Over-rated games.

I have to say as much as I love my Final Fantasy, they nailed at least a couple of points about the series that I do agree with, mainly the extremely linear stories and even characters. You are basically playing the same game over and over, just set in a different world each time. It makes the games very character driven, but the characters are hit and miss most of the time.

I personally dislike how the main casts are always shown to be absolutely, no exceptions good guys even when they're thieves or mercenaries or soldiers. You occasionally get one who isn't, but they're generally thrown-in characters with their own little story then they play no important role for the rest of the game. Between that and the inability to make any sort of moral choices at all...yeah, it can be repetitive.

I'm actually glad it takes them so long to produce the next game in the series, it doesn't feel so stale when you're only playing a new game every two or three years. I do love the games, they're just rather old hat to me these days. I was quite sad to discover I could predict everything that happened in XII at least three hours before it happened. Even their trademark sharp left into wtf-land 3/4 of the way through. /sigh

And I was a Pokefreak for several years. XD Luckily the games don't appeal to me much anymore. I did buy Pearl, but not Platinum. I may get the silver/crystal remake but only because it was my favorite gen of the games. Probably not though, handhelds aren't as interesting now that I don't need them for long car/bus rides and free periods at school.

WTF, Pokemon is badass.

I agree with the rest of the list, though. But I probably wouldn't put Rockband/Guitar Hero at the top.

I love Halo. It's about the only video game I do enjoy. And as far as " plagued by confusing, labyrinthine levels and few sign posts," my son got through all the levels just fine. Maybe Will Prusik is overrated.

Halo is a pale shadow of what it could have been. It pioneered nothing and popularized little.

YESSS, A SHOUT OUT TO LARRY NIVEN'S RINGWORLD!

Halo's ringworlds piss me off cause their scale is wrong. In one, you clearly see it is in orbit around a gas giant. And yet when you land on it, its got a star in the center.

Seriously, Bungi, way to not think things through!

It's quite funny to see how a site called PlanetXbox360 nominates so many series as overrated that aren't actually available on the Xbox, and more that weren't available until extremely recently. Do i detect a little jealousy?
Though i was quite surprised to see Halo on that list. And not surprised to see Final Fantasy. Seriously, somehow every discussion about CRPGs tends to get a mention of how overrated/boring/outdated etc. that series is, and yet, apparently is is exactly right since i can count the number of other RPGs that come even close to selling as many copies on the finger of one hand.

Personally, i don't think any list of overrated games can be complete without having the Blizzard games occupy at least three spaces. I mean, they've got two things going for them, they get the balancing right, and they actually do betatesting. But beyond that? No strategic depth whatsoever, only a handful of cookie-cutter tactics that work, and the interface ... dear god the bloody interface derserves a whole list of its own. It's a freaking distaster.
They should go and actually talk to the guys at Blizzard north. Those are the freaking gods of gaming.

And I always thought that Warcraft 3 and Starcraft's primary "reasons to be awesome" were their story...which, though somewhat predictable at times, were quite engaging and well done.

<shrugs> They're still not as awesome as the plot to Original War, but what is!?

Funny. I'd say Blizzard is about right. Whether you like the gameplay or not, the products are polished.

I'm not sure what their angle is on games like Pokemon and CoD, they're well crafted, polished and supremely well marketed - whether they're overrated is a subjective opinion and if they're not the audience intended they're missing the point. Likewise with several other mentions on their list. Final Fantasy on the other hand, being mass-market, is dreadfully dull. Look, amazing graphics and story! You can have the next bit after you wade through three hours worth of painfully boring gameplay! I finished 7, but by the time I got halfway through 8, 9, and 10 I just didn't care about the characters anymore.

Halo also bugged the crap out of me. They got a lot of marketing mileage out of their amazing level design, and the research and testing that went into it. And yet I still encounter people who get lost in the same places, get stuck in the same choke points, and get bored with the same set pieces. I love the story, but the level design is confusing and painfully repetitive.

Lhun said:

Personally, i don't think any list of overrated games can be complete without having the Blizzard games occupy at least three spaces. I mean, they've got two things going for them, they get the balancing right, and they actually do betatesting. But beyond that? No strategic depth whatsoever, only a handful of cookie-cutter tactics that work, and the interface ... dear god the bloody interface derserves a whole list of its own. It's a freaking distaster.
They should go and actually talk to the guys at Blizzard north. Those are the freaking gods of gaming.

Click to expand...

Let me guess, you've got a PS3 right?

Blizzard North doesn't exist anymore, hasn't done for years. They haven't done anything since Diablo II anyway. As for strategic depth, Starcraft has plenty, and it wouldn't have lasted this long without it. I'm assuming you're referring to multiplayer seeing as the kind of strategic depth you're asking for is next to impossible in a single-player campaign, especially back then. WoW has no strategic depth, seeing as it's not a strategic game. But it's got tactical depth up the yin-yang, too much if anything. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the interfaces, can you elaborate?

As for beta testing, that's not really the issue. Blizzard has always had more leeway with their release dates than any other studio in history. When a buggy game is released it's invariable because the publisher, not the developer, insisted on pushing it out too early. Blizzard gets to test as much as they need to, and release the game when they're ready. Although this might change in light of the Activision buyout.

