I could probably agree with Sonic Unleashed also. I didn't really like it, but compared to Sonic 06, that game was godly in comparison lol I still don't think it's a very good Sonic game though.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: maximo310 on October 28, 2014, 01:56:44 pm
I could probably agree with Sonic Unleashed also. I didn't really like it, but compared to Sonic 06, that game was godly in comparison lol I still don't think it's a very good Sonic game though.
For Sonic Unleashed, the PS2/Wii versions are considered a bit better than the PS3/Xbox360, since the nighttime levels for the former are much shorter, and makes getting S rank no problem with its lax requirements, whereas the HD versions combine night levels together, which means 20-30mins of tedious platforming for each level.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: argyle on October 28, 2014, 02:04:33 pm
Chaos Legion. LOVE that game, but most people slammed it because they tried to play it like DMC. :-\
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: davifus on October 28, 2014, 02:07:25 pm
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: bobster on October 28, 2014, 03:10:25 pm
I've been playing Metroid: Other M and it's actually quite good! I talked a little bit about this in the "What are you playing?" thread, but I'm still surprised at all the hate it gets.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: kingrat101 on October 28, 2014, 03:48:39 pm
I've been playing Metroid: Other M and it's actually quite good! I talked a little bit about this in the "What are you playing?" thread, but I'm still surprised at all the hate it gets.
I agree with that, I pre ordered mine and beat it the same day and enjoyed it, going back through it again it does have some issues but it's not horrible. I also enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever, definitely has issues don't get me wrong, but I enjoyed playing through it
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: dashv on October 28, 2014, 04:18:29 pm
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (the Famicom version).
This gets a lot if hate because of AVGN's repeated reviews bashing it.
Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of AVGN and found his reviews of it entertaining. But the US version of the game was a censored hack job. The Jap version is much better.
Also:
Most of the Emerson Arcadia lineup.
Most folks never heard of the games that were released for it because they were knock offs of legit arcade games they couldn't get licenses for.
The system tanked at launch.
The thing is a lot of the knockoffs were vast improvements over the arcade games they copied.
Cat Trax for example is the best Pac-Man knock off I have ever played.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: cobraseph on October 28, 2014, 04:50:53 pm
right now i can think of two.. Ps2 Blood will Tell. (one of my friends got it before i could and all of them criticized the game soooo much i almost pass it as crap. but then i started reading about it and got interested in it.
the other was Ps1 Blood omen legacy of kain. same thing.. one of my friends got it before me and he was so mad with the game i saw him throw it out of the car. i almost pass it.. but then i saw a review with a full plot inside and i got super curious with it.
right now i can think of two.. Ps2 Blood will Tell. (one of my friends got it before i could and all of them criticized the game soooo much i almost pass it as crap. but then i started reading about it and got interested in it.
the other was Ps1 Blood omen legacy of kain. same thing.. one of my friends got it before me and he was so mad with the game i saw him throw it out of the car. i almost pass it.. but then i saw a review with a full plot inside and i got super curious with it.
I really enjoyed what little I played of Blood Will Tell. That one's on my PS2 wanted list. As for LoK, there could have been a good game in there but the awful load times stopped me from finding it. :( Really enjoyed the rest of the series tho, and would love to see it make a comeback.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: cobraseph on October 28, 2014, 05:11:20 pm
right now i can think of two.. Ps2 Blood will Tell. (one of my friends got it before i could and all of them criticized the game soooo much i almost pass it as crap. but then i started reading about it and got interested in it.
the other was Ps1 Blood omen legacy of kain. same thing.. one of my friends got it before me and he was so mad with the game i saw him throw it out of the car. i almost pass it.. but then i saw a review with a full plot inside and i got super curious with it.
I really enjoyed what little I played of Blood Will Tell. That one's on my PS2 wanted list. As for LoK, there could have been a good game in there but the awful load times stopped me from finding it. :( Really enjoyed the rest of the series tho, and would love to see it make a comeback.
i still have my original Blood will Tell and my Lok. BWT was so original and all the myth and the folklore was in my line of likes. Lok was indeed a pain in the rear with the loadings and the constant VAE VICTUS!!! xD that drove me crazy..
