Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

I hated Twilight Princess. Hated, hated, hated. The visuals were bland then and are just ugly now. The wolf gameplay was tedious and boring. And the controls felt rough and unrefined. I have no idea why it has such a high metacritic rating or sold so many copies.
 
Fallout 3 is a giant, flaming sack of human feces. My friends constantly gush about their love for the game and I genuinely have no idea how they can love it so much.

Also, Wrack is terrible. Instead of trying to be unique, it's literally just Doom with jumping. The map design is boring and repetitive, the music is unmemorable (which is a shame, because Bobby Prince is usually great), the art style is uninspired, the guns feel like pea shooters, and it's selling point, the combo system, isn't even has already been done in other FPSes.
 
This is an unpopular tabletop opinion, not video game, but I can't find a thread for those.

Under a spoiler because I know this opinion will get me stabbed by someone.

It's really damn hard being just about the only tabletop player that can't fucking stand Pathfinder. I don't want to debate it, but it's just like... no thank you. Everything about it just rubs me the wrong way. But it seems to be everyone else's jam so I guess I'm just stuck with my own group.

3.0/3.5 fag here. You are entirely within your rights to dislike Pathfinder, and even fans of Pathfinder can see its flaws. I personally see its ongoing existence as less of a love-letter towards 3.X (3rd is a damned good system in spite of its glaring weaknesses), so much as it is an indictment on how shitty and not-D&D 4E was.

My personal favorite system is d20 Modern. Aside from economic issues and some wobbliness from its d20 parentage, it's a solid system that I've found works well.
 
3.0/3.5 fag here. You are entirely within your rights to dislike Pathfinder, and even fans of Pathfinder can see its flaws. I personally see its ongoing existence as less of a love-letter towards 3.X (3rd is a damned good system in spite of its glaring weaknesses), so much as it is an indictment on how shitty and not-D&D 4E was.

Well, now I'm convinced that I'm one of the few people that doesn't mind 4e. I can see its flaws (which is why our games take elements of 3.5) but I think as its own system it's alright and I'd rather use its combat system than 3.5's. Keep in mind that I learned on and played 3.5e for years before I even touched 4e.

But yes, to each their own and it's not really worth debating about because it's personal preference. I just often feel alone in this sentiment.
 
I know Final Fantasy X-2 gets a lot of shit for being too "girly", silly and whatnot, but I like it. (That might be because I'm a girl myself, though.) I love the tragic backstory of Lenne and Shuyin. The sidequests may be a pain in the ass, but doing them is worth it to get the Good ending.

I liked X-2 as well. It has a solid battle system and the Dressphere job system is pretty awesome.
 
Well, now I'm convinced that I'm one of the few people that doesn't mind 4e. I can see its flaws (which is why our games take elements of 3.5) but I think as its own system it's alright and I'd rather use its combat system than 3.5's. Keep in mind that I learned on and played 3.5e for years before I even touched 4e.

But yes, to each their own and it's not really worth debating about because it's personal preference. I just often feel alone in this sentiment.
4th edition has it's own problems. Not so much the same as 3.5 but moreso how every class feels the same.

Like because everything is an ability and how every class has their own abilities it makes every class feel very much the same. Like a buffed version of a Wizard. It's unsurprising given Wizards of the Coast admitted they took great inspiration from World of Warcraft with 4th. And why they're intentionally trying to get as much feedback as possible from the fanbase for 5th. It also had pretty silly rules like iirc it required a character to be 10 hp bellow 0 in order to actually "die". Which just legitimized DMs fudging the rules with player death and never having to actually kill players that played poorly.

As it stands though I don't think 4 is a bad system, I have played it a few times and wouldn't mind playing it again. I just don't think it's as good as AD&D or even 3.5. It requires a very specific campaign in mind. Like I've thought of running an all Thieves or all Bards campaign for 4th since that would actually play very well with an abilities system. An all Monsters campaign would also work pretty well.
 
4th edition has it's own problems. Not so much the same as 3.5 but moreso how every class feels the same.

Like because everything is an ability and how every class has their own abilities it makes every class feel very much the same. Like a buffed version of a Wizard. It's unsurprising given Wizards of the Coast admitted they took great inspiration from World of Warcraft with 4th. And why they're intentionally trying to get as much feedback as possible from the fanbase for 5th. It also had pretty silly rules like iirc it required a character to be 10 hp bellow 0 in order to actually "die". Which just legitimized DMs fudging the rules with player death and never having to actually kill players that played poorly.

