Was Honda Tadakatsu a great warrior/general? Yes he was.

Was he over-rated? Or did he "meet the hype?"

The problem with questions like this is they essentially force historians to use incomplete, biased information to answer a subjective question, that, in the grand-scheme of things, doesn't matter at all.

Did he benefit from biases? Yes, of course. First, he benefited from survivorship bias. Looking through more contemporary records and one can see many other warriors who were greaty praised by their contempories who unfortunately did not survive the Sengoku, or whose descendents did not become an important daimyō in the Edo period. Honda Tadakatsu did, and so his stories survived and popularized. Who knows how many were his equal or superior, but simply ended up drawing the short end of the straw and ended up becoming lost to history?

And so, yes he had the advantage of "Tokugawa bias," as you call it, spreading his deeds, likely exaggerating them, and even making anecdotal stories for him. Bakfu's record of the deeds of their vassals, the Hankanfu and the Shokafu for instance, record him fighting and taking heads, leading his men, setting ambushes against his enemies, among other exploits, with him having supposely fought 57 battles in his life without suffering a single wound.

Is it likely at least some of these writings about him are exaggerations? Of course. Some might have not happened at all, others exaggerated the odds he faced. Some might not have been really special in the context of the Sengoku or his contemporaries, but survives because his story survived. Some might have been falsely associated with him. The records for instance sometimes give different versions of a story, showing that different versions of stories existed. There is simply no way for historians to say for sure which of his recorded deeds are accurate, and which are not, as that level of detail simply does not survive in contemporary sources.

But does this matter? By asking me (or anyone) to answer whether I think he's "overrated" you are asking me not only to rate him but also to compare him to other warriors in history. For the only way to rate something is with a method of measure, an established baseline. And can you tell me which famous warrior in history does not benefit from survivorship bias and propaganda? Even writings by victors about those who were eventually vanqueshed after long and hard fighting likely contain biases to mask early failures with the enemy's supposed prowess, and so exaggerate later victories. So now not only do I need to subjectively judge Honda Tadakatsu based on incomplete information and biased sources, I must also judge a bunch of others on equally or even more incomplete information and biased sources.

And of course the argument that Honda Tadakatsu, or any warrior, is not a very great warrior because he mostly fought battles he already had an advantage in makes no sense. The sources of course does not paint him this way, but for sake of argument let's say the sources exaggerated his deeds, and he indeed only fought in battles he already had an advantage in. How does this make him any less of a warrior? One of the marks of a good commander is to be able to take advantageous fights and avoid disadvantageous ones. Another is to ensure that he has every possible advantage before engaging in battle. If Honda Tadakatsu really only fought battles in which he had the advantage, be it numbers, terrain, training, logistics, technology, or organization, that just means in the fog of war he was able to accurately estimate and judge his the enemy's situation and prepare his own side for the fight, likely often creating advantageous situations himself. Sure he might have been lucky, but which successful commander isn't?

Given this then there's really no way to judge whether or not a successful warrior, like Honda Tadakatsu, was "overrated" or "met the hype," at least not before much more detailed record keeping. And does it matter? A completely subjective answer either way would offer no information we don't already know and would not advance our understanding of history in any way.

Which brings me back to my original answer. There are "great warriors" who are fictional (Usami Sadayuki), whose name only survive in vague contemporary references and whose deeds are only recorded long after their deaths (Takenaka Shigeharu, Yamamoto Kansuke), or whose deeds in popular chronology or cultural works do not match the deeds or status found in official records (Hattori Masanari). Honda Tadakatsu is not one of them. We know he was one of Tokugawa Ieyasu's ranking commanders. His own letters survive. When Tokugawa Ieyasu was moved to the Kantō by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Ieyasu gave Tadakatsu a fief of 100,000 koku, the same as Sakakibara Yasumasa and behind only Ii Naomasa (120,000 koku). The only other person to recieve a fief in this range was Ieyasu's son. Yasumasa was from a lower ranked vassal family, and Naomasa was a complete tozama upstart. At the same time Sakai Ietsugu was given less than 40,000 koku despite being from a ranking fudai family and his retired father Sakai Tadatsugu was essentially Ieyasu's second-in-command. So even though the Honda were a ranking fudai family, from this we can tell that Ieyasu considered merrit much higher than family history when rewarding his vassals. Of course merrit doesn't mean only in battle, as Honda Tadakatsu, like other samurai, had to do diplomatic and administrative work as well. But merrit is still merrit. So at the point of 1590, Tokugawa Ieyasu judged that among his vassals Ii Naomasa, Sakakibara Yasumasa, and Honda Tadakatsu were deserving of large fiefs and large responsibilities, and they all served Ieyasu faithfully and ably until their retirement/death. And considering that Ieyasu eventually won control of Japan with their help, who are we to say otherwise?

Honda Tadakatsu was a great warrior. Whether or not he's "overrated" is not answerable and not important.