Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@skywake And I strongly disagree that it's "clearly the best" anything. The game lacks power-ups, lacks diverse world themes, lacks minigames. I'm not a fan of the spin jump, and while Yoshi is obviously an iconic addition to the franchise, he's not a significant enough addition on his own to make up for all that was lost from SMB3.

I've not played much Mario World beyond a single playthrough when Mario Advance 2 was new, but I think Mario World's SNES soundtrack (ironically the version I never played much) is one of the best soundtracks Koji Kondo ever did. The upgrade in music from NES to SNES helped a lot for Mario, which is practically as high praise for a new console as you can give. Especially since my nostalgia bias should be leaning more towards Mario 3, a game I played significantly more times.

If you put a gun to my head you could probably convince me that the compositions are way better or at least more interesting in Mario 3 (for obvious reasons if you know what half the music in Mario World is). And Mario Advance 2 does make it fairly mid. But I do love Mario World SNES's soundtrack.

Lol? You are really gonna do this crap in here? SMH.

At least it does show that not everyone sees inconvenience as a feature.

I see a common praise of Elden Ring is "the checkpoints are next to the bosses now, I no longer need to clear entire sections of levels over and over to beat the bosses anymore!" ...like this should not be praise for a 2022 game, this should just be a given.

Your arcade game was as hard as it was, because they wanted to suck up every coin you had in your pocket. Your NES games were as hard as they were, because they were like 20 minutes of game and if they didn't kill you and send you back to the beginning every thirty seconds, you'd realise how little game you have.

@Pizzamorg I disagree with you on Souls games, given they're intentionally supposed to be challenging and be unforgiving, punishing the player by making them repeat the same stretches of area in order to learn the enemy mechanics, but eh. I already know your whole speal on harder games and Souls games, so you can save me that argument, and save me the accusations that I'm gatekeeping once more.

lol

Why even reply if you are just gonna go 'save me your reply'

lol

I find it so funny too, because the criticism isn't even really consistent. I know Elden Ring gets a lot of praise for not having like map markers and being kinda obtuse in it's design. And some vocal people are like "this should be the template for all open world games going forwards!".

But then I watched a couple of reviews for Tales of Arise and they were praising like how they always clearly knew what their objective was, how they were never like aimlessly wandering around a map and I am like... so which is it then?!

It is almost like... as I've said all along... the best option is for a person to be able to enable and disable these things as they please to tailor their experience and forcing just one design view on a player and telling them to deal with it is an antiquated decision, which existed once because of technical limitations and other such things which simply no longer exist anymore.

@Pizzamorg
I enjoy some shovelwares and unpopular games with easy gameplay than I have to get frustrated with hard to play games. I'm not masochist to torture myself with hard to play games to get the pleasure.

It’s kinda ironic that I really love Super C because of the difficulty.

I have no problem with having to start from the beginning, because I enjoy learning the patterns and making it a little further each time.

My problem is having to re-do story (and also puzzles). Walking and pressing A is just not fun gameplay to repeat, whereas killing / avoiding enemies like in Super C is fun.

@Pizzamorg I mean, it could also be that Elden Ring is made for a different group of people in comparison to games like Tales of Arise, and caters to a different crowd. People who want harder games with no explanations on where to go or what to do.

Also, with Tales of Arise, I've gotten lost in the game before, despite it being linear, and there's quests that don't really explain where they are, so you're walking in circles trying to figure out where to go next at times.

Edit: Different games also offer different experiences based on the creator’s vision. They’re meant for different groups of people as well. Not every game is going to be made for every audience, or even appeal to every audience. I don’t get the appeal of Kirby games, so I just don’t play it. Doesn’t mean the game has no right to exist. Just means the experience isn’t for me.

It is funny, because you are basically agreeing with me, but for different reasons. There is often a lot of smugness for vocal people in the Souls community about how modern games are soft and 'this is how all gaming should be', but the reality is Souls games are niche, demanding games all be tailored to that one specific crowd is ridiculous. The integrity FromSoft show for sticking to their design ideals, no matter how many people they alienate along the way, is admirable in a way.

But the best thing, for everyone, is accepting that different audiences exist, with different tastes. You try and make a game for everyone, you make a game for no one. But simply taking away peoples options is bad.

I know it is an unpopular opinion, hence the thread, but it still seems crazy to me that AC Odyssey is probably one of the best open world games ever made in this regard. With it offering really granular options as to how much you want a Breath of the Wild style experience or a more Ubisoft style experience. Like I really wish more games took the time to adopt things like this, same with games with difficulty options like Control or State of Decay 2. I agree the easy mode debate is simply too reductive at this point in gaming.

Those people who reviewed Tales of Arise are living proof that not everyone wants Elden Ring to be the template for open world games moving forwards, as they praised that game for the very opposite design decisions Elden Ring chose to make. Whether your own personal experience varied from that or not, is almost exactly the point, here.

I know the rogue genre is all the rage right now, but repeating the same content over and over has just never been for me. It seemed like for a while people were really pushing for the rogue to overtake the more modern path of progression through a game and I am glad that never quite took off. I am not one for the grind.

But I am agreeing with you in a general sense, albeit for different reasons. I think failure in real life gets punished enough already, I don't come to videogames for punishment or for validation. If I fail at a boss, this is punishment enough. If I then have to replay sections of a level, going through repeated dialogue or whatever else, then I know that that game probably isn't for me.

