Games that were poorly received but were actually good

[krelyan]

Rayman 2 is one of the best 3D platformers ever made and deserves to be mentioned with its peers of the era, Banjo Kazooie and Mario 64.  Rayman 3?  There is no Rayman 3.

[indenton]

Rayman 2 is one of the best 3D platformers ever made and deserves to be mentioned with its peers of the era, Banjo Kazooie and Mario 64.  Rayman 3?  There is no Rayman 3.

I'm on the fence with this one, I honestly think Rayman 2 is quite overrated.  Yeah, the music is great and the levels are fascinating, but the combat is extremely basic and the game is very forgiving, I don't remember much about the bosses. 

I'm in a weird position with Rayman 2 see, I kept coming back to the game every few years, never really owning the game until a lot later and finally finishing the game.   

Then Rayman 3 came along with a bit of a "Whatever" attitude.  Yeah the story is convolluted and random, the reward system is more forgiving than 'Get every lum in the level, otherwise you get nothing'.  It developed on the non-existent combat system, there more than 1 variety of enemy with various weaknesses, requiring you to think, get involved.  While the bosses were a bit more memorable, they were memorable for the wrong reasons, they took way too long, outstaying there welcome. 

  I don't know, I just feel like Rayman 3 was judged harshly because it wasn't Rayman 2.   

I looked up Rayman 3, the GBA version has the highest average critic score, a 2D platformer, coincidence?

[argyle]

I never had played Rayman 3, yet. But after playing Rayman 2, I was glad that the series returned to it's 2D roots with Rayman Origins. Not that Rayman 2 was bad, it was good for a 3D platformer. But he's much better in 2D form.

I won't argue this, Rayman 2 was great for its time (I haven't played it since the DC days, so not sure how well it's held up) but the 2 latest 2D Rayman games are incredible.

[burningdoom]

I never had played Rayman 3, yet. But after playing Rayman 2, I was glad that the series returned to it's 2D roots with Rayman Origins. Not that Rayman 2 was bad, it was good for a 3D platformer. But he's much better in 2D form.

I won't argue this, Rayman 2 was great for its time (I haven't played it since the DC days, so not sure how well it's held up) but the 2 latest 2D Rayman games are incredible.

Exactly.

[gf78]

I never had played Rayman 3, yet. But after playing Rayman 2, I was glad that the series returned to it's 2D roots with Rayman Origins. Not that Rayman 2 was bad, it was good for a 3D platformer. But he's much better in 2D form.

I won't argue this, Rayman 2 was great for its time (I haven't played it since the DC days, so not sure how well it's held up) but the 2 latest 2D Rayman games are incredible.

Rayman Origins and Legends puts most other 2D platformers to shame, including Mario.  More imaginative, more creative, more beautiful and they have some pretty funny moments in them.  Oh, and unlocking dozens of playable characters in Legends is a nice bonus too...even if many of them are just palette swaps.

[indenton]

This one wasn't really 'poorly received', but it was criticized for just one real reason.  This game is great in my opinion, especially for a launch title.  But alas...

Luigi's mansion was criticized for its short length. 

I disagree with the length of a game being held against it like this, unless it's so short that there practically isn't a game.  But as long you're enjoying the experience, then the length of time invested into a game shouldn't matter.  Does anyone see the length of the game as a valid complaint towards the original Luigi's Mansion?  Does it really dumb down everything else that the game provides. 

[gf78]

This one wasn't really 'poorly received', but it was criticized for just one real reason.  This game is great in my opinion, especially for a launch title.  But alas...

Luigi's mansion was criticized for its short length. 

I disagree with the length of a game being held against it like this, unless it's so short that there practically isn't a game.  But as long you're enjoying the experience, then the length of time invested into a game shouldn't matter.  Does anyone see the length of the game as a valid complaint towards the original Luigi's Mansion?  Does it really dumb down everything else that the game provides.

Luigi's Mansion was a day-one buy for me and it always aggravated me that reviewers panned it for it's length.  I think they were just pissed that the Gamecube didn't launch with a "true" Mario title and they took it out on poor Luigi.  I found the game fantastic.  It was fun, it took several days of playtime for me to get through the whole thing and I played through it again.  Not to mention it was drop-dead gorgeous for it's day.

