Most overrated retro games?

Yes guys,Tetris is overrated,in a way.

It's too simplistic...and it's an extremely old game.

Get over it.

GreekGameManiac

Tetris strips everything but great gameplay, which is all you need.....also, because of that it is a timeless classic, while many other games get dated visually etc. revealing over time that the gameplay isn't as fun and addictive as Tetris.

[QUOTE="GreekGameManiac"]

Yes guys,Tetris is overrated,in a way.

It's too simplistic...and it's an extremely old game.

Get over it.

AFBrat77

Tetris strips everything but great gameplay, which is all you need.....also, because of that it is a timeless classic, while many other games get dated visually etc. revealing over time that the gameplay isn't as fun and addictive as Tetris.

^^

I don't think it makes any sense to refer to retro games as "overrated" today...

By what standards are we judging these games by? By how well they've aged? What matters is not how we think of them today, but what people back then actually thought of those games.

Games like Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time were not considered 'overrated' in the late 90s, but that's a label that was applied to them long after their release.

This is a toughie to answer. Most games I played as a kid that are held to freakishly high standards today are, for the most part, deserving of the love they get.

Classics are classics for a reason: They were amazing and groundbreaking for their time and are still fun to play today, even the ones we hate, but everyone has their own opinions on their own personal classics.

If I had to name a game I think is overrated, despite its status as a classic, it would be LttP, but for entirely personal reasons. I wasn't an actual Zelda fan for many years until I bought and beat Twilight Princess (30+ times, I might add), so I always saw older Zelda games for their flaws instead of their strengths (With that being said, I've always thought Ocarina was an amazing game. Majora, on the other hand... has some major flaws, but as the love and hatred for that game seem to be equal, it's not really an overrated classic. It's always been a niche game). LttP I played after I beat Link's Awakening, which is still my favorite Zelda to this day. I was unimpressed with what I saw in LttP. It's not to say it isn't deserving of the love it gets, but when people amount it as one of the greatest Zelda games ever made, I just can't understand the reasonong. Everything it did right was matched and beaten, not many years after the game came out, but literally the next year by a handheld Zelda (again, my opinion). The story was better, the music was much more memorable, the characters were more memorable as you played through the entire game knowing they were all going to dissapear in the end... I just thought it was the better game of the two, but everyone still says LttP is the best 2D Zelda, if not the best Zelda ever made.

But don't get me wrong, I entirely understand why everyone loves it. It was the Zelda that introduced the playstyle we associate with Zelda today, it set up the majority of the lore for the series, and it's still one of the best adventure games on the SNES. It's not that I don't like the game, which I do, I just consider it's handheld cousin to be the better of the 2. It was the first Zelda where you actually became engrossed in the story and characters as Link developed a personal relationship with Marin, and it actually made you kind of depressed when you realized you have to destroy them all in the end.

I don't think it makes any sense to refer to retro games as "overrated" today...

By what standards are we judging these games by? By how well they've aged? What matters is not how we think of them today, but what people back then actually thought of those games.

Games like Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time were not considered 'overrated' in the late 90s, but that's a label that was applied to them long after their release.

Jag85

The correct thing to argue over with them, in my opinion, is whether or not you still find them fun and relevant in comparison to their descendants.

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

and Link's Awakening and Oracle of Ages are both better than ALttP.

turtlethetaffer

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

and Link's Awakening and Oracle of Ages are both better than ALttP.

ItsEvolution

Yeah. He forgot Seasons.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

and Link's Awakening and Oracle of Ages are both better than ALttP.

ItsEvolution

Hey,it's his opinion.

But i'd like to hear why he thinmks that.

Explain,turtlethefather>?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I don't think it makes any sense to refer to retro games as "overrated" today...

By what standards are we judging these games by? By how well they've aged? What matters is not how we think of them today, but what people back then actually thought of those games.

Games like Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time were not considered 'overrated' in the late 90s, but that's a label that was applied to them long after their release.

WiiCubeM1

The correct thing to argue over with them, in my opinion, is whether or not you still find them fun and relevant in comparison to their descendants.

[QUOTE="ItsEvolution"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

and Link's Awakening and Oracle of Ages are both better than ALttP.

GreekGameManiac

I don't think it makes any sense to refer to retro games as "overrated" today...

By what standards are we judging these games by? By how well they've aged? What matters is not how we think of them today, but what people back then actually thought of those games.

Games like Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time were not considered 'overrated' in the late 90s, but that's a label that was applied to them long after their release.

Jag85

It became popular to call games that were/are popular and the games that were initially un-popular but got a cult following thru the time "over-rated".

This extends beyond games too and I think it's simply a reflection of the modern, "internet age" that considers everything that gets some praise "over-rated".

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

gamenerd15

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

bultje112

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

Agreed. I'd say that and Morrowind were the 2 games that blew the doors wide open for open-world/sandbox type gameplay.

