Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Very well said.

The shortest review of Bravely Default I've seen so far!

I agree about the modern ones. They are just walk in a straight line - cutscene repeat.

Dragon Quest V / Final Fantasy VI / Skies of Arcadia have great stories though. For me if it is working then I am thinking about the story the whole time. (Like reading a book). That almost never happens with the new type.

Looks like you just gave me Buckshot.

Xenoblade's the only superb game you mentioned. The others are good, but I can easily bring up a laundry list of complaints with. Xenoblade, however, requires a lot of getting used to. Once you're about 10 hours in, most of what you can do will have opened up and it'll get more interesting. I could seriously go on all day picking apart all the individual games you listed, while pointing out games that have done a lot better.

However, it sounds more like you're stuck on the fact that you have to select attacks from a menu, to the point where even putting in direct player input won't make it any better for you. If you're going to let yourself get needlessly hung up on such a small detail like that without even trying to understand the point of the combat system, I can't help but pity you.

Not to mention the battles themselves aren't exactly important in an RPG. While a bad battle system can make a game unfun to play, it never really needs to be more than smooth and functional, because in most games it exists as a means to an end. Not all games, mind you, but most. The fun in a Turn-based RPG usually comes from the exploration, boss battles, the sense of empowerment you get as you progress, and the satisfaction you get from seeing the results of effective planning and strategizing. Arguably one of the reasons, why Final Fantasy XIII is so divisive is because it took out exploration, putting a greater focus on story and the individual battles themselves, kind of missing the point of what battles in RPGs were supposed to be about, while at the same time the battle system itself isn't the most finetuned in existance.

With this in mind, if you're ever willing to get past the fact that you have to pick your actions from a menu, I could easily recommend a few games that'd be worth trying out on just about any system.

I don't have time or money to play every single JRPG out there, and these are the ones that looked interesting to me (and they lost my interest after playing them). And I could write probably just as long a list of complaints about Xenoblade as you could for the other games too.
(unpopular opinion #2 - Xenoblade is one of the most over-hyped and overrated games)

However, it sounds more like you're stuck on the fact that you have to select attacks from a menu, to the point where even putting in direct player input won't make it any better for you. If you're going to let yourself get needlessly hung up on such a small detail like that without even trying to understand the point of the combat system, I can't help but pity you.

One of the main reasons I play games is to have fun, and that is accomplished by making me feel involved in something. Reading paragraphs of words is boring, and participating in "Menu Combat" is not involved at all. Skyrim or Zelda make me feel involved because I'm actually doing something, not just reading from a menu and TELLING someone to do something. It doesn't matter how good your story or graphics are, because if the game isn't fun, then I will not play it, period. Combat is a big part of the game, so brushing it off as a "small detail" is a mistake.

@HappyHappyist So you don't like strategy games. That is absolutely fine. Have fun whatever you decide to play. But you might want to try Chrono trigger. There are menus, but the combat doesn't wait for you to decide what to do. Thought you might like it better.

@Maelstrom Actually no, I love strategy games. The difference is though that I go into a strategy game with a different mindset. When I play a strategy game, I WANT to play carefully and resourcefully. In an RPG, I want to participate in the action.

Any game that requires 10 hours to get better is just plain bad...

Fire emblem?

• If mario is in the game then the game sucks
• Graphics always matter to a game
• E.T for the Atari 2600 ROCKS!
• Sonic is too slow
• Super Mario Bros The Lost Levels is too easy -_-
• All Kirby games are too hard
• Cod is always different
  I think these opinions are unpopular

Fire Emblem is a strategy game, and is therefore built around different mechanics. You have to carefully plan each unit's movements, strengths, and weaknesses around the opponents. you have a Birds-Eye-View and you control each unit to move around the map, You're given stats of each unit so you can plan your attacks, and you can only move your units a certain number of spaces per turn. The whole game is built around thinking carefully, and it even punishes you harshly for not doing so. Fire Emblem isn't about the combat, it's a thinking game. As a matter of fact, each combat sequence in Fire Emblem is less than a minute long, 30 seconds at the maximum.

Just like how a 300+ Page book should be based on the first 10 pages. Oh wait...

In the first 10 hours of Xenoblade (of the 70-100+ that it takes to finish the game on average), you're barely out of the first town. You have to wait for things to get going before you even get a semblence of what its like, just like any other story.

Then stop going in with that mind set and start using a different one that's actually a realistic expectation of the game. Problem solved.

@HappyHappyist But Fire Emblem qualifies as a SJRPG (strategy JRPG) and not a strategy game. But, back to the point, do you like the Series?

If the game is supposed to be an epic quest where I save the world and rid the land of evil (or something like that), what mindset am I SUPPOSED to go in with? Fire Emblem is similar to Chess, so I go in with that in my head. When I want to embark on a quest and play FF, what mindset should i have if most of the game is menu-based, functions of f(x) and prime numbers?

Actually this opinion IS popular, even if naysayers say otherwise. What some gamers want to say is that gameplay should be a higher priority than graphics, but bad graphics can still ruin a game. Anyone who simply say that graphics don't matter is simply in denial.

I have several problems with this response. Firstly, who takes 10 HOURS to read 10 pages of a book? Which brings my next point: if I play a game for 10 hours, I SHOULD have a good feel for what it is. I don't buy the stupid excuse that it gets better, because I spent 10 hours playing a game expecting it to be good. If the first 10 hours are dull and boring, then why should I be convinced that it's a good game? For example, I played 8 hours of Final Fantasy XIII and I was bored for most of that time, and thus I stopped playing because I was bored. I shouldn't HAVE to wait so long for the game to become good.

A better analogy would be the first 100 pages of a 300 page book. If the first 100 pages are bad, then why should one be convinced that the book is good?

With that said, I think Xenoblade is a boring generic RPG with too much talking and boring moments. I don't think it's anything great

By acccepting the combat as a means to an end, and focus on the adventure, characters, and story? It's not that hard. Combat is the least important aspect of an RPG. Once you accept that, it's a lot easier to play.

I disagree. Combat is an important aspect because it's the majority of the interaction that the player has with the game. Character are good, but I don't want to play a 70 hour visual novel...

@Maelstrom
I've only played the Sacred Stones, but I did enjoy it, yes.

I said this before in my previous comment. thanks for repeating so I didn't need to, Unca.

While we're discussing RPGs, I don't think RPGs should be more than 30-40 hours. I think 70+ hours is just excessive