Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Nintendo's handhelds usually have better libraries than their consoles.

The PS2 was available for a longer time than the NDS. So for a video game system, Sales Per Year, NDS is the most successful system. Also between the NDS and the Wii, during that timeframe Nintendo sold more video game hardware than anyone else has in the same amount of time. Nintendo did this all without being able to play physical movies as well. The PS2 wouldn't be the best selling video game system by total sales without the DVD player.

Going back to the Gameboy / GBA days I'd find it difficult to agree with you, but I've found as the handhelds have becoming more powerful this is increasingly becoming the case. Personally I think the DS and Wii have fairly equal libraries (ignoring backwards compatibility and virtual console), whereas the 3DS has a far stronger library than the Wii U.

Maybe tied with Galaxy for myself...but I think both are leagues above Mario 64. My really unpopular opinion is that Mario 64 felt a bit dated the second Sunshine came out =/

More than just Nintendo 3D games. Super Mario 64 is still the blueprint of how movement and the camera works in 3D games to this day. In fact, even other early 3D games like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil have ditched their original control style in favour of SM64-influenced controls.

Of course, you can't deny Mario 64 was groundbreaking. It definitely left a massive impression on me, and was probably one of the most significant gaming experiences of my childhood.
However, despite having such fond memories of it, when I went back to it after playing Gamecube-era games I was very disappointed. Personally I feel that while Sunshine didn't make as much of an impact, it did loads of little things to improve on the formula that Nintendo established with Mario 64. These days I'd definitely choose Sunshine and the Galaxies over Mario 64 if I wanted to play some 3D Mario.

I don't like how modern controllers have 4 shoulder buttons. It seems rather excessive and can get confusing, especially in the heat of battle (accidently pressing R instead of ZR, etc.) I strongly believe that if you're designing a game and you need that many buttons then you're doing it wrong.

Sort of an argument for both sides...

Firstly, if the two sets of buttons are quite different in style I don't think it's really an issue. For example, on both the Wii U gamepad and the Xbox controller, the two button sets have a very different feel, and each button style feels more natural under certain situations. The L2 and R2 buttons on the Dualshock are evolving to differ a bit more from L1 and L2, but still aren't different to quite the same extent.

Secondly, however, I agree that there aren't really many occasions where to use two sets of shoulder buttons is necessary. I usually see games opt for one set or the other.

Why is it that AAA games and Indie games have to be separate entities (In terms of "indie has innovation, AAA has the budget")? And no, big-name companies can in fact, afford to make innovative games with their massive budget. Big games have had big innovative and artistic achievements before, and can do it again. Just look at games like The Last of Us, Portal 1 and 2, and Spec Ops: The Line. Innovative games with massive budgets.

It doesn't really matter for Wii U and new 3DS because all 4 shoulder buttons are basically the same. But on PS4 and Xbox One the bottom 2 shoulder buttons are analog which is great for games with benefit from gradual control, leaving the second analog stick free for camera movement. And if your right thumb is on the second analog the top 2 shoulder buttons are more accessable than the face buttons.

Umm, how is The Last of Us innovative? Sure it supposedly has a great story, but the actual gameplay and setting is pretty generic. The same could be said about Spec Ops as well, but I give it slightly more slack since the story is something not many other games have done.

The story isn't that special, it's a standard shooter with a standard story with a twist at the end, like many other shooters. Even if the twist is a little different than most, it only affects a small part of the game. And it has multiple endings, also not unlike other games.

I hate how third party characters are making their appearance in Smash. While I understand that its probably to develop a strong relationship with third parties, its devaluing the IP's that Nintendo has. Instead of putting a character from Golden Sun, Cloud shows up. Instead of putting a character from Advance wars, we get Ryu and the list goes on.

Again, I can't seem to understand why Nintendo has to force themselves to get in good terms with third parties when they make products that sell huge to the point that third parties should force themselves to make games for Nintendo instead.

@Artwark: I don't think it devalues Nintendo's other IPs. Also just because one character makes it in doesn't mean another character didn't. Characters from Golden Sun or Advance Wars could still get in later.

@DefHalan: What about the reason behind Chrom not being in Smash where as Roy, Marth, Ike and Lucina show up? I'd bet that Cloud would have been a better clone of Chrom so Sakurai-San decided to do that instead.

And this isn't Nintendo we're talking about here, This is Sakurai-San as he's the one that decides which characters work best.

Can't say I mind Cloud in Smash. Final Fantasy has it's roots in Nintendo consoles, so it's fair enough that the series gets a representative. Sure, I think it should have been a character from 1-6, but Cloud is arguably the most recognisable character from one of the most well known games in the series, so I can understand why he got chosen. Plus, we'll be getting some awesome music from VII with him.

Also, @Artwark, Cloud and Chrom have completely different fighting styles, so even if Chrom was put onto the roster, Cloud wouldn't be a clone.

This. The game is still overwhelmingly Nintendo, and personally I feel the inclusion of third-party characters is win-win. On one hand, Nintendo manage to celebrate gaming as a whole by including characters from a range of background; on the other, I believe it emphasises Nintendo's crucial role in the market, that other companies would like to have their franchises represented in the series.

I don't understand your point --- you'd rather have a clone character from a series with 5 representatives, than a completely original character from a yet unrepresented series?

@Artwark: Chrom is in Smash. Just use Robin's Final Smash

Ninty not making Golden Sun games "devalues" Golden Sun and not Cloud being in Smash.

@Buizel: Yeah? We'll just see how the next Smash turns out. Who knows, there probably won't be a next smash because of Project Sora being burned out with this latest one all thanks to the inclusion of third parties characters in them.

I hate third parties. The fact that they force Nintendo to make their system powerful and affordable so that they will make games for them and yet they end up not making quality games majority of the times.