WoW has no strategic depth? Lol. I'm guessing you folks didn't get the 2200+ arena achievements. Its interface was also completely moddable.

DoomBunny said:

Let me guess, you've got a PS3 right?

Click to expand...

Nope. Had a PS2, but it's been broken for years. I'm actually thinking about buying a Xbox360, though the fact that it's a true microsoft product (as the failure rate alone can demonstrate) means i'm a bit weary of the though. Bit since i still have more games for the PC than time to play, i'm in no hurry. I'll probably decide when it's time to either upgrade the PC again or buy a console.

Blizzard North doesn't exist anymore, hasn't done for years. They haven't done anything since Diablo II anyway.

Click to expand...

Blizzard North never "really" existed since the people came from condor when it was bought by Blizzard. But the design team did Diablo 1 through 3, until a big part left BLizzard. Which seriously stalled Diablo 3 development and caused Blizzard to formally dissolve the Blizzard North division. The people from condor who are still with Blizzard work on WoW and Diablo 3. Call them Blizzards RPG team if you like.

As for strategic depth, Starcraft has plenty, and it wouldn't have lasted this long without it.

Click to expand...

Not a valid argument. I could claim Final Fantasy games can't be boring or they wouldn't sell so well by the same line of reasoning. The only thing sale numbers prove is that the games are what people like to buy, which is not necessarily the same as what people like to play for 100 hours. And Starcraft still being played is, if anything, evidence of it not having strategic depth. Blizzard RTS games are an unholy mush of real time tactics and arcade-style clickfest, which is probably what appeals to so many people. I played Starcraft too, quite extensively (mostly during class) and it was fun for a while.
Calling it "strategy" though is violating that word.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the interfaces, can you elaborate?

Click to expand...

Mostly the interface of every Blizzard RTS since Warcraft 1. For example the idiotic limit on the number of units you can keep selected at once. And special abilities that need to be microed. Limited production qeues. And don't get me started on repairing damaged units. Some of those got improved a little in WC3, but to make up for it, Blizzard introduced heroes. It's like the interface was designed deliberately to give an edge to the player with the faster trigger finger, instead of the player with the better tactics. If i want a game where reflexes decide the outcome, i'll play a shooter.

As for beta testing, that's not really the issue. Blizzard has always had more leeway with their release dates than any other studio in history. When a buggy game is released it's invariable because the publisher, not the developer, insisted on pushing it out too early.

Click to expand...

Not an excuse. Blizzard apparently managed to convince the people at Vivendi to give them as much time as they need, which is a useful skill in itself. Sure Vivendi might not have been as horrendous to work for as Atarigrames, but it's not like they let all devs take as much time as Blizzard either.

LOG said:

It's something companies like Blizzard and BioWare have in common, long time to produce games, but when they do, they're pretty much always good.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. Although i'd say Bioware produces games that are even better than Blizzard games. I don't think i've played any game as many times as Baldur's gate. Except perhaps Star Ocean 3. But Bioware games have been quite buggy in the past. Not the worst offenders by far, but nowhere near the best either. Anyway, I couldn't name any developer that produces first releases that are as bug-free as those from Blizzard. Console developers, yes. But that doesn't count since they have to be much more careful. Or had to in the past. I hear it's slowly changing since the latest generation consoles can patch games.

(Blizzard--Starcraft, Eleven years man, ELEVEN YEARS!!! You can only play it so many times...)

Click to expand...

Don't ignore WC3. Just because it's not the same series doesn't mean it took no time to make.

SPMiller said:

Halo is a pale shadow of what it could have been. It pioneered nothing and popularized little.

Click to expand...

Maybe so (although it popularized itself, creating an entire series of novels and comics), but that wasn't a point made by the dufus who wrote the article. He was complaining he couldn't figure it out and felt that justified making it overrated.

As I said, I don't play many games (unless my kids drag me in), but when Halo came out, I thought it was a step above in graphics and I thought the game engine was advanced in some regard. I mean, it's been what? 10 years since I read all the hype in the gamer mags?

I would've put Madden a little higher up on the list; the name alone is a money whore. Never played FF and don't plan to (turn base games suck). CoD 4 wasn't set in WWII, which I think was part of its huge success, but I agree, stop with the WWII games!

Strip Poker

Or at least that's what the females I conned into playing think once they start to lose.

LOG said:

Then that's what people like to play, wouldn't you say.

Click to expand...

And your point is?

Oh really? What is a good strategy game then?

Click to expand...

Total War for example. Good or not has nothing to do with what is strategy and what isn't however.

I think that had more to do more with technology limits. Make two-thousand units on the battle-field and the PC slows to badness. Those sort of limits were there to help keep PC's from swamping under the numbers.

Click to expand...

That might have been true for Warcraft. And i would have bought it as an excuse for Warcraft 2. But for Starcraft or Warcraft 3 it is ridiculous. Besides, you are talking about a total limit of units on a map, i'm talking about a total limit of units that are selectable. Different thing.

What else are you going to do, macro them?

Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be a real question or just a wisecrack?

I don't think we're playing the same game...

Click to expand...

Shooter player, are you?

How is that a problem?

Click to expand...

Uh, try to go back and read again what my statements about this were?

When you're producing games that push 60+ hours on a full play-through, bugs are just kind of a fact of life.

Click to expand...

No, they aren't. Console RPGs tend to easily top PC RPGs in the playtime department, and they're virtually bug free, because they have to be. We put up with crap from software companies, we wouldn't suffer quietly from a cookie manufacturer for a product one-hundredth the price.

I didn't. But I've been subsiding more on WoW and Bioware games than anything else to survive lately.

Click to expand...

Never liked WoW, though that's a matter of preference. I played FFXI and EvE before giving up on MMORPGs alltogether. Though WC3 is still a typical Blizzard RTS, i wouldn't really see any difference between the next one being Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 4. I mean, i like them (played every one since Warcraft 1) but Starcraft vs. Warcraft? So what.

LOG said:

PvP is one of th eleast strategic areas I could think of...

Click to expand...

Are we using different definitions of the word strategy or something?

PvE was easily the least interesting part of the game. Oh, I just loved hitting trash and boss mobs with anger-inducing attacks so they wouldn't hit the dps/healers. Or moving around and spamming four or five keys to make a mob's green bar go down. Or clicking on people and trying to keep their green bars full. Week after week after week. Hoo-ray.

How do you feel about the GCD in WoW that effectively removes the tactical advantages of twitch skill and low ping?

Lhun said:

Blizzard North never "really" existed since the people came from condor when it was bought by Blizzard. But the design team did Diablo 1 through 3, until a big part left BLizzard. Which seriously stalled Diablo 3 development and caused Blizzard to formally dissolve the Blizzard North division. The people from condor who are still with Blizzard work on WoW and Diablo 3. Call them Blizzards RPG team if you like.

Click to expand...

Er, what? Just because they were rebranded doesn't mean they didn't exist. They closed long before Diablo 3, and most of the key members left to form Flagship Studios (Hellgate London). The few ex-North staff that remain with Blizzard are not the RPG gurus you seem to think they are - mostly audio and art people as I recall.

I could claim Final Fantasy games can't be boring or they wouldn't sell so well by the same line of reasoning.

Click to expand...

Except that's not what I said. I didn't say it had strategy because it sold well - I said it wouldn't have lasted the way it has without it. I'm referring to replayability just as much as popularity. Any given scenario or map in Starcraft can play out many different ways with different players of equal skill. Different build orders, different upgrades, different combinations of units and tactics, planned collection and use of resources - that's what strategy is.

And that's aside from the fact I wasn't making an argument at all. I was telling you it has strategic depth, it's patently obvious and has been thoroughly demonstrated.

The only thing sale numbers prove is that the games are what people like to buy, which is not necessarily the same as what people like to play for 100 hours.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you're here to tell us what we want. Neither of those points relate to each other or your argument. You can't just stick two opinions together and say 'voila!'.

And Starcraft still being played is, if anything, evidence of it not having strategic depth.

Click to expand...

Again, these two opinions put together do not equal an argument. Let alone universal truth.

Blizzard RTS games are an unholy mush of real time tactics and arcade-style clickfest

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you play Starcraft or how you define 'tactics', but that's not particularly accurate at all. Starcraft plays much like any other RTS, with its own interface and more polish. The only PC RTS's that really differ from the formula are Total Annihalation and Supreme Commander (which are much the same thing anyway).

which is probably what appeals to so many people.

Click to expand...

So everyone is dumb but you?

Calling it "strategy" though is violating that word.

Click to expand...

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means (Inigo Montoya FTW!).

Mostly the interface of every Blizzard RTS since Warcraft 1. For example the idiotic limit on the number of units you can keep selected at once. And special abilities that need to be microed. Limited production qeues. And don't get me started on repairing damaged units.

Click to expand...

None of these things have anything to do with the interface, except that that's where they're displayed. These are elements of gameplay, not of interface. It sounds to me you're just looking for a game that isn't Starcraft. That's fine, but none of these arguments equate to a lack of strategy.

Blizzard apparently managed to convince the people at Vivendi to give them as much time as they need, which is a useful skill in itself. Sure Vivendi might not have been as horrendous to work for as Atarigrames, but it's not like they let all devs take as much time as Blizzard either.

Click to expand...

It's not a useful skill, and they're not 'letting' them do any such thing. It's an essential policy that translates to a level of polish and quality unknown in the industry. We desperately need that level of creative and constructive freedom in the rest of the industry. Referring to Atari/Infogrames is disingenuous since they're totally different business models, with a totally different range of products and a totally different target demographic.

I have to disagree here. Although i'd say Bioware produces games that are even better than Blizzard games. I don't think i've played any game as many times as Baldur's gate. Except perhaps Star Ocean 3.

Click to expand...

Your playtime does not equate to quality or popularity. You are not a significant sample of the market all on your own. And you can disagree all you want, but that won't change the fact that Blizzard and Bioware both make good games because they both have a degree of freedom and respect from the suits.