Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Can Just Dance please stop coming out? Stop buying it on the Wii. Stop supporting the past and this terrible ugly series.

If that's the case, then why did Visceral turn Dead Space 3 into an FPS with fee to pay elements? Why did Spec Ops: The Line, Singularity and the Turok reboot cram in a multiplayer mode despite being a primarily singleplayer shooter? Why did Rare let Microsoft turn Banjo-Kazooie into a game about cars? Why did Sony turn Ratchet & Clank into a Third-Person Shooter? Why did Konami bail on Six Days in Fallujah?

Those aren't crowd funded games. Those games are paid for by publishers. The Publishers make certain demands to change those games to sell more. Crowd funded developers won't want to ruin their reputation because that is really all they have. Those other companies don't get to deny the publisher (or parent company) to save their own reputation because that company is the one paying them.

@AceDefective: And that's bad because of what? The lack of inconvenience? Innovative technology made it more convenient than before when playing games.

I don't mind one screen gameplay but after the DS showed up, I really want dual screen to last forever! The idea of having basic interface on one screen and having main gameplay on the other is my favorite part of the system. On one screen, developers have to optimize the game's map, camera angles and as such, its a lot inconvenient.

I can't tell you the amount of frustration I had to just pause the games just to see the map repeatedly until I got to the location. Also, putting too many things on one screen can really make it inconvenient big time. Examples? Final Fantasy Tactics. The game doesn't give you more details so the game is optimized so that you have to use the help button inorder to get details. Granted, they can easily just explain the details within one screen itself but even then, details of enemy units can't be optimized without the other screen.

Or how about games that have a short map at the top right corner of the screen. Wouldn't it be cool if the map was more enlarged to easily see it instead of pausing the game to do so?

Or how about in terms of control where you don't feel like moving the game's camera through a second stick but instead use a touchscreen to get sharp turns? Kid Icarus Uprising for example. If that kind of game was released for the Vita, I doubt that it would do as well as Uprising.

Online services? They have been doing that as soon as they started the NES. Problem was the technology was just not ready at the time and seeing as how they failed several times, they just gave up on it until now.

I swear that even if Nintendo fixes the online services and makes them better, people will still curse Nintendo that they are stuck in the 90's and whatnot.

They tried to make the Nes an online console? You're talking more rubbish than normal artwark.

@Artwark: @arronishere: The NES?? am i reading this right? the NES?

@Artwark: just a question, and please indulge me, why are you opinions always seem to be on the unpopular side? or are you just using this to debate? im just curious

@arronishere: @Tubalcain: See for it yourself.

Seriously, quit mocking me already.

@arronishere: This is a video about facts not about advertising products. And I said I hate youtubers who claim that they are better than many companies out there not for channels like this who don't rant about these sorts of things. And while I hate youtube as a whole, these people bring out facts from other sources.

I guess I should have used this link instead of the video.

http://www.siliconera.com/2006/09/05/nintendos-secret-online-...

And for the record, they have their own website dedicated to their own thing. The reason why they use youtube is probably because they want more viewers.

@Artwark: I concede your point with regard to online (huh you learn new thing everday), doesnt change the fact that the arguments you listed earlier did not realy address the original topic. its simple, people think Nintendo is beyond the times because they do not follow industry standards its as simple as that.

@Tubalcain: How long you think unified accounts will last? Forever? At some point, we'd want something better than a unified account and that is when Nintendo will do something different.

As for Friend codes and lack of achievement systems, do they actually ruin the game experience? I like am least bothered about achievements and the only game that I got every single achievement is Sonic CD but that's just about it. I get that some will like them, but I'd rather do a challenge that's fun than do something like beat the whole game without losing a life which isn't fun.

Gamecube was powerful than the PS2. What do you say about that? And I gurantee you that if the Gamecube used a larger storage space than mini optical discs, the PS2 will still win because of that DVD thing slapped into it. The only reason that Sony is leading now is because of their huge experience with the entire entertainment media and not just the Playstation. Nintendo is just a company that only makes one kind of entertainment and yet, they try doing things that no one even thought that it would work.

@Artwark: doesnt change the fact that the reason people think that nintendo is behind the times is because they dont follow the industry standards. The things you mentioned is just your opinion, your just imposing your opinions to fit your desired answer.

@Tubalcain: Which is funny because the industry standards themselves are a bit inconvenient like no free online gaming.

But I digress. Perhaps one day, the industry standards will worsen as the years pass like now every game whether AAA or not needs to either have 50$ season pass or microtransactions.

