Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@kkslider5552000 my issue with most of these modern 'games as service' experiences is they're all so vanilla. Take away the constant updates, and they're not actually that fun to play. It feels like the levelling up is the reason for playing.

Sticker Star isn't bad, just a bit boring.

@Wargoose like what games? I play warzone and as a Game as service type game, the base COD gameplay is way above any others in the BR genre.

@diwdiws I was thinking Destiny, rocket league, fortnite, street fighter V, apex legends, Smite, Mortal Kombat 11, The Sims 4, Animal Crossing. I'm sure there are others. They're all solid games, but are any of them games that you feel happy about playing for 200 hours+ which is what it feels like they're built to do. I end up seeing my playtime on some of these, and end up feeling wow that was a waste of time.

@jump My hatred of new pixel art was fully directed at your profile picture. I'm glad that the message got through. Jk Haha
Are you referring to the FE games on handheld? That kind of backs up my point, they are using some pixel art sprites so that they can fit a much bigger game onto a small cartridge. I think its the pure volume of games on the eshop that have used pixel art that has made me feel this way.

@JohJavelin Yes I'm with you on that one and all. The other one that gets me to immediately disregard a game is when the characters are massively over-sexualised. Always makes me feel that if a game needs to draw/create characters like that then even the developers know that the actual game is rubbish. I'm fully aware that the 14 year old me was definitely trying to find out how to take Lara Croft's clothes off but it is very different these days.

Phew - sometime you just need a good old rant eh? haha

@Wargoose hmm I played destiny for around 300 hrs rocket league for around 100, apex for 100, even battlefield V for 200hr never regreted any of the hours i spent on them. Its a past time, i dont think of them as a time investment. I got fed up sometimes Thats why i switch to other games but that happens with any game. I got fed up with BOTW after 20hrs doesnt mean it was a waste of time.

Just a question: those games you listed were well received by many gamers, and in my opinion very fun? What made them vanilla or unfun for you?

@JoeM103 You say you're ok with older games using pixel art because it was a necessity, but I'm pretty sure it's a necessity for most indie games too due to budget reasons. I'm far from an expert on game development but I can imagine that pixel art would be a lot cheaper to draw and animate than more modern graphics. It's totally fine to dislike the style but I don't think developers do it just to induce nostalgia.

I don't buy that Fire Emblem needed to use pixel art as it's the only way to get them on the 3DS. There's far more technically challenging games on it like Resident Evil or Metal Gear Solid plus Fire Emblem was using hand drawn and 3D models in the same games that have pixel art in them. It's fairly clear it was an artistic choice like how some indie developers choose to use it.

@Dogorilla You're probably right, I would imagine it is cheaper to make pixel art games than creating high resolution sprites or rendering 3D objects (I have little knowledge on development). In this aspect I'm glad that there are players who are enjoying the style so that the developers can make money and hopefully end up using more advanced techniques. As I said earlier I think it's the sheer volume of games in this style that are influencing my view. I do think that there is a good percentage of pixel art games that have chosen the art style to induce nostalgia though.

@jump That's a good point, it must have been a design choice then. But as Dogorilla mentioned, it could have been due to budget. I would expect RE and MGS would have a bigger budget than a Fire Emblem game.

@JoeM103 I think it's a combination of resolution and number of objects on screen. With the low resolution of the 3DS, 3D models on the maps would look outright terrible and/or indistinguishable. The pixel art brings out the characters' unique features more clearly. As for objects on screen - the maps would have to display more character models at once than either RE and MGS, and for little benefit. This would likely have a negative impact on performance.

I'm sceptical that RE and MGS would have larger budgets than Fire Emblem as both of these were spin offs from their respective series.

@JoeM103 Yeah, there are certainly some indie games that use pixel art to mimic a particular era of retro games (Shovel Knight, The Messenger, VVVVVV, etc). I do wonder what the developers of those games would have done if they had unlimited budget though - whether they would have made something more modern-looking or still stuck to a retro aesthetic. I like pixel art so I'm fine with it, but I definitely see where you're coming from; there are so many pixel art games that it's understandable to get tired of them.