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Final Fantasy 7 has design problems, IMO. The movement and scene changes are cumbersome--they're very inconsistent. On second Dpad up moves your character into the scene, the scene has it going left, and then all of a sudden hitting dpad down moves your character on an angle and then yer stuck on a background. Heirren

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Legend002

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

bultje112

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]Final Fantasy 7 has design problems, IMO. The movement and scene changes are cumbersome--they're very inconsistent. On second Dpad up moves your character into the scene, the scene has it going left, and then all of a sudden hitting dpad down moves your character on an angle and then yer stuck on a background. Jag85

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Legend002

It is a flaw though. People just overlooked it because of hype. So, we have a game with apparent design problems, yet it is hailed by almost everyone--that's what overrated is.Heirren

And he scores.

Good post,Heirren.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]Final Fantasy 7 has design problems, IMO. The movement and scene changes are cumbersome--they're very inconsistent. On second Dpad up moves your character into the scene, the scene has it going left, and then all of a sudden hitting dpad down moves your character on an angle and then yer stuck on a background. Jag85

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Legend002

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] That wasn't considered a design problem at the time though. Compared to previous 3D efforts that relied on pre-rendered backdrops, like Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil, FFVII was actually a step up when it came to the controls. [QUOTE="Legend002"]

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Heirren

It is a flaw though. People just overlooked it because of hype. So, we have a game with apparent design problems, yet it is hailed by almost everyone--that's what overrated is.Heirren

If you want to find a legitimate flaw, you need to compare it to games that came around that same time or before it, not games that came long after it.

Thhe very things tons of games back then got daggered for before and after!DerveCreaves

[QUOTE="Heirren"]It is a flaw though. People just overlooked it because of hype. So, we have a game with apparent design problems, yet it is hailed by almost everyone--that's what overrated is.Jag85

If you want to find a legitimate flaw, you need to compare it to games that came around that same time or before it, not games that came long after it.

Thhe very things tons of games back then got daggered for before and after!DerveCreaves

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

Jag85

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

Tank controls are not a design flaw. They're bauce.

No, the issue is still there. Square spent so much time designing the cgi backgrounds, which angles to use for the game, and the movement was an afterthought. I personally cannot think of an RPG, or any game, that has this problem. Even in Resident Evil, pushing UP always walked the character forward. It's a legitimate flaw, one that even fans like yourself recognize, as you know what I'm talking about.Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"]No, the issue is still there. Square spent so much time designing the cgi backgrounds, which angles to use for the game, and the movement was an afterthought. I personally cannot think of an RPG, or any game, that has this problem. Even in Resident Evil, pushing UP always walked the character forward. It's a legitimate flaw, one that even fans like yourself recognize, as you know what I'm talking about.Jag85

if there's one thing overrated about ff7, it's the cgi. I know it impressed many, but there was no speech in any of it and it was meaningless most of all

if there's one thing overrated about ff7, it's the cgi. I know it impressed many, but there was no speech in any of it and it was meaningless most of all

bultje112

Back then it was amazing. The gameplay graphics may be blocky, and the gameplay may be more linear than most RPGs, as many have pointed out. But one thing that FFVII definetly did wow, amaze, and break down doors with is the CGI cutscenes. They were jaw-dropping back then and some of the best ever seen up to that point.

I don't agree at all. they added nothing for me. they looked really great yes, but what's the point of seeing a train go or something and games released around same time that did it better like enemy zero, panzer dragoon saga, sakura taisen, those were amazing

ocarina of time

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]No, the issue is still there. Square spent so much time designing the cgi backgrounds, which angles to use for the game, and the movement was an afterthought. I personally cannot think of an RPG, or any game, that has this problem. Even in Resident Evil, pushing UP always walked the character forward. It's a legitimate flaw, one that even fans like yourself recognize, as you know what I'm talking about.Heirren

Also, I think it's incorrect to say FFVII was overrated simply because of "advertising and cgi". FFVII didn't really become "overrated" until a few years later, when fans started hailing it as the "greatest game of all time" (it even beat Ocarina of Time in a few polls). And the reason why these millions of fans were "overrating" it wasn't because of the "advertising or cgi", but because... you know, they actually thought it was a great game for its time? If so many fans didn't start hailing it as the greatest game ever, we wouldn't be calling the game "overrated" now. It was because of the fans it became "overrated", not because of the "advertising and cgi".

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

bultje112

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

I'm not sh!tting on your opinion (I'm just curious), but what is it that makes you think Shenume is better than GTA3?

