Introduction
.png)
A lot of games out there don't make the best first impression, but sometimes first impressions just aren't right. Hi folks, it's Zaid Ikram, and today on Speed Tool, we're discussing 10 games that made you believe they were bad.
Number 10
Starting off at number 10, it's Alien: Isolation. Here's a game that's widely considered to be a modern-day horror classic, but you wouldn't know it if you read most of the reviews back when it came out. The game did not receive glowing reviews well, it got a few of them but most writers at the time complained about the game's cheap surprise deaths and repetition, leading to a not-bad-but-not-stellar 79 average critical rating on Metacritic. The user score was a lot better at 84, which doesn't quite match the positivity I normally hear about the game, but it's still a lot better. I'll say a lot of the critical complaints are fair, but there's just no other game that manages to capture the atmosphere of the Alien franchise like this one. The design of the space station, the way the computers look, the hallways—it's all literally perfect. The game still looks extremely good even now too. The alien itself is still one of the most advanced stalkers ever put into a game; its AI routines are more elaborate and complex than pretty much anything we see in games even 10 years later. In a lot of ways, Alien: Isolation was ahead of its time as a horror game, and it still kind of amazes me it came out in 2014, cause it still doesn't look like it.
Number 9
The Order 1886, this early PlayStation 4 title got absolutely lambasted by critics when it came out back in 2015. It got a pretty abysmal 63 on Metacritic, which might as well be a three for a first-party tripe like this. Critics complained about the short campaign length, the dull plot, the anemic shooting, which, to be fair, are issues with the game, but I do think it's a better game than its critics gave it credit for. The thing that really stands out about the game, at least to me, is that it's a technical showcase. Even though it's damn near 10 years old, it still looks absolutely incredible. Even the faces, which are usually the dead giveaway that a game is old, but they really hold up. It helps that the game has a kind of hyper-real art style, so the characters are just stylized enough that they look really good. It's one of those games that's really more than the sum of its parts. It is a bog-standard third-person action shooter with no real extra thrills to keep things interesting other than a few exotic steampunk weapons, but it's super polished and flashy, and, I don't know, the shortcomings kind of don't matter. It's one of those games that I think people just appreciate for what it is. It's a linear, story-driven AAA game without any of the fluff. They don't needlessly pad out the campaign; there's no side quest or tacked-on RPG systems. It's just a game, and for a lot of us out there, that's really, really refreshing. It's one of those games that would greatly benefit from a sequel, but after the critical beating the game got, that's just never going to happen. The thing about this one is that the user score isn't flattering; it's just five points higher at 68. But I think that is kind of overly harsh, depending on who you ask, and it does show that there are fans for this game. It's far from perfect, yes, but there is a lot to like in The Order 1886.
Number 8
And number eight is Dragon's Dogma 1. The thing about the original Dragon's Dogma the Metacritic score wasn't terrible; it got a 75 average from critics, which isn't the best, but you'd think the game was a complete failure from all the discourse at the time. To a lot of people, the game was just another failure along the same lines as DMC: Lost Planet 3, Dead Rising 3, and many more. There was kind of just a prevailing stink of badness around the whole project. In reality, I think a lot of critics just didn't know what to make of it. Dragon's Dogma is a game that just does its own thing. It didn't really play like anything else out there. It has some Dead Rising DNA, a little Monster Hunter in there, but even Monster Hunter still hadn't broken through to the West back in 2012. The game does have problems, even to this day. I don't want to just ignore that. The original release did feel kind of empty at times, and the performance was not good on the Xbox 360. And it's also important to keep in mind the version everyone plays now is the improved Dark Arisen version, which adds a bunch of content, makes a lot of noticeable improvements to the original. But even still, now that we've seen Dragon's Dogma 2, Dragon's Dogma 1 can look primitive at times. Hell, it looked primitive at times anyways, okay? Even the Dark Arisen version. But now it is pretty much universally seen as a misunderstood classic. Maybe the game was a victim of some kind of perceived bias against Japanese games at the time, or maybe reviewers just didn't get it. But if anybody talks about it these days, Dragon's Dogma is always framed as a flawed gem. It is a game with a lot of rough spots, but it's overall better than the reviews from 2012 would have you believe.
