Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Just google them, it was a terrible thing.

It's only slow if you're bad at it.

Get better with the BR.

Well no doubt part of the reason these games are prominent is a scope thing. It's easier for developers on a shoestring budget to make a game with that sort of style.

To be fair, it's slower than modern Call of Duty-style games, in that it's possible to last 4 seconds instead of 2 seconds.

its not about the slow pace per se, but how it is played, its too simple theres nothing to spice things up, thats why it feels slow and boring

Im more like a CS player, quake and all that stuff, but i do enjoy my mindless shooter from time to time, Halo is not one of them

Ambiios are overpriced DLC that you can lose that's already on-disc content that should be accessible without the toys and is every bit as greedy and anti-consumer as Skylanders. It's also a shame that they sell out rather than failing.

Anyone who feels more strongly then "it's kinda cool/not cool I guess" about Amiibo should be ignored. Amiibo is not worth having strong opinions about.

Over the shoulder and behind the back(like in the Batman:Arkham games) 3rd person perspective completely defeat the purpose of a game being in the 3rd person. That is, to enable a wider field of view for the player.

I agree, but arguably more because the developers don't seem to realise the limited graphics of thse games wasn't a stylistic choice. That was just the best they could get out of the hardware.

I'd rather they instead made their games simply use nice pixel art, eight bit be damned. Do what the devs of the 80s and 90s wanted to do in the first place.

On another note, am I the only one who doesn't really like all the attempts at remaking old Nintendo games in engines like Unity? I mean, I really like fan games and ROM hacks. But stuff like Super Mario 64 HD seems like such a wasted opportunity when you could be there making a whole new Mario game with the technology instead.

It's why I prefer stuff like Paper Mario 3D Land:

Or Luigi's Mansion Battle of Spirits to all of the Mario 64 remakes.

Completely agree, but

A) I do think Skylanders is even worse because they are exclusive, at least Amiibo works on more than 1 game

and B) i buy them and not even use it, i hate it, damn capitalism ;_;

I agree to an extent. It worked in Batman because it was a mid-point between Third-person view (necessary for brawling and letting the player see Batman) and first-person view (sort of necessary for boomerang accuracy and "feeling like you're Batman"). It also helped that you were often in cramped situations (well, in Asylum) and there was a need for stealth a lot of the time, anyways. It also worked for Dead Space and Resident Evil 4 for similar reasons, plus it added to the horror atmosphere those games were trying to establish.

However, it didn't really work with Gears, Uncharted, Mass Effect, and other games where you spend of the time shooting, anyways. It didn't exactly ruin them, but it didn't add to them either, and there were plenty of situations where I either wanted to see around me more (specifically to see who's shooting me), or would've preferred a first-person view for shooting. Granted, most of these games have cover systems, and when they first started doing that, developers felt it would be better to have the player see the character when they're in cover so they can tell the character isn't exposed. Which it does, but it also makes the game too easy. Suddenly it becomes a game of whack-a-mole as you sit in cover, train your recticle on the spot where the dude frequently pops up for potshots and wait for him to poke his head out again (except for one game, I think it was Mass Effect, required you to be exposed to aim. That was smart, but then you could blind-fire, which your enemies couldn't. And even then, the recticle was always at the center of the screen, so you could easily aim regardless). Repeat until your enemy throws a grenade (unless your cover was desctructible). There's not much variety to the formula, nor does it require much skill during singleplayer (multiplayer is another story since people will actually move around the environment).

This is especially puzzling since Killzone 2 proved you could have a cover system while staying in first person, which completely changed things up. Suddenly there was a risk vs. reward system for using cover - if you stay in cover, you can't see your enemy, so you have to expose yourself just like your enemy does in order to spot them and them shoot them. Granted, enemies in Killzone tend to move around and try to flank you even on normal mode, so more often then not, cover can be less effecient for firing over as much as using to hide your movements and find a good position to attack your enemy, since last I checked, they don't just magically see you where ever you go on normal mode, you actually have to be in their line of sight or firing your gun for them to spot you (though hard mode is a different story...).

In other words, there's not much need for the over-the-shoulder mechanic to be in every action game these days. It works well with creating a certain atmosphere, but a lot of games forgot that was what it was for. There are alternatives, and I would love it if more game developers recognized that...

The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks is the best Zelda handheld Zelda game that is not a remake. By the way, I have played every Zelda game.

Skyward Sword is the most overrated Zelda ever. The only standout features to me are its motion controls (I don't understand why people loathe them) and the music in Lanayru Mining Facility.

Speaking of which, On-Disc DLC is only bad if you paid full price for the game. The same applies for Day-One DLC.

Everybody hates Skyward Sword.

I don't dislike everything about Skyward Sword (Unlike Windwaker) the combat on the second quest is quite good.

I feel like a lot of people hate SS because its cool to do so, its not exactly a masterpiece, but its not the worst game ever like some people make it out to be

I have no problem with day 1 DLC or on-disc DLC as long as the game has all the content one should expect from a retail game. If for instance a Mario Kart game was released with less than 32 courses, then I would be pissed, but as long as the 32 courses were there, I wouldn't mind paying for day one DLC to get more.

This is what generally happens with a Nintendo game since they rarely price drop though.

Cause you know, being locked out of on-disc content isn't worth having anything more than going meh about. Espcially when it's done worse than most examples on it.

No, you're a minority. A minority that I believe often occurs with Zelda games.