@LztheQuack: well with other games on other consoles you get the oh-so-brilliant caveats of forced microtransactions, $40 Season Passes, broken launches, paying a subscription to play online, removed features from previous games (lookin' at you Battlefront) and endless amounts of DLC. But hey, at least they're not stale, repetitive rehashes like the cesspit that is Nintendo, eh?
@Bolt_Strike: Almost any game can be called 'repetitive' whether it is Super Mario Bros, The Witcher 3 or COD, no game changes its formula halfway through or deviates from what the basics are that are established in the opening two to ten hours depending on the game. That 'r' word is just one of many that has been crushed to the ground and lost all meaning in gaming by people using it wrong because they don't know what they're talking about, like 'emotional', 'innovative' and 'iconic'. 99.9% of the time those words, among others, are used in this industry they're being used wrong to pull the wool over the eyes of easily manipulated people on the Internet. David Cage, your games aren't emotional, they're just poor, boring and terribly written. There's an example for you.
Oh and about your second point, game sequels playing similarly to their predecessors? Quelle horreur! Quelle surprise! I never thought about it before. Just after playing Assassin's Creed Syndiacte, Call of Duty Black Ops III, Halo 5, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Forza 6, God of War III remastered and Batman Arkham Knight it occurred to me thanks to your expert insight and analysis that Nintendo are of course the plague of the industry as far as innovation are concerned, and are the only company that do this.
See my point? Perhaps you are the one with the problem, making rules for one whilst blissfully ignoring the mess that the AAA industry is in. When are Sony going to change the videogame world with a brand new game IP? What is their next big game coming out? Uncharted 4? And is that a cover shooter like the first 3? Egad!!!!!!!!! Nintendo are at it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First of all, I never said the rest of the industry wasn't guilty of it either. This is an industry wide problem for sure. Second, while games do tend to (and in a sense, need) a sense of consistency, Nintendo's gotten worse with repetition in recent years. Look at some of the older 3D Mario games vs. the newer ones. For the older ones we had Super Mario 64, which created an entirely new formula for Mario games that involved collecting Power Stars and greatly expanded Mario's moveset with all manner of new platforming moves. Then there was Sunshine which introduced a brand new setting and a completely new game mechanic to go along with it (FLUDD). Then Galaxy took a similar approach to Sunshine, another new setting with new mechanics designed around it. Now look at the more recent ones. 3D Land took a more NSMB approach with a generic Mushroom Kingdom setting and simplified mechanics (some hybrid that was). 3D World kept what 3D Land did and set the game in a Mushroom Kingdom expy (not really the Mushroom Kingdom but it may as well have been, since there's very little that distinguishes the former from the Sprixie Kingdom) and a couple of gimmicks sprinkled in for good measure. You see the same thing with other major IPs, the games are heavily simplified, nostalgia pandering experiences that fail to push their respective series in new directions as past generations have (N64, GC, and early Wii most notably). Whatever you thought of those games you can't deny that Nintendo's development habits have gotten worse in terms of creativity.
I feel like this thread is really "Bolt_Strike and Haru17: The Thread". Seriously, both of you have quite possibly the most unpopular opinions on this site.
I fail to see why. Nothing I've said is truly that unreasonable.
@GamecubeMan Not just because I don't like them. Because they're formulaic and repetitive. Many of Nintendo's games this gen, especially from their biggest IPs, have become really stale this gen and play similarly to their predecessors.
Isn't this true of most sequels and games in general?
Not really. There's a certain level of similarity between most sequels but modern Nintendo sequels have reached an extreme. Most sequels come up with some meaningful way to develop the formula further, introduce some new gameplay element, or at the very least change the plot or setting.
I really, REALLY don't like Peach. I prefer all the other princess's before her. (not counting their baby versions)
I've only played through some of Sticker Star, but I think it's better than what people give it credit for.
I'm not a big fan of Charizard... Charmander ftw!
I think the drift hopping in MK8 is unfair, and should be patched... even though it'll probably never happen. XD I find the game so much more fun without anyone drift hopping.
I'm not a big fan of the underwater segments in MK7 and MK8; love the gliding though!
I'm completely fine with King K. Rool not being in Smash... but I do feel sorry for anyone who wanted him.
I feel like this thread is really "Bolt_Strike and Haru17: The Thread". Seriously, both of you have quite possibly the most unpopular opinions on this site.
I fail to see why. Nothing I've said is truly that unreasonable.
Okay. Explain how Smash Bros is a generic fighting game (seriously, WHAT!?).
@GamecubeMan Not just because I don't like them. Because they're formulaic and repetitive. Many of Nintendo's games this gen, especially from their biggest IPs, have become really stale this gen and play similarly to their predecessors.
Isn't this true of most sequels and games in general?
Not really. There's a certain level of similarity between most sequels but modern Nintendo sequels have reached an extreme. Most sequels come up with some meaningful way to develop the formula further, introduce some new gameplay element, or at the very least change the plot or setting.
Let's see...you seem to dislike 3D World, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, Kirby and Smash. They all have had games that are sequels this gen, and every one of them has managed to have at least one of those things you've listed.
Okay. Explain how Smash Bros is a generic fighting game (seriously, WHAT!?).
It's generic in the sense that it's the same fighting mechanics from game to game and little more than a multiplayer mode. Although to be fair, there's not much else they can add to it anyway, hence why I don't rag on that IP as much.
