Highly Rated "Classic" Game You Don't Like

[Sulaco]

There's a bunch. Off the top of my head, since they have such inexplicably vociferous followings:

Final Fantasy IX:

Complete garbage. It seems all anyone who can defend this turd references is "Vivi", and how cute/cool he is! And how it brought back that "nostalgic" feeling of the early games. I'd wager that's largely because of the previous two entires "steam/future punk" vibe.
The actual story was a mess, the villain(s) were some of the weskest in the series (and that's counting the Sorceresses of FF8 and the "God Tick" of FFX), and the party characters were abysmal. Characters like Amarant and *shudder* Quina...are some of the lowest of the low points in a series with increasingly asinine, unlikable, useless characters. Competes with FF8 as the dumpster fire of the series.

Metal Gear Solid (series)

Some of the genuine stealth action is fun, and for the late '90s the gunplay/graphics was well done. It has it's moments, sure.
Sadly though, those "moments" are sandwiched between some of the worst, God-awfully convoluted story-telling outside of a children's anime cartoon. That wouldn't be such a problem, except for the fact that Kojima almost literally beats you over the head with this sad narrative with cutscene after cutscene and dialogue after dialogue of Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers level character and plot exposition.
Thank God for the Thief series at the same time. And a few years later Splinter Cell rendered every saving grace of MGS essentially null and void.

 

[purbeast0]

i can understand 100% why people who didnt play Mario 64 at the time don't see anything special about it when going back and playing it after 3d gaming had been around, but i simply cannot fathom how anyone who played it at the time when it was new, could not think it was the greatest thing in the world lol.

 

[Ichinisan]

i can understand 100% why people who didnt play Mario 64 at the time don't see anything special about it when going back and playing it after 3d gaming had been around, but i simply cannot fathom how anyone who played it at the time when it was new, could not think it was the greatest thing in the world lol.

One of the things I still love is the control. I hate how so many modern games dumb-down the thumbstick. I can do insane stuff in Super Mario 64 that's just impossible in newer games with controls "enhanced" for non-gamers.

An example of what I'm talking about in Super Mario Galaxy: When the camera perspective turns while you're holding the stick in one direction, Mario keeps keeps running in a straight line. You can't dynamically adjust your direction without releasing the stick and pressing it again. Zelda: Twilight Princes had the same problem while using the magnetic boots. I can't dynamically adjust my direction after the camera perspective changes. I'm forced to release the stick and push it again to go the direction I want.

In Super Mario 64, I can fun full-speed around narrow, precarious, winding paths even while the camera moves all around and tries to keep up. I absolutely love the free control.

 

[Ichinisan]

...

Final Fantasy IX:

Complete garbage. It seems all anyone who can defend this turd references is "Vivi", and how cute/cool he is! And how it brought back that "nostalgic" feeling of the early games. I'd wager that's largely because of the previous two entires "steam/future punk" vibe.
The actual story was a mess, the villain(s) were some of the weskest in the series (and that's counting the Sorceresses of FF8 and the "God Tick" of FFX), and the party characters were abysmal. Characters like Amarant and *shudder* Quina...are some of the lowest of the low points in a series with increasingly asinine, unlikable, useless characters. Competes with FF8 as the dumpster fire of the series.
...

I haven't played it, but I bought the CD soundtrack from a thrift store. I expected greatness because Nobuo Uematsu said it was his favorites of the series. The only good thing on the whole soundtrack is the original FF music. It's just terrible.

 

[Imported]

Fallout. The whole series. Actually, almost anything Bethesda creates I don't care for..

Also, I've never played Zelda. Or anything Mario but a few levels of Super Mario 3. I had a Genesis as a kid. Been meaning to fix that..

 

[Fulle]

Way back I played FF7 as one of my first JRPGs, and thought that I didn't like JRPGs in general. It took years, until I played Grandia II, for me to figure out that I just hated FF7.

 

[Venoom]

So one thing I think is funny is that "classic" games in consoleland are often not up for debate, even though gaming tastes vary wildly. I think for many gamers this homogenous view of the industry means that often our dirty little gaming secret is the AAA classic game everyone loved that we just didn't like. So I want to ask:

Out of old titles (10+ years) that are now considered classic, which one or ones do you personally not like very much?