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: bikingjahuty on October 28, 2014, 06:05:11 pm
I actually thought Alien Colonial Marines was a good game.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: burningdoom on October 28, 2014, 06:30:47 pm
Nearly any 2D game during the PS1/Saturn/N64 era. Seriously, go back and read the magazines from then. Games like Guardian Heroes, Metal Slug X, and Castlevania SotN were constantly getting reviews like, "16-bit gameplay on a 32-bit system. We were expecting more."
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: dashv on October 28, 2014, 10:55:45 pm
Nearly any 2D game during the PS1/Saturn/N64 era. Seriously, go back and read the magazines from then. Games like Guardian Heroes, Metal Slug X, and Castlevania SotN were constantly getting reviews like, "16-bit gameplay on a 32-bit system. We were expecting more."
Entitled SOBs. ;)
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: maximo310 on October 28, 2014, 11:02:49 pm
Nearly any 2D game during the PS1/Saturn/N64 era. Seriously, go back and read the magazines from then. Games like Guardian Heroes, Metal Slug X, and Castlevania SotN were constantly getting reviews like, "16-bit gameplay on a 32-bit system. We were expecting more."
Entitled SOBs. ;)
2-D wasn't considered to be as good as the 3-D games that invaded the whole market back in day. Ironically today, the 3-D games from that era mostly look pretty dated, whereas the 2D games continue to look great as they did back in the day.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: fauxshot on October 31, 2014, 01:51:18 pm
Velvet Assassin actually isn't too bad, IF you can get over the AI issues. xD
If you can accept the game's flaws, and play it more like a puzzle game than a stealth game, then it's actually not that bad. It was a good idea, but there's is just so much polish missing... I feel terrible for the person who pre-ordered my copy. ;D
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: retroone on October 31, 2014, 06:24:51 pm
BUBSY!!!! 8)
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: turf on November 01, 2014, 12:30:20 am
People said that Splatterhouse on Xbox 360 was bad. I disagree. It is an over-the-top gory mess, but it was fun to shut your brain off and pummel stuff.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: burningdoom on November 01, 2014, 01:25:01 am
People said that Splatterhouse on Xbox 360 was bad. I disagree. It is an over-the-top gory mess, but it was fun to shut your brain off and pummel stuff.
I haven't played the new one, but that doesn't sound too far off from the original. When I got my copy for TG-16, I have to admit, it was cool at first to see the different horror cliches. But as soon as that novelty wore off, the repetitive gameplay had a hard time keeping my interest.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: insektmute on November 03, 2014, 03:20:20 pm
I've become a big fan of a number of "bad" games from underdog studios. A few of my faves:
- Ar tonelico Qoga [PS3] - Bullet Witch [X360] - Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex [PS2] - Hunted: The Demon's Forge [X360] - Legend of Dragoon, The [PS1] - Parasite Eve II [PS1] - Red Star, The [PS2] - Resident Evil 6 [PS3] - Tenchu: Wrath of Heaven [PS2]
I'm tempted to also throw Dark Sector and Operation Darkness in that pile too, but I've only played their demos so far because backlog. Honorable mention to Binary Domain as well, which has gotten some really good reviews, some absolutely abysmal ones. Really seems to polarize people, but I had a blast with it.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: fauxshot on November 03, 2014, 03:51:01 pm
I've become a big fan of a number of "bad" games from underdog studios. A few of my faves:
- Ar tonelico Qoga [PS3] - Bullet Witch [X360] - Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex [PS2] - Hunted: The Demon's Forge [X360] - Legend of Dragoon, The [PS1] - Parasite Eve II [PS1] - Red Star, The [PS2] - Resident Evil 6 [PS3] - Tenchu: Wrath of Heaven [PS2]
I'm tempted to also throw Dark Sector and Operation Darkness in that pile too, but I've only played their demos so far because backlog. Honorable mention to Binary Domain as well, which has gotten some really good reviews, some absolutely abysmal ones. Really seems to polarize people, but I had a blast with it.