As it stands though I don't think 4 is a bad system, I have played it a few times and wouldn't mind playing it again. I just don't think it's as good as AD&D or even 3.5. It requires a very specific campaign in mind. Like I've thought of running an all Thieves or all Bards campaign for 4th since that would actually play very well with an abilities system. An all Monsters campaign would also work pretty well.

True. It seems to come down to what you'd rather give up. 3.5 has classes that feel more distinct, but it also has some pretty major balance issues. I've had several 3.5 games where most of the players were almost useless in battle because they didn't tweak their stats just right or choose the "right" options, and literally one player had to carry the whole party through fights until the higher levels. 4 has good balance but at the cost of everything feeling same-y and not nearly as many options for non-combat. That's why we've been running 3.5/mockup 3.5+4 games as a break from the monotony.

One thing I do like about 4 is that because it's simpler it's easier to customize. We've actually done an all-Monsters game, coming up with PC stats for various creatures and it was great.
 
I think I'm finally brave enough to say this... I did not like Shadow of Mordor as much as everyone else did.

The world seems empty, the visuals are bland, the combat felt clunky and unpolished, I am sick of hearing Talion say the same stuff everytime I start up the game, and I don't know if this is just for the Xbox 360 version or not, but it takes a while for the textures to load completely.
 
I think I'm finally brave enough to say this... I did not like Shadow of Mordor as much as everyone else did.

The world seems empty, the visuals are bland, the combat felt clunky and unpolished, I am sick of hearing Talion say the same stuff everytime I start up the game, and I don't know if this is just for the Xbox 360 version or not, but it takes a while for the textures to load completely.
It's the 360 port. I haven't noticed as much pop-in on the PC or next gen ports.
 
I think I'm finally brave enough to say this... I did not like Shadow of Mordor as much as everyone else did.

The world seems empty, the visuals are bland, the combat felt clunky and unpolished, I am sick of hearing Talion say the same stuff everytime I start up the game, and I don't know if this is just for the Xbox 360 version or not, but it takes a while for the textures to load completely.
The 360 port is ridiculously sub-optimized. Like to an insane degree. Literally every big part of the Nemesis system has been muted, huge amounts of the game trimmed down, and it's just really bad in general in contrast. For a really good analogy, check out Squad Command.

My turn again, I suppose. I thought Vampire Rain was actually halfway decent. I definitely enjoyed it way more than some other shit games I've played, including Duke Nukem Forever, Daikatana, and pretty much anything by Quantic Dream.

Oh, the voice-acting ranges from mediocre (the protagonists) to utter shit (the vampires). The weapon damage algorithms are all the fuck over the place and the game has the infamous tendency to steal your weapons constantly. But if you look past all the shit, the game is actually all right. It tells an interesting story and winds up with a Protagonist who flat-out bucks a lot of character traditions. The fact that the Vampires are hideous and vicious-looking is a huge plus - you see them look like normal people until they spot you, and then BAM, you have a monstrous entity resembling a Strigoi from fucking Warhammer bearing down on your ass. The music's damned good too (the second-to-last boss fight has an amazing theme that I wish to fuck someone would audio rip and put on Youtube).
 
Now thats a name I haven't heard in ages.


I'm almost entirely sure my feelings on Vampire Rain are from proper context. I've played utter shit that makes games believed to be utter shit look like anything but. You think Superman 64 is bad? Try Fighting Arts, an N64 fighting game with shoddy hit-detection, controls that don't work, and 7 frames per second. You think Shadow the Hedgehog is horrible? Try Bubsy 3D, a game which makes it look like a fucking masterpiece. Think your average Wisdom Tree game's bad? Action 52. In my case, I usually divide my games up and rate them on if they're objectively good (as in, if the gameplay is good), or if the work's contextually good (as in, the game has a phenomenal story or interesting ideas). If a game has excellent gameplay, but no story, that's enough to get it over the bar with me. If a game is a piece of shit mechanically, but the story is great or has such brilliant ideas that it almost makes up for it, then that's almost as important. If you can nail both, you've got a game that I'll almost invariably support. This may be why I am absolutely fucking brutal towards anything Quantic Dream shits out, but will happily investigate the likes of that mediocre Alone in the Dark game from a few years ago.

