Your favorite unfavored game?

Do you posses a game that was panned by critics and isn't considered good by the gaming community, but in your eyes it is an absolute gem? A game that you cannot compare to other games no matter how great they are?

Mine are TechnoMage Soulbringer and Silver. Childhood games that i just keep getting back to.


What are yours?

Ravenloft: The Stone prophet. Reviews were mostly around 50-60% but it is one of my favourite games of all time. Epic story of mummies engaged in an eternal battle and large well designed dungeons with numerous hidden rooms.

To answer properly on this I should know the critics score of every game I love(d).

I've now checked Soulbringer you mentioned. Sorry but critics didn't pan it, I've enjoyed it much and it's definetly above average as suggested by critics (7/10), not a masterpiece though (among things it contains worse ending than ME3):
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/soulbringer

Well, Sword of the Stars 2 but the critics reviewed it before a huge parade of patches. X3:Terran Conflict got some of that, too. On the other side, the critics and I liked Mass Effect 3 a lot despite what the "internet community" thinks. A game that BOTH didn't like much but I do? I guess The Last Remnant would be the closest thing to that but only some of the gaming community don't like it and again the critics reviewed it before the Wikia for the site made the game much more fun.

I really liked Alpha Protocol. Sure, it had its flaws (some were pretty major), but it also did some things really well (mainly how your actions had consequences down the road). People do see to enjoy this game more than the press did though.

As for games that the press & people in general really liked but I did not enjoy? Civilization 3. I like every other part in the series, but I just don't like Civ 3.
Also, The Last Remnant, mentioned by Zloth is one of those games that I just did not like. And I gave it several hours of my time. People I've heard talk about it have talked about how deep it is. And it is true, there is a lot of interesting things going on under the hood in this one, but whatever depth the game had was squandered on the fact that it never actually told you anything. You had a lot of stats that influenced things, but the game would just give you the stat (often with cryptic names such as Love or Loyalty) but nowhere in the game game is it explained what Love actually does. And judging by the Wiki, the fans have not, after repeated attempts, managed to figure out all of these stats yet. Also, the game was designed in such a way that you just did not have to know anything about what was going on under the hood, so by the very design of the game, any depth it had was pointless. It feels like the game was designed by two separate groups of people, one wanting a deep & complex tactical RPG, and other one wanting a Final Fantasy: Mystical Quest throwback (for anyone unfamiliar with it, FF:MQ was considered an entry level JRPG back in the SNES era. It was rather simplistic and really easy).

...but whatever depth the game had was squandered on the fact that it never actually told you anything.

Click to expand...

Yep, and the reviewers pounded on the game for that. You have to go to the Wikia to figure out a lot of stuff which is not how a game should be made.

Also, the game was designed in such a way that you just did not have to know anything about what was going on under the hood, so by the very design of the game, any depth it had was pointless.

Click to expand...

That's not so true. It should be, but it really isn't - which is how the game is getting a reputation for being hard. If you veer off into the "DLC content" (it was free DLC on the XBox but got incorporated into the PC version) then you get some very difficult fights to play through.

It does have a split personality. I do sometimes wonder if the developers were sneaking a hard core RPG into the catalog without the execs knowing.

Zloth said:

Yep, and the reviewers pounded on the game for that. You have to go to the Wikia to figure out a lot of stuff which is not how a game should be made.

That's not so true. It should be, but it really isn't - which is how the game is getting a reputation for being hard. If you veer off into the "DLC content" (it was free DLC on the XBox but got incorporated into the PC version) then you get some very difficult fights to play through.

It does have a split personality. I do sometimes wonder if the developers were sneaking a hard core RPG into the catalog without the execs knowing.

Click to expand...

According to steam I've spent 4,2h with the game, and the only strategy I used was "send everything forward". It worked up until that point at least.

Alpha Protocol is the only one that comes to mind. I also enjoyed Silver back in the days, but I have no idea if it was considered good or not.

It's funny, as I think Alpha Protocol is much more favored than not - except by the mainstream media. It's one of those games that actually deserved the media bashing, but let's not get into that

I probably have dozens of examples, but the one that immediately leaps to mind is Hellgate London. It was heavily flawed upon release - and the PR handling was very, very unfortunate. But the actual core of the game was fantastic - and I still think it represents the most visceral and satisfying combat of ANY action RPG.

Near the end of its life under Flagship, the game became quite stable and was well on the way to becoming the best ARPG of all time. Well, I think so.

But the initial release and the PR debacle had destroyed all hope of saving it.

Also, I happen to think the general response to the subscription option was short-sighted and stupid. Not at all unlike the way people expect all MMOs to be F2P today, and expect the games not to be negatively affected by it.

Oh, the wonder of the ignorant mainstream audience.

DArtagnan said:

It's funny, as I think Alpha Protocol is much more favored than not - except by the mainstream media. It's one of those games that actually deserved the media bashing, but let's not get into that

Click to expand...

