What's The Most Overrated Game Of All Time?

If you appreciate BOTW for its complexity of interacting gameplay systems, then you can understand the appeal of MGS. Yes the story is bonkers and brilliant, but the gameplay is still king. MGSV is the only game I would comfortably compare to BOTW.

MGSV has a lot in common with BotW, it's so good ir makes the previous Metal Gear games look less special (even though they're all pretty damm good).

Yes and No

MGSV The Phantom Pain is by far the best from a gameplay perspective with some quirks of the series, then I look at MGS4 Guns of the Patriots which you could easily say is the worst to play but the one that is the most METAL GEAR! It's why I brought up MGS3 Snake Eater as I feel it's the best of both.

That I don't think Phantom Pain makes any of the rest, less special, just really depends on what you want from your game.

MGSV is refined to near perfection in mechanics, but all of the MGS games play great and are packed with detail. MGS3 is my favourite and every time I play it I seem to find something new. MGS4 has excellent gameplay, especially in the first half of the game in the more open areas. I love how differently they can play out depending on whether you sneak your way through or whether you join the fight on the rebel's side.

I ain't a big fan of MGS, but I've not really played it - it just annoys me from a distance. However, the announcement of the Turok remasters has made me reaslise what the real most overrated game of all time is.

Ape Escape.

No wait - Turok 2. Hope you like long tunnels!

Great shout. I'm a little bit excited for the Turok remaster, but not the Turok 2 one. It's a long, plodding, ordinary game that I didn't think was anything special when all the 1998 magazines were saying 'Goldeneye beater!', 'best N64 game!', 'I'm looking forward to The Matrix!' and all that mince.

I heard it has a big gun that explodes your brain and therefore it's the best FPS ever. 95%.

The Cerebral bore was quality though.

Treesmurf wrote:

it's so good ir makes the previous Metal Gear games look less special (even though they're all pretty damm good).

If MGS1's story wasn't so much fun with all the brilliant dialogue, setpieces and character moments, I'd probably have dropped the series there. People still herald that as being one of the best games ever but I found it miserable to play thanks to how it controls. Remake all the MGS games in the style of MGSV and we'll be onto a winner.

That comes back to SM64 and FFVII, along with other high profile games of the time. Nostalgia and historical value will always keep them being talked about as some of the best games ever.

JayMoyles wrote:

Remake all the MGS games in the style of MGSV and we'll be onto a winner.

They'd all be horribly broken and easy. I think Twin Snakes is a good remake because it's just nicer to play, but it's undoubtedly easier than the original and somewhat broken with the addition of MGS2 mechanics. All the other games I think play well today, even if you use the original fixed camera on MGS3 - because it's designed for it.

I recently replayed Twin Snakes and it's easier along with nicer to play than MGS (recently dabbled with on PS1 Classic & PS3), yet compared to a current gen games (even last gen) Twin Snakes still feels from it's from another time and people would very likely have issues playing it.

I've never understood those arguments to be honest, no game becomes less playable than it originally was (assuming you're playing with the same hardware), and if you think it does then that's on you for being unable to adjust from your modern expectations. Any issues you raise now were always present because it's the same game.

I still enjoyed my time with it and I could have easily played MGS on PS1 but peeps do have issues just have to read some of these posts which bring up SM64 and FFVII.

Also games like Resident Evil come to mind due to tank controls which I find fine, but how many people don't.

I guess it be watching a older film and noticing what is now really bad CGI or something, which might not have been something you took notice of the first time watching.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

I've never understood those arguments to be honest, no game becomes less playable than it originally was (assuming you're playing with the same hardware), and if you think it does then that's on you for being unable to adjust from your modern expectations. Any issues you raise now were always present because it's the same game.

I've just realised that I can't use my favourite forum meme any more, after Spacey's history came out.

Although having said that, I'm not sure exactly how WROOOOOOONG a post it is. I think where we differ is that I don't think there's anything wrong with judging a game you're playing now based on modern expectations. You're playing it now! It has to compete for your playtime with games that have huge worlds, or orchestral soundtracks, or improved AI. I think it's reasonable to have a modern mindset on games in the modern day. 'Ageing badly' does just mean 'it compares less favourably against its modern-day peers', but I don't think there's anything WROOOOOOONG with that.

I suppose the subtleties creep in when it comes to things that aren't... I won't say 'better', but you know. Like comparing pixels with modern visuals. So you could say that being unable to enjoy tightly focussed experiences because you're playing open-world games all the time is your fault, not the linear game's. But it's all subjective anyway, isn't it? In most cases you're not saying the older game's 'bad', just that it's 'not for me any more'. Which is fair enough.

I forgot my point.

masofdas wrote:

I still enjoyed my time with it and I could have easily played MGS on PS1 but peeps do have issues just have to read some of these posts which bring up SM64 and FFVII.

Also games like Resident Evil come to mind due to tank controls which I find fine, but how many people don't.

I guess it be watching a older film and noticing what is now really bad CGI or something, which might not have been something you took notice of the first time watching.

If it's action films then sure, but old films in general relied more on story and characters and age far better than videogames. Something like North by Northwest or Sunset Boulevard are still fantastic - I watched Kramer vs. Kramer last night, a 40-year old film with like five or six actors in it, and it's still superb.

The 5th gen is a strange one, as early 3D follows similar patterns to the early 2D era. 95% of it has aged badly and many ideas were better implemented in the generation after. I didn't play MGS1 at the time, so when I had MGS2 I didn't understand the fuss. I had Twin Snakes but only beat the first disc, so by the time 3 rolled around I'd moved on to other series. As far as replaying the series, would you guys recommend an order to play them in?