For me the answer is Super Mario 64. I mean I had plenty of fun as a kid running around the (then new as a concept) 3D world, but the camera was such a nightmare that I never bothered to "complete" the game and get enough stars to see Yoshi because harder levels were such a grind. I got enough stars to beat it once way back when, and then never played it again for more than a level. Meanwhile I have beaten my favorite side scrolling Mario (M3) every few years like clockwork. As far as that initial wow factor, day one with the N64 I was actually more amazed flying around in Pilotwings 64 then I was playing Mario. I actually like Mario Sunshine more than Mario 64 as far as the style, and because I didn't like Mario 64 I didn't like any of the N64 games that were bad copies (Banjo, Conkers, the Rare Star Fox game, etc.). The only "open world" N64 game I liked close to that mold was OOT (which is my third favorite Zelda game).

What classic game did you not like? What is your gaming secret?

I also don't like Super Mario 64.
I got SM64 and Banjo-Kazooie at the same time and had so much more fun on the latter.
I also liked Conker and the other Rare games in general, or OOT and MM.
Just not Mario 64.
and I am a huge Nintendo fan that likes (to different degrees) every single other Mario platformer.

 

[artemicion]

I haven't played it, but I bought the CD soundtrack from a thrift store. I expected greatness because Nobuo Uematsu said it was his favorites of the series. The only good thing on the whole soundtrack is the original FF music. It's just terrible.

I imagine it's hard to enjoy the soundtrack without having experienced the game. Part of enjoying a FF soundtrack, for me, is how each track evokes memories of favorite characters/scenes. I mean, if you handed any FF soundtrack to a non-gamer and asked them to listen they'd think it's meh. Nobuo Uematsu is "video game OST" good, he's not "Bach/Beethoven/Mozart level" good.

The game is dated by today's standards so it'd probably be hard to get into it at this point in time, but I disagree with Sulaco's assessment, FWIW. FF IX was my favorite of of the series (though I agree FF 8 was a dumpster fire). I thought they did a good job of focusing on major themes (loneliness and identity) throughout the game and I thought it was interesting how each playable character presented a facet of that theme, all suffering through some form of loneliness and searching for their identity in their own way. I also thought they did a good job creating antagonists with "twisted" reactions to the same theme of loneliness and identity, contrasting them with the protagonists. Kuja, suffering from the loneliness associated with rejection, and Garland, representing the loneliness of a dying race and their attempt to preserve their identity at the cost of wiping out life on another planet.

Vivi was cute too, I guess.

 

[xantub]

There's a bunch. Off the top of my head, since they have such inexplicably vociferous followings:

Final Fantasy IX:

Complete garbage. It seems all anyone who can defend this turd references is "Vivi", and how cute/cool he is! And how it brought back that "nostalgic" feeling of the early games. I'd wager that's largely because of the previous two entires "steam/future punk" vibe.
The actual story was a mess, the villain(s) were some of the weskest in the series (and that's counting the Sorceresses of FF8 and the "God Tick" of FFX), and the party characters were abysmal. Characters like Amarant and *shudder* Quina...are some of the lowest of the low points in a series with increasingly asinine, unlikable, useless characters. Competes with FF8 as the dumpster fire of the series.

Good thing I didn't read this before I played FF 9. It's my second favorite Final Fantasy after FF 10! I loved the game, I loved the story, I loved the characters!

 

[ImpulsE69]

Way back I played FF7 as one of my first JRPGs, and thought that I didn't like JRPGs in general. It took years, until I played Grandia II, for me to figure out that I just hated FF7.

That's odd because Grandia 2 was not that great of a game itself.

 

[Fulle]

That's odd because Grandia 2 was not that great of a game itself.

I'm not sure how well Grandia 2 holds up overall, but the battle system was a significant step up from some other JRPGs I played prior to it. A lot of JRPGs I played previously, were just a simple turn based system, or a turn based system run in real time.... FF7, basically used the same Active Time Battle System as the SNES Final Fantasy games (FF4, FF5, FF6), but made it slightly worse by adding lengthy cut scenes to things like summons.
- On that thought, I have a good appreciation for Bravely Default! Silicon Studio's Brave and Default options added on top of the ATB system of FF4, was brilliant. Seriously made it a lot less monotonous feeling.

