Forums

Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Posts 661 to 680 of 12,088

Maelstrom

Unca_Lz wrote:

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...

True. But a while a great story won't make up for bland combat, it can compensate some for ok to good combat.

My video game arrangements (sheet music for piano)
Check in for new sheets every Monday. There's lots of Fire Emblem arrangements coming.

Nintendo Network ID: aginor

Maelstrom

Unca_Lz wrote:

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

I played bravely default for 92 hours. Why? Because of both the combat and story. The boss fights never got boring and the job system made grinding more rewarding and less tedious. And the story, while good, was not what stood out. It was the interaction between the bosses and characters in the various worlds as they change throughout the game.

Edited on by Maelstrom

My video game arrangements (sheet music for piano)
Check in for new sheets every Monday. There's lots of Fire Emblem arrangements coming.

Nintendo Network ID: aginor

CanisWolfred

Unca_Lz wrote:

I shouldn't HAVE to wait so long for the game to become good.

Yes you should. Because good things come to those who wait. The best stories in the world need time to build. That's basic storytelling. Hell, that's basic gameplay. Was the Legend of Zelda at its best when all you had was a sword and you had no idea where to go? Was Super Mario Bros. at its best in the first freakin' world? It's like that, but due to the fact that the game is so much bigger (1-2 hours vs 100's of hours), the law of proportions requires that it take longer before you get to the point where you have an accurate idea of how things go. There are so many plot twists and gameplay mechanics in Xenoblade that there's no possible way you could have a good feel for it in only a few hours. It takes 10 hours before you've even unlocked most of the systems, and you'll still gain more Monado powers as the game progresses. You can say the game is boring all you want, but everyone else is more than inclined to ignore you because you have barely scratched the surface of what you're talking about.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

RPGShaymin

I enjoy taking 15-minute breaks every 30 minutes.

...Especially when I get told to do it in every 1st party Nintendo game.

I am the forever lurker.
3DS Friend Code:0989-1732-5647
Wob Niar

CanisWolfred

Maelstrom wrote:

Unca_Lz wrote:

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...

True. But a while a great story won't make up for bland combat, it can compensate some for ok to good combat.

Which was the point I made earlier.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

Shirma_Akayaku

My unpopular gaming opinion: I don't like the music in Mario Kart 8's "Electrodrome".
I'll be listening to -Lady Gaga - Telephone ft. Beyoncé- while racing on that track. Maybe on Music Park too.

Edited on by Shirma_Akayaku

Wi-Fi Game List:
Xenoblade Chronicles X
Splatoon
Super Smash Bros. Wii U & 3DS + All DLC
Mario Kart 8 + All DLC
Mario Golf: World Tour + All DLC
Mario Kart 7
Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon

Wii U & 3DS Game Wish List:...

3DS Friend Code: 3737-9553-9610 | Nintendo Network ID: Toadette75

HappyHappyist

CanisWolfred wrote:

Was the Legend of Zelda at its best when all you had was a sword and you had no idea where to go? Was Super Mario Bros. at its best in the first freakin' world?

No, but they were entertaining enough. The games were still fun, even from the beginning, they just got better and better. I'd say if an author takes so much time setting things up in the beginning that no one even cares about what happens later, he has failed as a writer. If I'm so bored that I want to just leave and stop reading, the author needs to rewrite what he wrote because it wasn't good enough.

i am part of a social group interested in uniting the world by painting it blue.
Blue blue.

LzWinky

CanisWolfred wrote:

Unca_Lz wrote:

I shouldn't HAVE to wait so long for the game to become good.

Yes you should. Because good things come to those who wait.

Some of the best RPGs were only 10 hours and I didn't have to wait for them to be good. Final Fantasy XIII and Xenoblade are the polar opposites.

The best stories in the world need time to build. That's basic storytelling. Hell, that's basic gameplay.

Bravely Default didn't take 10 hours to build. It started off good which is what hooked me. Now its problem was the last 10 hours

Was the Legend of Zelda at its best when all you had was a sword and you had no idea where to go?

Actually yes. I like the idea of not knowing where to go.

Was Super Mario Bros. at its best in the first freakin' world?

Did the first world take 10 hours? My patience only goes so far with a game.

It's like that, but due to the fact that the game is so much bigger (1-2 hours vs 100's of hours), the law of proportions requires that it take longer before you get to the point where you have an accurate idea of how things go.

Again, Bravely Default DID NOT take 10 hours to be good. I think this is complete BS. I should NOT have to waste 10 hours of bland story and game to get to the "good part". Some of the best RPGs are the ones that had a great beginning, a bland middle, and a great ending. Why? Because the first impression is a majority of one's opinion. This also applies to movies, music, and books. You should NEVER start with bland storytelling. I don't give a crap how long the game itself is.

There are so many plot twists and gameplay mechanics in Xenoblade that there's no possible way you could have a good feel for it in only a few hours. It takes 10 hours before you've even unlocked most of the systems, and you'll still gain more Monado powers as the game progresses.

And the problem of a bland beginning still remains. I have played games that had plot twists and a good story from beginning to end. No 10 hour waits.

You can say the game is boring all you want, but everyone else is more than inclined to ignore you because you have barely scratched the surface of what you're talking about.

