Underated Video Games

[hobbsyoyo]

So I'd like people to post about a videogame that they really enjoyed that the majority of the video gaming community crapped on or just didn't think was stellar.

What video game did you like despite the opposition and why?
(And Civilization games and SMAC are disallowed from this thread for obvious reasons)

I'll start:

I really enjoyed Spore. I got back into this week because about all the energy I had only allowed me to move a mouse around and it was a good distraction from the fever and accompanying pain.


The game was a bit of a letdown in that the Cell stage really could have been more involving and fun, and the lack of avian and sea-based life in the later stages was dumb. Plus, the space stage could get a bit monotnous (why didn't they add more mission and disaster types beyond pirate raids, grox attacks and ecodisasters?)

But all in all, the game is thoroughly engrossing. I found myself scheming for hours on how best to rush to the center of the galaxy. I hit on a new strategy where instead of rushing through systems, I methodically plotted my way there system by system. I eliminated all grox opposition in my way and used the planet buster quite liberally while doing so. Ahh, the satisfaction of frakking a planet can't be overstated.

Even now that I have the staff of life (42 uses? OK, I get the reference, but come on, I have a galaxy to mold in my image and 42 doesn't cut it) and decent empire, I'm still exploring to find all of the wonders of the universe.

I really want to find Sol with humans on it, then blow it up, muhahahaha.

I want all the badges and I want to buy out all of the competing empires one planet at a time. I want to take over the entire galaxy. The game is just so big and engaging, despite its flaws.

So, any games you all feel were underrated?

 

[Truronian]

Moderator Action: Moved to All Other Games

 

[Maniacal]

Spore was never underrated. It is a dumbed down game you could play blind folded. Hell, I easily got to the space age (which is very poorly done) in less than 3 days without being able to read anything because it was all in German (was visiting a friend in Germany). They completely screwed up the entire reason anyone was excited about the game, the whole building your own species and watching it evolve. Spore doesn't care how you design your species as long as it has a few vital parts, you can do just as well with a grotesque abomination as you could with a carefully designed species.

 

[Oruc]

Spore was never underrated. It is a dumbed down game you could play blind folded. Hell, I easily got to the space age (which is very poorly done) in less than 3 days without being able to read anything because it was all in German (was visiting a friend in Germany). They completely screwed up the entire reason anyone was excited about the game, the whole building your own species and watching it evolve. Spore doesn't care how you design your species as long as it has a few vital parts, you can do just as well with a grotesque abomination as you could with a carefully designed species.

Way to miss the point of the thread champ

 

[GoodGame]

Hmmm...Spore was underrated, mis-directed, and grossly over-hyped. On balance...meh.


Most underrated game of all time? Hmmmm....IDK. Games tend to be over-rated (due to moneyed biases) rather than under-rated. The history of video-gaming tends to be full of gems that aren't really under-rated, just ignored because the video-gaming market has tended to be flooded most of its existence.

 

[PhilBowles]

Cossacks. One of the best traditional RTSes ever produced. It tried with the Age of Empires model to produce the sort of real-time wargame as Total War, and on much the same scale, and did so successfully. Features such as buildable wall sections, gates and other defences, the detail of the economy and the requirement for resources to supply ammunition, and (most memorably to me) the addition of formation types were all innovative, but when the game's remembered at all it's mostly for its scale (up to 20,000 units in play etc.), not for any of the novelties it brought to RTSes.

 

[JtheJackal]

Ghost Master was underrated. It was such a great strategy game, tons of fun. I had a smile the entire time playing it.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Off the top of my head right now, in recent past, games that enjoyed and got average responses; Sacred 2, Far Cry 2, Civilization 5, Dead Island...

Some of these got good "reviews", but you go around asking on gaming forums and all you get is poo.

 

[Benefactor]

Cossacks. One of the best traditional RTSes ever produced. It tried with the Age of Empires model to produce the sort of real-time wargame as Total War, and on much the same scale, and did so successfully. Features such as buildable wall sections, gates and other defences, the detail of the economy and the requirement for resources to supply ammunition, and (most memorably to me) the addition of formation types were all innovative, but when the game's remembered at all it's mostly for its scale (up to 20,000 units in play etc.), not for any of the novelties it brought to RTSes.