I really need to play the other Parasite Eve games. The 3rd Birthday has been very nice so far.
Never did get the chance to play Bullet Witch, hopefully I can pick it up sometime! I'd like to try Ghost in the Shell on PS2... I have the PSP version, and it's pretty bad. xD
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: insektmute on November 03, 2014, 04:34:31 pm
I really need to play the other Parasite Eve games. The 3rd Birthday has been very nice so far.
Never did get the chance to play Bullet Witch, hopefully I can pick it up sometime! I'd like to try Ghost in the Shell on PS2... I have the PSP version, and it's pretty bad. xD
Yeah, I was also pleasantly surprised by The 3rd Birthday. Haven't finished it yet, but it was much better than most reviews let on.
Bullet Witch is a tough sell for most people. It's a bit rough and unpolished, and the first level of the game is kind of a punishing introduction, but after about 20 minutes getting used to the controls and realizing you have to learn how to dodge, it really sucks you in. Dittto for GitS: SAC, which is also a third-person action game rather than an FPS like the PSP game.
Both are developed by Cavia, so if you've played Nier or any of the Drakengard games, they're all a pretty good indicator of what to expect in terms of production values.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: argyle on November 03, 2014, 04:44:50 pm
I really need to play the other Parasite Eve games. The 3rd Birthday has been very nice so far.
Never did get the chance to play Bullet Witch, hopefully I can pick it up sometime! I'd like to try Ghost in the Shell on PS2... I have the PSP version, and it's pretty bad. xD
Yeah, I was also pleasantly surprised by The 3rd Birthday. Haven't finished it yet, but it was much better than most reviews let on.
Bullet Witch is a tough sell for most people. It's a bit rough and unpolished, and the first level of the game is kind of a punishing introduction, but after about 20 minutes getting used to the controls and realizing you have to learn how to dodge, it really sucks you in. Dittto for GitS: SAC, which is also a third-person action game rather than an FPS like the PSP game.
Both are developed by Cavia, so if you've played Nier or any of the Drakengard games, they're all a pretty good indicator of what to expect in terms of production values.
I loved GitS on the PS2, but I suppose since I didn't know much of Cavia then I never connected it to the Drakengard dev. Bullet Witch either, for that matter.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: fauxshot on November 03, 2014, 04:53:59 pm
I really need to play the other Parasite Eve games. The 3rd Birthday has been very nice so far.
Never did get the chance to play Bullet Witch, hopefully I can pick it up sometime! I'd like to try Ghost in the Shell on PS2... I have the PSP version, and it's pretty bad. xD
Yeah, I was also pleasantly surprised by The 3rd Birthday. Haven't finished it yet, but it was much better than most reviews let on.
Bullet Witch is a tough sell for most people. It's a bit rough and unpolished, and the first level of the game is kind of a punishing introduction, but after about 20 minutes getting used to the controls and realizing you have to learn how to dodge, it really sucks you in. Dittto for GitS: SAC, which is also a third-person action game rather than an FPS like the PSP game.
Both are developed by Cavia, so if you've played Nier or any of the Drakengard games, they're all a pretty good indicator of what to expect in terms of production values.
The 3rd Birthday was actually one of the first titles I bought for my PSP, as recommended by Mark from CGR. I suppose what I like about it so much is that it doesn't... I suppose you might say 'feel' like a handheld game. It's kinda hard to explain. xD It's just a nice game to play.
Yep, idk if it's like this in the PS2 version, but on the PSP, any time you reload, you lose all the bullets in that clip. Now there's a sure sign of a quality game. 8)
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: bloodybaron on November 03, 2014, 06:13:38 pm
I know I mentioned this somewhere else on the forums, but I figured I really want to promote the game since I absolutely loved it. Yu-gi-oh falsebound kingdom on gamecube has average ratings under 4 out of 10 almost anywhere you look. Regardless of these reviews I played through the game multiple times over finding new things every time and I'm gonna finally buy the strategy guide and have a final play through where I make sure I get everything I can.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: insektmute on November 03, 2014, 06:20:49 pm
The 3rd Birthday was actually one of the first titles I bought for my PSP, as recommended by Mark from CGR. I suppose what I like about it so much is that it doesn't... I suppose you might say 'feel' like a handheld game. It's kinda hard to explain. xD It's just a nice game to play.