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

bultje112

That's exactly what I mean. GTA 3 allowed you to go around doing what you want with barely any consequences. It was the fact that you were free to break the rules, that is what I really liked about GTA 3 when I first played it. It was a different experience from Shenmue, but in terms of urban open-world design, I'd actually say they were quite similar, but just with different goals. Shenmue's goal was to create a more realistic urban environment that felt closer to our own real lives, whereas GTA 3's goal was to create an anarchic urban environment that made us feel almost 'divine' in how much freedom we had to break the rules of society. Shenmue felt too real, whereas GTA 3 felt more like a fantasy, hence why the latter succeeded with the masses in a way the former couldn't.

I'm not sh!tting on your opinion (I'm just curious), but what is it that makes you think Shenume is better than GTA3?

GreySeal9

I can't speak for him, but personally, I initially preferred GTA 3, but after getting bored of it, I gave Shenmue another chance and ended up enjoying that a lot more than GTA 3. Despite being a bit more restrictive than GTA 3 (i.e. you can't beat people up, and at times certain places are inaccessible), at the same time Shenmue was also a lot more progressive than GTA 3 in other ways. Shenmue allowed you to knock on any door and enter into most buildings (which you couldn't do in GTA until Vice City), you could open almost any cupboard or drawer (which GTA also didn't allow), it had a lot of mini-games (which GTA didn't have until much later), the NPC's felt like actual people going about their own daily routines (and the realistic graphics helped in that regard), the day-night cycles (with real-time weather effects) and QTE's had an effect on how the story unfolded (although, ultimately, there were only two possible endings), and of course the plot itself had me interested in uncovering the mysteries and progressing the story. Despite both being urban sandbox games, Shenmue felt like a different experience, and one that I ended up finding more preferrable, compared to GTA 3. I'd also have to say Shenmue has aged a lot better than GTA 3, due to GTA 3 being imitated so much, whereas Shenmue still feels fresh because there haven't been that many games like it since.

Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. Cloud_765

I'd say a lot of the 8-bit classics have aged quite badly today, at least compared to most of the 16-bit classics. Still, I wouldn't consider them overrated, but just dated. I can't really say if these games were really overrated for their time unless I was around back then to judge it. But since I was a Sega Master System boy, I never played any of the NES classics until well over a decade later, by which time they felt very dated to me. On the other hand, I can still go back to playing some of the SMS classics and still enjoy them today. Strange.

Shenmue II is better than GTA3 but Vice City is better than Shenmue II.

Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. Cloud_765

Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. Cloud_765

[QUOTE="Cloud_765"]Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. dagreenfish

2 things would make the game so much better:

1. An in-game map would have been a Godsend.

2. Not having to constantly farm for health. Yeah, you have to do it at times in the other Metroid games, but it seems the original relies on it. There are no recharge stations. The health appears less frequently than in other Metroid games, and no matter how many energy tanks you've collected you always start your game/save with only 30 points of health.

Thankfully there's Metroid: Zero Mission now. Which fixes both of those problems and gives Samus a greater range of control, as well as updated graphics and sound.

[QUOTE="dagreenfish"][QUOTE="Cloud_765"]Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. Emerald_Warrior

2 things would make the game so much better:

1. An in-game map would have been a Godsend.

2. Not having to constantly farm for health. Yeah, you have to do it at times in the other Metroid games, but it seems the original relies on it. There are no recharge stations. The health appears less frequently than in other Metroid games, and no matter how many energy tanks you've collected you always start your game/save with only 30 points of health.

Thankfully there's Metroid: Zero Mission now. Which fixes both of those problems and gives Samus a greater range of control, as well as updated graphics and sound.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="dagreenfish"] Actually I just played GBA NES Classics Metroid a few weeks ago. It was great fun and provided more of a challenge than I remembered. Still a great game.dagreenfish

2 things would make the game so much better:

1. An in-game map would have been a Godsend.

2. Not having to constantly farm for health. Yeah, you have to do it at times in the other Metroid games, but it seems the original relies on it. There are no recharge stations. The health appears less frequently than in other Metroid games, and no matter how many energy tanks you've collected you always start your game/save with only 30 points of health.

Thankfully there's Metroid: Zero Mission now. Which fixes both of those problems and gives Samus a greater range of control, as well as updated graphics and sound.

Secret paths were still hidden in later Metroids with maps. But the general lay-out was there for you so you didn't get lost.

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] I wouldn't say there was "nothing like it", as there were plenty of sandbox games before it, but what made GTA 3 unique was its crime-oriented sandbox gaming... When I first played it, the 3D urban sandbox environment felt kind of like Shenmue, except without having to obey any laws... Up until then, I never realized jacking cars or running over pedestrians could be so much fun (at the time).

GreySeal9

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

I'm not sh!tting on your opinion (I'm just curious), but what is it that makes you think Shenume is better than GTA3?