That's a good one.

I feel Total Annihilation, while not underated as such was unfairly overshadowed by (IMHO) inferior games like C&C.

 

[Maniacal]

Cossacks. One of the best traditional RTSes ever produced. It tried with the Age of Empires model to produce the sort of real-time wargame as Total War, and on much the same scale, and did so successfully. Features such as buildable wall sections, gates and other defences, the detail of the economy and the requirement for resources to supply ammunition, and (most memorably to me) the addition of formation types were all innovative, but when the game's remembered at all it's mostly for its scale (up to 20,000 units in play etc.), not for any of the novelties it brought to RTSes.

I never really liked the AoE RTS element to the game (partly because I was a kid and didn't fully understand how it worked, and partly because I don't actually enjoy the typical RTS clickfest gameplay) but I loved spawning massive armies in the editor and having huge battles. I also really enjoyed the Cossacks campaign (I only had the original and expansion, so the formations weren't the best yet). They were damn decent games and very fun to play around with.

 

[PhroX]

Can't really think of many underrated games, as opposed to those that are just obscure, but highly thought of by those who have actually played it. I supposed if by "video gaming community" you mean idiots on the internet, I should say Dragon Age 2. While it had it's flaws - reused areas, overly short final act and a general sense of needing another month or two's work to properly polish it up -it was a step forward from it's predecessor in many ways. The story was far better, and even the much maligned combat was superior to DA:O's mindless heal spamming. I'm not going to claim it's an all time classic, but it's far far better than you would think looking at many gaming forums (conversely, I feel DA:O is somewhat overrated. It's good, but certainly not a patch on Bioware's earlier work)

 

[Rooftrellen]

I don't know I'd call them underrated, but rather underplayed. I can think of two games that were very good but seem to have been pushed to the edges of the world for some reason, and one that you just can't say enough about.

I'll start with Mario Galaxy. I just don't know if it's possible to overrate this game. It got amazing reviews, people loved it in general, but people seem to ignore how great it is because it's on the Wii. I'm just saying this one because it is quite likely the best game of all time, and most people simply do not treat it with that level of respect.

Now, the other two on my mind. Legend of Dragoon was better than FFVII (FFVI was too, and many other games...likely the most overrated game of all time). The attack system was good, it's one of the few RPG's where I ever actually used items (normally items I get in an RPG are for selling for extra cash), and it hit a great balance between challenge and frustration. Never mind the story, which was amazingly well told and fun. There was also a good amount of humor to balance quite a dark story, and enough twists and turns to keep everything interesting story wise, while the highly differentiated characters kept combat interesting. It also managed to avoid ever, at any point, becoming a grind fest by keeping bosses and areas challenging but beatable so long as you fought your battles.

The other I have in mind is Skies of Arcadia (specifically Legends, as it is the one I played). That this came out on GameCube instead of being relegated to the Dreamcast forever is undeniable proof of God's existence. This game is a masterpiece. The story is rich, the characters are perfectly made, exploration is key to the game, there are a good number of plot twists...it's a gem.

Let me just say this, I go back and play games from time to time, nearly every game in my collection gets some play time at least once every few years. Skies of Arcadia has seen no less than 10 playthroughs, start to finish, and has never failed to draw me into the story, nor have I ever quit in the middle for more than a few days (vacation, once). The game is that good.

 

[Maniacal]

Can't really think of many underrated games, as opposed to those that are just obscure, but highly thought of by those who have actually played it. I supposed if by "video gaming community" you mean idiots on the internet, I should say Dragon Age 2. While it had it's flaws - reused areas, overly short final act and a general sense of needing another month or two's work to properly polish it up -it was a step forward from it's predecessor in many ways. The story was far better, and even the much maligned combat was superior to DA:O's mindless heal spamming. I'm not going to claim it's an all time classic, but it's far far better than you would think looking at many gaming forums (conversely, I feel DA:O is somewhat overrated. It's good, but certainly not a patch on Bioware's earlier work)

DA:O, while a very enjoyable game, is definitely a little overrrated and it had its share of rough edges. I found the combat system to be enjoyable enough bit I don't think it is nearly as deep as some people will claim.