Ignore me then. I won't change my opinion that Xenoblade is generic and bland. But you are also ignoring the fact that first impressions are important. First impressions should never take 10 hours to complete. I will continue to strongly support that good RPGs have great beginnings, regardless of the size of the game. Also, I thought Dragon Quest IV told a better story, because it started strong and did not needlessly drag on for hours. Bravely Default had good impressions because of the AR movie at the beginning. They both peaked my interest with a great story that I want to be pulled into throughout the ENTIRE game rather than 10 hours into it.

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

LzWinky

What I think is sad is how Dragon Quest IV told a good story to me in less than 30 minutes, but some RPGs need 10 hours

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

Red_XIII

The AVGN is annoying and unfunny.

Red_XIII

HappyHappyist

Unca_Lz wrote:

What I think is sad is how Dragon Quest IV told a good story to me in less than 30 minutes, but some RPGs need 10 hours

Unless the content isn't worth the price of admission, I don't think there is a such thing as a game being too short.

i am part of a social group interested in uniting the world by painting it blue.
Blue blue.

LzWinky

HappyHappyist wrote:

Unca_Lz wrote:

What I think is sad is how Dragon Quest IV told a good story to me in less than 30 minutes, but some RPGs need 10 hours

Unless the content isn't worth the price of admission, I don't think there is a such thing as a game being too short.

I've played amazing games that lasted only a few hours.

I think impressions and emotions are more important than length, but there are certain limits (like a $40 should not only last 2 hours when it could have lasted a lot longer).

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

HappyHappyist

Unca_Lz wrote:

HappyHappyist wrote:

Unca_Lz wrote:

What I think is sad is how Dragon Quest IV told a good story to me in less than 30 minutes, but some RPGs need 10 hours

Unless the content isn't worth the price of admission, I don't think there is a such thing as a game being too short.

(like a $40 should not only last 2 hours when it could have lasted a lot longer).

I feel like that's a knock at MGS: Ground Zeroes, lol. People are saying that game is a glorified demo (and I haven't played it yet), but i don't think that's a fair statement. Short, yes. Demo, no. A demo is usually 30 minutes long, GZ is, from what I've heard, is 3-4 hours if you try and complete all the extra content, go for records, etc.

i am part of a social group interested in uniting the world by painting it blue.
Blue blue.

BearHunger

Unca_Lz wrote:

I've played amazing games that lasted only a few hours.

I think impressions and emotions are more important than length, but there are certain limits (like a $40 should not only last 2 hours when it could have lasted a lot longer).

For instance, nearly every non-RPG that came before the fifth generation of consoles was at most a few hours long. This certainly didn't prevent memorable, genre-defining games from being produced during that period.

BearHunger

Nintendo Network ID: Bear_Hunger

LyIa

Unca_Lz wrote:

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

Dude. I'd love to hear your opinion on Rune Factory 4, if you've played it. It's 70+ hours for the main story alone (if you've been playing as slowly as I have), but the game manages to keep grinding to a minimum unless you want the best gear.

Edited on by LyIa

all men are kings 👑

kkslider5552000

I do generally agree that JRPGs are longer than they need to be nowadays but there are exceptions to the rule. While Xenoblade itself shouldn't have been quite as long as it was, one of the reasons that game works is specifically because it is ludicrously long. Especially since these types of games basically never happened on Wii.

Though I do think that JRPG devs should look at Mass Effect, which essentially cheated the system and showed you totally can have your 100+ hour epic story while also having RPGs that are below the 40 hour mark. So instead of making one needlessly long game you instead make 3 great (maybe 2 1/2 great) games that do their own thing but also have this insanely long story.

In general, I think absurdly long single player games can be cool at times but they should be fairly rare, because we don't need that many of them and we could use more Sonic Colors logic of just making 5 great hours of gameplay with some solid reasons for replayability.

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Megaman Legends 2 Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy MEGAMAN LEGENDS 2 < Link to LP

Dreamz

Unca_Lz wrote:

I've played amazing games that lasted only a few hours.

I think impressions and emotions are more important than length, but there are certain limits (like a $40 should not only last 2 hours when it could have lasted a lot longer).

Same. Two of my favorite games in recent memory are Child of Light and the Tomb Raider reboot. Both were about 10 hours long on the initial playthrough, and after my second run I had about 30 hours total in each. They were both worth every penny.

Edited on by Dreamz

My 3rd Party Games List: Click here
U-Wishlist: Splatoon, Zelda U

LzWinky

Cyb3Rnite wrote:

Unca_Lz wrote:

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

Dude. I'd love to hear your opinion on Rune Factory 4, if you've played it. It's 70+ hours for the main story alone (if you've been playing as slowly as I have), but the game manages to keep grinding to a minimum unless you want the best gear.

I beat the main story in 40 hours

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

CaviarMeths

HappyHappyist wrote:

Maelstrom wrote:

HappyHappyist wrote:

@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.

Fire emblem?

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.

...So in other words:

HappyHappyist wrote:

I liked a JRPG, but I can't admit it, so I had to make up an excuse for why it doesn't count as a JRPG.

You like action RPGs and strategy RPGs, but don't like traditional RPGs. The J is completely irrelevant in all cases, but you want to believe it isn't.

Edited on by CaviarMeths

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic