I agree with Halo and Call of Duty. But I've never enjoyed Halo games that much and CoD has just been sequeled to death. I think the AC games get a pass, because although there is a lot of them in a short period of time, there is nothing else quite like them, so they're unique in that respect. Where as Halo and CoD are FPS's, the most common genre of the current generation.
@ERoBB: Interesting read, though there are a few I would add.
#1 GTA.
Really? GTA would probably be one my examples of how to do it right. They only release a game every few years, and it's always a significant leap forward.
Ya but it is always the same game you drive you shoot stuff you brake the game been there done that.
@ERoBB: Interesting read, though there are a few I would add.
#1 GTA.
Really? GTA would probably be one my examples of how to do it right. They only release a game every few years, and it's always a significant leap forward.
Ya but it is always the same game you drive you shoot stuff you brake the game been there done that.
but driving and shooting and breaking stuff is so damn fun! I never get tired of the GTA games, although GTA IV lost a little bit of the fun factor of San Andreas and Vice City.
@ERoBB: Interesting read, though there are a few I would add.
#1 GTA.
Really? GTA would probably be one my examples of how to do it right. They only release a game every few years, and it's always a significant leap forward.
Ya but it is always the same game you drive you shoot stuff you brake the game been there done that.
but driving and shooting and breaking stuff is so damn fun! I never get tired of the GTA games, although GTA IV lost a little bit of the fun factor of San Andreas and Vice City.
True it is fun but it is always that same stuff and I find my self being more interested in that stuff when it is a bit more out there like WW2 France, Mars, or even the world of Saint's Row.
@ERoBB: I respectfully disagree with your most of your picks as to what is overrated. With the exception of perhaps Assassin's Creed III (and even then the argument can be made), all of the series you mentioned have garnered a lot of cynicism because of how iterative the games in those franchise have been. The mention of story in Halo was also a rather weak point as the core of that series has been more focused on gameplay.
I think that franchises that may actually be overrated (or at least merit some discussion about the possibility of being overrated) are: Legend of Zelda, Mass Effect, Metroid, Kingdom Hearts, and Shin Megami Tensei. Granted I like all of the series I listed but aside from single games within those series, but looking at those franchises as a whole may make for a more interesting discussion.
God of War is totally overrated, I don't understand how there are so many of them when each one is the same.
I hope this statement was meant to be ironic. Because really, can't the same be said for any franchise based around iteration? I mean, that's basically the gist of the original post and the reason that people tire of stuff like this is that all of these franchises are inevitably handed off to B-teams and as a result we get handed mediocrity in-between the installments where the real effort is made. Thus, I wouldn't call them so much overrated as overexposed. Having skipped Brotherhood and Revelations, I have no qualms about purchasing ACIII. And then, of course, we get to the question "Should developers release a new installment every year?" and the answer is "Of course not". But of course, they make money and that is truly, truly all that matters.
Metal Gear Solid (Good but not the God-send some people believe).
GTA (They were damn near unplayable for me until 4).
Resident Evil (Also good but not great. They are more a product of good timing).
Castlevania (I don't understand the people who flock to these games. The NES games were very good. So were the 16-bit games. And Symphony of the Night. I even kind of like the N64 game. But they aren't great and/or they are reminiscent of other great games (specifically Symphony of the Night)).
NOTE: I like several of the games in the franchises I mentioned. I just think they received too high of praise for what they are.
Not using sights isn't archaic, it's a deliberate gameplay design. I really don't see how you can blame Bungie for not completely interrupting the flow of their series. I mean, Halo is a series where you do floaty jumps 10 feet into the air while firing two submachine guns at space gorillas wearing jetpacks. Iron sights don't fit into that equation. And the Halo rings were established as the Convenant religion in like, the first scene of Halo 2.
It's 1 am, and I haven't even played God of War so nothing to say there.
@ArbitraryWater: I was being 100% honest, fuck God of War.
I don't really care about God of War either way, and you undoubtedly have legitimate reasons to think that way, but I was more taking issue with knocking a franchise for having a ton of installments when that's not really the problem. I mean, how would you respond if someone said "Rare's 3D Platformers are all totally overrated. I don't understand how there are so many of them when each is the same"? (Ok. So there were 4. But there were 4 in 4 years and all but Conker focused heavily on collecting meaningless junk. You get my intent)
Some of my favorite games are sequels that are ostensibly slightly improved versions of previous titles (like Banjo Tooie for example) and I think the real problem is when the quality becomes inconsistent. Now if you had said "Man, I think God of War kinda sucks because you can mash your way through the entire game with only a few combos and also Kratos is the most unlikeable dick ever", we wouldn't be having this conversation. I apologize for singling you out in particular, because this is really a response to the original post as well.