There are a few games, however, that I consider to transcend my usual scale. For example, Duke Nukem Forever is unimpeachably shit on every level. Its plot is trash, it has constant framerate issues, it controls like garbage, the shooting mechanics are sloppy and unresponsive, the physics are nonsensical, it does literally nothing original in its entire run-time, and it doesn't give a shit about its own lack of quality (take a good look around in the city levels, and prepare to see the most bland, uninhabited city since backgrounds were done in PNG format). It's repetitive and unfun as hell, and it's got a psychopathic look what we got away with, hurr durr mindset that makes one wonder if the developers behind it were about 12 years old. About the only thing I enjoyed about it was Duke's quips, which lost some impact when Duke suddenly comes across as the biggest asshole in the world halfway through. Revolution 60 is another good example of this - it's essentially Quick Time Events: The Video Game, with a boring, predictable story that takes itself completely seriously. Its laughable graphics could be forgiven if it had literally anything else going for it, but it doesn't, and so it's free to join Quantic Dream's games on the shitlist.

One game that I did find was infinitely better than literally every gaming mag said it was was Operation Raccoon City. To hear most mags talk about it, it was the game that dethroned the likes of Daikatana, Battlecruiser: 3,000 AD, and Deadly Towers. In truth, it's a damned good game that attempts to do very interesting things with the Resident Evil license. It has a tragic story, however: It was intended to launch as a $30 budget title, since the Delta Force campaign was coming in a few months for $20. Capcom of America got greedy, though, and launched it with outdated early-build code for $60. The devs legally bitch-slapped Capcom over it, and Capcom backed off, marking down the price and releasing a patch that fixed the biggest issues, but the damage had already done. If you can find a copy on-the-cheap, check it out. It's got solid multiplayer and does some really clever things with the story in an alternate-universe retcon wherein Birkin grew a conscience and sold Umbrella out to the US Government.
 
and it's got a psychopathic look what we got away with, hurr durr mindset that makes one wonder if the developers behind it were about 12 years old
considering the released game was shat out by Gearbox, and supposedly has very little in common with previous builds, that's about on mark. After all, this is the company that employed Anthony Burch.
 
I thought Gone Home was decent. Not great - the price is steep for what you get and the romance at the center falls a bit flat - but I'm a sucker for any game that rewards you for exploration, and I like all the little hints you get about the family's life and what they're all like from digging around. Kind of like Metroid, except straying from the beaten path gets you bits of story instead of missile packs. An interesting experiment I'd like to see done better in the future, but I don't see why it's so controversial.
 
I thought Gone Home was decent. Not great - the price is steep for what you get and the romance at the center falls a bit flat - but I'm a sucker for any game that rewards you for exploration, and I like all the little hints you get about the family's life and what they're all like from digging around. Kind of like Metroid, except straying from the beaten path gets you bits of story instead of missile packs. An interesting experiment I'd like to see done better in the future, but I don't see why it's so controversial.

I don't mind narrative-driven minimalist games. Some of them, like The Stanley Parable, are good. Gone Home is all right. It's not a masterstroke by any stretch, but it gives the player some level of investment in the world and urgency involved, and doesn't essentially hedge out the player entirely.

Compare Gone Home to Dear Esther some time, or some bullshit non-involved claims-to-be-too-clever-for-the-rabble bullshit like The Path.
 
- "PC Master Race" is the single most grating term people hold in the video gaming community as a mark of merit; you tossed a ton of money down on a rig that can render shit in a video game faster, totally amazing job bro. Not to mention how deceptive the claims can be when it comes to actually assembling a proper gaming PC when the planets aren't aligned insofar as hunting for parts, prove to me that you can build a system better than my consoles and hand held for anything less than about $800. A good friend proposed to me that the reason these people sperg out almost on cue about how super awesome it is to game on the computer is because people were touting in the recent past how PC Gaming as a medium wasn't going to last before it really took off. Even if this equates to any true believers making sure to rub it in the face of every 'peasant' as a form of compulsory and ideological vengeance, well founded or not, it doesn't do anything to justify the annoying shit people spew over the mere notion that somebody prefers a cleanly assembled machine they can plug in and play within the hour of purchase with assurance that it won't completely fail due to some extremely faulty little gizmo that you have to gut the entire product just to fix. At the end of the day, I want to play video games just like anyone else wants to, some folks should shut up and let folks play what they want to without creating some narcissistic status quo over it.

