Games You Hate (or Games You Like That Everyone Else Hates)

[Peter]

Man after my own heart Henry! Loved them all, but if i had to rank them in order id say:

Mad Dogg 2
Crime Patrol
Mad Dogg
Who Shot Johnny Rock
Lost Bounty Hunter
Space Pirates


Mad Dogg 2 really was great, and i love the reveal of the true ending by not using a credit! I convince myself each time that one of the other guides is easier, but i know they are all as equally challenging. Shooting Beaver and Buckskin Bonnies sequences are fun, but my favourite is the Professors. The bar scene is hilarious, especially with the background peeps playing the original Mad Dogg cabinet! Also the train section has that great "Lethal Enforcers" feel to it!

Crime Patrol, i wish would be released on the Wii also. Some of the one liners in that are pure gold, especially the security guard in the electrical store on rookie stage! I could never beat that game though. On SWAT, i could never get past the section where the criminals use ropes to appear on screen. But i think the calibration of the arcade machine itself that was off. Each time, i could never get past that stage. Oh and it was "Welcome to undercover!", then "Welcome to SWAT"

Mad Dogg will always have a special place in my heart. I can remember being mesmerised by it, and emptying so many 50p pieces into it. I could never get past the mine section (as a kid), and was in awe when a teenage dude got back into town to face the showdown againt Mad Dogg himself. Real life action games were non existent to my knowledge back then, so why these games got such bad reviews is beyond me. I know they are bad like, but they have some redeeming qualities!

[KiBa]

Hmmm... This is most unexpected. Shadow of the Colossus haters. Vagrant Story haters.


"I don't know you anymore!"

[OL]

Absolutely. Some of the best games ever made, in my eyes. But I suppose all great works will have their critics.

[Segata Sanshiro Jr.]

to be honest its hard to not justify dislike for the game. Its one of those things where people claim its a classic and that its a great game but when you really break it down its a two hour game with a single play style.

While that doesn't bother me, and theres alot I like about the game, unlike a vast majority of gamers I can see why someone wouldn't like it, and I do think that it being a team Ico game allowed them to get away with things people would normally kill another company over. theres always a prety bif outrage anytime a game clocks in at less then 5 hours, even Ashura's Wrath caught guff for it.

(and as a game designer I don't think it broke any walls or created any new playstyles, everything it did existed in some form, and in some cases it borrowed elements wholesale. From a narrative standpoint, it didn't do anything particularly new either, not saying much has been around forever. )

so yea, SoTC dosen't cure cancer or make the dead come alive, but it shouldn't have to. Its a great game in its own right, but not the miracle of digital storytelling and interactive media most people claim.

In terms of myself, I don't really hate anything, theres always some fun to be had and somthing to learn, but theres lots of stuff I love that people hate like Bionic Commando 2009 and Virtua Quest

[south carmain]

^ i've always wanted to try virtua quest but it's so damn rare

[Bluecast]

^ i've always wanted to try virtua quest but it's so damn rare

Must be outside the US. Like 8$ here

[south carmain]

really? I have never seen a physical copy in my life here also I only heard about the game 2 years ago

oh I just checked wikipedia and apparently it didn't get a European release, no wonder I've never seen it before

weird that it didn't get a PAL release though, these type of games are usually well received here

[Segata Sanshiro Jr.]

I found a ps2 copy and promptly threw it at a wall, need to find a copy for GCN.

[Bluecast]

I found a ps2 copy and promptly threw it at a wall, need to find a copy for GCN.

http://www.amazon.com/Virtua-Quest-Game ... B0002EJ8DY

[OL]

to be honest its hard to not justify dislike for the game. Its one of those things where people claim its a classic and that its a great game but when you really break it down its a two hour game with a single play style.

I can say the same about Sonic 2.
How does length or variety of gameplay affect quality? How do they affect whether a game can be considered a "classic"?
A "classic" is just something which is regularly referenced as time goes on, and serves as inspiration for others. It's something that remains on peoples' minds. I'd say Shadow of the Colossus fits that bill pretty damn well.

As for whether it did anything truly new at the time, I can't say I agree with you. I can't remember another game that allowed you to scale an enemy a hundred times the size of your own character, all the while being whipped around as you clutch on for dear life.
Sure, individual elements of it had existed before (hanging on to things, stabbing things, firing a bow and arrow, riding horses, yaddah yaddah yaddah), but all of them culled together into one immensely atmospheric and exciting experience?
Not so much.
If you want to split hairs, you can honestly break down and criticize any game that's been created in the past 15 years in the same way. "Borrowing" elements from other games is just how the industry works. It's the application of what's been borrowed that really determines a game's worth.
Any way you cut it, it's a very unique game, which offers a feel that you can't get anywhere else. Though I agree some overly-fanatical gamers blow it out of proportion sometimes (which can get pretty tiring to listen to, so I understand your wanting to play devil's advocate on the subject), I still think it deserves the grand majority of praise that it gets.