@Fozimuth: The lack of iron sights in Halo is just a personal bug of mine. Ever since Call of Duty 4 hit, I just need that in a first person shooter. Everything else seems wrong. Demon's/Dark Souls did the same to me with a lock on in third person action. Playing Kingdoms of Amalur and Dragon's Dogma just felt backwards in comparison.
@ArbitraryWater: Because there not though, each features different characters, different settings, different gameplay mechanics and different gameplay mechanics.
Where as if you showed me a picture of each of the God of War games I could not tell which is which. Each of them is just set in generic hell Rome/Greece.
Oh and just to clarify.
Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts. Donkey Kong 64, Conkers Bad Fur Day. Each of the three series is completely different.
Also, Banjo-Kazooie, DK64 and Banjo-Tooie are all quite similar, at least as far as a lot of gameplay tropes are concerned. Yes, obviously God of War has more similarity between titles and is more exploited, but I figured I'd go for the (proverbial) balls there. Eh. It's all cool.
Also, Banjo-Kazooie, DK64 and Banjo-Tooie are all quite similar, at least as far as a lot of gameplay tropes are concerned. Yes, obviously God of War has more similarity between titles and is more exploited, but I figured I'd go for the (proverbial) balls there. Eh. It's all cool.
I disagree, Banjo-Kazooie, is go to a level, beat it and move on to the next. Banjo-Tooie is all about levels mixing into each other and there is loads of backtracking. Donkey Kong 64 has this weird character mechanic, but to be honest I didn't play that so can't say to much.
@Hizang: There is jumping and puzzle solving and butt stomping. Obviously, they are more nuanced and different from each other from that, but they are the same genre done in a similar style. But whatever. Don't want to hijack this thread. You are entitled to your opinions, I still think all of those games are pretty great, etc, etc.
Angry Birds - Angry Birds has completely gone out of proportion in terms of merchandising and media coverage. I don't understand why people are so stoked about it. For me, it's just a mediocre game. Fun for awhile and then it gets old.
Halo - The series should've ended in part 3. That should keep all the fanboys from bitching about it every single day.
Call of Duty - War games is getting old. Please come up with a different something, Activision, you money grabbing son of a bitch.
Mass Effect - I'm getting tired hearing people talking about this series. Change the subject, people!
Assassin's Creed and Assassin's Creed II were fine games with okay mechanics, a fun open world to traverse, and they looked great. They were also tedious, overlong, full of filler, had convoluted and poorly told stories, and hit or miss modern day sequences.
The episodic sequels continued the story of Assassin's Creed II. Perhaps unnecessarily so. Concepts brought into the episodes was hit or miss. The games had an exciting cat and mouse multiplayer mode, but shockingly dull vehicle sequences, quick time events, and even tower defense for some reason. After the content dump that occurred, they began teasing that Assassin's Creed III was finally a real, full sequel made by the A Team at Ubisoft Entertainment. Which is a retroactive way of admitting Assassin's Creed: Revelations and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood were less than spectacular, but hey buy this one because it's going to be what you thought those games would be.
So the Assassin's Creed games are the only ones on your list I've played. a) I found Assassin's Creed dragged on too long, but I thought Assassin's Creed II was terrific fun, had much better controls & generally flew by. And Brotherhood introduced enough to the series to justify its existence & was also just plenty fun to play. Revelations probably drew things out too much though so I'll give you that much.
@Fozimuth: The lack of iron sights in Halo is just a personal bug of mine. Ever since Call of Duty 4 hit, I just need that in a first person shooter. Everything else seems wrong. Demon's/Dark Souls did the same to me with a lock on in third person action. Playing Kingdoms of Amalur and Dragon's Dogma just felt backwards in comparison.
This it just feels so slow, without sprint aswell. It's why I never play MP in those games, love the campaigns though getting though Halo Reach on Legendary single player was a infuriating blast!
when we talk about being overrated. who's opinion is it that we are saying is overrating them. is it the fans that love and enjoy the franchises and we as cynical forum dwellers need to slap there faces with the truth. or is it the game reviews who have reviewed these games.
or is this just arbitrary really and were just entering 4 franchises we like to hate on.
@ERoBB: I disagree with points 3 and 4. Halo has had a nice hiatus and a total paradigm shift in production. And to say that Brotherhood didn't add anything interesting to the AC franchise is just...well, wrong.
I noted the things Brotherhood and Revelations "added", but adding content, some of which is good, some of which is gimmicky is something expansion packs do. And if we're willing to call those games expansion packs for ACII, I'm all for it. But as full releases, those have to be viewed as pretty disappointing. Listening to most podcasts, even the Giantbombcast, guys talk about abandoning the series altogether until ACIII, just because these games were getting pumped out too fast. That's surely a negative quality.
That's totally fair. Michael Pachter disagrees with him, and agrees with me. Maybe if Brotherhood hadn't come out as one of seven Assassin's Creed games in less than five years, I'd have liked it more. But I just got so burnt out.
