Advent Rising is another good example. It got panned by critics but it has a good story and I enjoyed playing it. The graphics are dated, the enemies all look the same, but it was made in 2005 so what do you expect? I wish they made the sequel so I could finish the story but I think the critics killed it off.
I seldom trust gamers or critics anymore. A lot of times high scores just mean how likely you are to enjoy something from the game, but rarely anything about how much you would enjoy said things, or whether the highly preferred type of qualities in a game you’re looking for are even in it. My initial gut feeling of the premise of a game is usually all I need.
Not sure about that list, but Alien Isolation comes to mind. Critics hated it. The game was very challenging and I almost rage quit at first. With some persistence, I learned how to play. Now I consider it one of my all-time fave games.
Vanquish is excellent...but reviewers scored it fairly high. Gamespot gave it a 9.5 if memory serves me correctly. Critics most certainly did not hate it.
For me it would be Raw Danger, a PS2 classic gem. Critics didn’t rate it high, but had I listened to them, I would have never experienced this classic. I hope it would get a sequel someday.
Advent Rising is another good example. It got panned by critics but it has a good story and I enjoyed playing it. The graphics are dated, the enemies all look the same, but it was made in 2005 so what do you expect? I wish they made the sequel so I could finish the story but I think the critics killed it off.
Nier (last gen)
I don't trust critics.
I'd value more the feedback from a random user.
Silent Hill: downpour another example