[Bluecast]

At this point in gaming every game uses elements from past games. Even something as small as moving the analog stick that harkens back to Mario 64 in a full 3D world. To exp points from Dungeon in 1975. These days the challenge isn't as much anymore of making new tools in essential game mechanics but using mostly what is around now to create a new experience or create a better one of existing ones.

[Segata Sanshiro Jr.]

to be honest its hard to not justify dislike for the game. Its one of those things where people claim its a classic and that its a great game but when you really break it down its a two hour game with a single play style.

I can say the same about Sonic 2.
How does length or variety of gameplay affect quality? How do they affect whether a game can be considered a "classic"?
A "classic" is just something which is regularly referenced as time goes on, and serves as inspiration for others. It's something that remains on peoples' minds. I'd say Shadow of the Colossus fits that bill pretty damn well.

As for whether it did anything truly new at the time, I can't say I agree with you. I can't remember another game that allowed you to scale an enemy a hundred times the size of your own character, all the while being whipped around as you clutch on for dear life.
Sure, individual elements of it had existed before (hanging on to things, stabbing things, firing a bow and arrow, riding horses, yaddah yaddah yaddah), but all of them culled together into one immensely atmospheric and exciting experience?
Not so much.
If you want to split hairs, you can honestly break down and criticize any game that's been created in the past 15 years in the same way. "Borrowing" elements from other games is just how the industry works. It's the application of what's been borrowed that really determines a game's worth.
Any way you cut it, it's a very unique game, which offers a feel that you can't get anywhere else. Though I agree some overly-fanatical gamers blow it out of proportion sometimes (which can get pretty tiring to listen to, so I understand your wanting to play devil's advocate on the subject), I still think it deserves the grand majority of praise that it gets.

Its not necessarily a matter of disagreement, it wasn't the first. There have been a lot of bosses that players have had to scale, and bosses that are considered levels within themselves. Look at say Metroid Prime, for its time it did a lot of new things, some completely new, others borrowed, and even now it has some aspects still unique to itself. It was atmospheric, had an implied story, and bosses that were scaled, but you didn't like it and didn't get the hype. For many people Sotc is the same deal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbbycnv4mXk[/youtube]

Its not devil's advocate actually. As much as i like the game, theres a lot that I see wrong with it, and it bothers me people heap praise on design aspects they'd normally crap on. as a bionic commando fan its annoying to hear "The boss is like a stage SO INNOVATIVE!" when I fought the Albatross 20 years ago. Its also pretty annoying to hear about how "short" a lot of games are. Brutal Legend tanked hard and thats always the number 1 reason on every review.

As i said before, SOTC is a classic, and it is a great game, but its very far from perfect and it does receive a lot of undue praise, at the same time, the people who want to go against the grain shit on it for really stupid reasons. Its another one of those things where theres very little logical discussion because people are invested deeply.

[OL]

The thing is, none of what you mentioned did the same thing as SotC. That Metroid boss is large, sure, and you eventually have to hop on to it to deal damage, but it just isn't the same as being a scantily-armed kid climbing up the hair on a monster's back as it tries to shake you off. Exact same thing goes for the Bionic Commando example. You have to jump on it, avoid a few obstacles, etc, but ultimately it's just not the same thing, despite a couple incredibly general similarities.
It just feels like you're looking at it too broadly. It's not about the fact that the bosses are large, or that you have to get on top of them. It's about the execution of those aspects, and the feelings that one experiences from them (which, of course, the aesthetics play a large part in as well, and rightfully so).

It's like looking at Final Fantasy VI, for example, and saying "It's annoying to hear praise heaped on its story; it's just another 'save the world' situation. It's a good game, but it's been done so many times before".
It's just far too broad an outlook on it. A statement like that doesn't take into account the execution and details of the story, which are what people are actually praising the game for.
Same thing here, just applied to gameplay.
Individual elements may have been done before, and the end result may be the same, but there just isn't another game that does the same thing as SotC, in the same manner, with the same feelings that you get from it.
I don't see why credit needs to be pulled away from it just because some fans get overly-enthusiastic about it, or because they shit on other things for hypocritical reasons. They didn't have a hand in the game, so what they say doesn't matter.
It's not a perfect game, sure, but then again nothing is. That doesn't render a person's (such as myself) praise for it as any less legitimate.

[Bluecast]

Not that I know more games that Manny but I honestly don't know of another game where the bosses are the dungeons.

[OL]

In a technical sense, you could almost say Devil May Cry 3 has something like that, when Dante gets swallowed by the giant flying whale monster, and you have to fight its internal organs.
Whatta great game.