Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Maybe unpopular, maybe not. But, I wish Nintendo took a page out of capcoms book and had an arcade stadium like app where you can purchase all older games at a discounted rate. So basically, yea, just like VC! Lol. I just circled all the way back around to VC somehow 🤣. But in all seriousness, the way capcom did it was perfect with each game being paid dlc.

My opinion is I strongly feel like, to some extent, NSO didn't need to kill VC. I actually prefer NSO, especially if Nintendo wasn't interested in letting us transfer VC games. But Sega re-releases those Genesis games all the time, some already on Switch beyond just NSO, and it never undermined NSO for me. It's fine, you can just do both. So it really comes across as they had no confidence in NSO as a retro game service more than anything.

Also that Capcom arcade collection I think added something from the Fighting Collection they JUST put out, and I'm also not bothered by that.

I honestly don't see the point of VC anymore since many 3rd parties are releasing retro games on the eShop anyway.

@LzWinky oooh my
virtual console crybabies still exist?
tell them to go buy all the real carts like i did and be a man.
chicks like manly men.

Underrated games like Youtubers Life 2, Epic Chef, Dodgeball Academia are way much better than popular games like xenoblade, splatoon, botw.

The indie game Game Dev Tycoon is a way better simulator than any Two Point games.

Xenoblade X is one of the best open world games of all time.

@LzWinky @ogo79 I think an interesting approach they could've taken with VC (if it were ever considered to begin with) would've been the way Capcom did something similar with their Acrade Stadium's: everything on one free app and you pay for the games you want. I'm not sure whether or not I would personally be up for it (I can tell you right now I wouldn't have given games I love now like WinBack or Mario Golf even the slightest glance under that kind of system) but it could've fixed the issue of people wanting to pick and choose their games rather than having to go all in with an online plan. I didn't use the eShop until the Switch era myself but I think it could've been a neat solution.

Burnout Paradise is just ok. I might have to play it again to really enjoy, but it's just ok in my opinion.

Why would baby chickens be attracted to humans?

@Fizza I believe that they should make it while you can play the games for free with a NSO sub you can pay money to keep them when your sub runs out so people can try out games that many people will overlook and still be able to enjoy the classics without needing a Subscription.

I don't think this is an opinion as what appears to be an unpopular sentiment about gaming in general that has recently come to my mind. I think I mentioned before how music in games doesn't really have an impact on me. It gets me in the mood at the time, but when I'm done playing it leaves my brain (the original Zelda and Mario themes are probably the only two video game music pieces I could just start humming off the top of my head). I think I am the same with games altogether. I have been following the discussion in the Nintendo Switch thread about the Mario and Luigi series and how some people think some games are great and others are bad. I have played every game in the series, and I honestly couldn't tell you one thing about them other than "I HAVE CHORTLES." I enjoyed them all, thought they were all fun, but I then moved on and couldn't say I prefer any of them over the others. They are just games that I played, and that's that. I know if I ever went back to replay them I would spend the whole time going, "Oh, yeah! I remember this!" But as it is, I just play for fun and for a brief escape from life and very few games actually leave any kind of lasting impact on me where I remember everything about them for years after. I guess I just save my limited brain memory space for more important things.

@Xyphon22
I get that. To put it in an incredibly cynical way... music is more often than not manipulative anyway, manipulating you to feel some kind of emotions in a sad or happy scene, literally holding your hand in telling you how you should be feeling in specific scenes.

But frankly speaking, without the cynicism, I do appreciate the music in a number of video games because, manipulative as it is, it still made me cry because it's complimenting the story to enhance the mood. I don't think the adventure would've felt as epic in Mass Effect if not for the epic scores that convey that scale and grandiosity, very dramatic stuff, which is fitting since it's considered a space opera by many. Other times, like in Mario, while the music isn't as impactful for me, it's lighthearted enough to get me in the fun mood of hopping through annoying obstacles and massacring stomping goofy-looking monsters.

Funny enough, I didn't encounter a number of iconic video game themes through the games, or at least don't remember them because of the games. Mortal Kombat is a big one I definitely remember only because of the movie. Pokémon too probably because when I played those Red/Blue games, I was barely old enough to remember stuff like that yet, but I did get old enough when I first watched the anime which contained tracks from the games. Guile's Theme from the Street Fighter games has an even more hilarious story because it's bad enough that I didn't remember it from the games, I remembered it from City Hunter, that Jackie Chan film that had Street Fighter characters in it. lmao

So yeah, it's funny how music works. One game's music is another Hong Kong movie's soundtrack.

now that's an unpopular opinion if I'd seen one, but then again, I like all sorts of open world games. 🤣

Talking of Open World games, I think I've shared something like this before, but I still think the whole, Ubisoft Open World = bad narrative, is a load of *****.

Ghostwire Tokyo, rightly or not, got lambasted by many for it's world design, but I'd argue Insomniac's Spider-Man suffers from all the highs and lows of Ghostwire, just with New York instead of Tokyo, yet it never comes under the same criticism or scrutiny.

People hold up Breath of the Wild as one of the greatest games of all time, but it is set in a boring open world that is no different or better than any such Ubisoft open world design which are often so heavily criticised. Right down to the "climb tower to unlock bits of map" stuff that had become memes over the years.

I never thought I'd feel sorry for Ubisoft, but games like Far Cry 6 or Watchdogs Legion who do try to do new things with their IP get immediately written off before they get a chance as "just another Ubisoft game", and I just think this hypocrisy really sucks. You can't just pick and choose when to apply a criticism, when two things are doing the same things.

And just on a personal level, it seems like a lot of people want to push this whole "no one wants map markers" narrative, but I thought Elden Ring's open world sucked. Just a tedious, big ass, empty field. BOTW had the same problem, but at least there they gave me some sense of direction so I wasn't quite as aimlessly wandering around. Everyone celebrating Elden Ring removing all player conveniences like... what are we even doing here?

