thelastword
Banned
They will be underrated when they hit PC....
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The most overrated game of the Generation
- Thread starter .Pennywise
- Start date
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I can't agree to disagree if you argue with things I never even said, then I need to clarify. I don't prefer the Sequel trilogy to the prequels, the only Star Wars film I might actually hate is Rise of Skywalker, which is part of the Sequel trilogy. The prequels are fantastic, especially Revenge of the Sith. I don't think The Force Awakens actually sets up many promising plot points at all, it feels like the usual JJ Abrams mystery boxes that go nowhere, because as he, himself admitted in interviews his mystery boxes are better left unsolved. I thought the flow was fine with TLJ because it expanded on the flawed setups of TFA and gave them more meaning than they had otherwise. Some things it did away with entirely but in a way that was entertaining, one of the biggest fist pump in the air moments for me was Kylo killing Snoke off.
If you think one of the big issues with RoS is lightspeed skipping then yeah, agree to disagree we shall... because that movie is trash but holy crap imagine caring about something as silly as that. Not even sure what this usurper point means but the Palpatine stuff was pretty retarded. Yeah, it's a bad movie, made by the guy you claimed had great setups in TFA.
If Natalie Portman wasn't a terrible actress most complaints about stilted dialogue die. Nah, Attack of the Clones is a much better film than TFA. Yeah, I agree with you on Revenge of the Sith.
It was a send-off, that's not debatable. "Desecrated" - talking about him like he's some holy figure is part of the problem. What does it mean that TLOU II desecrates Joel's character? Like WTF??? No, they don't, and I doubt you understood either character very well if you believe this. It doesn't, plain and simple. I'd ask what makes these deaths cheap but something tells me it's just that you liked the character or some other such bs. That said, TWD handled that stuff much better in the comic. Poor taste? WTF is this shit? Glen in the comic wasn't evil lol, also no one MERITS a brutal death like that, the show isn't telling you it's deserved, it's meant to be a horrifying sequence. This weird ass crap where people think morality should decide who dies and who lives and how in their fiction is barf-inducing, if you want to play in the children's playground stick to media that's more fitting.
"Contrives him" What the actual fuck, who taught you media literacy, Cinema Sins? The plot of the game IS the plot of the game because Joel runs into Abby that way, you change that the entire plot changes. The mark of a poorly-written or contrived plot is not how events begin but how they're brought to a conclusion once all the pieces are set up. By denying an author the ability to use any sort of coincidence to even SET UP their plots and pieces on their chess board is to make them create something with both hands tied behind their back. The truth is most plots you enjoy are borne from coincidence and happenstance but because they go where you want them to you never think about it. The game in no way is trying to make Abby seem morally righteous to kill Joel, it DOES want us to understand WHY she did it. It is not justifying her actions however. Ellie isn't out of character, in fact, she's reacting the same way the majority of the fan base did when they saw what happened to Joel, they even have her not hear everything being said in the scene to simulate the sort of tunnel vision people like you enter when someone you care about is brutalized like that. By the end of the game both of them realize what that level of hate does to a person. But again, I seriously think adult fiction isn't your speed.
trikster40
Member
East choice for me: absolutely could not get into BotW.
Garnox
Member
I voted for the game that had the least votes at the time, so what do I know.
It was Monster World. I bit for the hype surrounding it, friends were tired of Destiny and wanted me to jump ship to play with them.
Bought it brand new, played it about two weeks with them until they abandoned it and I didn't like it enough to keep playing by myself. Waste of time and money IMHO.
I'm not bitter. Nosiree.
It was Monster World. I bit for the hype surrounding it, friends were tired of Destiny and wanted me to jump ship to play with them.
Bought it brand new, played it about two weeks with them until they abandoned it and I didn't like it enough to keep playing by myself. Waste of time and money IMHO.
I'm not bitter. Nosiree.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
I see a lot of games there I didn’t know anybody consider as games of the generation. MGSV?
Roronoa Zoro
Gold Member
I agree with the top 5 here. Animal crossing and BOTW are my tops but TLOU2 and Witcher 3 are pretty much on par with those and red dead was downright frustrating to play many times and the shooting mechanics are so bad
Roronoa Zoro
Gold Member
What is the pattern?
diffusionx
Gold Member
Except the gameplay isn’t that great.
