I generally avoid these threads because I don't much care for discussions that bade full-on negativity without any positive backing. I won't participate, exactly, but I will add some discussion.
There are probably more, but those are the ones that immediately leap out at me. Years later, they're still being put at the top of "Greatest Games Of All Time" lists, despite later titles doing what they do, and doing it better. It just bothers me that you run the risk of being crucified or being burned at the stake if you criticise these titles...especially FFVII and OOT. I don't hate any of those games; let me say that. I just think that people ignore their negative points for various reasons when they shouldn't. "Overrated" is as good a word as any to describe them I suppose.
See, I don't think that's true. I feel like there's a real difference in ignoring a game's negative points and the positives outweighing the negatives to a point where the negatives seem trivial and hardly impact one's experience by comparison, and I think that's why some of these games work.
---
Let's take Persona 4, for example. What you think is "average" about the game are the more subjective parts. The cast, to quite a large number of people, is rather infectious, and this is indicated by the large number of gamers that enjoyed them to the extent that they did back before Atlus started its big push to get the game into the eyes of the mainstream in time for Golden, where its popularity really exploded. But it's because people see the characters as lovable that tropes and the like can be overlooked because, as said by TV Tropes themselves, tropes aren't necessarily a bad thing. What's more, they aren't anime tropes (which was the case of its prequel, Persona 3). They're meant to be tropes of the type of people you meet in real life, either in personality or in their problems, and I think they do a good job of that. It doesn't really sound like you think it overrated as you didn't like what a good deal of people liked about it.
But if we were to talk about the more objective parts like...say, the gameplay, it's pretty easy to find complaints. People talk about the dungeons being different and yet, at the same time, being samey. They talk about the game being a grind at times. They complain about the time limit. The complaints are there, and yet you can still see these same singing praise for the game because of what they think it does right. It's kind of a "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" type deal.
But the thing is, I see it this way: if you're really not enjoying it that much, you won't play it to the end. Persona 4 is long, and there is no reason you should play it to the end if you aren't loving it to some extent. Some people do it to make a point or trash it later- which I'm not trying to say is what you're doing- but it just seems strange that people would play a game like that (people do it with anime too, and I mean, while it's your time...why?). But especially with Persona 4, where you have to spend so much time with these characters and work through these dungeons and do whatever other miscellany...why would you keep playing after a certain point?
---
Now let's walk over to Ocarina of Time, as this is something else I don't agree with. Not the choice in game, rather, but the thought process that is "later games do it better, so why should I play this?" Well, I'm actually going to ignore OoT for a second because, despite it being on the N64, it's still pretty modern (I could jump from OoT to Skyward Sword to OoT again without feeling much jetlag).
The Legend of Zelda is a chief example of this. Let's talk about it by today's standards. Graphics? piss-poor. Gameplay? Okay, but it's pretty stiff. Only 4-directional movement, the animations are minimalist, there's not much deviation, and it's overall a pretty short experience. Music? ...Actually, pretty good. Replayability? It's there, but there's not much point considering there's only one ending.
So why the hell is this game on the top of so many "Best of All Time" lists? Because it set the stage for later LoZ games and played a major part in the development of Action-Adventure games in general? Maybe, but you have to consider that people hold a soft spot for this game on its own as well. Going into the game with a modern mindset is just asking for disappointment. My little analysis up there may have been "extreme", but I think it's an accurate representation of what you will get out of the game when you go into it with those thoughts in mind.
But if we look at what the Legend of Zelda is, it's quickly understandable why so many consider it number 1. It has a vast, open overworld that is unknown and filled with secrets. What else has this? Elder Scrolls (or I guess, most relevant to the thread, Skyrim. Lots of people say Skyrim specifically, despite it being a trait shared by the rest of the series). But what's the difference here? With Skyrim, you're in a vast open world as well, but what makes Legend of Zelda unique is that you're just plopped in an open world with nothing at all. There are no questlines and, heck, without reading the book, you'd just think you were exploring. The world is a mystery, filled with strange creatures, foreign objects, and cryptic messages. You're never really told what to do, but you don't really need to be: the world is your oyster.
It's less than surprising that the game isn't as well received by the modern world that goes to the computer upon not knowing what to do or where to go and missing the charm once they do. We live in a world where being lost means checking out a walkthrough, because the brain practically clocks out at the idea of a quest journal being completely empty. But the problem is that doing such a thing completely dismisses the brilliance of the game's design. The ambiguity of the world's geography and the items you get means that you have to try things. This meant that you weren't just going from point A to point B to point C, but you were exploring and would often find secrets either by accident or really using your brain to match the cryptic words of the cave dwellers to the area. Skyrim does this too. You can explore and do other things. Heck, a lot of games do this, lately. But the difference between those and Zelda is that the main plot isn't hanging over your head the entire time. Heck, it's not hanging over your head at all. One of the most identifiable aspects of Zelda 1 was that it didn't have a forced order to it's dungeons. You could just go into whichever dungeon you want at your leisure.
But what's my point in all this? Simply put, the modern mind can easily dismiss what I described as products of the times. Surprisingly, Zelda 1 is a one-of-a-kind game, there aren't others like it, but I expect many to say that there were games that did what it did better than it did, going as far back as A Link to the Past. And yet, by dismissing what made the original unique, they deny themselves the pleasure of enjoying- or not enjoying- the game as it was meant to be experienced. Ocarina of Time is the same deal, and I use original Zelda as a template because they both have the trait of being "timeless but not". With Ocarina of Time, even if you've played the newer Zelda's, it's playability isn't diminished. Sure, the camera got better and mechanics were polished, but you won't find a lot of its music, story, and it's ideological samurai swordsplay in other titles. Again, it's not like people dismiss these flaws, they just enjoy the games so much that the flaws seem trivial by comparison to the rest of the game, and I think when that happens the game is doing a good job. If the flaws are at the forefront of your mind when you play a game, unless you yourself are the type to put them in front of your enjoyment, then that's just inadequate game design.
---
And I want to make it clear: I'm not defending these games. Sure, I'm a huge fan of Persona 4 and I'm quite fond of Ocarina of Time (not to the same extent as most people, but I'd say it's a good game), but I just want to make a case for why people love this games and why their opinions are valid and not seasoned or overly biased. Sure, there may be a lot of opinions that are, but it seems like these days liking a game that's reached a certain height in popularity is as condemnable as criticizing them.
Sorry for the long post, I pray for any eyes that may have died during this reading.