Number 7
And number seven is Prototype 2. This 2012 follow-up to the original Prototype was mostly viewed by reviewers and fans as a disappointment back in the day, but it did have a lot to live up to. The original game is a banger, and a lot of people thought it failed to live up to it. It is definitely different; it's got a more streamlined control scheme that can be uncharitably interpreted as dumbing down. The story was controversial among fans of the series; it made the protagonist of the first game, Alex Mercer, into the bad guy. I gave you the Mercer virus, that's what they call it, right? The same virus two years in a row and the same Blackwatch here to save New York. There's no denying it is a different beast than the first game; it is immediately obvious from the jump. But I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Yes, you start off a lot weaker compared to Prototype 1; the skill tree is not as interesting overall. But Prototype 2 has a lot of positives for a weird open-world superhero kind of game. The most noticeable thing is, of course, that the city looks way better than the first game. It's got a lot more bespoke content in the missions, and that makes for a more varied experience. Getting to explore some interiors that aren't just boring warehouses, that's an appreciated thing. One thing that is a straight-up improvement over the first is they brought back weaponization from their previous Hulk: Ultimate Destruction games, where you can transform objects into weapons to use to fight enemies. And who is that great? There are a few things that are straight-up bad about the game though, like how they locked all the open-world activities behind microtransactions or the abysmal PC port, which was basically unplayable for years. The DLC comes packed with the game now, and the PC port has a fan patch that fixes a lot of the bugs from the game, so it is very playable now. The user scores are not a lot higher, they're just four points higher at 78, but it goes to show that there are people out there that appreciate what Radical Entertainment was trying to do with this game.
Number 6
And number six is The Saboteur, another entry from the late 2000s, early 2010s open-world games thing. It was made by Pandemic, the guys behind the Mercenaries series, Destroy All Humans, and the original beloved Star Wars Battlefront games. Poor went out for Pandemic, they were really one of the greats. The Saboteur is basically a spiritual successor to The Mercenaries games, but it has a very different feeling. Rather than it being total chaos all the time, The Saboteur is about carefully planned destruction with gameplay that's not quite like any other open-world game out there. There's this whole color gimmick, which doesn't really serve any gameplay function, but the game just kind of works. Despite the goofy plot, to me, the things that really make this game stand out are the many interesting skills you can unlock by completing gameplay challenges and the stealth, which is closer to the social stealth of like a Hitman game, because you're mostly stealing enemy uniforms and silently thinning out enemy bases before blowing them up with carefully placed bundles of dynamite. It's a really fun and satisfying game overall, but even if it can be a little janky at times, critics dismissed it with an average of 73, while user scores were more positive at 79. The voice acting's cheesy, the absurd nudity DLC was embarrassing, and any time your guy tried to climb something, it looks ridiculous, but this open-world game is actually one of my favorite open-world games. It's just really fun to play.
Number 5
And number five is Mad Max, another Falcon classic, another game totally dismissed by critics, unless you consider me a critic. If you go back to my poorly made "Before You Buy," you can really see how much better my content here on Game Ranks is nowadays. But, you can also see my propensity for being right about games. A lot of reviewers just straight-up hated this game. It got a 69 on Metacritic, which is not nice in this case. And before you start asking what the hell happened here, you gotta remember that this is a game that got released more or less at the same time as Metal Gear Solid V. It was a game nobody had high hopes for, but I got it back when it was new. Again, I did the "Before You Buy" and uh, it's actually pretty great. User scores show that I'm not the only person with that opinion either. The user scores rate the game a full 10 points higher than the critic scores, rating it a 79, which is a lot closer to accurate, although I'd put it in the mid-80s personally. What makes Mad Max unique among open-world games is the car combat, which is weighty and excellent. You also have the ground-based fighting, which is really solid. It's heavily inspired by the Arkham games, and if you're going to copy, you copy from the best, right? The open world is absolutely beautiful, and while the plot's really basic, it has the Mad Max charm, and it's a lot more bleak than the story we got in Mad Max: Fury Road. But there's also a weird beauty to it. I don't know, some people might think it's boring, but I think there is something just really mesmerizing about this game. I mean, even back in 2015, people were talking about everybody's attention span being shot, and this game just kind of is like, yeah, no, I think if you give people something to chew on, they will chew on it, and this just feels right for a Mad Max game. Super atmospheric, super pretty, super fun to play. Easily one of the best movie tie-in games ever made. On first glance, it might seem like a boilerplate open-world game, but it's super polished, it's complete, and it's got this haunting atmosphere that is just totally unique.