01011001
Banned
it sill had way too much "CINEMATIC" bullshit for my tastes, and the fighting system was meh at best.
was it overrated? absolutely, but far from the most overrated game on this list.
blizzardsounds
Neo Member
No Man’s Sky
cartman414
Member
Still, it didn't get a fraction of the award hype of Witcher 3 or Horizon: Zero Dawn for instance.
Hero_Select
Member
TLOU2 and RDR2 for me. I own both and ... eh.
Handel
Member
TLOU1 was the most overrated game of it's gen, and it's sequel is following in it's footsteps. Just embarrassing how much people act like these games are some landmark in game storytelling. High production values are nice, but they don't compare to actual great game storytelling which mainly comes in the form of gameplay-story integration. Brothers : A Tale of Two Sons with a tiny fraction of their budget does it better.
IfuckinghateReddit
Banned
TLOU 2 isn't overrated because it's so divisive. Breath of the Wild was wildly praised - and is overrated.
Hestar69
Member
FORTNITE (it should be on the list)
I've been playing since day 1 when you had to buy the game to play the BR mode and it has been downhill since season 3ish IMO. How this is the most popular game in the world baffles me.
If only PUBG has developers who weren't complete garbage that game might still be popular
On that list zelda:BOTW I love the game,but it is VERY flawed and not a 10/10 like some say. TLou2 is a 10/10 though ;P.
I've been playing since day 1 when you had to buy the game to play the BR mode and it has been downhill since season 3ish IMO. How this is the most popular game in the world baffles me.
If only PUBG has developers who weren't complete garbage that game might still be popular
On that list zelda:BOTW I love the game,but it is VERY flawed and not a 10/10 like some say. TLou2 is a 10/10 though ;P.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
And this is one of the biggest problems with TLJ. By killing Snoke off (which again was just one of the many things that movie did to "subvert expectations"), it left a void for a central villain to glue the trilogy together. That's why they had to bring Palpatine's wrinkled ass back from the proverbial void, more or less undoing Darth Vader's sacrifice in Empire Strikes Back. Considering Darth Vader/Anakin is the one Skywalker with the deepest connection to Palpatine and the most blood on his hands due in massive part to Palpatine manipulating him for his power, it only made sense for Darth Vader to be the one to end him. Palpatine's supposed return in RoS more or less ruins all of that.
It might be silly to you but for other, diehard/hardcore fans it might mean a lot. Consistency in these sort of things adds a TON to world-building and setting standards in fictional worlds that are reliable constants for all characters and events to be checked against. And that both helps characterization and whatever plot uses those sort of constants.
Again, you may not understand it but there are diehards who do. And more often than not, the creators of the universes these stories are set in care about it, too. Clearly defined, consistent mechanics and systems, no matter how microscopic you think they are, always play some major role in giving a work structure.
Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day :S
I doubt it. Mainly because kid Anakin was actually quite bad in his delivery well and beyond anyone else. I also think Jar Jar Binks (particularly in the 1st of the prequels) being such a contrast to the dialect and demeanor of other characters in the films might've caused a magnified focus by viewers to see the dialog in a way they otherwise wouldn't have. But that's somewhat a different can of worms (FWIW Jar Jar never really irritated me, and he's tamed down in the last two films of the prequels while serving a more critical role insofar as supporting cast is concerned).
Usually "send-off" refers to an exit for a character the majority of fans actually like or at least respect. That simply isn't the case with Luke in the Disney sequel trilogy.
It's to do more with what characters like Luke and Joel represent in their respective stories. Representations of paragons of virtue, beacons (as best they can be) of the sort of values and virtues that a righteous character in their world setting should strive to be, examples of good that people can see pieces of themselves in, and get some inspiration from, in healthy measure.