Alpha Protocol has a relatively large and vocal fanbase. Many (me included) thought that the parts that Alpha Protocol did well managed to raise it far above the masses, even though the game had many many flaws (which is also something that I've not heard anyone deny). But there also seem to be a substantial amount of people who don't like it, due to the rather lackluster gunplay, bad first & second level, iffy stealth system & so on. And yes, the game did, in particular at launch, deserve a lot of the criticism is received.

Pool Of Radiance 2: Ruins Of Myth Drannor. While lots of old RPG gamers bashed this game for not being a true PoR sequel (and new ones for not being a BG game) I played and liked the game for what it is.

Mine has got to be the remake of Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny.

I found the game to be very fun and a bit more of a hardcore experience than I was used to with modern games. I enjoyed it quite a bit and the recent patches have enhanced it even further. Sadly, they released the game in an unfinished state and they got blasted for it, and I'm not sure they have ever recovered. But to me, it was a very enjoyable game.

For me its got to be Might and Magic 9. Its buggy, the graphics are pretty terrible and the writing is either intentionally or unitentionally poor even by Might and Magic standards. Still I liked enjoyed it, despite its flaws. The RPG system is still fun, I think, and when I played it there weren't many games of it's kind that I hadn't played. I might even play through it again some day.

Gokyabgu said:

Pool Of Radiance 2: Ruins Of Myth Drannor. While lots of old RPG gamers bashed this game for not being a true PoR sequel (and new ones for not being a BG game) I played and liked the game for what it is.

Click to expand...

I think the game had potential. I just found its content to be way to repetitive and the dungeon didn't have enough variety. I started it twice, but couldn't finish it either time.

DArtagnan said:

It's funny, as I think Alpha Protocol is much more favored than not - except by the mainstream media. It's one of those games that actually deserved the media bashing, but let's not get into that

I probably have dozens of examples, but the one that immediately leaps to mind is Hellgate London. It was heavily flawed upon release - and the PR handling was very, very unfortunate. But the actual core of the game was fantastic - and I still think it represents the most visceral and satisfying combat of ANY action RPG.

Near the end of its life under Flagship, the game became quite stable and was well on the way to becoming the best ARPG of all time. Well, I think so.

But the initial release and the PR debacle had destroyed all hope of saving it.

Also, I happen to think the general response to the subscription option was short-sighted and stupid. Not at all unlike the way people expect all MMOs to be F2P today, and expect the games not to be negatively affected by it.

Oh, the wonder of the ignorant mainstream audience.

Click to expand...

Good to see Hellgate is getting some recognition. Not only it's my second favorite Diablo clone (after Deathspank), I also consider it one of the shining examples of how a good combat system (which is basically FPS & H&S in one package) can solely save an RPG, because everything else about the game is either average or below average.

Zanrarah, for example. Although no RPG, it was soon bashed as an "Pokemon game". And Pokemon, everyone seems to think, is = childishness. So no sane gamer would play Zanzarah because of that … That's how prejudices go / work …

Or SIM's Medieval. No-one seems to play it, but I had a *lot* of fun with that game !

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Or SIM's Medieval. No-one seems to play it, but I had a *lot* of fun with that game !

Click to expand...

It was surprisingly good. It could have been better with a bit more variety, but it was definitely fun while it lasted.

Well my 2 top unfavored picks are here:

1. PoR:RoMD - Massively large dungeons I just loved. Incredible variety of loot. Turned-based 3rd edition D&D combat. The outdoor areas are beautiful.

2. Alpha Protocol - Turning your enemies into your friends was a wonderful RPG device I have yet to see anywhere else.

Gokyabgu said:

Pool Of Radiance 2: Ruins Of Myth Drannor. While lots of old RPG gamers bashed this game for not being a true PoR sequel (and new ones for not being a BG game) I played and liked the game for what it is.

Click to expand...

I actually gave that one another shot just recently. It's not nearly as bad as people make it sound (possibly due to it being properly patched), but there was one rather major thing that killed it for me, and that was how sluggish the movement speed actually felt. Had everyone moved a bit faster, I think I would have enjoyed the game a lot more.

A couple of games off the top of my head…

The first would be Risen 2. Although it doesn't seem to be considered too bad by a lot of people here at the Watch, it gets flamed pretty hard by the masses. It sports a meta-score of 69% from the critics and a surprising 5.4 from the users. It's at least an 8 or an 8.5 to me.

The second would be Starship Troopers. It's a first-person shooter from 2005 that's based on the movie of the same name. The AI is bad, the voice acting is horrible, and it ran like ass on high-end hardware at the time. The cut-scenes are nothing but FMV clips that were ripped straight from the movie. All in all, it's laughably bad.

I had a blast with it though. It mirrors some of the scenes from the movie, and it puts an impressive number of enemies onscreen at times. Being a fan of the movie is probably necessary to have a chance at liking it, but even then odds are you won't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCE66sBgwv8