Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Because you playing two versions of a title years apart from one another, or on bad hardware, mean absolutely nothing. I didn't realise such a completely non-point would not to be disclaimed.

@Pizzamorg I'm talking about the first examples I gave, there was nothing wrong with the hardware.

@Pizzamorg It really isn't that way for me. I play both 60 FPS and 30 FPS games, and it doesn't bother me when going back to 30 FPS.

@Sunsy
Looks like Outright Games will make a lot of movie / cartoon series tie in games in the future.
Don't forget to check Microids as they provide some cartoonish games such as Marsupilami, The Smurfs Mission Vileaf, Garfield, etc.
Who knows if The Trolls will be provided by either Outright Games or Microids.

@Rambler Who's Brasseye?

Not intentionally, but Brass Eye is deffo something I like to come back and reference from time to time for sure.

When it comes to framerate, I always found 30 FPS playable, and 60 FPS ideal. Anything past 60 FPS is even better. This is coming from someone who plays both PC and Nintendo consoles. Some games I love on Nintendo consoles, I have on PC too. Good example Team Sonic Racing, as I have it on both. It runs better on PC, but I still like playing it on Switch.

I do feel people on consoles who want 60 FPS should really consider getting into PC gaming because framerate on PC is usually better, especialy on gaming PCs. Maybe an unpopular opinion here since many want 60 FPS on Switch.

@Anti-Matter If a Trolls game was made, I'd imagine Outright Games would make it. If they have the Spirit Untamed and Dragons license, it makes sense as DreamWorks makes Spirit, Dragons, and Trolls.

Didn't know Microids did Garfield, I knew they have Smurfs between Smurfs Mission Vileaf (I love this game) and Smurfs Kart. Here's hoping Smurfs Kart is good because Mission Vileaf was really well made, and captured the series well IMHO.

For me, shooters need a high fps, you just miss out on some much, that also goes for fighters, anything else, I don’t mind 30.

@Snatcher Shooters are always better at higher framerate. I play Apex on PC before Switch. While I'm fine playing it on Switch, playing Apex on PC was so smooth. Very smooth movement that feels so good playing on PC.

I could compare Paladins, but Paladins always ran 60 on Switch and PC. For me, Paladins benefits from better graphics on PC.

I know "Mario + Rabbids WTF?!" takes are like so 2017 or whatever, but seeing as, for some reason, there's another one of these abominations coming out, I thought I may as well go all-in again. Because somehow, after an initially promising amount of disgust, resistance and backlash, most Nintendo fans just seemed to fall in line, roll over and accept it... And I'm as baffled by that today as I was back then. The fact that gun-toting Mario (f*** off Ubisoft...) and Raving bloody Rabbids are now forever associated with each other (a crossover as lame and hideous and embarrassing as the Rabbids themselves), that they are now forever intertwined, that the stench of Rabbids is now on Mario forever, is somehow not only accepted by Nintendo fans, but celebrated, instead of, you know, making them want to puke. I can't believe that this would be an unpopular opinion, but from what I can see from the Nintendo fan community who just seem to have so easily acquiesced to this horrible situation, it is!

Now, before you say it, yes, I understand that the game itself turned out fairly well from the reviews. Maybe it was a good game, I don't know, out of principle, I never have and never will play it. To me that's not really the point. I'm a Mario fan and this association cheapens and degrades Mario. To use wrestling terminology, Mario is a main-event superstar and Rabbids are absolute jobbers. And Mario is being exploited and debased in order to get them over. As a Nintendo fan, I find that extremely galling. I mean, is this now going to be a permanent long-running franchise then? In which case, I have a horrible vision of a future trivia question like: "Did you know: There are now more Mario + Rabbids games than actual mainline Mario platformers?" [shudders].