Regarding Turok 2, I loved that game in 1999 but it was almost unplayable. Not just the clunky controls but the stupid difficulty that meant "BEWAREOBLIVIONISATHAND" was etched in to my brain for eternity. For some reason, there was a multiplayer mode that me and my friends rarely touched, yet there was a Turok: Rage Wars arena shooter released focusing JUST on that bad multiplayer. Those were strange times indeed. I'm pretty sure Turok 3 came out just after Perfect Dark and N64 Magazine realised how bad the series was compared to Rare's finest.

I was thinking about something like The Matrix which is from 99, would have aged due the special effects.

I would have said you could play MGS2 without playing the first but now I would still play in release order as going from Phantom Pain to Metal Gear (MSX) would be rather strange.

Rock, scissors paper. I don't get why kids enjoy it so much.

You can piss off with that bad hot take. It’s the best way to come to a compromise as unlike a simple coin toss it’s a bit of a mind game and both players have had the chance to not screw up.

Sent from Topic'it App

Ooh I know how useful it is, I use it all the time. But I've never found it particularly fun. Japanese kids fucking love it, though.

I regularly use it at work when someone doesn't want to do what I ask them to, somehow it usually works, top game.

Balladeer wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

I've never understood those arguments to be honest, no game becomes less playable than it originally was (assuming you're playing with the same hardware), and if you think it does then that's on you for being unable to adjust from your modern expectations. Any issues you raise now were always present because it's the same game.

I've just realised that I can't use my favourite forum meme any more, after Spacey's history came out.

Although having said that, I'm not sure exactly how WROOOOOOONG a post it is. I think where we differ is that I don't think there's anything wrong with judging a game you're playing now based on modern expectations. You're playing it now! It has to compete for your playtime with games that have huge worlds, or orchestral soundtracks, or improved AI. I think it's reasonable to have a modern mindset on games in the modern day. 'Ageing badly' does just mean 'it compares less favourably against its modern-day peers', but I don't think there's anything WROOOOOOONG with that.

I suppose the subtleties creep in when it comes to things that aren't... I won't say 'better', but you know. Like comparing pixels with modern visuals. So you could say that being unable to enjoy tightly focussed experiences because you're playing open-world games all the time is your fault, not the linear game's. But it's all subjective anyway, isn't it? In most cases you're not saying the older game's 'bad', just that it's 'not for me any more'. Which is fair enough.

I forgot my point.

I don't think I can respond to this

gjones wrote:

As far as replaying the series, would you guys recommend an order to play them in?

Play MGS3 first, as a prequel it's standalone enough for new players to understand, and I also think it's the best in the series.

Balladeer wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

I've never understood those arguments to be honest, no game becomes less playable than it originally was (assuming you're playing with the same hardware), and if you think it does then that's on you for being unable to adjust from your modern expectations. Any issues you raise now were always present because it's the same game.

I've just realised that I can't use my favourite forum meme any more, after Spacey's history came out.

Although having said that, I'm not sure exactly how WROOOOOOONG a post it is.  I think where we differ is that I don't think there's anything wrong with judging a game you're playing now based on modern expectations.  You're playing it now!  It has to compete for your playtime with games that have huge worlds, or orchestral soundtracks, or improved AI.  I think it's reasonable to have a modern mindset on games in the modern day.  'Ageing badly' does just mean 'it compares less favourably against its modern-day peers', but I don't think there's anything WROOOOOOONG with that.

I suppose the subtleties creep in when it comes to things that aren't... I won't say 'better', but you know.  Like comparing pixels with modern visuals.  So you could say that being unable to enjoy tightly focussed experiences because you're playing open-world games all the time is your fault, not the linear game's.  But it's all subjective anyway, isn't it?  In most cases you're not saying the older game's 'bad', just that it's 'not for me any more'.  Which is fair enough.

I forgot my point.

Yeah, I was going to make a similar point - albeit probably in fewer words - but you beat me to it!

I think that it is fair to think that some old games aren't as fun as at their original time of release. In fact, I'd say it's correct to think that way considering that as technology advances and as game developers becomes more experienced by learning from mistakes made in previous generations, the games themselves are only going to get better to play. It's like early 3D platformers - many of those suffer from having horrible camera controls as the devs learned to grapple with having three dimensions to work with. The core game itself might have great level design, but nobody could deny that taking SM64 and transplanting it into the style of Odyssey wouldn't massively benefit that game.

That sums up my view on the MGS games - from a storytelling standpoint, they're great, but the clunky controls let down my experience with MGS1, which is an issue with the platform it released on more than anything else in my veiw.

They are exactly as fun as at their original release though because they are exactly the same! Games are getting better to play, no question, but if it was possible to play and enjoy an older game in the past then it is still equally possible now.

The game is exactly the same, sure; but you aren't.  You can't assume that your taste isn't allowed to change, for any reason (not age, not experience to other games, not familiarity breeding contempt, nothing), since playing the game for the first time.  I enjoyed Reader Rabbit on the Amstrad (listentotheGracklecast) when I was a kid.  It was fun for me then.  Not so much now, for all sorts of reasons!  A bit of reductio ad absurdum, maybe, but illustrative I hope.

There's also opportunity cost.  I could go back and play Super Smash Bros. now, but why would I want to?  The game has been made less fun in comparison, and I could just go play SSBU instead.  Not to mention that I'd have to get used to the controls of the original again: time well spent when I was smaller, when it was the cutting edge of gameplay, but now?  Not so much.

JayMoyles wrote:

Yeah, I was going to make a similar point - albeit probably in fewer words - but you beat me to it!

I made a point, did I?  Good to know!