DA2, however, offered very few improvements. The story was definitely not improved in any way, shape or form. It was rather uninspired, cliche and for all the choices offered you had very little real effect upon it until the ending and then it turned into either support a bunch of idiot mages who all turned to using blood magic because they were tired of being labeled as bloodmages or help the templars led by an demoniacally possessed maniac in their (and increasingly justified) massacre of the mages. While the hate for DA2 is certainly excessive at times it earned a lot of it for good reason.

The combat wasn't really that much better, sure it was a bit faster which was nice but it was trying to copy the silly exaggeration and random flashy colour crap often found in MMOs. I don't regret playing the game and there are enjoyable parts to it and a couple of the characters were great but I'm never going to replay it.

 

[PhroX]

DA:O, while a very enjoyable game, is definitely a little overrrated and it had its share of rough edges. I found the combat system to be enjoyable enough bit I don't think it is nearly as deep as some people will claim. DA2, however, offered very few improvements. The story was definitely not improved in any way, shape or form. It was rather uninspired, cliche and for all the choices offered you had very little real effect upon it until the ending and then it turned into either support a bunch of idiot mages who all turned to using blood magic because they were tired of being labeled as bloodmages or help the templars led by an demoniacally possessed maniac in their (and increasingly justified) massacre of the mages. While the hate for DA2 is certainly excessive at times it earned a lot of it for good reason.

Yeah, the end was poor (and I suspect a victim of the game being rushed), but other than that it was better than the tedious "you're the only one who can save the world" of DA:O. OK, it was done reasonably well for that type of story, but it just doesn't really fit mys tastes (I don't mind ending up saving the country/world/whatever, but I like the story to develop into that from more restrained start. In DA:O, it was clear you were the "last hope" from about an hour in). DA2 was a smaller scale, more personal story, which I much prefer.

The combat wasn't really that much better, sure it was a bit faster which was nice but it was trying to copy the silly exaggeration and random flashy colour crap often found in MMOs. I don't regret playing the game and there are enjoyable parts to it and a couple of the characters were great but I'm never going to replay it.

It wasn't *much* better true, but it was an improvement. Yet it seems that half the comments I read online describe it as "DUMBED DOWN CONSOLE CRAP!!!!!!!!111". How you can get more "dumbed down" that DA:O's "30 seconds to set up your mage with decent healing tactics then autopilot through everything" I'm not really sure. At least with the fixed healing, and the difficulty of properly tanking due to enemies appearing everywhere, you had to put a little thought into DA2's combat (unless people only played the, admittedly stupid, first fight in the demo of 2?).

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't want to turn this thread into a DA2 vs DA:O fight. But I fail to see how replaying the same areas over and over again is fun. And no human (or elf for that matter) can swing a 2 handed sword that fast. Ridiculous combat. Yes I'm a huge DA:O fan, because I felt it was a step in the right direction (towards Baldur's Gate gameplay). Then DA2 comes out in the wrong direction. Sigh. I've lost faith in Bioware. DA:O has many options (which allows you to - yep, role play) where as DA2 doesn't. DA2 hardly qualifies as a RPG. And contrary to what the above post says, the combat didn't require any thought. And role playing games shouldn't be just about combat- which is why DA2 sucks. No matter what choice I made, I still had to fight the Templar woman.

As for underrated games, I don't pay attention, or can't remember the ratings of many games I've played. But some games seem to be "not as popular" as similar games in the genre for some reason. Even if they are pretty good games. Neverwinter Nights 2 is the best example I can think of right now. I don't know how the game was rated, but it didn't seem to get much talk compared to the original. Although I think it was harder to mod than the original, which may be why it wasn't as popular (I admit to only playing the original campaign and the first expansion not any mods). I felt the original campaign in NWN2 was superior to Neverwinter Night's campaign.

Fallout: Tactics. People trash on this game because it's not a RPG, and people really just wanted a sequel to Fallout 2. This isn't it, but I enjoyed the missions. I'm sure there are better tactical turned based games, but this one is in the Fallout universe which I like.

Fallout: New Vegas. This game may be highly rated, but it's still looked down upon when compared to Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is considered a superior game because it has "less talking and stuff". Role Playing games should have dialogue and stuff. It was a bit buggy (mostly graphical glitches), but did everything better than Fallout 3 imho.

