I was ecstatic for this game upon announcement, and after waiting an agonizingly long time for it to be released, I loved it! The artwork is beautiful, the gameplay smooth and dynamic, and the content plentiful. Yet from the moment the game was announced, this game has received relentless hate from the west.

Some attributed it to have a combat system that was neither Fire Emblem nor Shin Megami Tensei, but rather a mix between. Some said that the story was uninteresting. Other said that the game was horrible for being censored. Side note: I do NOT understand the "if content is changed between Japan and the States, it's censorship" argument. Getting rid of blood in Mortal Kombat because it's too violent for kids. That's censorship. Upping the age of girls in bikinis so that they're not minors and sexualizing them isn't illegal isn't censorship. That's localizing content so that it's not borderline child pornography.

But I thought that surely once the game was out for a while, people would see how great it is, right? Nope. Still a 6.0 on Metacritic. Typical.

The Dragon Ball Z franchise's games have to be the greatest tale of highs and lows in gaming history. From Xenoverse to Sagas, this series has been all over the charts. And during the PS2 era, those games were getting churned out. Many got mediocre to low ratings, and rightfully so. But Tenkaichi 2? Sure, a 7.2 or 7.3 isn't too bad, but considering that the inferior Budokai 3 got a 7.7, that seems unfair.

The budokai series has little to no ability for flight, while Tenkaichi lets you fly all over the place and has destructible environments. Budokai 3 had 42 playable characters plus transformations. Not bad, right? TENKAICHI 2 HAD 129 CHARACTERS. Budokai 3 fights were limited to a quick combo that ended in someone getting knocked back, doing a quick dash that moved you three feet, and repeating. In Tenkaichi 2, I can knock my opponent halfway across the course, teleport behind them, knock them through a stone pillar, teleport again and send them flying into the ground, and finish the combo off by shooting a Special Beam Cannon.

But no, tell me again how the Budokai Tenkaichi series is the inferior fighting series of the PS2 era.

Samurai Warriors was actually my introduction to the Koei Tecmo-style hack and slash genre. So it could be argued that my affection for this game is nostalgia, but hear me out. Maybe I had a bad experience choosing to try Dynasty Warriors 3 and 4 afterward, but they just seemed....inferior to me. And yet, Edge gave Samurai Warriors a 5/10 and Game revolution gave it a C+.

And yet, Samurai Warriors had more detailed characters. The voice acting wasn't near as awful as Dynasty Warriors. The music in Samurai Warriors was more fitting. And yes, the gameplay was just as engaging and charming as Dynasty Warriors. But nope, lower scores compare to Dynasty Warriors 3 and 4 getting an 8.5 and 8.6 respectively.

The series maybe isn't hated, but certainly underscored.

Wait, why would Final Fantasy 10 be on this list? People loved that game! Heck, aside from the infamous laughing scene, many consider it the best game in the franchise! Well, except for one thing that everybody hates. Blitzball. And you know what? You're wrong. Dead wrong. Blitzball is one of the greatest things to happen to Final Fantasy.

I'm not saying that I love it, but if they just released Blitzball as its own game, I'd buy it. Pre-ordered. In a heartbeat. Okay, I love blitzball.

And how don't more people?! It's RPG-style underwater soccer rugby! What's not to love?! I have easily put 30+ hours into blitzball, with an entire team roughly level 55. The game is well designed, has a UI that fully explains all the numbers that you need to know, and is a sports game that incorporates skill and requires you to stop and think on every encounter, which....I don't know of any other sports games that have achieved this aside from Blood Bowl, which was awesome and got- 6.4 on Metacritic?! What is WRONG with you guys?!

Anybody that's a fan of Fire Emblem since Awakening has gone back to try the other North American releases. And the response I always hear is "Aside from Shadow Dragon, they're pretty good games!"

Guys. Why is Shadow Dragon bad? Because the only complaint that I've ever heard is that the story is pretty basic. Kinda fitting, given that Shadow Dragon is just a graphical upgrade of the first Fire Emblem game, which came out 26 years ago.

That'd be the equivalent of Final Fantasy 16 coming out next year with the best graphics, and being a remake of the first game. Would it sell poorly? Because let's be honest, saying that the original Final Fantasy had a story would really be pushing it. And yet, it's one of the most revered classics of the NES.

And yet, not only was this game hated, it sold so poorly that it kept the sequel from being released outside of Japan. Your guys' hatred of Shadow Dragon is keeping me from playing another Fire Emblem game. Good job, guys. I mean, I have a copy of Fire Emblem: Shin Monsho no Nazo ~Hikari to Kage no Eiyu~ in a glass case in my game room, but I can't understand it since it was never released in English.

But the game is really just fine. It's not the best one, bu it's got all of the essentials. The same combat mechanics as the rest of the series, decent graphics, and enjoyable soundtrack...Heck, it's the only North American game to have Marth, for crying out loud.

You guys are why we can't have nice things.

The Matrix series has really just not had good luck with video games. The Matrix MMO lasted barely four years, and shut down due to no players. And Enter the Matrix has some of the lowest ratings that I've ever seen on a major release. Heck, I've never seen a store selling that game for more than 99 cents.

But Path of Neo? That game is actual quality. Not only is it the only Matrix game to ACTUALLY BE ABOUT THE MAIN CHARACTER, but the story and gameplay overall were just very well designed. Neo starts out just learning kung-fu, and barely beating unnamed cronies. After unlocking all of his powers, you are knocking down entire armies of Smiths by the end.