On it's own yeah that's Ryan's opinion however. The problem here as pointed out using the highlight up there, you state falsely, that the Bombcrew agreed with you while Ryan gave Brotherhood a whopping 5 stars and Revelations 4. Just kind of makes your points less valid when you don't check your cited sources.
On it's own yeah that's Ryan's opinion however. The problem here as pointed out using the highlight up there, you state falsely, that the Bombcrew agreed with you while Ryan gave Brotherhood a whopping 5 stars and Revelations 4. Just kind of makes your points less valid when you don't check your cited sources.
I didn't say they agreed with me, I said they talked about the oversaturation. Ryan and Jeff like the series as is, Michael and one other host, I think Brad, skipped those two sequels altogether and have lost interest.
I never understood the mentality of "Overrated." If people want to play a fucking game and it's popular, stop acting like a hipster and trying to bring it down. The same goes for "underrarted" games. There is no such thing. If the game was rated poorly because people deemed it so, than they deemed it so.
I never understood the mentality of "Overrated." If people want to play a fucking game and it's popular, stop acting like a hipster and trying to bring it down. The same goes for "underrarted" games. There is no such thing. If the game was rated poorly because people deemed it so, than they deemed it so.
Totally disagree. What something's "rating" is, is up for discussion, but these words do have meanings. And as to the last thing, games can be underrated for all kinds of reasons.
On it's own yeah that's Ryan's opinion however. The problem here as pointed out using the highlight up there, you state falsely, that the Bombcrew agreed with you while Ryan gave Brotherhood a whopping 5 stars and Revelations 4. Just kind of makes your points less valid when you don't check your cited sources.
I didn't say they agreed with me, I said they talked about the oversaturation. Ryan and Jeff like the series as is, Michael and one other host, I think Brad, skipped those two sequels altogether and have lost interest.
Patcher is a guest that's only been on a few bombcasts so doesn't really qualify as a host, Brad on the other hand has recently been catching up on playing through the series and has been meaning to play Brotherhood after taking a break after he beat 2. They may have had a conversation in which Ryan said Revelations wasn't necessary, which I'd agree with having never bothered to play it, but he wholeheartedly implores that people should play Brotherhood.
I agree the model of release for the games had made it stagnant, making me not buy Revelations, however Brotherhood was a significant leap. And 3 looks to be continuing that by adding a lot more substantial content, story-wise and mechanics.
I never understood the mentality of "Overrated." If people want to play a fucking game and it's popular, stop acting like a hipster and trying to bring it down. The same goes for "underrarted" games. There is no such thing. If the game was rated poorly because people deemed it so, than they deemed it so.
Totally disagree. What something's "rating" is, is up for discussion, but these words do have meanings. And as to the last thing, games can be underrated for all kinds of reasons.
Patcher is a guest that's only been on a few bombcasts so doesn't really qualify as a host, Brad on the other hand has recently been catching up on playing through the series and has been meaning to play Brotherhood after taking a break after he beat 2. They may have had a conversation in which Ryan said Revelations wasn't necessary, which I'd agree with having never bothered to play it, but he wholeheartedly implores that people should play Brotherhood.
I agree the model of release for the games had made it stagnant, making me not buy Revelations, however Brotherhood was a significant leap. And 3 looks to be continuing that by adding a lot more substantial content, story-wise and mechanics.
I think it's odd I have to clarify and be clarified so many times as to the gaming habits of of the reviewers. I'm just referring to a specific discussion on the Giantbombcast.
I never understood the mentality of "Overrated." If people want to play a fucking game and it's popular, stop acting like a hipster and trying to bring it down. The same goes for "underrarted" games. There is no such thing. If the game was rated poorly because people deemed it so, than they deemed it so.
Totally disagree. What something's "rating" is, is up for discussion, but these words do have meanings. And as to the last thing, games can be underrated for all kinds of reasons.
where are you getting this 'rating' from though
Like I said, that's definitely a vague, more baseless concept. But in terms of my own perceptions, I feel as though these four franchises tend to be high on pedestals, when I think most of the entries in the franchises don't really warrant it. I don't think my opinions deserve any more merit than anyone else, though.
I do think it's pretty funny/odd that so many have taken to trying to define the meanings of the words overrated, underrated, opinion, subjective. I'm pretty sure those definitions have decidedly agreed upon meanings.
when we talk about being overrated. who's opinion is it that we are saying is overrating them. is it the fans that love and enjoy the franchises and we as cynical forum dwellers need to slap there faces with the truth. or is it the game reviews who have reviewed these games.
or is this just arbitrary really and were just entering 4 franchises we like to hate on.
The latter. There's nothing more nebulous than the 'overrated' argument. It pretty much boils down to venting about games that are, in your opinion, adored by far too many people.
Log in to comment