Simple Plan... Simple Plan for what? Simple Plan to make lots of money off crap songs? Sounds about right.

My Chemical Romance. Holy fuck I hate those gay tossers.

Marylin Manson. My god is he overpublicised or what? I don't understand why either, he isn't particularly good or particularly controversial anymore.

Muse. They're a bit boring/samey/repetative to be honest, their fans are always totally bonkers about them, and they get overhype rave reviews about their dull live performances. Don't get me wrong I don't mind them, but they don't deserve all the attention that they're getting - I can think of plenty of unsigned bands that are way better and get like no coverage at all.

Ohh Muse. Muse, Muse, Muse. They lured me in with Hysteria, which has been playing practically nonstop on VH1, and is an undeniably excellent song. Then I went off and shelled out twenty bucks or so for the album, and found it to be a piece of steaming crap. They have the potential to be great-- their instrumental skill is prodigious-- but that damn lead singer just dominates every single one of their songs (Hysteria excluded) with his whiney, high-pitched crooning. Thank you, Dino, for bringing this up.

Halo.

Revolutionary?
Phht. My ass is it.
Gun game, vast expanses of running...**** a doodle doo...
Halo 2 dosnt even have a proper ending.

I prefer more 'realisitc' war games. Like KillZone (although that was hyped up to be way better than it actually was)

Edit: Hey, I didnt know the Forum blocked out swear words! Boo!

Halo 2 has a cliffhanger ending. Meaning there will be a sequel. But thank you for bringing up an interesting point...

"Realistic" first-person shooters: overrated as hell. I'll take a completely far-fetched sci-fi shoot-'em-up over those games any day.

So playing as an android fighting aliens on a massive artificial ring orbiting a star counts as realistic these days?

EDIT: probably should point out that was sarcasm with a :D

No no no, I think you misunderstand. Nobody said Halo was realistic. (and btw Masterchief isn't an android, he's a cyborg) I think they were saying that realistic war games aren't as good as games like halo, but they're usually better than halo in particular, because halo, of course, blows.

However I can't agree with drakan90 on the point about there being too much walking, since in areas where large amounts of travelling are required, you're supplied a vehicle. The problem with Halo is that the only thing you do throughout the entire game is drive vehicles, fly banshees, shoot guns, hit people, and activate buttons. There's not a whole lot to it, and that's why the game feels so shallow. Probably 85% of the game is simply shooting people.

Why does everybody feel they need to criticise and complain about everything that other, more talented people then themselves have accomplished? I mean I agree, that if something is naturally sucky, like say AIDs or Britney Spears, it should totally be taunted and destroyed, but who cares if something or someone is getting a little attention. Everything that has been mentioned is "overrated" for a reason: a bunch of folks really dig 'em.

That being said, I believe Dino and TheRasin should burn in Hell for calling Muse overrated. Bastards...

Hey. You tell your Muse lead singer guy to stop making the rest of the band his bitch, and I'll be happy. :D

You've got your music and I've got mine.

Muse are overrated, and their sound sucks. You're tone deaf.

"Why does everybody feel they need to criticise and complain about everything that other, more talented people then themselves have accomplished?"

Because it they aren't talented and they haven't accomplished anything.

"Everything that has been mentioned is "overrated" for a reason: a bunch of folks really dig 'em. "

Are you actually aware of the meaning of the word "overerated"? These things are overrated in our opinion because they get more attention that they deserve. In other words, they're not nearly as fantastic as you inexperienced teenage fans/consumer whores and uncultured journalists who only ever expose themselves to mainstream media would have us believe. It's got nothing to do with whether anyone likes anything, and everything to do with the fact that 99% of western society are easily impressed, tasteless morons who are never exposed to anything any better than the crap they're constantly listening to.

I'll continue on from the "breasts are overated" opinion of previous with a little bit of "Breast cancer is overated" ... at least compared to prostate cancer.

I've got a high genetic chance of getting prostate cancer (thanks grandpa!) and it pisses me off that breast cancer is so fashionable and gets 50 times as much funding as prostate cancer when they both have as similar mortality rate. I guess everyone likes breasts but only gay guys have any idea what a prostate is for. [Try it one of these days, you won't regret it :) ]

I'm not advocating cutting breast cancer funding, just that it shouldn't be promoted as the worst thing since Pol Pot like it is over here.

Dino, stop being confrontational. Seriously, what was the point of writing that last post? Nobody's trying to argue with you, an opinion is an opinion.

"I'd prefer a far fetched sci fi...etc etc"
Actually, KillZone is sci-fi. And, while not nearly as crazy as Halo, is still a bit out there.
Its just far more involving than Halo. Not that I'm saying over-realistic games are good, Gran Turismo for example blows. KillZone is just grittier, and the animations make you feel more 'there', although the reload times are A BIT too slow.

"breasts are overated"
What? No! Never!
lol :-)

But the whole:
"Why does everybody feel they need to criticise and complain about everything that other, more talented people then themselves have accomplished?"

Well, most things produced are produced by more talented people than myself, because I'm a 15 year old, and thus have no skills on what most would consider a proffesional level. duh.
Just because I cant play a guitar, for example, dosnt mean I cant criticise the music of someone who can play a guitar. Its an opinion.

All goddamn pop, r&b, rap and gangsta music is overrated.
plus my sisters radio volume button.

All Gangsta/Chav/Rude Boy/Disadvantaged-High-School-Drop-Out-With-A-Brother-In-Jail-And-A-Sick-Grandma-And-A-Dad-Who-Left-Home-And-A-Mum-Who's-A-Hooker music is shit.
Period.

