Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@GameOtaku Completely agree. I was very underwhelmed when I played it on WiiU the first time.

Ocarina of Time isn't the greatest game of all time.

@GameOtaku Yeah, I was a bit disappointed when I finally played Earthbound on Virtual Console. If it wasn't quirky, nobody would even remember it.

@CreamyDream Fun, is, of course, subjective. Every game is fun for somebody. I didn't think Earthbound was particularly fun.

You're strawmanning my position here. I didn't say "drain it of any and all personality and nobody would like it." If you can't imagine a middle point between kids with esper powers fighting hippies and aliens and stick figures jumping on gray blobs, then you lack imagination.

You could retort "[Insert game] just isn't for you" for ANY game a person doesn't like that isn't pure, undiluted trash. It's true, but pointless, like informing someone: "Well, that's just YOUR opinion."

I love EarthBound, it's my second favorite RPG on the SNES, but a big chunk of the game being as good as it is has to do with its quirkiness and weirdness. The gameplay is fairly simplistic as RPGs go, the graphics aren't as good as FFVI or Chrono Trigger, and there's not really an overarching story except for the beginning and end.

Mother 3 is a better game with a more in-depth story and gameplay, but a part of me still prefers EarthBound. Probably due to nostalgia, who knows. I make sure to replay it at least once a year.

@CreamyDream Of course it's my opinion. I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't my opinion. My point is that saying "it's your opinion" is pointless. It's not a valid way to try and discredit what someone has to say. It's just stating the baldly obvious.

If the game is drained entirely of its identity and appeal when you take away the weirdness, that says a LOT about it. The story, music, graphics, story, and characters are all average. The striking thing about it was the quirky humor and unique setting. But that only goes so far, at least for me.

I'm not saying it's a bad game. It's obviously not. I just don't think it would be able to distinguish itself from other, superior JRPGs of the era if it hadn't opted for the particular style it had.

Pokemon isn't the first monster-collecting JRPG ever made, but it did arguably establish the genre. Even if the designs were less iconic and striking, it would still be an utterly unique RPG in terms of its structure and mechanics. Final Fantasy VI would still have a fantastic narrative and character arcs. Chrono Trigger... well, I don't like that game either, but it would still have plot and gameplay aspects that separated it from the pack. I don't think the same would be true for an aesthetically refashioned Earthbound. As a game, it's charming but mediocre.

@Ralizah I don't think taking the weirdness away from Earth Bound ruining it is a bad thing though. A game doesn't have to have world class battle system or epic story arcs to be a masterpiece. For Earth Bound it's the weirdness that makes it a timeless experience. But ultimately it's a timeless experience no matter what. It stands out, it's an experience you remember. It does what it set out to do.

Also, you dn't like Chrono Trigger. You Like Dual Shock. What ARE you?

What I hear is interesting about Earthbound- is the battle system actually.

That enemy's damage slowly ticks off so that you can hurry up and heal before you get all the damage hit on you. It's really nice to be honest.

It's like... "Oh, enemy did massive damage"

"I have time to heal!"

Instead of just groaning and accepting you are dead. So you can salvage your run even if it's running itself to the ground.

@CreamyDream All the weird stuff happening has to do with Giygas's influence, yes. But you never really do much with his minions until the end, starting with Stonehenge Base. Things with Happy Happy Village, Threed, Fourside, Summers/Scaraba, they all have the tiniest tie-in to Giygas and you aren't really going anywhere with him. Honestly the only thing that could tie everything together in the moment is Porky, but he's not made as big of a deal as someone compared to Fassad from Mother 3 where he only shows up in Happy Happy Village, Fourside, and the end of the game. That's what I mean, in that what you do doesn't really have much to do with Giygas. You learn very little about him except for the beginning and end. Oh sure, maybe he had like one line after Fourside, but aside from that he's shapeless and has nothing.

And I literally said "a big chunk of the game being as good as it is has to do with its quirkiness and weirdness", which I would label a very positive selling point for the game. If it doesn't jive with people, that's fine. But it's EarthBound's only defining trait that can prop up everything else in the game because nearly everything else (combat, graphics, etc) has been done better in games that came out earlier like FFVI.

@darkfenrir Mother 3 perfected that with quicker menus and overall gameplay, and did other things like defending slowing down the rolling. EarthBound was a good first attempt but if you want a better implementation of that, Mother 3 takes it to the next level.

I'm sure that's not an unpopular opinion, just common sense!

But I don't think it's a particularly great game outside of the aesthetic features that make it stand out.

The visual design is nice in the field. The battles are incredibly boring looking, though, and very static, with little in the way of animation. It almost looks like an early NES JRPG when you go into battles.

The plot is thin and basic, with almost no gravity to balance out the lightness of the rest of the game. Certain sections do have a slightly creepy tint to them, like that strange training Poo undergoes, or Happy Happyism, or even the design of the final boss, but that's not enough to invest me in the narrative. The game is just a sequence of strange events happening to unremarkable characters.