Let's see...you seem to dislike 3D World, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, Kirby and Smash. They all have had games that are sequels this gen, and every one of them has managed to have at least one of those things you've listed.
No they don't. None of the changes they've brought to the table are really meaningful. The changes are either gimmicks that only show up a handful of times throughout the game (as opposed to gameplay elements that affect the entire game, which is what I want to see more of), not utilized in the level design well to make an impact, or are minor changes that don't really deviate far from the main formula.
Not really. There's a certain level of similarity between most sequels but modern Nintendo sequels have reached an extreme. Most sequels come up with some meaningful way to develop the formula further, introduce some new gameplay element, or at the very least change the plot or setting.
This requires a whole lot of...
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
I've seen it before... Eleven times as a matter of fact. The guy with the Kyurem-Black avatar's opinions have us going down a violent road to nowhere, a road I call- violence road. I say we draw a line under the matter as far as his/her opinions are concerned. They're no different/more elaborate/better put than the other eleven times I've seen those thoughts. Today. I'll say that there definitely is an arguement to be had in this area, but in my humble opinion, whilst certain Nintendo games I've played this gen have been 'repetitive, nostalgia driven and heavily simplified' I have also played many others that have not been so, the exact opposite in fact. But I for one am willing to let Zelda U decide my opinion of Nintendo and the Wii U, it will be a massive game (both in scale and importance) to be sure, and if it follows your description of Nintendo rather than most other people's, then you may win this one. But I doubt it. Game's gonna be dope.
Oh and I just KNEW I was forgetting another buzzword that the game industry has destroyed beyond meaning yet you used it in the perfect way and reminded me of what it was- gimmick A.K.A 'something new that I don't like' according to gamers who use it. It was bugging me which one I forgot, so thanks for that
But I for one am willing to let Zelda U decide my opinion of Nintendo and the Wii U, it will be a massive game (both in scale and importance) to be sure, and if it follows your description of Nintendo rather than most other people's, then you may win this one. But I doubt it. Game's gonna be dope.
Sure, let's let one game define your entire experience with a console, that's very open minded. Look, I'm not saying that every single game Nintendo's put out this generation fits that description, in fact I acknowledged an exception. I'm saying that this is a general trend that appears in many of its most prominent games. One game defying that pattern doesn't disprove that.
Oh and I just KNEW I was forgetting another buzzword that the game industry has destroyed beyond meaning yet you used it in the perfect way and reminded me of what it was- gimmick A.K.A 'something new that I don't like' according to gamers who use it. It was bugging me which one I forgot, so thanks for that
I've never used the word gimmick in that context. I define gimmicks as gameplay elements that aren't integrated into the core formula that only show up in certain situations. Things like mini games, level specific gameplay elements, etc.
Too much change can lead to games alienating fans that have fallen in love with the series for a specific reason. Noticed how successful Super Mario Bros core series is. It is essentially the same gameplay but with changes that make the core gameplay fresh.
At the same time, repetition can be good. If you are too ambitious (SEGA), then you may walk down a disastrous path.
The key is balance. Nintendo and SEGA are at opposite extremes, Nintendo refuses to change up their core gameplay and it's become stale whereas SEGA never keeps the same core gameplay and removes what made the gameplay popular in the first place. Nintendo shouldn't remove their core gameplay, but they need to come up with a new take on it.
Noticed how successful Super Mario Bros core series is. It is essentially the same gameplay but with changes that make the core gameplay fresh.
That's the thing though, I disagree with the notion that the changes make the core gameplay fresh. The older 3D games did, they had actual gameplay elements that changed the experience. But I don't think any of the NSMB or 3D series games accomplish this, they've been running with the same formula the entire time (heck, they use basically the same formula for both games, there's not a lot of difference between the two series beyond one being 2D and one being 3D) and they just don't make big enough changes to justify another game. They all just feel like DLC packs instead of unique games.
Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Mario 3D World are all about as different as you can possibly get while still being:
1) 3D platformers
2) Mario games
3) Good
Every single game keeps the same core gameplay while having a new, unique take on the mechanics and level design. With the exception of SM3DL/W, any two games in the 3D Mario series are different enough that they could pass for different IPs.
Like, this isn't even debatable. There's a reason why Super Mario is consistently, year after year for the last 30 years, been the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful series of platformers in the world. It's a series with endlessly inventive level design, fresh and polished mechanics in every game, and never losing sight of what made Mario games popular in the first place.
NSMB sequels are the only misfires, and their biggest sin is being too similar to the first NSMB. NSMBU still has brilliant level design though. Arguably some of the best since SMW.
People go on and on about games needing to be more open and player-determined, but frankly I'd take a linear, story-driven experience any day, even if it means it's on rails.
[I agree, started playing again recently and I don't understand the fuss? The world is a bit generic and it hasn't got anywhere near the character of TTYD but as a stand alone entry it's a really solid game and has a brilliant soundtrack.
You obviously have not reached the final boss yet. You will understand why the game is terrible. Imagine having to walk away from the final boss multiple times for not using the right sticker in a situation
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
The battle system is awful in Sticker Star. While the boss fights can be done, there are some situations that give you no hints, and if you use the wrong sticker, well...you have to backtrack and get it again
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 3,601 to 3,620 of 12,088
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic