Author Topic: Games that were poorly received but were actually good  (Read 8307 times)

indenton

Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
« Reply #60 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. 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2015, 08:55:12 am by indenton »

Re: Games that were poorly received but were actually good
« Reply #61 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

MAG on PS3.  They need to revive this idea.