I suggest you read this review of shenmue 2 from me. basically the same counts for shenmue 1(although 2 is better in many ways) the amount of detail gone into a game the size of this had never been done before or done since, for instance EVERY character is different. that's right every person you encounter in the games is unique, you can enter virtuall every place,shop,home! like skyrim for instance. in almost every way it's better than gta 3. story, graphics, gameplay(fighting), there's a lot more things to do in general.

http://www.gamespot.com/shenmue-ii/user-reviews/786680/platform/dreamcast/

pls read, the same counts for shenmue 1, although 2 is bigger

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

bultje112

I'm not sh!tting on your opinion (I'm just curious), but what is it that makes you think Shenume is better than GTA3?

I suggest you read this review of shenmue 2 from me. basically the same counts for shenmue 1(although 2 is better in many ways) the amount of detail gone into a game the size of this had never been done before or done since, for instance EVERY character is different. that's right every person you encounter in the games is unique, you can enter virtuall every place,shop,home! like skyrim for instance. in almost every way it's better than gta 3. story, graphics, gameplay(fighting), there's a lot more things to do in general.

http://www.gamespot.com/shenmue-ii/user-reviews/786680/platform/dreamcast/

pls read, the same counts for shenmue 1, although 2 is bigger

Wow. You really love Shenmue. Nice to see so much passion for a game.

I agree that Shenmue 2 was fvcking awesome tho, and Shenmue 1 was also awesome but to a lesser extent. I thought that GTA 3 was funner to play, but I do agree that Shenmue has it easily trumped as far as atmosphere and story is concerned. The only thing I don't like about Shenmue, besides some awkward voice acting, is the controls when you're walking around (they are fine during fights); Ryu moves like a fvcking tank. Tho to be fair, GTA 3's on foot controls are not that hot either.

Resident Evil 2. I was going to mention 1 and 2, but I think when RE1 came out the survival horror genre was still quite new to consoles so it was quite scary. Now graphics and sound fidelity age, but what those graphics and sounds can evoke can stay true for decades. It isn't how these factors have aged that pull RE2 down, it's the voice acting: bad acting is bad, regardless of what decade or what technology is available. The effect this has on RE2 is devastatingly counter to what the game is about. RE2 I consider overated precisely because so many reviewers felt the game was 'scary'. Even at the time we knew the voice acting and writing was comically bad. The last thing you want when trying to make a game scary is cutscenes where the player has to control their urge to laugh out hysterically. And yet we all played along. Looking back on it now it is even harder to look past. The performance is so bad it actually undermines the 'horror' aspect for which the game is often praised. For that I consider it overated.Articuno76

You're gonna fault RE2 for it's voice-acting over RE1? Neither of them were good, by any means, but RE1 was just on a entirely different level. It's like they were trying their hardest to be campy.

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]Resident Evil 2. I was going to mention 1 and 2, but I think when RE1 came out the survival horror genre was still quite new to consoles so it was quite scary. Now graphics and sound fidelity age, but what those graphics and sounds can evoke can stay true for decades. It isn't how these factors have aged that pull RE2 down, it's the voice acting: bad acting is bad, regardless of what decade or what technology is available. The effect this has on RE2 is devastatingly counter to what the game is about. RE2 I consider overated precisely because so many reviewers felt the game was 'scary'. Even at the time we knew the voice acting and writing was comically bad. The last thing you want when trying to make a game scary is cutscenes where the player has to control their urge to laugh out hysterically. And yet we all played along. Looking back on it now it is even harder to look past. The performance is so bad it actually undermines the 'horror' aspect for which the game is often praised. For that I consider it overated.Emerald_Warrior

You're gonna fault RE2 for it's voice-acting over RE1? Neither of them were good, by any means, but RE1 was just on a entirely different level. It's like they were trying their hardest to be campy.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]Resident Evil 2. I was going to mention 1 and 2, but I think when RE1 came out the survival horror genre was still quite new to consoles so it was quite scary. Now graphics and sound fidelity age, but what those graphics and sounds can evoke can stay true for decades. It isn't how these factors have aged that pull RE2 down, it's the voice acting: bad acting is bad, regardless of what decade or what technology is available. The effect this has on RE2 is devastatingly counter to what the game is about. RE2 I consider overated precisely because so many reviewers felt the game was 'scary'. Even at the time we knew the voice acting and writing was comically bad. The last thing you want when trying to make a game scary is cutscenes where the player has to control their urge to laugh out hysterically. And yet we all played along. Looking back on it now it is even harder to look past. The performance is so bad it actually undermines the 'horror' aspect for which the game is often praised. For that I consider it overated.Articuno76

You're gonna fault RE2 for it's voice-acting over RE1? Neither of them were good, by any means, but RE1 was just on a entirely different level. It's like they were trying their hardest to be campy.

It was only the 2nd game in the series, and survival-horror was a brand-new genre then. It didn't have to be original over the 1st game, because it was the standard-setter back then. All it had to do was be bigger, longer, and better polished. Check, check, and check.