- The Souls series is largely sabotaged by its own reputation as a quote unquote "difficult game" pitted thoroughly against the notion that you can learn to blast through it with extreme ease simply by understanding what to do and how to do it. There is no incredible amount of individuality in all three titles as an advertised exercise in masochism that you couldn't find immediately in picking up any archaic title from the arcade and NES age, and there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that method of application, except when the difficulty derives almost primarily from a mechanical standpoint. People are immediately conditioned to believe that this game is supposed to be stressful and frustrating, and they go in determined to live up to that experience; damned be the poor soul that dares to suggest the very possibility that this boss fight is poorly designed or that this area of the game is a bit too ridiculously tedious, or that a certain mechanic is doing nothing to add actual depth to the gameplay and is instead largely there to make it harder for you to use the elements of the game to your advantage. It wasn't so much a big issue between the first and second iterations, which kept themselves largely as a single player experience that was designed to be beatable by anyone who invested enough patience and daring-do to tackle the challenges ahead. 2 completely shit all over itself when the focus built itself almost entirely around its own advertisement as a 'hard game that you play with other people' and was determined to sacrifice any sense of charm in the struggle just to keep the game as stressful as possible; no matter how much deliberate shit they had to pull in hitboxes, enemy placement, and weapon/spell/etc balancing. Nothing of course to say of all the mishandling by the development team post-release that still hasn't fixed a broken Region Lock system or most of the original problems the game came out with; or the fact that this series has one of the absolute worst communities I have EVER seen in any video game ever; manifested by the climax of its IP life cycle as an insufferable crowd of raging autists and exploiters determined to turn the experience into an E-Sport. I don't have particularly high hopes for Bloodborne, for that matter.

- I don't actually hate Peter Molyneux, and had little problem with the Fable series. I guess maybe because I came into each of them fairly late, with the exception of 3; of which I spent some time frame following up through its pre-release information cycles, but I've known a handful of circles that tout the man as the second manifestation of John Romero for being patently incapable of keeping his mouth shut about the stuff in his games. While I will never deny the man had a problem with making promises he couldn't keep, I always felt his only real fault was in thinking a little too ambitiously and dooming himself to failure in the push towards it. Unless I missed him being deliberately deceptive, I saw him kind of wind down towards 3's release and didn't find it anything short of an average, if charming action RPG.

- Tim Schafer's spaghetti drop depresses me far more than it does anger me.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
- "PC Master Race" is the single most grating term people hold in the video gaming community as a mark of merit; you tossed a ton of money down on a rig that can render shit in a video game faster, totally amazing job bro. Not to mention how deceptive the claims can be when it comes to actually assembling a proper gaming PC when the planets aren't aligned insofar as hunting for parts, prove to me that you can build a system better than my consoles and hand held for anything less than about $800. A good friend proposed to me that the reason these people sperg out almost on cue about how super awesome it is to game on the computer is because people were touting in the recent past how PC Gaming as a medium wasn't going to last before it really took off. Even if this equates to any true believers making sure to rub it in the face of every 'peasant' as a form of compulsory and ideological vengeance, well founded or not, it doesn't do anything to justify the annoying shit people spew over the mere notion that somebody prefers a cleanly assembled machine they can plug in and play within the hour of purchase with assurance that it won't completely fail due to some extremely faulty little gizmo that you have to gut the entire product just to fix. At the end of the day, I want to play video games just like anyone else wants to, some folks should shut up and let folks play what they want to without creating some narcissistic status quo over it.
I'd be more likely to agree with this wholeheartedly if I hadn't gone through about ten fucking Xboxes before I got one that didn't suffer critical existence failure.
 
I actually liked Skyward Sword. I understand why people don't like it for the relatively empty overworld and backtracking (though c'mon, OoT had just as many problems with a barren overworld and backtracking through zones and nobody ever complains about that). But I don't understand the sheer amount of hate it gets.
 