@Dogorilla I loved the art style of Wonder Boy on the switch. It was really cool to be able to flick from the original to the new style. I'll admit I played it completely in the new style but I did like seeing how it originally looked. I think this is a great way to appeal to a wider audience even if I'm sure it is technically very difficult and therefore alot more expensive.
@HunterLeon I'm afraid I don't know much about how it would affect performance or resolution but what you're saying does make sense to me. The reason I presumed about budget sizes was purely because I would have thought that MGS and RE appeal to a larger audience. I was always under the impression that FE had always struggled to gain much traction outside of Japan. Forgive me if that's not right though. I know that Three Houses has been really popular.

@Dusk Well, you are posting this in the “unpopular opinions” forum, but I hugely disagree about The Witcher III. I think it’s one of the few games that makes choices interesting and with real consequences. It doesn’t fall into the BioWare trap of presenting obviously good and obviously bad choices - which isn’t any kind of choice at all. Instead, you are asked to do your best to make choices consistent with the character and setting and, above all, live with those decisions. If we all knew exactly what would happen every time we made a choice, we would all make the same choice every time. I think you’d enjoy The Witcher a lot more if you didn’t see every choice as a “win or lose” dilemma - it’s just about doing the best you can, and living with the consequences.

@Krull But what you said is exactly my point. Providing choices by "gambling" is not really meaningful or impactful. I like to compare it to a Tabletop RPG Paladin falling from grace just because his PLAYER didn't realize he was doing something wrong because of a miscommunication. The whole idea behind choices is that you are fully aware of what each choice entails, and you are willing to make a judgement which outcome is better - BUT, this is difficult in video games in general, not just for the Witcher. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good game, I just don't think priding itself with "meaningful choices" is anything more than a slogan that has nothing behind it really.

Edit:
I will also cede that sometimes knowing the outcome of a choice is might sometimes disrupt narratives. But again, that's not the point. I'm not saying games should feature MORE of those (though I am in favor), I'm just saying that the idea that these choices are anything but poorly disguised gambling is... meh.

@Dusk I take your point - and understand your frustration - but I also find players being constantly presented with “right” and “wrong” choices is, frankly, boring. In your tabletop RPG, the paladin might not like having fallen from grace - but they will have a more interesting story if they take that outcome and run with it. If you only got the outcomes you want - and expect - then why cede control to a gamesmaster or designer at all?

Of course, despite my saying all that, I’m still a big fat hypocrite who will reload a save because I didn’t like the outcome of a particular decision I made. However, I did that far less often - maybe twice in 150 hours - with The Witcher III. I made all the worst decisions on the play; I made horrible decisions with the crones... Where I feel CD Projekt Red gets it right, though, is that very few outcomes are outright good or bad - there is nuance. I enjoyed it a lot more when I just decided to suck up my mistakes and make the best of whatever outcomes I got. If you see it as a gamble, I get that - but that’s closer to real life anyway. And it makes a far better story.

@Krull Again, that's on the premise that the only two options are gambling or obvious "right" and "wrong" choices. I can think of many instances, Witcher III included, in which the you were fully aware of what you were doing, fully aware of the consequences and had to pick whatever your morality/personality dictates even though there were benefits and drawbacks to either conclusion.

In regards to the Paladin example - yeah, sure, some people would roll with it, but no one would ever say that this is fair - you don't expect a maximized intelligence spellcaster PLAYER to be an extremely intelligent person and nothing prevents the mumbling shy person to roleplay being a charismatic Bard, so why would you punish the Paladin for something the Player clearly didn't understand? It's like playing with someone who doesn't know the rules.

Also, I will point to my example that optional love interests are basically the most prevalent option of a true "meaningful choice". If you, as a player, get to assert your agency and preferences on the world while the game allows it to you and changes your experience based on a premise you agreed on while playing, no one changes the rules halfway. If you get to assert your agency and preferences in an inconsistent ruleset - yeah, great, that's real life, but again, not "meaningful choices", gambling.

The Gamecube controller is quite overrated in my opinion. It is a good controller, don't get me wrong, but I would prefer the design of any current-gen controller over the Gamecube one (except joy cons). I really don't like the button placement and the sizing of the buttons, however the grip is fine. Also, imo it is not the definitive smash controller. Sure, it's good for smash but the Switch Pro Controller is way comfier and no matter how much I practice with the gamecube controller, I always play better with the Pro Controller. That might just be from how much I've played with the Switch Pro Controller.

So, how, exactly, do they do real 'meaningful choices', since you basically don't like any of the ways any game does them .... ? Given it is, in the end, just a game, I'm not sure how much better it'd even be possible to do them