 

[Maniacal]

Fallout: New Vegas. This game may be highly rated, but it's still looked down upon when compared to Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is considered a superior game because it has "less talking and stuff". Role Playing games should have dialogue and stuff. It was a bit buggy (mostly graphical glitches), but did everything better than Fallout 3 imho.

... wat? That is the first I've heard about that, usually it is the opposite. Except for the bugginess which everyone complained about, NV is usually praised for having far better dialogue and cool places to visit than F3.

I haven't played NV yet, but while I did enjoy F3 and it has some rather memorable events, places and characters, it doesn't have quite as many as Obsidian (and their former studios) games usually do.

The Mothership Zeta DLC is underrated IMO though, despite being made of several linear sections, you did have some choice in how to complete them and the order for a few parts. The aliens were disappointingly repetitive foes but it kept reminding me of Prey which I rather enjoyed. It was a fun break from the wasteland and the final battle scene at the end was actually pretty cool.

 

[The_J]

Fallout: Tactics. People trash on this game because it's not a RPG, and people really just wanted a sequel to Fallout 2. This isn't it, but I enjoyed the missions. I'm sure there are better tactical turned based games, but this one is in the Fallout universe which I like.

Ah, now! No really underrated video games came really to my mind, but now I also have one .
And I'd agree with the above. Tactics was not a bad game. It was just not a RPG, which too many people expected. It was a decent TBS game, if you had the will to take it as a TBS game.


Else...maybe Divinity 2. Had not really thought that it had bad reviews, but Metacritic says 72, which is IMHO not enough. This game just has a damn nice landscape, where exploring is soooo much fun. I don't think any of the other RPGs (besides maybe the original Gothic) had such a nice scenario, and I don't think it's appreciated enough.

 

[History_Buff]

Cossacks. One of the best traditional RTSes ever produced. It tried with the Age of Empires model to produce the sort of real-time wargame as Total War, and on much the same scale, and did so successfully. Features such as buildable wall sections, gates and other defences, the detail of the economy and the requirement for resources to supply ammunition, and (most memorably to me) the addition of formation types were all innovative, but when the game's remembered at all it's mostly for its scale (up to 20,000 units in play etc.), not for any of the novelties it brought to RTSes.

True that. Cossacks was awesome. I loved that you actually had to put your towers on the outside of your walls, since they couldn't magically shoot through them. That, and sending roving packs of Sich Cossacks around to capture and burn buildings. That unguarded buildings could be captured was brilliant. As was being about to burn buildings you own, and watch them blow up. Luring your enemies infantry into your town, and then setting it alight was such a treat.

Fallout: New Vegas. This game may be highly rated, but it's still looked down upon when compared to Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is considered a superior game because it has "less talking and stuff". Role Playing games should have dialogue and stuff. It was a bit buggy (mostly graphical glitches), but did everything better than Fallout 3 imho.

I think most people come down firmly on the side of NV. Really just about everything about F:NV was betting than Fallout 3, except for the setting, the choice of which I maintain was an abysmal failure. The Capital Wasteland was a million times more fun than the Mojave.

And of course, neither game was really worth playing unless you modded them all to hell.

 

[Polycrates]

Of recentish games, I have to go with Dead Island. Probably because it was nothing like its trailer, it got talked about like it was this abysmal stinking failure with no redeeming features, to be avoided like the plague. And yeah it most certainly has its fair share of faults, chief being that it's unbelievably schizophrenic and can never figure out if it wants to be gritty survival horror or a fun bloody romp. It also has some of the worst voice acting this side of Deus Ex. Also a huge heaping of bugs, I gather, though they seemed gone when I played it. But it's also a lot of fun with really satisfying combat, and when it works (in the city especially) it really works. If they'd had a bit more focus, it could have been a masterpiece.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Really just about everything about F:NV was better than Fallout 3, except for the setting, the choice of which I maintain was an abysmal failure. The Capital Wasteland was a million times more fun than the Mojave.

This. Despite the fact that Fallout New Vegas is in pretty much every way better than Fallout 3, I still have better memories of playing Fallout 3. Just because of the setting. It felt a lot more like a real post-apocalyptic setting to me. There were actually times I felt isolated and "far". The exploration was more fun.