Yep, idk if it's like this in the PS2 version, but on the PSP, any time you reload, you lose all the bullets in that clip. Now there's a sure sign of a quality game. 8)
Same here. It's actually one of the games that made me want to get a PSP, partially because I'd hoped Square might be testing the waters on a possible Parasite Eve return. No luck there, but it's something, at least.
I haven't played the PSP GitS game, but it doesn't look too hot. Says it's developed by some company called "G-Artists" that has no real resume apart from that, so my guess is that they're some weird random outsourcing company. Cavia's low budget, and responsible for their share of cack, but between GitS, Nier, Drakengard, and Bullet Witch, it makes me really sad that they're gone.
I'd read an interview recently with Taro Yoko, the director on some of those games, that was kind of disheartening too. He'd gotten to do Drakengard 3 basically as a labor of love, with a small team and tiny budget, but after finishing it, he's basically unemployed again. The game gets a 34/40 from Famitsu, but like, 50-60 range scores here in the US. Go figure.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: burningdoom on November 03, 2014, 07:06:12 pm
Wait, Red Star was poorly received? Why?! The game is excellent! It successfully mashes a beat-em up and run-n-gun into one solid game!
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: kamikazekeeg on November 03, 2014, 10:42:07 pm
Since Super Best Friends Play did a video on it, I was reminded of Splatterhouse, the 2010 release. It's not an amazing game, but I remember it getting kinda lower scores and it didn't sell well, but I really loved it. It's over the top, violent, has a metal soundtrack, Jim Cummings is the voice of the mask, and overall was a very solid 3D beat 'em up game that was mostly just held back by a few technical issues and lack of polish. Which is understandable as I forgot it had gotten shifted from one developer to another to actually finish it.
*EDIT* Oh, I missed Turf bringing the game up also. Someone agrees :D
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: instantreplay on November 05, 2014, 10:47:22 am
I've been playing Metroid: Other M and it's actually quite good! I talked a little bit about this in the "What are you playing?" thread, but I'm still surprised at all the hate it gets.
The reason it got so much hate is because Team Ninja absolutely destroyed Samus as a character. Watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XSkRuPuthY
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: insektmute on November 05, 2014, 01:31:40 pm
Wait, Red Star was poorly received? Why?! The game is excellent! It successfully mashes a beat-em up and run-n-gun into one solid game!
A handful of decent scores, but most basically regarded it as a C-grade "repetitive button masher" sort of game... which is hilarious, because doing that in the game would get you killed ASAP.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: betelgeuse on November 16, 2014, 05:36:56 pm
right now i can think of two.. Ps2 Blood will Tell. (one of my friends got it before i could and all of them criticized the game soooo much i almost pass it as crap. but then i started reading about it and got interested in it.
the other was Ps1 Blood omen legacy of kain. same thing.. one of my friends got it before me and he was so mad with the game i saw him throw it out of the car. i almost pass it.. but then i saw a review with a full plot inside and i got super curious with it.
I really liked Legacy of Kain, but man those loading times were brutal. Exit the zone, enter a building, even changing or using an item, come on!!! Still managed to complete it back in the day, was hoping the PS2 or emmulator would of sped up the loading times though. "Coffee guy!!!" I think...
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: maximo310 on November 16, 2014, 05:57:24 pm
I also mention that many shmups get terrible reviews back in the day save for a spare few( Ikaruga, Radiant Silvergun, Sine Mora...) probably due to the fact that many reviewers knock down the game's score because it only lasts half hour when they credit feed through the game in majority of cases, or say that its too difficult when they don't use certain game mechanics. One example is Giga Wing, which got like a 4/10 from Gamespot, and 35% from Dreamcast magazine. The reviewer of the Dreamcast magazine review says the game is impossible to clear without dying, while failing to notice the reflect mechanic during his whole playthrough of the game, and then says that the infinite continues make the game too easy and short, along with the fact that its a 2D game. The game is pretty fun and it sucks that many of these reviewers didn't take the time to truly understand the game's mechanics and notice its replayability.