@Artwark: (sigh) you asked why people think they are behind the times and again the simple answer is that they dont follow the standard. Its not a question of convenience, a standard is a standard. People will think you are behind if you dont follow the standard. Regardless of what your views are, that is the answer to your question. Cant you see that? Its basic understanding and logic.

I believe that the 'free speech' argument is overblown regarding letting game companies do what they want. People in the United States have the right to bear arms, but people in the United States who go on murder sprees with guns are rightfully arrested. The same should go with free speech: we rightfully have the right to free speech, even regarding speech that may be offensive to others (else this thread would not exist); however, this does not give us the right to pack our media with violence, eroticism, profanity, obscene humour, and the like. Whether the game has better graphics, gameplay, story, and the like are, at worst irrelevant if the game revels in obscenity (and not merely pointing out the disgusting parts of life). After all, when we fill our minds with what is wrong, we end up outputting similar patterns. My own life is evidence of this; while I have yet to engage in any grievous harm to others, my mind is heavily disturbed, me eventually outputting a few of the patterns I have put in! The ones least likely to make the best choices regarding what media is healthy/healthier to consume are the ones who suffer the most: children (think of those children who play Call of Duty) and the most ardent defenders of the media they consume (Way too many gamers who oppose censorship or electronic games put their views in a vulgar, violent way, ironically with the message that games do not affect people.) The people who say 'parents must protect their children' do not realise just how children are surrounded by advertising media with respect of content that is not always wholesome. (If the parents did try to achieve the control needed to protect the children, others would deride the 'overprotectiveness' of parents. If the parents end up failing due to just how prominent advertising is, the parents get blamed for not being sufficiently strict.) Even the children's peers can exert a strong influence at an age where they are not yet fully equipped in fully fighting peer pressure. We cannot (totally) count on producers to self-regulate, else 'Avoid the Dreaded G Rating' would not be a trope. Claims that we always had violent media fall down when we realise that we (in general) do not follow this 'good old ways' reasoning with every 'good old way'. (Try saying out loud that women should stay in the kitchen.) In short, at what cost do we pursue entertainment?

Either the zeitgeist adjusts or the government interferes. For everyone's sake, I hope the former comes to pass.

(Notice that I focused on media in general, not games in specific. Electronic games are just another medium... potential towards good.)

This was quiet hard to comprehend, but the gist I get is that you support ESRB ratings and the like to protect children? I had noe idea that was an unpopular opinion.

@MarkyVigoroth: do you want to have a law censoring games or the media as a whole? Can you simplify it for me. Your post is a little hard to comprehend

Games may not turn people into sociopaths, but just like movies, books, paintings, sculptures, television, etc. games do effect people. All art effects people, and games are art (I don't want to hear anyone say stuff to the effect of "GAMES AREN'T ART OMG U SO STUPID!").

People who go on murder sprees are breaking the law, they aren't simply speaking. This is a ridiculous comparison to make. The whole point behind free speech is that people can question concepts and ideas without repurcussion. Words do not hurt people. They might sometimes annoy or offend people, but this is unavoidable, and making it illegal is overly protective and pathetic, not to mention a huge restriction on freedom. People can pack their media with whatever the hell they want - there is no law against it and there's no justifiable reason why there should be.

Whether the game has better graphics, gameplay, story, and the like are, at worst irrelevant if the game revels in obscenity (and not merely pointing out the disgusting parts of life). After all, when we fill our minds with what is wrong, we end up outputting similar patterns.

Numerous studies have shown that there is no correlation between being exposed to violent media and becoming violent or breaking the law. People with psychological problems existed before video games, books and television; their existence does not mean that media needs to be controlled for everyone else leading a normal life.

My own life is evidence of this; while I have yet to engage in any grievous harm to others, my mind is heavily disturbed, me eventually outputting a few of the patterns I have put in!

Yeah, if this is true then you need to seek professional help. You are not the norm; don't for a second think that that is what most people experience when exposed to violent media. If you can't actually separate fiction from reality and are considering doing the things you do or see in fictional media, then go find some help. Seriously.

Way too many gamers who oppose censorship or electronic games put their views in a vulgar, violent way, ironically with the message that games do not affect people

So, because some people with this viewpoint were rude to you, their points must be invalid? Sorry, but that's not how facts work.

The rest of what you wrote is just kind of a ramble based around 'Think of the children!', as if children are forever scarred if they happen to experience pieces of media that are above their recommended age (age restrictions do actually exist). Not really related to the rest of your points and I didn't see where you were going with it.

I personally think that Bioware is safe from EA's wrath...for now. Meanwhile, I think that Visceral Games is in danger. After the overall reactions to Dead Space 3 and Battlefield: Hardline, it's only a matter of time before Visceral ends up like Maxis, Danger Close, and Pandemic.