewers as a criterion. This is one of the reasons that may undervalue a good game. This is ridiculous. Nowadays almost all games have bugs, so what? In my opinion, bugs are the technical side of a game which is easily fixed with patches. With regard to the levels in Hitman: Codename 47, I do not see anything strange in them. In my opinion, Hitman 1 has perfectly made [ch8203][ch8203]levels that encourage the search for different solutions and allow to perform the task in different ways. In my opinion, Hitman 2 lost everything that made the first part of the game shine with greatness.
Secondly, I don't think the level of complexity is a good criterion too. Almost all game reviewers are average-player-oriented. This is ridiculous too. Let us attack Beethoven then just because his music is more complicated that one of Lady Gaga!
Most (though not all) of the good reviews are from <2001. The recent episodic games & Lucas arts remakes seem to have fared well in the mainstream media. If we ignore remakes of older games, and the episodic games (we should probably treat each season as a single game, but I'm too lazy to count up the scores and do an average at the moment), there are only 3 adventure games in the 85+ category reviewed after 2000. Even one of the most beloved AGs of all time, Syberia, got 82˝, and while that is a good score, it is not a great score.
My information regarding Culpa Innatas review score seem to be outdated though. When I checked how well it had done (before committing to a purchase), its average was considerably higher.
Games have always had bugs, even NES games often had serious bugs. Hitman 47 was released in a rather dire state though, and that version that reviewers got their hands on. And even during my playthrough (which was with the fully patched version, I gave up on the game when it was in its initial state) I found bugs. I had texture glitches, AI that got stuck in silly things, NPCs walking on thin air, and corpses that began to fly (don't try to drop a corpse down some stairs, it can cause some hilarious bugs). Also, it had a rather inconsistent level of difficulty.
Most review sites are average gamer oriented because that is the largest audience. If you want more specialized reviews, then you need to visit more specialized sites. One of my all time favourite strategy games, Victoria an empire under the sun, got an average score of 6, but people who enjoy that type of games knows that they have more of a niche appeal, and can not be properly reviewed by sites targeting a large audience. Ideally games should be reviewed by two persons, one who really enjoy the genre, and one more "average" gamer, so that you can get a good idea about how well the game suits both people who love the genre, and the more average gamer, but that would probably cost too much to really be a viable option.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 2:39pm |
OrmworIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 24
Joined: 4 AUG 2011
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By markornikov (8 AUG 2011 1:59pm)
Like this Myst III review, which is completely inaccurate :
It seems on large sites like IGN or GameSpot and in large magazines all games are reviewed by action addicts. A person who reviews an adventure game has to know about adventure gaming and love it.
General Note: I'm Russian and my English is not good. If you think that I'm rude, it's just wrong selected translation of what I politely mean.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 3:25pm |
tincup2Journeyman
Posts : 831
Joined: 8 MAR 2011
Location: US, NYC
Status : Offline | Though there are probably very few racing sim fans on this site, reviewers seriously over-rated CART Precision Racing [1997]. CPR was an ambitious Microsoft simulation of the premiere US open wheel championship and was seriously lauded by the press with Computer Game World even awarding it "Simulation of the Year". Yet, it was virtually undrivable, even with a powerfull rig and decent controller, making me very suspicious whether any reviewer gave it more than a cursory look at all.
So while it made a big splash in the press it generated little fan interest. The only patch released didn't correct the serious drivability issue and the game was soon forgotten. I don't think it was bugs that sank this game, but overall poorly designed technical implementations.
It's still the game that pops to mind when "over-rated" comes up.
|
| 8 AUG 2011 at 10:43pm |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5540
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | The Moment of Silence seems to be universally loved in the adventure gaming community, but most of its advertised charms were lost on me. I quote from my summary back when I played it:
"Highly overrated. Navigation was slow even after making the character run, and finding exits was often confusing in large, open areas.
It also breaks one of the basic rules of gaming. If the player character knows something relevant to the game, the player should know it also.
I did appreciate the very topical story, but even that is undermined by the English translation. It's not a terrible translation by any means, but it does feel a little awkward, often too formal for the setting. And there are a number of slip-ups with American English, like "WC" for a bathroom and "yoghurt"."
|
| 9 AUG 2011 at 6:17am |
OrmworIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 24
Joined: 4 AUG 2011
Status : Offline | Fnord,
Yes, that's right. And I think "average player" is someone who doesn't exist. When a reviewer tries to appeal to everyone, it's an appeal to noone. Yes, the majority of players are those who like Call of Duty or Command & Conquer more than AGs. But I don't think that this fact allows reviewers to judge AGs from action perspective. So I think there's no need for two reviewers. :-)
It was ridiculous when GameSpot reviewer gave The Neverhood 4.9/10. That reviewer's favourite game franchise was C&C...