Review from Dreamcast magazine here: http://www.outofprintarchive.com/articles/reviews/Dreamcast/GigaWing-DreamcastMagazine14-1.html
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: instantreplay on November 22, 2014, 02:36:55 pm
OKAY I JUST REMEMBERED A GAME! I really enjoyed Lost Planet 2. I'll admit the game had very serious flaws like terrible level design and an incomprehensible story. But the boss battles and co-op focus were SO much fun.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: artpro202 on January 18, 2015, 03:18:05 pm
Opoona Koei Rpg Wii
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: gf78 on January 23, 2015, 10:10:50 am
I actually thought Alien Colonial Marines was a good game.
Ok...now I KNOW you are trolling. Really though, I completed the game but it sucked. The story that completely ignores the fact that Hadley's Hope colony was obliterated in a thermonuclear explosion was bad enough. The aliens tiptoeing around in the sewers was worse. Hicks explaining his miraculous survival with no acid burns by stating "It's classified" made me throw my controller down in disgust.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: Jakandsig on January 23, 2015, 03:14:00 pm
Mortal Kombat Gold, nothing wrong with it, people were upset it wasn't a new game, but the game wasn't just a port of Mk4, it had better physics, graphics, additional characters, a better camera, and much better audio and voice.
Singularity is another one, i don't know what people were expecting another timeshift? (which was terrible btw) so not sure about that one either.
Megaman 8 is another, it's technically-objective wise, the best and most modern Megaman game we have gotten and will probably get for the foreseeable future despite it being basically more of the same game with a few coding and voice(debatable) issues (and also very easy)
Last would be Crash Wrath of Cortex, it was basically an expanded Crash 3 with more varied levels, better graphics and controls, and tons of bonuses. load times varied by system so should have never been the general concern, more of the same is nonsense, and I see no repetition either. At least not one some reviewers imply.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: gf78 on January 23, 2015, 03:16:43 pm
Mortal Kombat Gold, nothing wrong with it, people were upset it wasn't a new game, but the game wasn't just a port of Mk4, it had better physics, graphics, additional characters, a better camera, and much better audio and voice.
Singularity is another one, i don't know what people were expecting another timeshift? (which was terrible btw) so not sure about that one either.
Megaman 8 is another, it's technically-objective wise, the best and most modern Megaman game we have gotten and will probably get for the foreseeable future despite it being basically more of the same game with a few coding and voice(debatable) issues (and also very easy)
Last would be Crash Wrath of Cortex, it was basically an expanded Crash 3 with more varied levels, better graphics and controls, and tons of bonuses. load times varied by system so should have never been the general concern, more of the same is nonsense, and I see no repetition either. At least not one some reviewers imply.
I loved Singularity. The game was well laid-out, had some fun ways to kill enemies and warping time to construct/deconstruct things was pretty neat. It was a solid, good game but nothing mind blowing.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: Jakandsig on January 23, 2015, 04:35:18 pm
Mortal Kombat Gold, nothing wrong with it, people were upset it wasn't a new game, but the game wasn't just a port of Mk4, it had better physics, graphics, additional characters, a better camera, and much better audio and voice.
Singularity is another one, i don't know what people were expecting another timeshift? (which was terrible btw) so not sure about that one either.
Megaman 8 is another, it's technically-objective wise, the best and most modern Megaman game we have gotten and will probably get for the foreseeable future despite it being basically more of the same game with a few coding and voice(debatable) issues (and also very easy)
Last would be Crash Wrath of Cortex, it was basically an expanded Crash 3 with more varied levels, better graphics and controls, and tons of bonuses. load times varied by system so should have never been the general concern, more of the same is nonsense, and I see no repetition either. At least not one some reviewers imply.