Length of a game is subjective to many things.  I expect an RPG to be around 60-80 hours or more.  I expect an adventure game to be 5-10 hours.  If I spend $50 to $60 on an adventure game and get five hours out of it, it's as good of a value to me as buying a Blu-Ray movie.  You spend about $25 for a 2 hour Blu-Ray film on average.  That's $12.50 per hour of entertainment.  A five hour game @ $12.50 per hour average is $62.50.  So for me, the game is a good value. 

And when you consider that games used to cost more than $60 years ago, the value is there for me.  I found a receipt when I was cleaning out my file cabinet for Illusion of Gaia for the SNES.  Brand-new at Walmart, I paid $69.99 plus tax for that game.  That was in 1994! 

[betelgeuse]

This one wasn't really 'poorly received', but it was criticized for just one real reason.  This game is great in my opinion, especially for a launch title.  But alas...

Luigi's mansion was criticized for its short length. 

I disagree with the length of a game being held against it like this, unless it's so short that there practically isn't a game.  But as long you're enjoying the experience, then the length of time invested into a game shouldn't matter.  Does anyone see the length of the game as a valid complaint towards the original Luigi's Mansion?  Does it really dumb down everything else that the game provides.

Luigi's Mansion was a day-one buy for me and it always aggravated me that reviewers panned it for it's length.  I think they were just pissed that the Gamecube didn't launch with a "true" Mario title and they took it out on poor Luigi.  I found the game fantastic.  It was fun, it took several days of playtime for me to get through the whole thing and I played through it again.  Not to mention it was drop-dead gorgeous for it's day.

Length of a game is subjective to many things.  I expect an RPG to be around 60-80 hours or more.  I expect an adventure game to be 5-10 hours.  If I spend $50 to $60 on an adventure game and get five hours out of it, it's as good of a value to me as buying a Blu-Ray movie.  You spend about $25 for a 2 hour Blu-Ray film on average.  That's $12.50 per hour of entertainment.  A five hour game @ $12.50 per hour average is $62.50.  So for me, the game is a good value. 

And when you consider that games used to cost more than $60 years ago, the value is there for me.  I found a receipt when I was cleaning out my file cabinet for Illusion of Gaia for the SNES.  Brand-new at Walmart, I paid $69.99 plus tax for that game.  That was in 1994!

Length of a game is a huge factor in relation to the price. At least now you get the 5-10 hours out of 'em. I remember the days as a kid saving up that cash to drop on a new game , only to beat it an hour or two later. I remember Splatter House for TG-16 being $59.99 and beating it in about an hour and a half. That was brutal!! I think Strider on Genesis was $69.99. That one lasted about 3 hours before I figured it out (never got to the higher levels in the arcade). Street Fighter II on SNES was by far the best value at the time. $74.99 got me literally hundreds of hours out of it.

[indenton]

That's the problem I have with this, when I hear people saying "I completed this in just X hours", I'll ignore this from judging the games quality overall.  I can understand if a game is absurdly short and brings nothing else to the table and leaves you with a half-assed experience.  The price doesn't concern me too much as I'm buying a lot of second hand games as of recently.  In the case of Luigi's Mansion, I think I picked it up for about £15

For example, who said these people haven't:   

1. Played the game before
2. Looked up a walkthrough
3. Had a lot of experience with the genre
4. Have the time to complete the game in one sitting
5. Ignored any side quests, multiplayer game modes or other content. 

On the off-chance, does anybody remember if LM was ever bundled with the Gamecube?

[gf78]

That's the problem I have with this, when I hear people saying "I completed this in just X hours", I'll ignore this from judging the games quality overall.  I can understand if a game is absurdly short and brings nothing else to the table and leaves you with a half-assed experience.  The price doesn't concern me too much as I'm buying a lot of second hand games as of recently.  In the case of Luigi's Mansion, I think I picked it up for about £15

For example, who said these people haven't:   

1. Played the game before
2. Looked up a walkthrough
3. Had a lot of experience with the genre
4. Have the time to complete the game in one sitting
5. Ignored any side quests, multiplayer game modes or other content. 

