Dunno what the MOST overrated game is, but my own personal pet peeve has always been Halo and CoD. On the classic side of things, I don't think Duke Nukem 3d is at all deserving of the reknown it has. It's a competent Build shooter with some low-brow humor that's good for a few chuckles. Nothing more. Blood is better in just about every way, and Doom is better than both.



I can understand some people saying Halflife and Deus Ex, and even the guy who said Planescape (some fans put it on the level of great literature, which it really isn't). All of those are still amazing games, but I think some of the fans tend to overstate their quality.

Mass Effect 2. Not a bad game at all for what it is, but the way a lot of gaming places - and I don't mean corporate shills - talk about it, you'd think it's some sort of Our Saviour of RPG Genre...I just don't understand. Especially when its equally retarded cousin, Dragon Age 2, is almost universally loathed.

Blood is a great game but really overrated.

Only by people on this site. I've seldom heard anyone on other sites mention the game.

Still better than D3d though. Even if the combat can be frustrating as heck.

Ocarina of Time gets my vote. So vastly inferior to Windwaker, I can't understand why people believe Ocarina is the superior game. Windwaker has a far more engaging world, story and characters and it makes Ocarina of Time seem very empty and dull in comparison.

The thing is, with PS:T you can't really distinguish between story and gameplay because it's all about discovering the story and playing out your role in it. And it's not just good because of the story but also because of the way the story is told. A good story doesn't make a good game, but good story-telling is an important factor for RPGs and adventures, IMO. Sure, it's a game where you have to read a lot and the combat is not that much fun, but then again the game is not really about combat action and the writing is excellent.

It might not be for everyone, but I wouldn't criticze a racing game I don't like by saying "The driving action might be fun but the story is severely lacking". ;)

Anyway, I'm kind of a blasphemer myself since I feel The Longest Journey might be a little overrated. It was quite cool at the time and I actually enjoyed it in part, but it has too much long-winded dialogue sequences and backtracking for my taste (okay, it has "long" and "journey" in the title, but still. :P ). And some puzzles are really obscure and some design choices annoying; "what were they thinking?" was too common a question on my mind to actually call it an excellent adventure game, even with being accustomed to the inherent frustration factor of the genre (I'm a fan of adventure games). Don't get me wrong, it's still a nice game but far from being the best point-and-click adventure of all times, IMO.

It might seem like I'm contradicting myself (if I am, it's just another proof of how subjective the whole discussion is ;) ), but in PS:T I felt the dialogues were more interactive and the long reading and the backtracking were often optional, not required to move the plot forward, whereas in The Longest Journey you often have to talk to X in order to talk to Y in order to talk to X again in order to move on; and being an adventure game the whole thing is much more linear which makes getting stuck more likely.

(Or maybe I just like RPGs to offer better stories and writing and adventure games to offer more freedom and interactivity ...)
:)

OK, I'm gonna risk being burned at the stake here, but for me I gotta say Fable II, it started off allright and then just got SO repetitive. Upon re-entering previously visited areas the SAME bandits jump out of the SAME bushes EVERY time. How many times do you have to kill them.

Also to throw another twist into this mix, I find that sequels usually don't do it for the most part. It always feels like you are playing an expansion pack of the original. Games which I enjoyed the first and the sequels were just boring include:

ASSASSINS CREED 2
BIOSHOCK 2 (didn't even bother playing after seeing the review)
CRYSIS 2 (enjoyed this, but still repetitive)
GEARS OF WAR

In some cases however I have enjoyed a sequel most notably MASS EFFECT 2

I would say Final Fantasy VII. I played it about 8 or so years ago, and found the plot confusing and the game in general not very appealing. Maybe I would feel otherwise if I gave it another playthrough, but I think that Mystic Quest would still be more enjoyable.

Assassin's Creed? Is there something wrong with you? The original was incredibly repetitive, I've tried to play it from start to complete, but have yet to complete it even once. AC2 and ACB, no problem whatsoever completing those. Well not completely completely, but I did play through the entire main quest on both of those.

The first game had some interesting ideas but it was too boring.

ACII made some improvements but it still felt like a chore to play through. And I hated most of the characters, especially Ezio.

It was a decent game, but not one that I cared much for.

I believe that, as time goes on, Halo gets more and more overrated. (ducks) Sorry about picking on a console game, but I just barely started playing computer games.

Halo is, was, and always will be the most overrated shooter of all time. From a console point of view it might have been something innovative and interesting. For a PC gamer, coming from Duke and Quake, Halo was just yawning.

I've played through Halo 1 on PC. Halo 2 is unfinished on my HD, as it was just to damn boring. And I've played the only the first level of Halo 3 on the 360 before getting bored. I had the choice between bad irish television and Halo 3 and chose the former...

Far Cry 2. Apart from the graphics, I didn't like it at all. (And I did like Far Cry and Crysis.)

You are right, Assassins Creed was hectically repetitive, the only reason I think I finished it was that it was one of the first games I got when with my XBOX 360 LOL!!!!!

^^^^
This