That doesn't mean these characters are perfect, not at all. But they are very clearly written in ways of emulating beliefs worth aspiring to be, regardless of whatever immutable traits you as a person have. They aren't meant to be replacements in that regard for real-life people who exemplify positive values and virtues, or God (for people who believe in God or an equivalent). But regardless, there will be folks who look to these kind of characters as paragons of virtue they'd want to aspire to be in the world these characters exist in, and at the very least, there are universal virtues these sort of character exude that can be utilized by people in their own lives within reason.
The "desecration" I refer to is more to do with a very noticeable trend in a lot of Western storytelling the past several years or so that likes to sully certain characters, and invert the desired paradigms of virtues and values people should aspire to emulate and take inspiration from. This is too big a topic to contain to a conversation this narrow, but I hope you can see what I'm referring to here.
Well no shit, but that's hardly the only reason. The death of Joel, for example, is cheap because it's contrived. It's a convoluted sequence to get him in that situation that also runs counter to the learned intuition he's shown in the first game to have a keen sharpness for. But no, Neil writes him to be a dolt so that he can play Golden Tee Golf with Abby.
There's still a way to write it and produce it that doesn't come off as torture/gore porn though. TWD TV show failed massively in that regard when it came to Glenn's death. For starters, there's a way certain things come off in an illustrated black & white comic book that can take on a much more visceral (in some cases perhaps TOO visceral) fashion in a live-action flesh-and-blood television series. You can do gory deaths tastefully, or you can do it like Glenn's death.
Yes it was accurate to the comic book but Glenn in the comic did not develop the level of connection to the reader that Glenn in the television show did with the viewer. Which, turns out, is part of what made his death that much more impacting for viewers at the time. However if you look at the general shock/discord over that death and the noticeable sharp ratings drop following it, clearly it wasn't something done in a way that sat too well with many viewers (the rather poor writing in that season and Season 8 didn't help, either).
Trust me kid, I've watch some heavy stuff. Come and See. Irreversible. Rubber's Lover. So don't go trying to say I can't handle that type of stuff. With that said, there is STILL a right and wrong way to do it. Take Alien 3; people didn't so much have an issue that Newt and Hicks died (though for some it was an issue, considering the pseudo-family setup they and Ripley were building towards), it's HOW they were killed that pissed so many people off. Off-screen, right off the bat, with zero fanfare. Plus, outside of maybe Clemens and Dillon, virtually no likable soft-replacements for them, either.
Whether you like it or not people are going to react to those sort of big deaths badly if they are handled in a way that doesn't satisfy certain baseline emotional investments, even moreso if the deaths are contrived through happenstances betraying thematic, character and plot-based elements established in previous entries of the series. No one engages in a story solely for logical reasoning, otherwise everyone'd be reading thesis papers instead.
No, this is bullshit. If your story, as an example, is based on real-world things (historical, scientific, etc.) and takes liberties to the point of getting actual core details wrong right off the bat (and thus preventing suspension of disbelief), then it's easily possible to have a poorly-written story right at the beginning.
TLOU2's plot, it can be argued, is somewhat poorly set-up at the very start because in a lot of ways it doesn't really forward the main big elements of the plot (the infection) and exploring ways of resolving them. Letting inter-character drama take front-and-center of the main plot can work in ways but it also feels like TLOU2 wastes a good deal of its setting by doing so at the expense of ignoring the larger conflict. TWD's had a lot of that same problem; a lot of plot arcs throughout the show have felt more like the group meandering from spot to spot dealing with stuff not much different than a soap opera, with the zombies being an afterthought.
Of course that's probably more of a personal opinion. But it would be like me writing a story with giant spaceships, Dyson rings and black holes, but the plot's really just a slice-of-life of a gardener who waters plants and muses about them. You can make that work with the aforementioned setup, but you can't constantly relegate said major elements to background fodder.
Welp I'm sorry but that's what you get when you're a creator stepping into a universe another creator has already made and established lore in. Even moreso if you're jumping into the fray of a series of interconnected films.
You can do what you want so long as you respect the work of those who came before you and respect the lore that has already been established. Otherwise you end up with stuff like the Disney sequel trilogy (especially TLJ) and Netflix She-Ra.
Low shot, and also highly inaccurate. If you think TLOU2 is something indicative of an epitome of "adult fiction", you're fooling yourself. I could talk more about the game's narrative flaws but at a later date.