I still don't know what Nintendo was thinking in agreeing to this. Does Ubisoft have dirt on them or something? Perhaps Miyamoto is now senile and will just agree to anything. Perhaps Ubisoft convinced Nintendo that Rabbids is the most popular and highly-respected franchise in the West (rather than, you know, a total joke). Perhaps at that time Nintendo was so emotionally and psychologically wrecked from the devastating failure of the Wii U, and Ubisoft saw an opportunity to swoop in and take advantage of Nintendo's fragile state for their own ends. I mean, I would like to think that a confident and bullish Nintendo would've told Ubisoft to get lost (in the most polite way of course). That "How can we reinvigorate the Rabbids franchise?" is of no concern to Nintendo whatsoever, let alone that they'd sully their top IP in order to achieve it. I'm just hoping that now that Nintendo are in a far more healthy position, they'll regain their self-respect and dignity and nip this parasitic relationship in the bud. But who knows, maybe this'll just be the tip of the iceberg. Maybe Data Design Interactive should regroup and pitch a Zelda + Ninjabread Man crossover. Why not, it's no more far-fetched and offensive than this one. Apparently Nintendo will pull their pants down and bend over for anyone now, so go for it; Zelda + Ninjabread Man: Kingdom Battle. Let's make it happen! Now, Mario is a very strong IP, and thus can take some hits, but for how long will he be forced to hangout with these utter losers before it brings his reputation down to their level?

I'm sure some people might think I'm being too much of a purist, or being overly-protective over Mario, well I'm a fan so why wouldn't I be? Why are you not? I guess I'm just willing to put up more of a fight to protect something I care about for more than... a couple of days!

Revolting...

@Haywired You're missing out as the game is as good as they say but if you refuse to try it on principle I doubt no one will say anything to convince however let me try. Mario is basically the straight man in the game, he looks upon the Rabbids with a confused annoyance rather than endorsement like when you step in dog doo-doo. He dislikes the Rabbids much to echo the expected mood of the players when they hear of the concept of the game (just without the internet hyperbole anger) so he battles on blasting them all in their stupid faces to eradicate the Rabbid menace in the Mushroom Kingdom!

I just like to buy the product, the drama is bonus. (sarcasm)

Nope. Video game museums and libraries allow people to look at and play games they have on display. Some will even let you borrow them for a period of time. Cartridges and disks (which, in real life, last longer than humans do if they're treated even semi-decently) can be legally backed up as long as the backup copies aren't distributed (or, if they are, the recipient is given the original and all of the backup copies that were produced). There are legal, ethical ways to preserve games for future generations just like with books, paintings, and records. Going to the gaming museum can be a fun family activity or date night. And if you actually care about video game preservation, there are dedicated charities you can support. But I'm pretty confident you wouldn't, because video game piracy is no more about "preserving" games than it is about reforming ethics in video game journalism. You just don't want to pay for your games.

Yeah, a voluntary exchange of goods (5$ for a permanent high-quality copy of a NES game, or 20$ for a year's subscription to over a hundred games) is just like slavery. About as reality-based as I would expect from freeloaders that white knight for ROM sites that provide nothing to society while railing against a company that employs thousands of people and created these games that so many people have enjoyed for decades. Many people collectively understand that it's ethical to steal from a company that's made enough profit, or to burn cities and loot stores in the name of fighting racism or whatever. That doesn't make it so, even if some US states have decriminalized both rioting and petty theft (only to wonder why nobody wants to do business there). You're not entitled to a video game someone else made just because it's been around for however many years.

I'm not going to lose sleep over whether or not a bunch of neckbeards too cheap to pay for their own games want me to eat at their table.

@Euler @Heroofthenexus
Gaming platforms have a limited lifetime and most games never get ported, so if they're deemed unprofitable, they'll expire with the platforms. Thousands of instances of art, storytelling and gameplay experience lost to the ravages of time. All media decay: disks suffer rot in the lamination, individual units are broken by mishandling, cartridges lose the battery for their circuit boards, etc.
If there'd be a developer-sponsored platform through which you'll get an essentially permanent and perpetual guarantee of being able to play the games of yesteryear, that'd be great. But such a platform has yet to properly arise, as the current business model is built around limited-time subscriptions with changing rosters, a limited license to play the games rather than letting you own a discrete copy and re-releasing the games on console-bound compilations, remasters, repackagings or ports.

Gaming preservation is art preservation. Even if a game is considered pointless because of its obscurity and age, it's still a snapshot of entertainment from the time it was made, an artifact of culture.
Now think of how many stories have been forgotten, how many books have never again been read, how many silent-era movies that've not been seen in their full or intended form for over a century. Games that go without preservation, be they shovelware or hidden gems, fall into this same category.

Profitable classics get rereleased dozens and dozens of times over, while others are left to languish in ever-increasing obscurity due to the bottom line, tangled rights issues and general corporate disinterest.