I loved Singularity. The game was well laid-out, had some fun ways to kill enemies and warping time to construct/deconstruct things was pretty neat. It was a solid, good game but nothing mind blowing.
Never said it was mind blowing, just saying that the amount of uh, dislike it got for the design, and the concept was just weird. Good controls, nice plot, good fun. I know some reviewers retracted some scores though. It did come out at the time of peaking Call of Duty fever (and clones) so that may be why it had so many mixed feelings.
Maybe we'll get a sequel since COD is on a downward death spiral.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: gf78 on January 27, 2015, 12:03:04 pm
I wasn't criticizing your comment with the "mind blowing" statement. LOL. I was just agreeing it was a good game that got panned at worst and overlooked at best.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: stuntman64 on January 27, 2015, 06:54:45 pm
Mad World was good, but there could be more weapons to kill with, more ways to kill as well. The World Ends With You. Can't think of anything else. The World Ends With You was preceived as
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: indenton on February 04, 2015, 03:55:35 pm
I've always been interested in the Rayman franchise, I've heard great things about Rayman Origins, and I really enjoyed Legends. Meanwhile, I finally managed to 'finish' Rayman 2 out of the 2,000 ports of the game I got my hands on.
Rayman has always had a comedy theme about it, not necessarily taking itself too seriously. That continued through to Rayman 3...
Does anyone have any opinions on Rayman 3?
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: argyle on February 04, 2015, 04:02:02 pm
I've always been interested in the Rayman franchise, I've heard great things about Rayman Origins, and I really enjoyed Legends. Meanwhile, I finally managed to 'finish' Rayman 2 out of the 2,000 ports of the game I got my hands on.
Rayman has always had a comedy theme about it, not necessarily taking itself too seriously. That continued through to Rayman 3...
Does anyone have any opinions on Rayman 3?
Black sheep of the franchise imo - I didn't enjoy it at all. They tried to get "edgier" with the characters which just plain didn't fit, plus they gave them real voices which was weird. As if that wasn't bad enough, they got John Leguizamo - one of the most obnoxious comedians there is IMO - to voice Globox. I couldn't finish the game. :-X
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: burningdoom on February 09, 2015, 01:52:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: krelyan on February 09, 2015, 03:01:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: indenton on February 09, 2015, 05:09:48 pm
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?
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: argyle on February 09, 2015, 05:22:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: burningdoom on February 09, 2015, 07:37:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: gf78 on February 10, 2015, 02:48:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: indenton on February 16, 2015, 09:55:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: gf78 on February 17, 2015, 02:59:28 pm
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!
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: betelgeuse on February 18, 2015, 12:22:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: indenton on February 18, 2015, 08:49:01 am
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?
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: gf78 on February 18, 2015, 12:21:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: burningdoom on February 18, 2015, 12:23:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: indenton on February 18, 2015, 02:20:02 pm
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?! :o
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: maximo310 on February 18, 2015, 03:38:52 pm
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?! :o
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).
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: betelgeuse on February 18, 2015, 08:46:36 pm
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!!
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: indenton on February 18, 2015, 11:39:32 pm
Quote from: betelgeuse
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.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: indenton on February 20, 2015, 08:53:17 am
The thing is that rather than looking at each game as a product new off the shelf like your average game critic. I'm looking at these games from a game design point of view, as an art form arguably.
Just look at AVGN, he doesn't often rip into how much of a game is a waste of money, but more of how pissed off he gets at the games. You notice he often brings up the cost of a console or peripheral since he's critiquing the physical item too, and usually when he brings up his experiences with various consoles and games.
I often buy games used, so I don't bring price to playtime into the equation since I didn't pay the full retail price. That may be why I have a bit more tolerance for the likes of Rayman 3 since I bought it really, really cheap.
Title: Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
Post by: kamikazekeeg on February 20, 2015, 11:52:43 pm
Oh! I totally just remembered one. The game itself sadly had a lot of problems due to very obviously rushed development, which would make sense why it was poorly received and didn't last, but it had such great ideas and at times could be a really great shooter. The large scale console shooter action was pretty fun overall and it had some really great original music