Like don't get me wrong, I don't want every game to be a bloated, MTX rammed, live service attempt like modern Assassin's Creed Valhalla, but give me an Assassin's Creed Odyssey rather than an Elden Ring or a Breath of the Wild any day.

True gentleman will not hesitate to play My Little Pony on PS4 or PS5 machine.

Mario and Zelda games are, for the most part, just alright. There’s some exceptions, I liked Mario Odyssey, Wind Waker HD, BotW and sunshine will always have a place in my heart even though it had some infuriating sections, and I didn’t even go for 100% completion, I’ll even throw in super mario galaxy. All the games are usually held in high regard, seen as these revolutionary masterpieces, but taken in the current timeframe and without nostalgia goggles… they’re good fun, but I’d struggle to call any of them masterpieces. I didn’t even manage to trudge through Ocarina of time or Majora’s Mask, twilight princess lost me at hyrule field and the likes of super mario world and super mario 64 were good fun but I’d struggle to call them anything close to ‘great’ or ‘amazing’. Might just be my lack of nostalgia for any of them, and having the Zelda plots spoiled completely because I watched gaming content as a kid before I had access to those games.

I will add though that most of the games in both franchises (Mario more so than Zelda for me) are still fun to play and thus I consider them good games, but it’s more about them being so unanimously praised for what seems to be mostly their franchise instead of the game’s actual merit sometimes. You kind of see more criticism growing with games like new super mario bros, but I guess this might still be an unpopular opinion to have.

I've never played Ghostwire Tokyo before, so I can't really compare the two games, but I had fun playing insomniac's Spider-Man. What is it about the world design that bothered you, might I ask? I thought it was fine, but then again, I'm not someone all that passionate about open-world gameplay to begin with.

One of the problems I had with open-world games is how hollow it can feel, so if that's the problem you're thinking of for Spider-Man, then I do agree because I'm not really all that interested in collecting thousands of collectibles and run through your mini-game obstacle courses like some trained puppy. I get the rewarding feeling people get from these things, but man, it just leaves an empty feeling, getting all these collectibles that don't even mean much in the grand scheme of the plot. At least Spider-Man had the benefit of tying its collectibles to sub-plots and mini-stories, but even then, they feel like annoying chores just to get that completion rate to 100%. I hate that the minigames reward you with gold/silver/bronze based on your performance too, because if you suck at games like I do, then you're literally being baited into playing the game until you get that gold, which could take an hour to several depending on how good your reflexes are.

And collectibles isn't even my main issue with open-world games, because collectibles can be found in linear-world games too. No, the problem really goes back to the emptiness of it all, as you said:

"A tedious, big empty field." That's my problem with Mass Effect: Andromeda, when Bioware decided to turn what was a trilogy of linear-levels into open world. The concept sounds great, don't get me wrong, finally being able to explore space the way the canon Spacer Shepard always wanted to do, just walking around stretches of alien planets and exploring all the wonders of the universe. Unfortunately, much like No Man's Sky and Sean Murray, Bioware failed to deliver on the execution. It became these very bland and repetitive stretches of desert or snow-filled lands that barely look any different from Earth. Ironically, No Man's Sky would eventually become what Andromeda should've been after Sean fixed the game down the line.

That being said, I do believe that open-world games can be done well. Being dropped into a fictional world is the ultimate escapist fantasy, after all. I thought the Fallout games, for all their flaws, pulled off an immersive open world full of possibilities quite successfully (especially FO3 and definitely FO: New Vegas). The older movie-licensed Spider-Man games by Treyarch were also quite well done. Even though they have similar problems as Insomniac's Spider-Man, they had the excuse of being one of the first games where you could swing as Spider-Man through the entire city of New York. I just think that when it comes to modern "open world games," I tend to feel quite cynical about their quality because I feel like game publishers these days are thinking more along the lines of quantity, not quality. Wide as an ocean, shallow as a pond, as they say. Even in FO4, you could already see this in effect, feeling more bland than New Vegas and even FO3. I haven't really encountered an open world game released over the last decade that impressed me.

I think open-world games can be done in really interesting ways that really make the players' choices have weight too. Think back to Dragon Age: Origins, how you were able to choose where you want to go first. The order which you visit the places do matter, because certain characters will literally die if you do it wrong. But again, that's like a super-old game, and I haven't seen many AAA open-world games nowadays that replicate such a feature. Maybe there is one out there and I missed it. If so, feel free to let me know about it.

@Takoda I think they were probably revolutionary at the time they were made, the same way PacMan was innovative in the '80s, or Pong in the '70s. But taken in a modern context, which is kinda unfair, I know, but I don't really find it to be a masterpiece or even a fun game either. I hate platformers, and Super Mario Bros. is one of my least interested games of all time. I can see why people hold it in such high regards, because even I would admit the level designs are awesome. But I don't think much of the game personally beyond that.

Yeah it is exactly this, basically. You don't really see anyone talk about this stuff though in reviews or communities or whatever, but yet people wouldn't shut up about it with Ghostwire. I'm not even saying Ghostwire is the better game or whatever, I am just saying it is annoying that two games do the same things, but only one gets criticised for it.

And on a wider level above that, it sorta annoys me this is treated as a criticism at all. A bunch of those games you listed that solved for you the empty field problem are prime examples of map marker driven games. That isn't to say there isn't discovery or interactivity because there is, but the Fallout Games for example will give you markers to rival an Ubisoft Title but again they don't come under the same scrutiny.

The Ratchet and Clank 2016 game is amazing and the people who hated it are probably blinded by nostalgia. Or the movie ruined it for them.