I honestly can't remember a single track from that game.

Well, this is as good a time as any to remind you that we're in an "Unpopular Gaming Opinions" thread. I'm not pretending to say that my experience with the game was the norm, or objectively true, or anything.

Well, see, that's the thing: I do like the unconventional aspects of it. But, outside of some surface level aspects, I found it to be a fairly unremarkable gaming experience. Weird aesthetics aren't enough for me to want to invest 40 hours in a JRPG when I'm not really enjoying it otherwise.

And, you know, if the quirkiness is enough to make you love the game, that's fine. But, as a game, it didn't do much for me.

@NEStalgia Well, you know, Chrono Trigger just didn't have a great time travel plot, in my opinion. And, outside of Frog, I didn't particularly like the characters. And I didn't really like the battle system. It's not bad, but I don't get the appeal. Kind of like the original Xenoblade Chronicles.

And the DualShock design is perfect for 2D and 3D games, making it an ideal, all-around gaming controller. Especially when you factor in the implementation of gyro aiming when used with Steam games.

So there.

@Orin41 I'd say Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 aged just as poorly as Mario 64. Though I do think it deserves another shot for modern gaming, like how Odyssey pretty much perfected 64's gameplay.

I'd say Sonic Adventure 1 aged much more poorly, considering Mario 64 is a more mechanically solid game, and it came pretty much at the dawn of 3D gaming.

Although I do enjoy Sonic Adventure more than 64, but I base that purely on nostalgia. It's not a great game.

@Ralizah I guess I can see that, considering how glitchy and jank Adventure 1 & 2 are. 64 is also pretty jank at times though, but I can get by for all three of those games. I just think that Sonic's gameplay has a ton of potential for something great, but they blew it with Sonic 06 and because of that game's infamous reputation, they're likely never gonna try again which makes me frustrated. It's like Nintendo probably never trying Metroid: Other M's gameplay style again because of that game's failure among the fanbase, when nearly everything about that game was just poor execution but amazing ideas.

@Orin41 I have no idea what the heck Sega and Sonic Team are doing behind-the-scenes. I don't get how they spent 4 years in development for Forces and how that can be such a regressive game coming from Generations in literally every single way. Classic Sonic is worse, Modern Sonic is worse, the level design is painfully barren, and the bosses are rehashes of each other. The game doesn't even look as good as Unleashed, Generations, or even Colors despite the 60 FPS. What is going on with Sonic?

@EvilLucario Both 64 and Sonic Adventure are janky, yes, but Mario was without precedent. It established the standards for other games in the genre. It's also an extremely polished game, whereas Sonic Adventure is Glitch City. Also, 3D Sonic's issues with combining speed and platforming first reared its ugly head in that game, but I feel like Mario 64 established 3D Mario game design extremely well.

And this is the most I am ever going to defend Mario 64, because Mario feels awful to control, like he's constantly sliding on grease, the camera sucks, and the worlds are barren and uninteresting.

The difference for me, though, is that I played Sonic Adventure when it came out. I only played Mario 64 after playing other 3D Mario games. I don't have the background to properly appreciate that game.

@Ralizah Personally when I was a kid I first played Sonic Heroes, then went back to Adventure 1 & 2. Loved all three of those games. For Mario, I actually played a little bit of Galaxy at a friend's house, then 64 when I got my own Wii because I was so enamored with the Virtual Console. 64 was actually the very first full 3D Mario game I've beaten and I loved it.

I feel like in the Adventure games, Sonic's control was really good. Sonic reacts to different slopes and such naturally (not as natural as Mario in Odyssey, but for 1998 it was great), his sense of speed and platforming was balanced well, and more.

Today whenever I go back to either 64 or Adventure, I can definitely feel the controls aging before my very eyes and occasionally in Adventure trigger the occasional glitch here and there, but I can still enjoy my time with all those games.

I really don't understand the way people perceive Splatoon 2. I tried it both in single player and in multiplayer too (only because I wanted to unlock more clothes for my character) and in my opinion the single player is so much more polished, varied and interesting. All the stages are different and most of them have their own unique gimmicks that make them stand out. Online mode is always the same thing and it becomes monotonous and trite soon. It can be fun I understand of course it is a fun game but it is always the same. Even when stages changes it's like there is no real difference, it's always the same thing over and over again. For me the single player mode is where the real meat of Splatoon 2 is.

@DarthNocturnal It has five vs modes (Turf War, Splat Zones, Tower Control, Rainmaker and Clam Blitz), plus Salmon Run.

I find the Pro Controller to be far less comfortable than the joycons.

I'm also not really bothered by the lack of a proper d-pad on the joycons.

@LuckyLand The lackluster final boss soured me a bit on the single-player mode in Splatoon 2, though. It's such a downgrade from the one in the first game.

@Buizel Split joycons are bliss. Any pad is inferior in comparison.