Last edited:
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Is it subverting expectations when Sith pupils are known to betray their Sith Lord masters? Just as Palpatine betrayed Plagueis (sp) or Vader planned to betray the Emperor with Luke as his pupil, Kylo fulfilled that role and tried to gain Rey as his pupil. This has been the cycle throughout the series. It didn't leave a void, it made Kylo the big bad, a far more interesting character than Snoke. They didn't have to bring back Palpatine, a more skilled writer wouldn't need to anyways. There was a treatment for it where they did fill in the gap left by Snoke with a Sith that was the oldest living Sith hidden away on their home world (which is still seen in the final version when Kylo gets some MacGuffin device) it would be monstrous and was described as Lovecraftian, it would give Kylo his final Sith lessons. Even this is preferable to resurrecting Palpatine, but JJ only has two tricks up his sleeve and they are nostalgia and mystery boxes. Speaking of which they cut the scenes that explained better Snoke being alive because JJ considers explaining something that seems nonsensical unimportant.
I don't care about diehard/hardcore fans or the dumb lore or Wookiepedias, I care about good film-making. I also have to laugh at the consistency idea, re-watch the OT, in every film a new force power is used without explanation.
He isn't the worst child actor by a long shot and most people can forgive child actors easier than people who have won Oscars. Jar-Jar and Anakin were because the film was for a younger generation, and they appealed to that generation, the films got darker as they went, but that generation grew up as well.
This is wrong, a send-off is a send-off regardless of who likes it, you're debating good vs bad send-offs and in my time debating this film I tend to find even most haters think they did right by Luke by the end, they just don't like that he started off wrong and had to have an arc... because they hate good story-telling.
Wait, in what way does Joel fill this role? Joel was meant to be a deeply flawed character who wouldn't even have much humanity to him without Ellie dragging it out of him. The tragic irony being that in humanizing Joel she makes it possible for him to go on the rampage he did, possibly dooming all mankind. The Joel at the start of the game would have let them do whatever they wanted to Ellie. BTW, don't come at me with anything about how the Fireflies are morally wrong, because I DON'T DISAGREE, the thing is that all the justifications for Joel's actions don't apply to HIM, if they had told Joel she had a 50/50 or even an 80 percent chance of surviving he'd probably behave the same way. Luke, btw was never this character without flaws, the dark clothes in Jedi and his arrogant demeanor were remnants of the first script where Luke went on a darker path, this is still there to an extent with his machine hand, the angry fit he throws at his father, cutting off his father's hand making him realize the parallel he had drawn. The darkness inside Luke was proven to be capable of being evoked at the idea of his friends being in peril, this same thing happened with Kylo, but he never struck at Kylo as he did his father, he simply briefly ignited a saber and then felt ashamed... but the damage was done for Kylo, who's mind had already been poisoned. The themes of us creating our own monsters is a great one, and also one that fits with the saga.
Joel is not exhibiting traits anyone should emulate, you can say "caring for your surrogate daughter is good" except he doesn't save Ellie for her, he does it for himself, it's very clearly selfish because he can't have the same thing happen again and leave him hollow like he was before. Anyone who sees Joel as a paragon of virtue is out of their mind.
I see that you think something that was being done by Shakespeare is a new trend.
Yeah, again, it's the setup for the story, most stories have contrived setups because the whole point of it being a story worth telling is the events don't normally occur naturally. This is true for most types of fiction that aren't dramas but even those rely on such things, take a film like Mystic River, if you've seen it you know exactly what I mean here. Most narratives are borne from contrived circumstances, the good writer uses the story borne from this to deliver something that feels organically solved, however. The learned intuition he's known for? There are multiple groups of people he shacks up with in the first game throughout it, he had no choice, hence "contrived" it can't both be contrived and be him acting poorly, if it's just Joel making a bad decision then you can let go of contrived because that means he had legitimate options besides that... but he didn't. How was he written to be a dolt, exactly? I've seen the bad arguments involving him giving out too much info, they tend to ignore that Tommy had already told Abby who Joel was, that later parts of the game make it clear Jackson was beginning to try and get more people to join them, that Joel was changing as a person into someone kinder. Oh man and the golf jokes, you'd think any media where a baseball bat was used we'd get baseball jokes or something.