Anyway, Grandia IIs's battle system was a good change of pace. The Wait+COM+Action bar did a good job to visually show each character's turn cycle, and you could react more strategically, say, trying to cancel your opponent's attack. Positioning actually mattered, as well as AOE radius. Outside of combat you could see enemies, so you didn't just get random encounters.
- Even with the positioning elements removed, Child of Light's battle system felt pretty solid, borrowing Grandia II's real time action bar.


I know I'm in the minority on this opinion, but I thought FF7 was pretty darn boring, using an aging battle system, without a lot of change to it.... I thought materia was a neat idea, allowing some flexibility to how you build your team, but the combat was just.... blah!

So, there's that. I'd also argue that the characters, story, and graphics of FF7 have aged terribly as well (if they weren't always bad), but the combat system alone makes FF7 a bad game, IMHO.

 

[smackababy]

So, there's that. I'd also argue that the characters, story, and graphics of FF7 have aged terribly as well (if they weren't always bad), but the combat system alone makes FF7 a bad game, IMHO.

I can generally look past a bad combat system, or gameplay mechanics in general, as long as there is a good story and character development behind it. Unfortunately for FF7, it has nothing to stand on other than 4 discs of FMVs and terrible wanna be waifu fan service.



Besides FF7, one of biggest games I dislike was Goldeneye. It was released the same year Quake II was released. Now, which was the better FPS? Perhaps, I had already played FPS on PC, so a console one just didn't impress me.

 

[Ichinisan]

I can generally look past a bad combat system, or gameplay mechanics in general, as long as there is a good story and character development behind it. Unfortunately for FF7, it has nothing to stand on other than 4 discs of FMVs and terrible wanna be waifu fan service.



Besides FF7, one of biggest games I dislike was Goldeneye. It was released the same year Quake II was released. Now, which was the better FPS? Perhaps, I had already played FPS on PC, so a console one just didn't impress me.

I loved Quake II and played the hell out of multiplayer, but the single-player missions and music in Goldeneye 007 were just awesome. Especially if you play it the right way, on the hardest difficulty. That way, you're forced to be methodical and careful -- like an actual spy. You get really tense when a bad guy is able to fire off a shot because you know more bad guys will be on the way.

 

[Fulle]

I can generally look past a bad combat system, or gameplay mechanics in general, as long as there is a good story and character development behind it. Unfortunately for FF7, it has nothing to stand on other than 4 discs of FMVs and terrible wanna be waifu fan service.



Besides FF7, one of biggest games I dislike was Goldeneye. It was released the same year Quake II was released. Now, which was the better FPS? Perhaps, I had already played FPS on PC, so a console one just didn't impress me.

My friends and I actually played quite a bit of Goldeneye in 1997, since we didn't have gaming computers, since we were in like middle school, and Goldeneye was the only game that let us play FPS death-matches with each other. We were young boys, totally impressed that we were playing a game that let us shoot each other with guns, haha.

Then in 1998 one of us got a gaming PC, with Half Life, Unreal, and Quake II, and we were all blown away. We all mowed lawns and did what was necessary to get a gaming PCs after seeing what they can do... which really payed off well, since 1999 was a great year for multiplayer FPS games.

All that said, I don't think Goldeneye's aged that well. Actually, I'm not a fan of most of the 1997 FPS games, as far as current play-ability. Much rather pickup one of the games from 1998 or 1999, that have aged quite a bit better.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I loved Doom II for what it was, loved Quake for what it became, and absolutely HATED Quake II. Unfortunately everyone I knew started playing that so I followed along, but I just didn't find it as fun.

 

[swilli89]

Super Mario 64 was totally a "you had to be there thing". At 9 years old I lived in another world for months and was totally captivated.

The thing about video games is that they are truly the most complex medium that we as humans have devised. Yes, it's true story and music can age well, but things like controls, game play mechanics, and other things are simply revised over time as iterations so it's hard to say what a game truly was after the fact. Now, if you were a kid in 1996 and you thought it was crap at the time, well.. You must have been a very critical kid indeed!

 

[smackababy]

Super Mario 64 was totally a "you had to be there thing". At 9 years old I lived in another world for months and was totally captivated.