- The Souls series is largely sabotaged by its own reputation as a quote unquote "difficult game" pitted thoroughly against the notion that you can learn to blast through it with extreme ease simply by understanding what to do and how to do it. There is no incredible amount of individuality in all three titles as an advertised exercise in masochism that you couldn't find immediately in picking up any archaic title from the arcade and NES age, and there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that method of application, except when the difficulty derives almost primarily from a mechanical standpoint. People are immediately conditioned to believe that this game is supposed to be stressful and frustrating, and they go in determined to live up to that experience; damned be the poor soul that dares to suggest the very possibility that this boss fight is poorly designed or that this area of the game is a bit too ridiculously tedious, or that a certain mechanic is doing nothing to add actual depth to the gameplay and is instead largely there to make it harder for you to use the elements of the game to your advantage. It wasn't so much a big issue between the first and second iterations, which kept themselves largely as a single player experience that was designed to be beatable by anyone who invested enough patience and daring-do to tackle the challenges ahead. 2 completely shit all over itself when the focus built itself almost entirely around its own advertisement as a 'hard game that you play with other people' and was determined to sacrifice any sense of charm in the struggle just to keep the game as stressful as possible; no matter how much deliberate shit they had to pull in hitboxes, enemy placement, and weapon/spell/etc balancing. Nothing of course to say of all the mishandling by the development team post-release that still hasn't fixed a broken Region Lock system or most of the original problems the game came out with; or the fact that this series has one of the absolute worst communities I have EVER seen in any video game ever; manifested by the climax of its IP life cycle as an insufferable crowd of raging autists and exploiters determined to turn the experience into an E-Sport. I don't have particularly high hopes for Bloodborne, for that matter.
The thing with 'Souls is the games were basically designed so that anyone could complete them. (if you look at their rpg elements in particular). Specifically how every boss in the game has attacks that are dodgeable or blockable in some way. (and this is proven by how there have been numerous no damage runs of Dark Souls and level 1 runs). But also how much your character is influenced by equipment compared to their stats. (Infact your stats pretty much just influence equipment and not the other way around). But not just that. The player can always grind if there's a particularly challenging boss and you can summon another player/an NPC if you're still having trouble.

It's interesting when people compare Dark Souls to much older titles because Dark Souls is significantly more forgiving than they ever were. This is infact to the game's credit in my opinion because it just chose to not hold the player's hand. Dark Souls becoming popular for it's difficulty was moreso symbolic of how used to linear and easy games we have become.

The devs on Dark Souls outright stated that they didn't set out to make a really hard game. Rather they wanted difficulty to add weight to particular moments, such as the boss fight between Ornstein and Smough. Or
how easy Gwyn is by comparison to the other bosses. And how he's the only boss who you can parry which makes the fight even easier

I don't think difficulty is what people want. I think what Dark Souls showed to people is that they don't want their hands held. Which is what Dark Souls did best compared to a lot of other games released at the time. Difficulty was just what people associated it with. People want games that are less linear and scripted, and are sold primarily on their replayability (And one thing Dark Souls has in spades above all else even compared to it's difficulty is replayability.)

Anyway I foresee From is unfortunately going to become a victim of their own success. I don't have any particular hopes for Bloodborne but only because I think they're going to be pressured to streamline the game to appeal to more people.
- I don't actually hate Peter Molyneux, and had little problem with the Fable series. I guess maybe because I came into each of them fairly late, with the exception of 3; of which I spent some time frame following up through its pre-release information cycles, but I've known a handful of circles that tout the man as the second manifestation of John Romero for being patently incapable of keeping his mouth shut about the stuff in his games. While I will never deny the man had a problem with making promises he couldn't keep, I always felt his only real fault was in thinking a little too ambitiously and dooming himself to failure in the push towards it. Unless I missed him being deliberately deceptive, I saw him kind of wind down towards 3's release and didn't find it anything short of an average, if charming action RPG.
People don't have a problem with Peter Molyneux games. (At least most of them). It's moreso people have a problem with Peter Molyneux getting too excited and overly hyping his games. It doesn't help that the man built himself a reputation as an innovator in the industry and has reduced himself to making more average if best titles and now Farmville clones that deliver half of what they promised to their kickstarter backers.

The comparison to John Romero isn't quite fair. John Romero became notorious for his obnoxious ego in the advertising to Dai Katana which turned out to be a fairly bellow average game. Molyneux is more so known for just disappointing people. (So much so that he even has a "cycle" named after him).
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Wstecz
Top Na dole