On the off-chance, does anybody remember if LM was ever bundled with the Gamecube?

Don't recall it ever being bundled, at least in the US.

[burningdoom]

If you're paying brand-new, $60 price-tag for the game, then you bet your ass length is an issue. I'd be pretty upset if I paid that much and completed the entire game in under an hour. But if you're buying it used for a few bucks, then a short-game doesn't bother me.

[indenton]

I might not have been clear on this one, lets just say we're buying new, about 1 hour of gameplay is an issue with me.  But the point was that people were panning LM because is only had a length of about 5-6 hours.   

Hey guys!  Remember Sonic '06?  That was a great game wasn't it? I didn't lose my mind playing it or anything... that story and campaign was SO riveting in fact that the game makes you play through it 4 times, each with it's own 'specialties' for you to experience.   Don't forget the loading screens, that should add on a couple of hours too.  That should extend the playtime right?  That should make the game more bearable right?  We all felt like we got our money's worth with Sonic '06 right?!

I'm sorry if this came over as malicious, but that should put into perspective what I meant exactly, the length of the game can suck one if everything else surrounding it is utter garbage.

[maximo310]

I might not have been clear on this one, lets just say we're buying new, about 1 hour of gameplay is an issue with me.  But the point was that people were panning LM because is only had a length of about 5-6 hours.   

Hey guys!  Remember Sonic '06?  That was a great game wasn't it? I didn't lose my mind playing it or anything... that story and campaign was SO riveting in fact that the game makes you play through it 4 times, each with it's own 'specialties' for you to experience.   Don't forget the loading screens, that should add on a couple of hours too.  That should extend the playtime right?  That should make the game more bearable right?  We all felt like we got our money's worth with Sonic '06 right?!

I'm sorry if this came over as malicious, but that should put into perspective what I meant exactly, the length of the game can suck one if everything else surrounding it is utter garbage.

Same, I've played about 5 hours into the game, and got stuck at that stupid machspeed section at the end. It's really sad that the game feels so broken, that it constantly changes the rules, like swapping the control scheme when you are snowboarding away from a boulder, or to grind in order to jump high, and some really buggy combat and shitty story thrown in for good measure. It is insulting to think that people think the game is good, and that it really overstays its welcome. It's probably worth less than half the value I paid for it ($2).

[betelgeuse]

That's the problem I have with this, when I hear people saying "I completed this in just X hours", I'll ignore this from judging the games quality overall.  I can understand if a game is absurdly short and brings nothing else to the table and leaves you with a half-assed experience.  The price doesn't concern me too much as I'm buying a lot of second hand games as of recently.  In the case of Luigi's Mansion, I think I picked it up for about £15

For example, who said these people haven't:   

1. Played the game before
2. Looked up a walkthrough
3. Had a lot of experience with the genre
4. Have the time to complete the game in one sitting
5. Ignored any side quests, multiplayer game modes or other content. 

On the off-chance, does anybody remember if LM was ever bundled with the Gamecube?

I get what you're saying, but back when these games came out if you played it before, it was at the arcade. The only walk through you had was a couple months later after it appeared in the latest VG&CE, EGM or Game Pro. Most games back then didn't have a side quest either. As a kid, I would never buy a game that I rented or borrowed from a friend that I already beat.

By far, the most disappointment brought to me by beating a game too fast was Marble Madness on NES. It was $50 new at the time and I received it as a birthday gift. I think we beat it in about 20 minutes. If you bought this used for a few bucks...no biggy. If you bought this back in 1988 and were a student in high school or college making minimum wage for less than $4.00 an hour...OUCH!!

[indenton]

I get what you're saying, but back when these games came out if you played it before, it was at the arcade. The only walk through you had was a couple months later after it appeared in the latest VG&CE, EGM or Game Pro. Most games back then didn't have a side quest either. As a kid, I would never buy a game that I rented or borrowed from a friend that I already beat.

I feel like arcade games come into there own classification here, at least back when arcade were big on the scene.  You may of had the chance to see other people playing games, testing the water so to speak for whether you'll have a go.  Your time and money investment is minimal compared to buying console games at retail price.  Unfortunately I was never on the arcade scene really.