Why? The comic has consistently been full of torture, gore and misery... why change how it is just for that one scene? Honestly Glenn's death was more brutal in the comic. Also I don't want tasteful, if you want tasteful again... consume different media, it's the distaste of it that makes it feel more real.
That's just because the show has more padding, useless episodes so you feel like you know the characters better. People I knew reading the comic felt it was very impactful there as well. The ratings have been steadily dropping by the season because the show is too long in the tooth and needs to get to the point more often with less melodrama.
Not a kid and besides whatever Rubber's Lover is I've seen the same media. Alien 3 killed Newt and Hicks off that way because Newt was too old to keep playing the role and Michael Biehn literally walked off the set. It was a troubled production. These were not the creative decisions they inherently wanted to make. You talk in these weird sorts of absolutes as well, as though the film needed likable soft-replacements and couldn't just simply exist as a film that is different to the prior film BECAUSE of how harsh and brutal it is.
Whether you like it or not plenty of people liked how the deaths were handled and thought they enriched the stories/franchises. Again with these damn contrived complaints, you know the Terminator would have killed Sarah Connor in Tech Noir if Kyle Reese wasn't there as well, right? This is how stories work, the droids end up on the planet with fucking Luke Skywalker on it, sent there by his TWIN SISTER WITHOUT KNOWING IT. I'd love to know what thematic, character or plot-based elements were betrayed lol. Have you ever watched Cinema Sins or a MauLer video essay? Some people just watch for logical BS, in fact most your argument is logical BS, anytime you bring in the word contrived you're delving into logical BS.
Um... nope. We engage with stories based on the rules they establish, not real-world rules. Unless it's a true story. By not engaging with a story at the level it wants you to you're the problem, not the media. It's like saying you didn't like a Disney film because animals can't talk.
The second game's main plot isn't about the infection. Now you're asking for a completely different story, this is not how you judge media.
Yes you can... you can do what you want.
That's true of everyone besides George Lucas. George retcons and changes his own lore at his whim, even editing films that already existed, he's never respected strict rules on the lore or how things work, so why should anyone else?
TLJ arguably respected the lore better than the entire prequel trilogy. It returned the Force to its more mystic roots established mostly by Yoda in ESB, the best film in the franchise. I don't consider JJ just riffing on past films without much new to add "respect". Rian had far more respect, because he believed it could evolve and become more, Lucas did as well if you read up on his ideas for the sequel trilogy, they retcon the lore and the force completely, btw.
I didn't say the epitome of adult fiction, but your reactions to it suggest adult fiction scares you, you talk like you need things sanitized and you need it to be Hollywood-ized or MCU-ized or Disney-ized instead of being something actually new and interesting and dark. I wonder if you even got that TLOU 1's ending wasn't happy and was at best bittersweet. Whenever I see people revering Joel as you do that's what I think of, Joel is more akin' to the classic anti-hero who reluctantly gets involved in shit. You can point out in such media the classic anti-hero usually has more "respect" or "dignity" in his death if he even has one, but it's not a rule and in this case it had more reason to be done than for shock value or subverting expectations, the game had a thematic goal about revenge, hatred and how your point of view shapes things. All these things are harder for some people to handle than the budding relationship between father and surrogate daughter, though the first game had plenty of hard stuff as well most people glossed it over because they were just happy Joel and Ellie got to live at the end. They didn't need to think too hard about Joel murdering a wounded woman begging for her life or whether or not Joel considered for a second the other side of the moral dilemma Ellie's immunity created. You can be on the side of that moral dilemma that says you don't kill the 1 person for the many but Joel never even entertained the other side because he didn't take some principled stand against that idea, he wanted his new daughter selfishly and regardless of her own wants and needs. You can say she had survivor's guilt or was too young but those are not JOEL'S excuses, those are not JOEL'S reasons, they're yours. They're how you rationalize Joel into a good person when Joel himself isn't going to rationalize it, doesn't even believe it, he's just glad Ellie is alive.
deafmedal
Member
Voted W3 for the games I’ve played, BOtW would be for non-played. Seriously, the way the game was hyped to hell and back, the degrading system and lack of dungeons has me not wanting to even try it even though I own it and my kid says I’d probably like it. 
