Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

....That is actually the appeal of most JRPGs: The complexity gives depth of combat. And the 3DS is an incredible system if you like JRPGs: there are just so many good ones.
And that is not what a fanboy/girl is. A nintendo fanboy is generally quieter and less assertive than a Xbox or playstation one, but is actually worse. They completely ignore 3rd party games and think the only good games come from nintendo. And because of this, not as many good games are ported. And while the vita looks nice, there just aren't enough game that intrest me to warrant a purchase.

I like how people here are appalled at others speaking their minds in an UNPOPULAR OPINION THREAD.

We're just showing them how unpopular their opinions are.

Gen 3 of pokemon is underrated. while Hoenn had a questionable large amount of water, the game did so much to give pokemon alot of depth to it. Far more than what "Mega Evolutions" could ever hope to do.

yeah I agree, kinda..... still tired of all this underrated/overrated labels......
but the online in gen 6, it's the main appeal of this gen.

Mega Evolutions is just one of the many little innovations of Gen 6, just as there were many little innovations in Gen 3. I'd argue the two are on equal footing.

Speaking of Pokemon, Platinum is easily the worst Pokemon game I've ever touched. It's rediculously slow and tedious, from presentation, to the pace, to basic gameplay. Now I'm reminded why Gen 4 put me off Pokemon for so long...

@CanisWolfred I saw my friend play that game and thought it was way faster than Diamond and Pearl. Consider that for a moment.

A lot of the improvements in generation 5 were just common sense. No need to be reminded of the weather after every turn only and with a lengthy animation.

SSB4: Wii fit trainer was a good idea for SSB4. Nintendo wants to choose characters that everyone knows. And wii fit sold EXTREMELY WELL! So whether you like it or not, people do know this character.
Pikmin: Pikmin 3DS was a good Idea and miyamoto made a bad choice to deny the idea.

Let's Play is unlicensed, unsolicited, and hosted by 3rd party. If you're entertaining an audience risk-free with no investment, YouTube should not feel obligated to grant you ad revenue. You're not paying for web hosting. YouTube/Google is.

When a band plays at a venue, there is a signing fee. The tour manager pays the venue to perform there, and depending on the popularity of the band, this can be tens of thousands of dollars. In some cases, a small venue like a local bar may contract an unsigned or indy band to perform with no fee, but it is under the implication that the band will also be performing for free. This is mutually beneficial, as live music always attracts patrons to the bar and the band receives free exposure. Exposure helps them to get more paid gigs, or if they're lucky, picked up by a record label.

Films are also financed by a studio. The studio is making an investment and expects the production crew to return on that investment. Sure, there are indy film makers, but they're self-financed, and even then, usually rely on someone for distribution. They'll shop their movies around at film festivals like TFF. If their film is successful at festivals, a distributor will buy the distribution rights to the film. The film maker may negotiate royalties or backend profits, but this is very unusual for independent film makers. Most of the time, they receive a payment upfront and then the film is out of their hands. They wouldn't even be legally entitled to distribute the film themselves anymore.

Some of the most successful musicians and film makers own their own material, but this isn't common. If you make a movie or record an album, your movie or music is owned by the film studio or record label. You are paid by your studio or label to produce material, but you do not own that material, may not distribute it on your own, and you certainly do not collect revenue in tertiary markets. You want to receive ad revenue for a venue, you better OWN that venue. You want royalties and control over your own material, you better OWN your own material.

TL;DR - Saying that Let's Players should be paid ad revenue is like saying that an unsigned band should get paid for an advertisement for Rusty's Auto Shop on a flier for Bob's Nightclub. When a Let's Player gets their own website and is licensed by Nintendo/Capcom/whoever to publish original material based on their product, then yes, they should be legally entitled to ad revenue. Until then, their share of ad revenue is a gratuity from Google and they should be gracious for it.

You may be surprised how many artists, be they musicians, film makers, or otherwise, live in poverty. If you told an aspiring comedian who lives in his car and tries to get noticed at Open Mic Night that he could be guaranteed a paycheque to make a video of himself playing a video game and posting it online for free, he would probably throw a fit.

Miyamoto has lost his touch

I don't think it's so much that he is lost his touch, I think people's expectations are too high for a 60 year old man who's best, and most creative years are behind him. Anybody expecting him to create another amazing IP, or save Nintendo's console with his games are delusional. The man clearly wants to retire soon, I think he is spent and I think we should be gracious for what he is given us. I think he should hand the reigns over to younger, cleaner slates who can bring something different to the table.

I mean for God's sake, he has almost been at Nintendo for 40 years. There are not many minds in any facet of entertainment and art that can still be relevant or entertaining after one decade. I don't know any bands who's career can span 40 years, and have consistent album releases that are just as relevant as the first great one.

Even without considering that angle, there's also the fact that gaming today is a vastly different landscape compared to when Miyamoto was in his prime.

@Unca_Lz LPers are offering their commentary over the game they play. I've already played and beat Ni No Kuni for example, but watching NintendoCapriSun play and comment on the game as he plays is great fun. Watching the Game Grumps play a game is always hilarious for me. Their content is something no one else can create because it's their commentary. People watch LPs for commentary in most cases, not for the game.

you're implying all of that is somehow a good thing

the fact that major artists have to deal with complete garbage isn't a valid argument for anything other than "copyright law is stupid and needs to fixed"

There is a lot of grey area surrounding Let's Plays. They are making money from someone else's work without (in most cases) permission and their job expenses is minimal and voluntary. The ad revenue is not a paycheck and is not guaranteed upon making these videos. They do not have a legal stand against the companies who own the games that they play. So no, they should not get paid as if it were a job.

I've never seen any Let's Play videos, but here's my take on the situation. LPers have a market. People watch them. Advertisers want to tap into that market. The LPers essetially sell the ad space. Why shouldn't they get to keep the money as long as they are not breaking any laws? It's like the Pet Rock. It's stupid, but if someone's going to buy it, why not sell it?

I honestly have no counter to this

Okay okay, I shall be neutral about this.

But shouldn't the original creators get some of the revenue not all of it obviously but some at least seeing as its their work being shown off.

I still stand by my statement that these Youtubers have no legal obligation to make the revenue. If the companies desire it, then they will get it

I agree with you. It's not that different than pirating a movie IMO. The question is, should the laws change to reflect that? I think they should.