Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@DarthNocturnal: I've never understood why a tighter level design from A to B is a bad thing. The planetoids mechanic allowed Nintendo to replicate succesfully the kind of level design seen in 2D Mario. About the lack of some Mario's moves, I guess it's because of the games themselves. In SM64 and sunshine Nintendo had to make Mario's moves a little more interesting because those are games where you can just play around the "open worlds", whereas in SMG 1 and 2 this wasn't that necessary because of the tighter level design. I still like the spin attack a lot, it gave the game a different feel.

I like the Inkling Boy more than the Inkling Girl.

Whether or not that opinion is unpopular depends on the circle you say that in honestly.

The Wii deserves as much praise as it does hate imo. Backwards compatibility, good games, a better proof of concept for more controls than anyone in the industry can do (I actually believe the Wii had the best idea and understanding of how to make motion controls work in actual games), virtual console, too much shovel ware, way too underpowered (to keep it affordable, yes, but this cost us some games), not HD, sub par online, etc.

Final Fantasy VII Remake will probably be mediocre at best. I know some people definitely agree, but we're not getting a remake due to lack of rabid fanboy faith in Sqaure Enix, so I'd say my opinion would be on the unpopular side. I loved the original, and I admit I hate remakes, but I'm one to concede my opinion to quality even if I hate devs wasting resources on the same stuff over and over...but I don't believe the remake will have that quality. This is Square Enix, which means we should be expecting FF XIII with a FF VII skin (episodic nature, linearity, etc), rather than FF VII with a XIII skin (classic gameplay with better graphics).

And I think it's funny that people think Square Enix will magically learn from their mistakes because their remaking a great game. I think the opposite: prepare to see your childhood get butchered.

@R_Champ: I think Jim effing Sterling Son summed that game up perfectly. It is Square Enix of 2015 that are remaking this classic game that 90's Square made, and in that near 20 year passage of time along with the merger, this company has transformed into one that now, allegedly, holds board meetings on how they can get away with cutting up a single game's content and selling it in pieces. Hence the episodic FFVII remake 'announcement'. Also they thought Final Fantasy all the Bravest was a good thing. So yeah, even though I'm not a Final Fantasy fan I am keeping my expectations in check.

Am I the only one that realizes that an 8 out of 10 is still a good score? 8 out of 10 means a game is great, and yet so many gamers are offended when a game that they were waiting for gets an 8 out of 10. Not even companies like EA or Ubisoft is concerned when a game gets even a negative review score, and yet the fans always whine like toddlers when a highly anticipated game gets an 8 out of 10 or less.

@DarthNocturnal Funny you say that scores are dumb on a site that uses scores. I do think though that a lot of people fail to recognize that a review score is not an accurate representation of the critic's opinion, but a TL;DR.

The reason most people hate number scores is because they're inaccurate and too subjective. That alone is the reason why The Completionist and GameXplain word ratings work so much better: they are clear, clean, and to the point. "Good" is clearer than 8-7/10 since apparently 8 or 7/10 means drastically different things to different people due to a skewed understanding of what average actually is.

It does actually. A generic game doesn't have a lot of thought and effort put into it, as if a robot came up with the idea for the game. Something that has no change in mechanics or few extra modes fits that bill, if all you're doing is adding in new characters and stages, then that's not terribly creative. We always get that kind of content anyway so it's not surprising when we get them.

Did it really though? It threw away the core tenants of the 3D games in favor of the 2D mechanics, and 3D gameplay mainly saw gimmicks transferred over to the new formula. Technically it is a mix, but it's 90% 2D gameplay and 10% 3D gameplay, and at that point I'd call it more a 3D adaptation of the 2D gameplay than a proper mix of the two formulas.

That's just it though, I wouldn't say the 4 NSMB games, 3D Land, and 3D World are radically different from each other. There's a LOT of similarities between those games including linear gameplay requiring you to reach the flagpole, a map screen that forces you to beat levels in order to progress, the exact same movesets from game to game, characters that change little more than speed and jump height, a castle at the end of each world, generic platformer settings with no unifying theme, and a minimalist kidnapping plot that serves as little more than an excuse for Mario to go through the game's levels. The other Mario games don't share nearly that many similarities. At any rate, I wouldn't say they're all distinct, I would group them into the following:

NSMB and 3D World
64
Sunshine
Galaxy 1 and Galaxy 2

If that's your definition of "generic", then I still fail to see how you consider Smash to be "generic".

Generic things are uncreative, and keeping the game with the same mechanics and just adding in characters (which they do every game) is definitely uncreative. If you can't understand that, that's your problem, I can't explain it any simpler than that.

@DarthNocturnal: I agree. Couldn't they just review it saying whether the game is worth trying out or not without the number?

Not changing the mechanics of a successful fighting game is uncreative? Okay, that's your opinion and I'm stepping out of this.

Whether or not it's successful is irrelevant. If you repeat the mechanics long enough, then people will get bored of them and it won't be quite as successful.

Except fighting games are ones that shouldn't change too much. Keeping the same formula is what makes them successful.

Fighting games aren't exempt from that, that's basic Psychology, it affects every genre.

There is no way to finish this sentence and the answer would be "yes." You are never the only one.

@Bolt_Strike: If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that Melee and Brawl are completely different games. There is a completelty different "metagame" to each that has isolated competive smash players for years. Also, I really think you are using generic really losely and it loses its definition when you use it.

@bolt_strike should work as a gamespot reviewer. He'd fit there perfectly seeing as how their reviews are cheap majority of the times.

@GamecubeMan: it's just one of many buzzwords this guy's throwing around to try and (looks like unsuccessfully) make some sort of point. When you use words like 'generic', 'gimmick', 'iconic', 'emotional' etc as the basis of your arguement, you just lose focus straight away as what one person defines as generic will be different to the next, hence why by this guy's standards Smash is generic but it is not to ours. I for example consider Uncharted generic, generic guy uses generic guns to generically go on a generic hunt for a generic treasure or two whilst shooting generic grunts doing likewise in the head. Generically. Does that mean Sony and the PS4 are trash in my eyes because by me definitions I consider their flagship franchise to be generic? No, of course not, it's just that I'm not interested in that one game series, cool for those that are though. The world's not gonna change because I consider Uncharted to be generic, likewise with Bolt Strike's opinion of Smash. He thinks it's generic? So what? Don't play the game then. And don't whine about it k?