As far as W3 is concerned... I first started it right after playing DA:I. Played for around 15ish hours and put it down, chalked it up to too much open fantasy. I picked it back up a couple of weeks ago and am trudging through but it’s still not clicking. Looks kinda crappy (PS), controls are ehhh, and there is just soooo much. I am enjoying bits of the story, lore and characters, gonna try to finish it.
About RDR2: probably my favorite game this generation. I can understand it’s decisiveness, the shitty gunplay, wonky controls and pacing are definitely reasons to dislike the game. The outlaw simulator doesn’t work for everyone but I absolutely adored my time with it and look forward to another play through next gen.
Side note: UC4 was pretty fucking ehhh but I wasn’t a huge fan of the others so I personally wasn’t very hyped going in. Fine to experience but the series never got me going so to speak. I didn’t get far in Bloodborn so won’t speak to it’s overrated ness, perhaps I’ll try to git gud once I finish W3.
As far as W3 is concerned... I first started it right after playing DA:I. Played for around 15ish hours and put it down, chalked it up to too much open fantasy. I picked it back up a couple of weeks ago and am trudging through but it’s still not clicking. Looks kinda crappy (PS), controls are ehhh, and there is just soooo much. I am enjoying bits of the story, lore and characters, gonna try to finish it.
About RDR2: probably my favorite game this generation. I can understand it’s decisiveness, the shitty gunplay, wonky controls and pacing are definitely reasons to dislike the game. The outlaw simulator doesn’t work for everyone but I absolutely adored my time with it and look forward to another play through next gen.
Side note: UC4 was pretty fucking ehhh but I wasn’t a huge fan of the others so I personally wasn’t very hyped going in. Fine to experience but the series never got me going so to speak. I didn’t get far in Bloodborn so won’t speak to it’s overrated ness, perhaps I’ll try to git gud once I finish W3.
TooLateMate
Banned
eh probably uncharted 4.
the rest of em i respect at least. uncharted 4 was just not as well done as 2 and bordered on repetitive.
to be honest, to call a game like the wotcher 3 overrrated...there alotttt you arent appreciating about the rpg and open world rpg genre then lol
the rest of em i respect at least. uncharted 4 was just not as well done as 2 and bordered on repetitive.
to be honest, to call a game like the wotcher 3 overrrated...there alotttt you arent appreciating about the rpg and open world rpg genre then lol
TooLateMate
Banned
same with horizon zero dawn. some people only seem to care about mechanics, and not...content. i like creative quests mixed with content, some brilliant quests or missions may have little to do with fighting at all. and I love games like that.
to be honest, to call a game like the witcher 3 overrrated...there alotttt you arent appreciating about the rpg and open world rpg genre then lol you just like combat lets be honest xD
to be honest, to call a game like the witcher 3 overrrated...there alotttt you arent appreciating about the rpg and open world rpg genre then lol you just like combat lets be honest xD
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Come on man, it's not tht good even as an RPG. Character customization is casualized and bland, the skill trees (or lines) felt like a joke.
Also yes, combat was very flawed (spam quen to win) and seriously, I didn't quite liked the open world aproach with all those ? marks spread along the map.
Imho, Zelda and even GoT ar far better as an open world, while even Dark Souls III has far better customization options.
Tschumi
Member
I've only played 4 titles, and though i loved RDR2, it comes forth in that list and is therefore my selection here. Mgs5 and Witcher 3 were both incredible games.
I think people get carried away with their reactions to some games.. mgs5 is a colossal achievement that redefined, whatever the hell kind of genre it was. Not perfect, okay. But worth all the chewing out? Not at all. The final 8th of the game failed to deliver all i was expecting, but that just speaks to the fantastic story building that went on over the first 7/8ths.
I can't speak to this really, but i have had big chances to get undertale and hollow Knight and in neither case have i been convinced that they'd be worth my time. I'm not too good on games that are that brand of retro.
Ed: I only played a couple hours of Divinity 2, but i can tell by just that amount if time that it is s masterpiece and deserves to be 3rd in my quartet over RDR2 which, while excellent, isn't quite what I'd call a work of art. It's more a work of collaborative passion and great direction.
I think people get carried away with their reactions to some games.. mgs5 is a colossal achievement that redefined, whatever the hell kind of genre it was. Not perfect, okay. But worth all the chewing out? Not at all. The final 8th of the game failed to deliver all i was expecting, but that just speaks to the fantastic story building that went on over the first 7/8ths.
I can't speak to this really, but i have had big chances to get undertale and hollow Knight and in neither case have i been convinced that they'd be worth my time. I'm not too good on games that are that brand of retro.
Ed: I only played a couple hours of Divinity 2, but i can tell by just that amount if time that it is s masterpiece and deserves to be 3rd in my quartet over RDR2 which, while excellent, isn't quite what I'd call a work of art. It's more a work of collaborative passion and great direction.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
BOTW for one simple reason.
Some noisy fans act like they’ve never played an open world game before and Zelda invented the genre.
Some noisy fans act like they’ve never played an open world game before and Zelda invented the genre.
Amiga
Member
the lower user score is the pattern.
forgot to remove "also" in my editing, sorry.
to elaborate, I feel my tastes are closer to the average gamer than most mainstream media. just enforces my dismissal of any extra value in their opinions over regular gamers.
TooLateMate
Banned
personally i think the heart of an open world rpg is progression and...quests. if the quests are bad and repetitive. then the game is essentially about loot and combat. lets be honest.
compare to skyrim: bad quests due to radiant system, are you telling me they even hold a candle to the withcer 3's quests? most games quests do not. it also had limited loot, being that if you got a great sword in skyrim, thats it...no need to loot anymore for the rest if the game lol the witcher made the items actually matter, in terms of how they can be de-constructed. or utilized. to create something else. and alot of variance in the weapons so that the skyrim problem doesnt happen.
leveling a.k.a progression. they made sure that quests were leveled , items were leveled, enemies were leveled. something alot of rpgs should obviously do but do not. they hit that mark of what an RPG SHOULD be by making you feel like you need to progress. thats good rpg fundamentals. character customization isnt quite as important as the quests...or the progression my guy. unless you are bethesda lol
lastly QUESTS. this is where the witcher 3 shits on most games out there, most people can admit this. Everything was multi-layered and felt like its own indiviual little epic and had great writing. this is the thing most devs are UNWILLING to do. which should tell you something anout whats more difficult. if you dont care about the quests...then we have vastly different appreciations for what males an open world RPG more than just running around and looting.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
I'm sorry but I didn't quite felt any progression through my time with Geralt. Yeah, there was a lot of different equipment, bombs, bolts and so on, but in the end, at least imo, all was reduced to spam uen to heal yourself and attacking without putting too much thought into it. It was very undemandin, which made it feel easy and thus the progression feeling was lost.
As for the quests... Nothing to argue with you, they were really great and inspired. The Baron's one I think I wont fortgot in a long, long time.
But yeah, for me an open world game must be more than that. One of the aspects I value most in those games is a rewarding feeling when exploring, and The Witcher 3 didn't had that (for me at least) as most of the time I was following the GPS to the next marker. Skyrim for example did this in a better way, and later games like Zelda and Tsushima did it even better.
I appreciate your opinion, but I guess we just value different things in this kind of games. :^)
DeceptiveAlarm
Gold Member
Where is HZD on that list. I thought the game was terrible.
yurqqa
Member
Am I the only one who wonders what do people play the games for when I read many posts like “TLOU2 has good gameplay, but the script is bad and the ending is not believable, so it’s overrated” ?
Are we talking about games or you still angry that Arnie died in Terminator 2 and not watching Cameron’s movies ever since ?
i voted for RDR2. Tried it several times.Still can’t play long enough to get out of this fucking eternal winter.
And I loved RDR and all GTAs and I know that the pacing in RDR and GTA is different.