If you'd limit preservation to original hardware and media only, then that's a ticking clock until they expire. And if they didn't fall to the ravages of time, they'd increasingly become the domain of the wealthy and the charitable. Museums would only be able to give limited access to their preserved hardware and collectors would snap up copies of games that are reaching prices orders of magnitude higher than their MSRP, of which not a dime will ever reach the developers or publishers anyway.

You ruined it by telling them it's just jokes. It's much funnier if you think it's real!

www.dailymotion.com/video/x2amdak

Look out for a young Simon Pegg.

*on second thoughts I will leave the vid as a link instead with a warning of it has naughty words.

I do love the idea of a video game museum.

@jump Oh right, well, I still don't think I could stomach it, but thank you anyway.

@Haywired
You know, actually I grew some compassion with Rabbids after I played Rabbids games on Wii since last June 2021.
They were not really bunch of frantic stupid creatures. At first I never have interest with them as it looks very annoying, but after I played their games on Wii and I have Mario + Rabbids, I see Rabbids can be a smart creatures when they given by some right roles as I saw the evolution of Rabbids on Mario + Rabbids Spark of Hope. And Rabbids are pretty hilarious too at some point.
I'm not really fan of Mario and Rabbids altogether but I still open with some alternative ideas from both of them in Mario + Rabbids. If Mario can co-operate with Sonic in their collaboration Mario & Sonic Olympic Games made by SEGA, the collaboration between Mario and Rabbids games are something that I could embrace or accept them.
I personally would like to see Mario or any Nintendo games can collaborate with different franchises such as Mario in Sly Cooper style (Spionage games like Sly Cooper but with Mario characters) or Mario in Ratchet & Clank style (3rd person shooter platformer games with Mario characters) or Animal Crossing in Dragon Quest Builders 2 style (Animal Crossing with full 3D environments, gameplay like Minecraft and some cartoonish battles).

My unpopular opinion, which I'm sure I'm no alone with: I am wholly content with 1080p at 30fps and consider higher resolutions to be a cashgrab similar to the bit wars and feel significantly higher fps to border on nauseating.
I've been a gamer since '91-'92 starting with the Philips Videopac and I've seen graphics make leaps and bounds in that decade alone, going from blocks with bleeps to crisp pixel art with chiptune symphonies to early 3D games with .midi masterpieces. The next decade saw polygon counts grow larger, movements become more fluid, textures gaining higher resolutions and sound tech moving to crisp recordings of actual instruments.

After 2005 this development had plateaued as I'd followed it in real time. While graphical fidelity has made leaps and bounds, current progress with ever-higher pixel counts for screens and ever faster refresh rates simply hasn't impressed me as much as what happened with graphics between 1991 and 2005. And the clamour to have ever more millions of pixels on the screen refreshing at rates significantly faster than the human eye could ever see seems downright silly to me. The approach to true photorealism is asymptotic, with ever greater efforts of reaching it going unnoticed in the final product.

Would I want Max Payne 1 and 2 be redone with Control's graphics? Hells yeah.
Would I play Control with Max Payne 1 or 2's graphics? I sure as hell would with both.

I grew up on N64 so most FPS and graphics discussions feel like very silly hyperbole.

I do think 60 FPS is the standard all games should strive for and I like pretty graphics but I don't care TOO much unless it becomes an undeniable issue in one way or another. It still bugs me how easy they could sell those underwhelming D/P remakes to everyone, no matter how kind I try to be to the Pokemon Company, while New Pokemon Snap sells 1/8 of that at best. That's just unfair.

Speaking of which, I've really noticed is that I'm just not huge into underwhelming takes to "update" 2d games/series with 3d graphics. I like how Minish Cap looks more than ALBW, I like how Megaman 8 looks far more than 11, the 3DS Ace Attorney games had no idea how to update its old characters for 3d graphics, the characters alone in Mario Kart 64 made that game age better than most of its contemporaries(not to mention 2d sprite based PS1 games). Parts of Metroid Dread also kinda underwhelmed compared to Super and the GBA games' look (which is a shame because they did their best to make that game look great). And nowadays some of the best looking 3d animation in and out of games exists to try to best and most perfectly replicate 2d art.

That's not always true by any means, the best looking Mario games are almost all 3D despite NSMB's blandness, among quite a number of examples. But when games decide to update with more modern and 3d graphics, but don't have a comparable compelling art style to match that update, it feels like such a waste. Even ignoring the nonsensical assumption some have that 3D is somehow automatically better.