It also added story content that was not in the movies, the fights actually functioned smoothly, and it never felt stale. Heck, this is the only game that I can ever recall going back to the rental store, and re-renting just so that I could beat it again. And so what score did it get? Mostly 6.8 and lower. Only one or two reviewers even dared give it a 7.0

This game is easily around an 8.0 in my book. And my god, that game had one of the funniest endings, ever.

Okay, this game is possibly the best of the PS2 trilogy, in my opinion. It took the fun gameplay of the original, gave it a graphical overhaul, toned down Dante's narcissistic attitude, tweaked the difficulty of the bosses, and added a new character. The audience's response?

"What an outrage! 5/10 from Eurogamer! 6.4/10 from Gamespot!" But you know what? No. That game was great. The camera was a little finnicky, but that's really the only complaint that I have about it.

So where did they take the series with 3? Well, they dialed Dante's god-awful personality up to 11, and made the game so hard that they literally had to re-release the game as a special edition with lowered difficulty so that the game could even be played through. I've never seen a game be so badly designed that the developers had to release it a 2nd time just so it could be played.

So how did it score? 9.0 by all critics. Of course.

When I mentioned this game through high school, most people denied that this game ever existed, and assured me that I mixed it up with some other game. And then I would bring my childhood copy in to prove it to them. Then they'd go "ohhh, I only played the 2nd one." Finally, Brentalfloss came out with a video about this game a few years back. And all he did was say the game sucks, and the 2nd one is better.

Okay, no. First, the claim is always made that this isn't really a Mario game. How? It's like Zelda II: There was no set formula for the series at that time. But nowadays, it's seen as the black sheep. But why? Up to the point Super Mario Land came out, every game had a different villain (Bowser, Wart, and Tatanga respectively). Every game had a different cast of enemies. Every game was in a different kingdom. Heck, the only thing that was consistent was jumping on enemies to kill them, and in that case Super Mario Bros 2 is the black sheep.

But let's put this in perspective. The was the first Mario game on the gameboy. It was a revolution for the series, and the handheld system. And it defined both for years to come. The levels were varying in challenge and style, and it even had a new game + mode for increased difficulty. And the soundtrack is PHENOMENAL. Heck, I'd say it's better than the NES counterparts.

Then the 2nd game came along. Sure, it had more levels, but they were all incredibly easy up until the final level, which was just absurdly difficult. Fun fact, Super Mario Land 2 was my first livestream ever, and it just consisted of me dying on the final level 57 times in a row before finally getting through it. I don't think that I had died once in the rest of the game. And I honestly don't think that there was a single memorable song in the sequel. Mostly given that I can't remember a single song from the sequel.

Do I even need to say the ratings that this game got? Well yes, actually. This game got great ratings. Japan LOVED it upon release. However, as the famous story goes, it never made it to the states because experts found it to be "too hard."

Heck, Atari HQ said that the original would not have sold even half as well if it included any levels from this sequel. That 's one hell of a claim, considering that The Lost Levels outsold the original on the Famicom Disk System. Yeah, The Lost Levels became the system's best-selling game. Beating the likes of Super Mario Bros, Castlevania, The Legend of Zelda, and Metroid.

And it's really not that bad. Of course, it's hard. But I mean, so is Super Mario Bros. 3. Heck, I still have never beaten Mario 3, and I even tried again this week just to see if it's any easier. And after 38 deaths in World 6 - Fortress #3........Nope, it's not.

That, and my god, do I hate the airship levels. While I was in world 4, my girlfriend walked in, and I KID YOU NOT, looked at the level I was on, and said "Man, that looks hard! And people said The Lost Levels was hard!" And she's not aware of this list. Wait, does that make this a popular opinion, then?

Shit.

Aaaaaaand there it is. "BULLSHIT!", I hear you say. "That game was the biggest disappointment of the decade!" Okay, now hear me out.

We all know how the reviews for this game went upon release, and I'm not entirely disagreeing with them. But to say this was one of the worst games we've seen in recent years? No. It's honestly a decent title. Not the best Duke Nukem game of course, but fully capable of enjoyment.

The graphics are decent enough, Duke has the same attitude as always, and the gunfights are just fine in my opinion. But the complaints that I've read seem.....off base.

"This game completely forgets what made the originals great!" - This game does nothing for the first hour but remind us of how fun the previous games were. Everything from NPCs freaking out about your fame to a museum dedicated to your previous adventures. And the tutorial ends with a boss fight against the Cycloid Emperor from previous games.

"The loading times are terrible!" - I just timed how long it took to load the final level. 2.5 seconds. On what planet is that too slow?

"Duke Nukem and the game's plot are really disrespectful towards women!" - Okay, two things. One, yes it is. But two....did you play any of the other games in the franchise? This one does literally nothing new on that front. But strangely, this seems to be the first time I've heard such rampant complaints. Ironic, considering the thing that Duke Nukem was most famous for in the 90s was pressing the space bar to hand money to strippers as Duke says "Shake it, baby!"

"The game just wasn't worth the wait!" - Well, no shit. No game will be good after hyping it up for a decade. Hell, Gabe Newell probably canned any efforts to make Half-Life 3 after seeing the reception for Duke Nukem Forever.

So is the game perfect? Heck no. They got rid of the medkits that Duke Nukem is known for, and replaced it with the auto-regen of Call of Duty. The game also felt relatively short, and Duke felt a little floaty to control. (Upon playing the multiplayer mode online, it actually felt reminiscent of Quake)

The game isn't the best by any means, but is definitely of average quality. And how dare you reviewers give Assassin's Creed: Unity a higher score when that game literally couldn't be played for weeks upon release, and still crashes from bugs on an hourly basis!