You can suggest said player to improve, but saying getgud, is not advice, let alone remotely helpful, you could use that time to tell that how they could improve, instead of saying lol get gud, sorry if it seems like I’m budding in, just wanted to say my opinion on the matter.

Monster Hunter always keeping it real.

@Pizzamorg No way! thats a actually line? That's pretty cool!

Yeah, from Generations Ultimate lol. I keep it in my back pocket for every time someone says 'git gud' unironically.

Feel like I need to jump to the defense of Super Mario World as, not only is it my favourite 2D Mario of all time, but I consider it one the best 2D platformers of all time!

I'd argue that SMW goes for quality over quantity in this case. Tbh I dread using half of the powerups in SMB3 as they don't seem to add much to the experience, whereas the cape is a solid all-round powerup. Not to mention that Yoshi fills the role of "powerup" in this game.

Lacked SMB3's fun minigames, and has a less compelling overworld overall.

I didn't miss these at all tbh, and they wouldn't even come to mind when comparing Mario games for me.

Worlds are less imaginative and visually distinct.

Couldn't disagree more here. Whereas SMB3 had some interesting world ideas, by far one of the most things I love about Super Mario World is its cohesive world design (rather than the typical starting world -> desert world -> water world). There's also a lot to be said for the world map and all of its secrets.

Art-style is bizarre and ugly.

Again, couldn't disagree more. The game has vibrant colours and I quite like the more rounded design (compared with the much "blockier" design of the NES games).

I actually disliked the 'feel' of the game, in terms of how Mario moves.

Can't agree at all tbh. I find it to be the best feeling of any 2D Mario.

Mediocre OST.

I can understand people not liking the OST due to it basically being the same leitmotif throughout...but for me, it works. It's amazing the number of different moods they manage to catch with the same basic melody.

I can't think of a single aspect of the game I thought was better than its predecessor. People make a lot of noise about levels having multiple exits, but the levels themselves just weren't very interesting.

I've played through it a few times over the years trying to understand why it's regarded as such a classic, and I just... don't get it.

I mean, each to their own (that's sorta the point of this thread). Your opinions on this game are perfectly valid. I just wanted to share my own for a bit of contrast - it's really amazing how people can take away very different things from the same game!

If color splash had came out before sticker Star it would have been seen as a solid game. It had better locations, more interesting levels and better bosses. Also Huey is there. Although it suffers from the same problem sticker Star has in terms of characters, I do feel they are better due to better written dialogue. I think since it borrows a lot from sticker Star, people already had a skewed opinion on it before they played. Again I am not saying it is or would have been seen as one of the best in the series. I still think it is fifth place in terms of paper Mario games(objectively, my personal list is different). But I think it would have been seen as a good game that had tough competition( for example skyward sword among 3D Zelda)

@Pizzamorg When I mention different audiences, I meant that it’s okay for games that alienate people to exist. The developers want to craft different experiences, and shouldn’t have to cater to absolutely everyone. Different generas exist because of this. If someone doesn’t like a game, they don’t have to play it. No one’s forcing them to. I hated Ni No Kuni, but did I ask Level 5 to get rid of it’s combat system? No. I just don’t play the game and admit it isn’t for me.

Yeah, let us not have this same conversation again. I dunno why you've started this conversation again, people get mad about me bringing this up and this time you just dragged me into it for no reason at all. I disagree, I think you are 100 percent wrong, let us leave it there. I dunno why you started this again.

@Pizzamorg Alright, but flagging someone’s argument as 100% wrong will only serve to get you no-where. There isn’t any harm in letting an experience only appeal to specific groups of people, but I guess if a game is made purposefully tedious to you, then it’s bad, but if it’s intentionally made easy, then you have no qualms.

I tend to be on the side of games being accessible as possible, but I'm also really tired of games whose core game design is made to fit into completely samey ideas out of some assumption that every single modern "improvement" to games is automatically good to have for every single video game, no matter what (especially with how many terrible assumptions AAA gaming companies make in general). Options are good, games compromised at their core are bad. As long as the game as presented isn't compromised though, whatever.

I don't have a 2nd opinion on this beyond just posting that one Celeste video again, and I only skimmed through this, so I'll just leave it there.

@Buizel I love the power-ups in SMB3. They add a lot of diversity to your play-style, depending on how you deploy them, and generally enrich the game.

tbh I've never found "cohesiveness" to be a massive concern of mine with Mario world themes. Certainly not enough to sacrifice design variety. I know people give Mario games grief for going through sequences of themed worlds, but it was new at the time, and works out insanely well in the context of that game. Way better than an entire game of samey cave, castle, forest, and plains levels.

SMB3 also had some really fascinating gimmicks, like that world where everything dwarfs you, or the level where the sun swoops down and tries to kill you. It was so creative and fun. In that regard, it still hasn't been equaled by any subsequent 2D Mario game.

Although SMW is hardly the only underwhelming SNES sequel. I heavily prefer the NES and GB Kirby games to any of the SNES entries. Super Castlevania IV is one of the lesser sequels in that series. And Contra III is probably my least favorite of the classic Contra games. Not to mention SNES usually got lesser versions of multiplatform games like Aladdin, Shadowrun, Mortal Kombat, etc.

@Pizzamorg Tales of Arise is still a linear JRPG, right? There's no value in a game like that playing coy with its progression structure, whereas a game like Elden Ring is built around its sense of openness and mystery. I don't think there's any contradiction in someone maintaining different expectations for different sorts of games.