Number 4
And number four is Alpha Protocol. It's one of those games where all the worst things the critics say about it are true, but it's still awesome. I mean, it's got a brilliant premise. It's a spy RPG with a strong emphasis on creating a reactive story that actually changes in significant ways depending on your choices. Unfortunately, it's buggy, it's kind of ugly, it's horribly unbalanced. It's obvious that Obsidian bit off more than they could chew with it. But even with all its flaws, I think it's a pretty good game. It may be the most reactive RPG I've ever seen, with the smallest choices having major ramifications at times. The problem is, you'd never know it unless you played through the game at least twice. And how many reviewers back then actually did that? Um, I'll answer that for you: not a lot, if any. Even honestly, I certainly don't play through a game more than one time before doing a "Before You Buy." I don't even play through a game sometimes even one time before doing a "Before You Buy." They are our first impressions of the latest games releasing. Keep in mind, is it really first impressions if you've played 120 hours? I think not. Anyway, knowing what you're getting into ahead of time is pretty important, and here's a tip: put points into pistol skills, and you'll just never lose. The other guns all suck. Even now, the game is still kind of buggy as hell, and most of the levels aren't actually all that interesting. It's kind of a workman-like game in presentation, but the reactivity of the story is just, I mean, nothing is on its level. It's incredibly reactive, and that's what keeps me coming back despite everything. Maybe if another game came along and did what Alpha Protocol does but better, I would judge this game more harshly, but nothing else has. Everyone always complains that games never actually have your choices matter, there's no real consequences for this action, it's not really that reactive. But hey, here's one that does in spades. At least some people appreciate what Alpha Protocol tried to do, because its user score is nine points higher than its critical one, at 72, which is either way too low or just about right depending on how many times the game has crashed on you recently. It's got a lot of problems, but Alpha Protocol is extremely good when it's good.
Number 3
And number three is Star Wars: Bounty Hunter, an interesting one I always assumed was relatively well-reviewed, but going back and looking at the Metascore shows that no, critics did not like this game. It's got a 65 critical score, but the user score is like way higher, it's got 13 points higher at 78. It's an Attack of the Clones tie-in game, came out about six months after the movie, and it has you play as Jango Fett hunting bounties across the galaxy, so pretty much what you'd expect from a mediocre tie-in game. But this is a much better game than I think a lot of people expected. Playing it takes a little getting used to; you've got a lot of tools, and the levels are wide and vertical, and of course, there's the usual amount of jankiness that comes with a movie tie-in game. The thing that this game really has going for it is that it's super fun and a very satisfying game to play. You're jetpacking around, blowing away bad guys, knocking guys out to collect their bounties. It's a fun arcadey experience. It doesn't always look the best, but who cares? It's a great game, nothing more, nothing less.
Number 2
And number two is Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, a game where the critical reception is way off from the user scores. Web of Shadows has a Metacritic score of 68 compared to its user score of 84. That's a massive gap. I don't know if critics were just sick of Spider-Man games at this point or what, but there's no way Web of Shadows is a 68. It's actually one of the best Spider-Man games, and that's a pretty high bar. The combat is an evolution of the fighting system seen in the Treyarch Spider-Man games, and it's the best that these games got under Activision.