Are we talking about games or you still angry that Arnie died in Terminator 2 and not watching Cameron’s movies ever since ?
i voted for RDR2. Tried it several times.Still can’t play long enough to get out of this fucking eternal winter.
And I loved RDR and all GTAs and I know that the pacing in RDR and GTA is different.
ruvikx
Banned
I wouldn't trouble yourself too much with analysing Disney's abominations, i.e. their Star Wars is simply pure fanfiction (they're not even "fans", so that in & of itself is incorrect) ergo it has zero attachment to George Lucas & his six movies. I rewatched Revenge of the Sith recently & what a goddamn awesome movie that is, with arguable one of the best swashbuckling duels ever in the history of cinema. Anakin versus Obi Wan is pure perfection. The emotion, the speed, the music, the drama. What a rush. Even the so-called "bad dialogue" belief is way overblown. I refuse to listen to complaints about Star Wars prequel acting from people who treat Marvel or Fast & Furious like a religion. No one cared when Kate Winslet uttered the "spit like a man!" in Titanic line (in fact, she even got an Oscar nomination), ergo I don't care about the sand is coarse stuff in Star Wars.
Back on the Star Wars topic, Disney make conveyor belt movies designed by a committee focused on politics & making money. Their plots are non-existent, the characters are awful, there's no arc, no story, nothing. Just one scene after another. They need to be removed from canon because they're no better than a subpar youtuber making an After Effects home movie... except they have hundreds of millions of dollars & a corrupt media to shill for their ridiculous products.
TooLateMate
Banned
which is fine, i think after skyrim i was just very happy that the witcher 3 did leveling and quests so well.
but dont get me wrong, if the witcher 3 had a skill system that added new and useful attacks, abilities etc. like black desert or something. then yeah it would be a better game.
cartman414
Member
Missed the cutoff with an 89 I guess?
Paracelsus
Member
This is more like Terminator Dark Fate, where they killed John ConnorJoel in the first five minutes exclusively so DaniAbby could take his place through the whole movie and the rest of the series.
And yes that's good enough reason, because you let identity politics dictate a huge plot point and the rest of the story by association.
Fake
Member
What I found more funny is how the 'empty' in open worlds games are a bigger problem, but so small problem on BOTW. I guess like the crap combat on Witcher 3 they act like a bulletproof.
Last edited:
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I would moreso argue they did that because no one is up for seeing Edward Furlong in an action movie today had he been replaced with say chris hemsworth or some shit would it get the same complaints? With TLOU 2 it's the foundation for the entire narrative and themes wheras in Dark Fate it feels more like something they had to do because of Furlong and did their best to give it relevance to the story but weren't totally successful, it also seemed to be an excuse to get Arnold into the film even if it should be ridiculous we'd have Arnold in one of these AGAIN. But people liked having Arnie so it being ridiculous we keep getting him doesn't get complained about.
turtlepowa
Banned
Terrible is too hard, but i think it would have gotten just slightly better ratings than Far Cry Primal if it had been a multiplattformer. I think 90+ was the limit for this poll.
Kerotan Frog
Member
Red Dead Redemption 2
Idk what it is, but this game is just not for me. It bores me to tears, I hate the writing, and the voice acting is irritating. I'm honestly so sick of hearing about it and I think I just don't like western cinema or anything that emulates it.
Idk what it is, but this game is just not for me. It bores me to tears, I hate the writing, and the voice acting is irritating. I'm honestly so sick of hearing about it and I think I just don't like western cinema or anything that emulates it.
lpking2005
Neo Member
I cant name just one but personally for me...
- The Witcher 3
- Spiderman
- Persona 5 Royale
- Red Dead Redemption 2
DeceptiveAlarm
Gold Member
Helps if I read OP. I agree terrible was harsh. It wasn't good though.
Mozzarella
Member
Metal Gear Solid 5 and The Last of Us Part 2 for me. Though im not a big fan of using words like overrated, all they mean is something people like but you didnt like as much, lol, doesnt really hold any deeper context to it.
Btw how do i vote i cannot vote xD.
Btw how do i vote i cannot vote xD.
.Pennywise
Banned
Welp, seems like nobody is taking TLOU2's crown of most overrated game of the gen.