Eh, I disagree. Mario 64 is still an achievement. You can claim Playstation titles looked better, but none of them ran better. For as much as everyone cries about frame rates today, you'd think they would appreciate just how spectacular Mario 64 played.

 

[Anubis]

FF7 - never understood the sackriding for it, I played it when it was new and felt it was inferior to 6 in every way besides graphics. didn't like the material system and in general thought it was kinda Meh - was not the best FF on the PS1 and was not the best RBG on the PS1 by a long shot

im not saying it was bad but people treat it like it was the 2nd coming

Mega Man - any of them
they are all the same and they are all pretty much crap, bland generic platformer

 

[Ichinisan]

...
Mega Man - any of them
they are all the same and they are all pretty much crap, bland generic platformer

Classic Megaman and the X series play very differently. I didn't play classic Megaman, but X and X2 are GREAT.

Egoraptor explains what the classic Megaman gets right, what Megaman X perfected, and what modern games completely screw up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM
(NSFW language)

I guess there's only so far you can go with a nearly perfect action / platforming game. Unfortunately, X3 was boring. X4 was good. I don't know about X5. X6 and X7 were just awful.

 

[smackababy]

Mega Man - any of them
they are all the same and they are all pretty much crap, bland generic platformer

If you're not a fan of platformers, Megaman simply won't be a good game.

 

[Aikouka]

Mega Man - any of them
they are all the same and they are all pretty much crap, bland generic platformer

I think what made Mega Man stand out is that it had a higher focus on combat unlike games like Mario, and it had pretty good yet usually tough level design. Also, I'm having a hard time recalling many games that had a heavy slant on combat and platforming being anything more than side-scrollers. In a way, you could say that Mega Man was like Sonic in that it had a higher emphasis on vertical stages instead of just moving left and/or right.

Mega Man X actually seems a lot more like a Metroidvania game just without a connected world. You've got upgrades/items, platforming and combat. The only thing it doesn't really do is restrict progress areas based upon upgrades, but it does restrict other upgrades (e.g. Heart Tank) based upon current upgrades (e.g. Dash Jump).

 

[Bill Brasky]

Also, I've never played Zelda.

I have never enjoyed any of the zelda games. I've even borrowed them back in the day on the original nes and on the N64, but had zero desire to buy them or play to the end.

 

[artemicion]

I liked Mega Man up through the SNES era (including the X series), but I don't think the MM formula has aged very well. The content was always short compared to other platformers, in terms of how many levels there were and how long they were.

The lives + continues system in MM games seemed to be designed solely to make a short game "feel" longer by making you fight through the same content over and over again. Waste a bunch of lives + continues mastering the level. When you get to the boss, you have maybe 1-2 lives to learn how the boss works. Run out of lives, get dumped back at the beginning of the level, trudge your way back to the boss, rinse and repeat however many times it takes to master the boss.

And, if you're playing the game "blind" without a guide, there's the whole process of trying to figure out the easiest boss to take out first and figure out which boss is weak to which weapon, which again involves playing the same levels over and over again.

I prefer a platformer like Mario or Rayman, where the game is long because there's a bunch of different levels, not because of repetition of the same levels over and over again.

 

[DigDog]

final fantasy. they make me vomit.

i did like the film that everyone hated, though. (and made the company bankrupt)

 

[Anubis]

I liked Mega Man up through the SNES era (including the X series), but I don't think the MM formula has aged very well. The content was always short compared to other platformers, in terms of how many levels there were and how long they were.

The lives + continues system in MM games seemed to be designed solely to make a short game "feel" longer by making you fight through the same content over and over again. Waste a bunch of lives + continues mastering the level. When you get to the boss, you have maybe 1-2 lives to learn how the boss works. Run out of lives, get dumped back at the beginning of the level, trudge your way back to the boss, rinse and repeat however many times it takes to master the boss.

And, if you're playing the game "blind" without a guide, there's the whole process of trying to figure out the easiest boss to take out first and figure out which boss is weak to which weapon, which again involves playing the same levels over and over again.

I prefer a platformer like Mario or Rayman, where the game is long because there's a bunch of different levels, not because of repetition of the same levels over and over again.

that summed it up well
also every MM is the same its what 9 bosses where you figure out who is weak to what and profit