Yes, Hitman: Codename 47 was difficult like hell. And had no opportunity to save during mission. And AI behaved sometimes strange - no one could predict when they start shooting at you. But that's the point - this is an adventure game and must be judged as an adventure. It took a lot of time to realise all the ways to complete the task and choose the best way but then the game became very easy. Now I do almost every mission with the single attempt. And developers really worked hard to make environments rewarding for real adventurers, I must appreciate this.
But you see, almost every game has haters and fans. So, is there need for ratings? Sometimes reading critical review I realize that I'd love that game, than I play it and, yes, I love it.
General Note: I'm Russian and my English is not good. If you think that I'm rude, it's just wrong selected translation of what I politely mean.
|
| 9 AUG 2011 at 7:52am |
walshSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 384
Joined: 15 DEC 2010
Status : Offline | What do you disagree with in that Neverhood review besides the 4.9? Because in the context of the review, which praises many aspects of the game, to see a score of 6 or 7 attached to it would not have seemed unusual to me. I agree with a lot of his points, and probably would have been even harder on the game in the text of the review, although I might not have given it a score as low as 4.9.
|
| 9 AUG 2011 at 9:39am |
OrmworIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 24
Joined: 4 AUG 2011
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By walsh (9 AUG 2011 7:52am)
What do you disagree with in that Neverhood review besides the 4.9? Because in the context of the review, which praises many aspects of the game, to see a score of 6 or 7 attached to it would not have seemed unusual to me. I agree with a lot of his points, and probably would have been even harder on the game in the text of the review, although I might not have given it a score as low as 4.9.
There are many things I disagree with.
1. "Clues are so abstract they will lead you to despair." The Neverhood is pretty easy AG. Myst or Day of the Tentacle have a lot more abstract clues.
2. "Remembering what you have encountered and how it may be relevant to your current situation or problem becomes a dumbfounding enterprise - in part because once you pick up an item and add it to your inventory, there's no way to see it to reconsider its use - or anything else you are carrying - again." I repeat: The Neverhood is pretty easy and the absence of inventory makes it even easier, because I don't need to think what fits what. I don't need to combine items or search an item inside another item. If Mr. Hutsko is so absent-minded, he could use his pen and piece of paper. It's not Doom after all. There's nothing unusual in using pen & paper while playing AGs.
3. "Trial and error is one thing, but to make, for instance, the assumption that players will spontaneously relate a beam of light and a series of floating crystals to “the colors in the spectrum of visible light that you learned back in high school” is just plain unfair." Well, I think it was the first AG Mr. Hutsko played. Also there's a clue right beside this puzzle.
4. "The Neverhood would have benefited from a tighter, more attainable script." The script of The Neverhood is the world itself. Once more there's nothing unusual in it since Myst. (Besides, I think The Neverhood is one of the greatest experiments with narrative structure in the history of videogaming.)
In the early years of GameSpot their rating system was different from what it is today. 4.9 as of 1996 means something like 6.9 as of today.
General Note: I'm Russian and my English is not good. If you think that I'm rude, it's just wrong selected translation of what I politely mean.
|
| 9 AUG 2011 at 11:26am |
walshSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 384
Joined: 15 DEC 2010
Status : Offline | (Besides, I think The Neverhood is one of the greatest experiments with narrative structure in the history of videogaming.)
I think my main problem is I didn't find any narrative structure in it, worse than Myst even. Then again, I gave up on it after it inexplicably went into first-person mode.
|
| 9 AUG 2011 at 7:21pm |
tincup2Journeyman
Posts : 831
Joined: 8 MAR 2011
Location: US, NYC
Status : Offline | The Neverhood will never really be over-rated since there were never enough people that fell for it in the first place - but for those that did, well it's simply a fabulous and unique game. Narative structure....? It was was a ton more art school degree project than a Master's lit-crit thesis lol! The Clayman rocks...
|
| 9 AUG 2011 at 8:23pm |
OrmworIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 24
Joined: 4 AUG 2011
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By mgonneau (9 AUG 2011 7:21pm)
The Neverhood will never really be over-rated since there were never enough people that fell for it in the first place - but for those that did, well it's simply a fabulous and unique game. Narative structure....? It was was a ton more art school degree project than a Master's lit-crit thesis lol! The Clayman rocks...
Narrative structure can consist of graphics and/or interactive gaming action and of no words. Or, maybe, I've chosen the wrong words.
General Note: I'm Russian and my English is not good. If you think that I'm rude, it's just wrong selected translation of what I politely mean.
|
| 10 AUG 2011 at 7:44am |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | Culpa Innata is one that I think got far too high score on almost every site.
Oh, I defenitely agree! According to JA+ it was supposed to be the high point of adventure gaming up to now, while in fact it looked already outdated at the very day of release, and was boring and tedious to play. I still have no clue as to how that came about, since I agree with the majority of JA+ reviews. This review however was so far off the mark, that I just can't explain it.
|