You irritate me, so I went off on one at you. There's just something about you that really screams "commercially gullible".

Just don't ask. It probably isn't worth it. And I'm staying out of this one anyways.

Agreed.

Agreed.

No, I'm not openly criticising this stuff, but that does not mean I like it, actually I believe the majority of that which has been mentioned is really quite sucktacular, but that's just my opinion. I wouldn't exactly say my views are mainstream, but you don't know me, so I can kinda understand.

I realise that I'm probably pontificating when I say things like "muse suck" but in all honesty I'm not able/bothered enough to articulate my feelings about their music in anything shorter than an essay on the subject. It's so hard to define some of these things. But in short I think I can sum it up by saying that their style is repeated in each song to the extent that they all shockingly similar (kinda like nickelback, only not all at the same tempo) almost to the point of self parody. Muse seem to follow a pretty strict whiney, annoying, melodramatic tone throughout all of their songs, and they quickly flit from rocking to laming. In summery, I think that their songs are overpopulated with bits/factors that I don't like, and I can't honestly say that I can define whether those bits annoy me because they are genuinely crap, or because they just annoy me. Everyone has their musical tastes, and I guess it's pretty hard for one person to comprehend how someone else can like something if that person cannot does not like it at all themselves.

Despite this, there are certainly a few things that I can pick up on as being the mark of a mediocre band. Their melodies, riffs, and whole songs are often quite uninspiring. While they may fit in with the laws of music, they don't ever really do anything interesting or moving, just the usual up and down of notes, scales, and pitch. They tend to be more of a listenable variation of chords rather than an actual premeditated or exploratory concept...

But I'm whittering on now, and I said I wouldn't.

Hey, if you don't like how they sound you should hate them. I'm sure there's plenty of bands you like and I don't, vice versa. And just to make things clear, I wasn't serious when I said you should burn in hell; I'm sure you probably already knew that, but you'd be surprised how many people on these forums misinterpret such comments.

On the Nickelback theme, someone put this in the Stupid Shit thread last year and I thought it was bloody funny: http://www.thewebshite.net/nickelback.htm

I understood that it was a joke, and it wasn't the reason that I got 'iffy' with you.

My main complaint was with your criticism of everybody elses views on what is and isn't overrated. To be honest I haven't found a single thing listed that I haven't agreed with. I think you perhaps need to get it out of your head that overrated does not necessarily mean that something is bad, it just means that something is nowhere near as fantastic as people are saying. The tip is in the over part of overrated... as in it's rated too highly.

I happen to be quite deeply rooted within the underground media community (music, art, film, publications) and I can tell you for a fact that how much people praise something is no indication of how good something actually is, since there are some far superior works in the underground communities that get very little media coverage at all. Art of any form grows on talent and passion, and spawns anywhere that it exists. It's like the theories that life needs light - similar to art needing money... art does not actually need money or publicitiy. Real art is always completely seperate from all that, and does not require it to flourish. In fact, it's usually much better without it.

well, that would be the point of a shooter :D

Yea, verily. What greater fun can there be in a first-person shooter than shooting people and aliens and vehicles and turrets and zombies and such? I've never been much for objectives and the like. Bomb defusal? Hostage rescue? Pfff. Let them die. I'll be off blasting things.

I think that most games are pretty repetitive no matter the genre. Probably one of the reasons I have trouble finishing a lot of them.

Precisely, the trouble with these games is that they become so dull that they aren't worth finishing. Also, when you're on the battlefield you don't just pull a trigger and aim a gun, there are tons of other things to do. I don't care about some shitty definition of the genre "shooter" either, the fact of the matter is that plenty of other games have been called "first person shooters" and had many things to do besides just gunning things. It's attitudes like that which causes these shite games in the first place Sligster, perhaps you ought to wait till you're in the industry and actually know what you're talking about before you go making claims about genre definitions? It's true that a shooter involves shooting, but it doesn't have to be the main method of progression or even a method of progression at all. Look at Splinter Cell for instance, that's a Third Person Shooter, and yet the game designers made it possible to play through the whole thing without ever shooting your gun.

Fact of the matter is, above all, these "gunonly" games (as I like to call them) are boring. Nobody likes to do the same old shit over and over and over, so most people will give it a break after a while (unless they truely have no taste). Especially if it's lame to begin with. What games need is a number of things to do at any given time, and also a number of different methods of progression. A good game is one that is so open ended, you can literally play it how YOU want.

Games shouldn't be a goddamn chore.

Originally posted by Dino:
What is music? What is your exploratory concept? Every sound you hear is part of a scale, even if it's a microtonal scale. There is no exception. EVERY sound is part of a scale, and EVERY note can form a chord. Period. You, sir, are a repugnant fool.

Problem is that people rate the length of games way too highly so developers have to cram in a bunch of repetitive, similar looking corridors and puzzles that get you killed over and over.

I'd much prefer a short, sharp, quality game than something that's 50% filler.

Agreed, Nate_dog_woof. I have experience with games like those. Many of them are just up for the looks, and nothing for the game experience. So much for a character with high detailed textures when he's as intelligent as a toaster.

Older games, like Doom 1 or Quake have... well, not soo high-tech graphics, but those games were entertaining. There's not much difference between them and new FPS games, but still...

To the topic, I think Doom 3 was a bit overrated before it was released, but it's only the way I see it.

Erm, Splinter is not a third person shooter.
It's called a Stealth game, or a Stealth/Sneak 'em up.
A game which hands you a gun is not the definition of shooter.
A Shooter/Shoot 'em up is a game which involves mostly shooting, hence the name Shooter.