Games that deserved better reviews

Oh hey guys.

Ever played a game that recieved bad/average reviews and you didnt get why?

What game/s have you experienced this with?

Arkham Knight has flaws, but I in no way agree with a 7. It is at the very least an 8. What I've played so far I'd say it's around an 8.5.

So, is this about games deserving better reviews or about games deserving a better score? Because I can respect the former, while I couldn't care less about the latter.

@loafofgame: i see your point, hold on......

Hmm, I never take review scores that serious. Best to hear what they say than the number they slap at the end. The opinion that matters is your own.

I typically don't read reviews anymore. I'd rather play the game for myself.

@ariabed:

Through time, I'm about sure it happened few times and the last I can remember is the new Carmageddon that I gave a bad score but not as bad as GS did.

Not sure if anyone heard of this one but Secret Ponchos deserved a higher score from most reviewers. Had a lot of fun playing that game.

I suppose one game that comes to mind is Beyond: Two Souls. It averaged about a 70 on Metacritic, which isn't bad, but the reviews were very mixed with plenty of negative ones. I suppose I can understand some of the complaints and just that it isn't a game for some people, but it's the comparison to Heavy Rain's scores that always kind of baffled me. Heavy Rain has a metacritic score of 87 and I didn't really like that game any more or less than Beyond: Two Souls. I thought they were both great. Perhaps Heavy Rain had more interesting branches in its story, but I loved the performances from the actors a bit more in Beyond: Two Souls. But I dunno... shouldn't let numbers bother me. I enjoyed both games and that's all that should matter to me.

Yeah I agree... I enjoyed Beyond as much as Heavy Rain, and thought it deserved a better score.

Another that comes to mind is Mafia 2. It scored OK, but I thought it deserved higher.

7 out of 10 is a good score, I personally think players get the wrong end of the stick with most reviews and there scores. From time to time I think a reviewer might miss the point/ attraction of a game and give it a score unfairly, I think that can be seen when a review is alot lower then the average metacritic/ user score.

The story in Beyond was very dumb. The only part of the game that I felt emotionally invested in was the homeless chapter. Every other moment in that game is super dumb and poorly written.

Heavy Rain also has lots of flaws, but It was an engaging mystery that kept my interest the majority of the time.

Yeah that's another pretty good example. 75 overall isn't bad, but I felt it was a more deserving game. Great story and characters and a decent open world city with some interesting gameplay mechanics like being pulled over for speeding lol.

That's generally what I hear from people who didn't like Beyond. I didn't have many gripes with the story, even though some parts were kind of weird.

@SoNin360: I mostly enjoyed Beyond as well, think it gets my vote here too, sadly never played Heavy Rain, been on my one day list for years

Another one that comes to mind... Fatal Frame 2 is sitting at an 81 on MC which is rock solid but if I let personal bias in its much higher than that

Also, It would help to know if we are talking about critic reviews or generally everyone (metacritic / steam). When I read critic reviews I try not to focus on their impression but more the actuality of what the game is doing. There have been many times where a journalist said "I didn't like this game because of X reason" and I thought 'X reason' sounded awesome. In other words, I got the information I needed without digging too deep into the rating or the reviewer's opinion.

Also, gamers tend to be desensitized to number scores. We see a game get scored a 7/10 and act like that's a bad score when actually that's really good. If every good game got a 9 or 10 what would be the point of rating them?

Do you mean in terms of scores that you disagree with or just poorly written reviews from hack reviewers?

Because the latter I can understand, but the former is just hilarious. It's an opinion from an individual, not an objective evaluation of overall quality.

My top 5 under-rated games are:

• Lost Odyssey - 360
• Bionic Commando - 360, PS3
• God Hand - PS2
• Too Human - 360
• Resident Evil 6

7 is a good score, but it's not great. 8 is great. 9 is amazing, 10 is as good as it gets. Batman's a great game, not just good.

when you see a bad score for a game you like you can always go check out the reviewer's twitter and everything will become clear. You will understand almost in an instant why people like kevin vanord hate games like the new deux ex, without even playing it first, but love stuff like gone home, a game most people hate.

Yes a review is an individuals opinion, but when a game recieves bad reviews across the board its more than one persons opinion, its the general opinion of a majority.

I thought reviews were objective evaluations of overall quality?

@ariabed: it's difficult to be objective about a personal experience.

If they were, then they'd all be the same evaluation.

But they are opinions about enjoyment, which is why they vary and sometimes widely.

True.

But if a reviewer states he/she doesn't like a game because of bad mechanics(if the mechanics are actually bad) is that an objective view based on facts or personal opinion?

@mastermetal777: ^^^

Yeah I would definitely agree with Mafia 2 deserving a higher score, that game was very polished and extremely detailed. I would go as far to call that game a masterpiece in my books.

I think a problem across the board with reviews is that they're supposed to be opinions, but the complication here is that these reviews written by professionals are supposed to be more objective than subjective. I mean we trust these reviews, for most of us it's the basis on whether or not we are going to buy specific games. I think opinions are good for the gaming industry, and provide with more distinctive and niche genres of gaming, but reviews should stay unbiased in every way possible. I mean we can't expect reviewers to have our same thoughts on a game of course, but reviews should be opinions, opinions that can be justified through arguments. If I feel a reviewer's argument is lacking, I will end up looking for another review. Usually I tend to stay away from number scores all together, but that's an entire different story, and I feel like I shouldn't add to this wall of text anymore :P

Hitman Contracts had some of the best missions of the series, let down by an unsatisfying story ending. I would have given it more praise than it originally received. Unlike many games today, I go back to it every few years.

Loved too human.

No one person can be an authority on the objective. Even if they THINK those mechanics are bad, what are they going by? The limited experience they've had playing a select number of games.

Only when someone has played every single game in existence, to completion, and experienced everything there is to be experienced with regards to gaming (which is impossible) then and only then can they truly be "objective".

The whole point of reviews is to follow a select few of the writers, get to know their tastes, and then take what they say about games with a grain of salt, and apply it to what you know you like. That's how reviews should properly be read and applied to life as a gamer. They shouldn't even have scores, since that literally reflects nothing about the game itself besides the person reviewing it's opinion regarding their enjoyment of it (and if they try and tell you they are "evaluating" it based on some bullshit metric they came up with, then they are lying).

The best parts of reviews are when authors are talking about things like gameplay mechanics, genre tropes, performance issues and the like. Those give us as readers a proper reference to what is actually IN the game and whether or not we might enjoy it.

Those that use a review as a springboard for a political commentary are the worst.

@ariabed: Arkham Origins is a game i have big issues with. Great game, yet got horrible reviews

here is a ranking by people's rating to each feature of a game, do you guys this might somewhat solve the problem?

http://www.scofen.com/categories/20

thoughts?

I can hardly think about games that deserved better reviews, I can think of tons which would get something far worse from me.

Starting with Mario Kart Double Dash, suck a gimmicky game that people seem to love and critics too. Madworld for the Wii was slightly praised and it's just a dumb button smasher. Smash Bros Brawl is another example.

I guess the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series???????

Need to revisit them actually, my childhood.

The Order got a 5, I demand a re- review, 5 is far too generous.

Superman Returns

When every CoD gets 8s and 9s, one has to wonder about the legitimacy of reviews.

ghost recon future soldier.

the evil within

Usually the best reviews will be user ones since they don't try to please anyone and will give an honest opinion usually, unless they are crazy fanboys. Gamespot reviews should be carefully looked at, i lost trust in them after they fired one of their employees for giving a low score and honest review on a game many years back. Now i see their reviews and im not sure if they ranked it high because they had ads up, of if the reviewer is scared of getting fired, or if they actually did like the game.

Probably the only reviewer you can trust is Kevin V, the rest i wouldn't... although i disagree'd with im in the witcher 3, its not 10/10 good, its a 7 good, its far too boring to be any higher and still not quite open world like i thought it would be, just little map sections with invisible walls everywhere.

Also when they review mmos, you pretty much can ignore anything they said because they just dont put enough hours into them. Gamespot needs a hardcore section of people who just review those and specialize in them... you need someone that can actually put at least thousand hrs into these things to give a real opinion.

Am I playing the 'buggy' version then? because I haven't encountered a single invisible wall save for when you reach the ends of the world.

On-topic: Castlevania Lords of Shadows and Stronghold 2.

@gwynnblade: Invisible wall means that you run to the edge of a map and see open land where you think you can ride to but can't because theres actually nothing beyond it.

Its not like its a big deal really, but when they were trying to compare it to a real open world game like skyrim, its a let down since Skyrims world you can run to anywhere in it without a loading screen which keeps the immersion of a real world more (minus the houses or the underground areas that load which was annoying)

I agree that that is usually the case with game reviewers. But both user reviews and professional reviews have their sides, in my opinion. I don't trust either as the user review tends to be a bit extreme and the professional reviews seem so unnatural. I don't look at scores for either though.

So, in conclusion: your only gripe is, why was there a 'map' when there was nothing in it, actually?

Sir, you need to stop comparing Skyrim with The Witcher 3.

So far after playing quite a few hours of Arkham Knight, I must say the game is worthy of some of the highest praise a person can give. There's essentially not a game out there that offers content of this magnitude at such exceptionally high levels of quality. Rocksteady continues to push the action adventure genre far beyond what all other developers have managed too pull off.

None, because no critic´s opinion matter that much in the end.

Ehhh, I don't know about that.

I would definitely cut 5-10 hours from that game if I could. Some of those side missions are not fun when they are repeated more then once.

Mario Kart 64 (6.4), Ratchet & Clank Tools of Destruction (7.5), Legend of Dragoon (6.4)

So their opinions matter a little then?

@ariabed: he's saying that, in the end, only your own opinion on a game should matter to you, regardless of what critics have said about it.

Yeh thanx dude i get it but this thread is about games that got bad reviews that you actually enjoyed, its easy for people just to list games you liked that got bad reviews instead of people being a bit of a smart ass, there's no need for all this philosophical talk :P

Anyway jacanuk said their opinions don't matter "that much" so they obviously do matter even if just a little bit.

If a game gets bad reviews across the board i will likely not buy it or even attempt to play it, i mean if a majority dont like the elements of a game then its only logical that there must be some truth in the criticism.