It takes a little getting used to, but with enough practice, you can rack up insane combos fairly easily by switching between standard Spider-Man and the black suit, which each have their own unique skill trees and totally different fighting styles. The integration of the black suit into gameplay is honestly better than Sony's Spider-Man 2. The combat really does elevate this game because the other aspects do fall short. Peter Parker's voice, for one, is, I mean, where's Cage in his search party? The civilian volunteers? Pretty redhead arm and a gas? You are no help.
MJ, I rag about it every time this game comes up, and I think everybody does, but seriously, could he be any more annoying and whiny-sounding? Anytime this guy talks, it's like a cheese grater to my eardrums. This version of New York City is also really ugly and really empty. And beyond that, the presentation is almost completely lacking in cutscenes. The whole game feels kind of rushed and slapped together at times. But all the stuff that's good is so good it just doesn't matter. Web of Shadows is one of those flawed masterpiece-type games, and if Activision had only given these guys a little more time, it probably could have been the best Spider-Man game period. As it is though, it's just very good, which still isn't bad, obviously kind of the opposite of bad.
Number 1
And finally, at number one, the Dynasty Warriors series. Man, for a while, reviewers just hated these games, huh? The first real game in the series, Dynasty Warriors 2, got more positive reviews back when it came out, but it wasn't long before reviewers were turning on the series en masse. If there's one thing reviewers value above all else, it's evolution. If a game comes out that's mostly the same as the previous game in the series, and it doesn't matter if the game is actually much better, the score is going to get docked for it. Some series managed to slip by for whatever reason, like the Yakuza games, which have always reviewed pretty well. But for whatever reason, the Dynasty Warriors games never got a pass for a while, especially during the 360 era. These games really could only get 60s; that was the best they could hope for, no matter how good or bad they actually were. Which is stupid because most of the time, these games were quite good, great even if you're a fan. But the reviews pretty much painted every game with the same brush, so it's hard to tell which ones were actually the half-expansion pack sequels and which ones were the games that they should put a lot of work into. Of course, Dynasty Warriors 9 was still a huge disappointment. Again, go back to my "Before You Buy." I was not happy with this one. Like, Dynasty Warriors is such a fun formula, I don't understand putting it in an MMORPG-esque open world at all. I still don't to this very day. I don't. I just don't get the motive behind that. It's such a weird idea. But whatever, I'm past it, Dynasty Warriors is past it, like a lot of the mainline titles are just absolutely excellent. But you'd never be able to tell based on the Metacritic scores.
Couple of Bonuses
I do have a couple of bonuses for you, God Hand. Critics rated it a 73 on average, users gave it a 92, which is a little higher. Makes sense though, 'cause God Hand is kind of the definition of a love-it-or-hate-it game. If you click with it, it's amazing. If you don't, it's miserable. I think everybody who actually plays it, at least nowadays, knows what they're in for and appreciates what it's trying to do. I do. I love this game back on the PS2, and I did not appreciate the critical response at all. It's one of those games where you just have to play it on the game's terms because if you go in with preconceived notions about how a game is supposed to be, like a lot of reviewers did at the time, you're not going to get it.
And finally, King's Field: Ancient City. If there's anything to be learned from this list, it's sometimes all it takes for a game to be critically re-evaluated for the developers to come out with a genre-defining masterpiece a few years later. From Software, a critical darling now, but for most of the developer's life, that was not the case. Reviewers were not kind to their games, and that includes the King's Field series. These games were called slow, boring, hard, and ugly, and honestly, all of these are kind of true in certain respects. But you'd also be ignoring all of the things that make them, and especially this particular one, the Ancient City, great. Yes, they are slow, they are punishingly hard, but the world design and the exploration are fantastic. So much of the design of their later games can be seen in the Ancient City, from complex interlocking worlds to mysterious NPCs to the traps. It's a proto-Dark Souls, and while the actual combat ispretty weak, everything else about it is just haunting and intriguing. Modern fans of From might still hate this one, like the critics who gave it an average of 60 on Metacritic, but I think the user rating of 84 is a lot more accurate.
Outro
Comments
Post a Comment