Overrated is a loaded term. It looks good in a headline. It’s often used for no purpose other than to goad a reaction. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. When I call a game overrated, I don’t mean it’s bad, that the reviews were wrong, that the people who liked it were dopes, or even that I didn’t like it. It just means I’m surprised more people weren’t more critical, that the conversation wasn’t more often about ways the game could have been better.
Also, was Mordor 2 overrated? I don’t remember any glowing reviews.
And I was going to say the same thing about Destiny 2 at first, the “wait, is this game liked enough to be considered overrated?” question, but thinking back that did get pretty positive reviews at launch. It wasn’t until almost several entire days later that the community started to see the problems and turn on it.
I’d love a better explanation for Warhammer 2 than “Since when are we putting Roman numerals after titles when it’s pretty much the same game with a new roster of players? I don’t play sports games, so that wasn’t a rhetorical question.” because that’s some next level shit right there. Did he review it and I missed it? I’d have thought he would have come away a lot more impressed, but this description makes me think he doesn’t even own it.
I didn’t see any of the hype on Destiny 2, nor did I play Destiny. I think the criticisms of the game are all justified, but I still find it well worth the on-sale price I paid for it.
As discussed in the review thread, I’d take Tom’s Horizon criticisms more seriously if he didn’t’ fundamentally get certain character motivations and story beats wrong.
In 1981, rock critic Dave Marsh reviewed this noisy rock and roll record from an unknown band in the midwest. He patted them on the head for trying hard, gave them two or three stars, and then dismissed them for their lack of cleverness and songwriting chops. “Who knows if we’ll ever hear from them again? Who really cares?” he wrote.
The band was The Replacements.
Every critic has a couple of those in his or her file drawer. Nature of the game. The puzzling HZD review he wrote is one of Tom’s.
You and I remember the Horizon Zero Dawn thread very differently. :)
I didn’t get anything wrong. You just have some strange restrictions on when the word “derivative” is allowed. And for what it’s worth, I liked Horizon Zero Dawn, hence the score at the end of the review. In fact, I happily bought it for my Secret Santee because I’m 99% sure she’s going to really like it! It’s a fine game clogged with lots of aggressively dumb narrative.
You can check my Steam profile. I’m a pretty open book. But I played very little of it once I realized it was the same game with new factions in a new campaign.
Confession: for some of these, I just looked at the year’s top rated games on Metacritic. To be honest, I had a bit of a struggle coming up with ten! Are games getting better? Are reviews getting more critical? Am I getting more mainstream?
I agree that good storytelling can elevate a game from ok to good or even excellent, but to severely ding a game with great gameplay solely on the basis of “dumb narrative”, JFC, who cares? If the sex, I mean gameplay, is amazing — does it really matter?
1.7 hours is low enough of time played you could probably have gotten a refund.
Same game with new factions in a new campaign? What more could anyone reasonably want from a sequel to a strategy game? Did you think it would become a turn-based 4X game?
This is me as well, I remember a time when I didn’t even play games with stories. Like Punch Out. Did anyone care about the story in Double Dragon, or Ninja Gaiden? I love it when a game draws me in with a cool story and great moments, but the gameplay is king and HZD had fun gameplay.
That being said, I really loved the world HZD built, and the characters and narrative where a decent draw for me.
