Forums

Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Posts 10,781 to 10,800 of 10,802

Euler

PikaPhantom wrote:

I honestly don't get why Mario is considered the king of platformers.

When you list four of the games as masterpieces even in a post criticizing the series, that sort of answers the question right there.

Euler

PikaPhantom

@Euler 3 of which are legacy titles and one of which has become more polarizing in recent years (and it's not the only one)? The series has been very influential, don't get me wrong, and it's definitely impressive that there are so many of them and most maintain a level of quality, but the games have their issues and other platformers tend to push the envelope more and get a bit more creative, particularly in the 2D realm.

PikaPhantom

BruceCM

I read it's simply because Sonic games call them zones instead of worlds, @Snatcher ....

SW-4357-9287-0699
Steam: Bruce_CM

dmcc0

@PikaPhantom I guess it comes down to personal preference too. I'm actually playing A Hat in Time at the moment and while it is good, it's not going to get a mention in a best of all time list - at least not mine. Same with Ori - I liked the first one a lot, but I don't think I even finished the second, and it's generally considered the better one.

I don't think anyone is claiming the recent 2D Mario games are anything other than solid entries - the Wii version probably got a lot of hype because it was the first 2D one in however many years, but from what I've seen of the entries since then, they've reviewed well enough while being nothing ground-breaking. A lot of the games you've mentioned do get the recognition they deserve - stuff like Hollow Knight, Celeste, Ori, etc are mentioned when people talk about the best recent 2D platformers, but they don't have that legacy yet of being a series with consistently great games like Mario given that they are (so far) just one or two games.

dmcc0

jump

The competition is Sonic and Bubsy so Mario is keeping his rusty King Of Platformers Crown on his head for a looooong time.

Nicolai wrote:

Alright, I gotta stop getting into arguments with jump. Someone remind me next time.

Switch Friend Code: SW-8051-9575-2812 | 3DS Friend Code: 1762-3772-0251

Dogorilla

I think it's partly because Mario games, even at their most derivative, are consistently high quality and just pure fun*. Nintendo knows exactly what needs to be in a game and what doesn't; there's no padding, there's nothing overly complicated, they're just expertly designed platformers that anyone can have a good time with.

*except Sunshine

"Remember, Funky's the Monkey!"

Funky Kong
Fizza

The Matchmaker Stations in Octo Expansion are some of the best, most fun levels in the entire campaign. It was fantastic stuff carefully lining up my shots, constantly on edge of making a single mistake and playing it with a Squeezer especially (like I did on my first run through it) was incredibly tense yet also somewhat relaxing given that specific gun's spread. Overall, definitely a highlight of my entire playthrough, no doubt. Oh and trust me, there are FAR worse levels in OE than those ones (I still have nightmares from the break the target ones....).

Currently Playing: Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu
Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards
Mario Maker 2 Maker ID: YT1-0Q2-YFF
Currently performing a summoning circle for a 2nd Ace Attorney Trilogy
456/488 in Brilliant Diamond Nat Dex
PLA Shinies: 95

kkslider5552000

PikaPhantom wrote:

I honestly don't get why Mario is considered the king of platformers.

Because his first one was a highlight of the arcade era and then he saved video games in North America and then he was in the most beloved NES game and then he revolutionized 3D gaming and then he was in the most critically acclaimed games on the Wii and then he was in one of the most critically acclaimed games of the past few years.

Some of the games between them are also highly regarded.

This is not the most difficult phenomenon to explain.

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Bioshock Infinite Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy BIOSHOCK < Link to LP

Anti-Matter

I prefer Ratchet & Clank games than 3D Mario games after I played the games on PS3 and PS4 since 2 years ago.
The reasons: Ratchet & Clank games have such diversity environments and different storyline that I engaged more than 3D Mario games. Honestly I found some stages from 3D Mario games were not really fun to play as they felt like Ninja Warrior style obstacle than natural 3D environments to explore.

Top 8 Konami's Rhythm games:
1. Dance Dance Revolution
2. Para Para Paradise
3. DrumMania
4. Beatmania IIDX
5. Pop'n Music
6. KeyboardMania
7. Martial Beat
8. DANCE EVOLUTION

Switch Friend Code: SW-8364-7166-5608 | 3DS Friend Code: 2638-4872-0879 | Nintendo Network ID: TAGunderground

Tremblucay

@PikaPhantom
I sort of agree with you on Mario, at least when it comes to the 3D games.

As a huge fan of Mario during the NES and SNES days, I was never able to make the transition into the 3D Mario games. Even as a young teen, I thought Mario 64 wasn't much fun and I sold Sunshine after about a week of owning it. The Galaxy games gave me motion sickness due to the spinning planets and Odyssey was such a bore.

The only 3D Mario game I liked was 3D World.

Silenzio, Bruno!

Twitter:

Pizzamorg

While I love my Switch, I wouldn't be here if I didn't, it still kinda amazes me that the Switch seems to get a free pass when it comes to technical performance that would simply be unacceptable elsewhere.

I know the internet memes on the Switch's hardware but what inspired this post was Three Hopes getting 7 through to 9s by most major publications. I was really tempted to pick this up, I'd tried other musou games on Switch and they all ran like *****, but with those reviews, they surely should have figured this all out by now, then, right?

Well... no, it seems. Digital Foundry says the max resolution you can achieve in docked is 810p and downscales as low as 540p in handheld and even then cannot hit a consistent 30 fps framerate during big action set pieces. Like how can a game performing like this get even a 7 in 2022? Like even ten years ago 1080p gaming was starting to become common place and at around the same FPS as the Switch.

As far as I am concerned a game performing like this in 2022 cannot be getting the reviews it is getting. If any other platform tried to sell a game with this level of performance, it'd be getting 1s, why should Nintendo get a free pass cause they stick with weak hardware? Just seems really misleading to me.

My @ handle everywhere is Pizzamorg.
My Friend Code is: SW-6997-6872-4381
Switch games currently playing: RingFit Adventure.
PC games currently playing: The Division 2. Monster Hunter Rise. Dark Pictures Anthology. Tiny Tina's Wonderlands.

Buizel

@Pizzamorg You absolutely do have to consider the hardware a game is running on though. While sub-1080p is quite outrageous for the Xbox Series and PS5...it's fairly standard for the Switch.

Would you score New Super Mario Bros on the DS down because it ran at 256 x 192, at a time when consoles were moving to HD?

Similarly, would you score a game down because it runs sub- 720p 30 fps on someone's potato PC?

It's important to temper expectations based on the hardware. Although it doesn't sound like the performance is ideal, it's about what we'd expect for a game of this scale on the Switch.

At least 2'8".

Pizzamorg

Buizel wrote:

@Pizzamorg You absolutely do have to consider the hardware a game is running on though. While sub-1080p is quite outrageous for the Xbox Series and PS5...it's fairly standard for the Switch.

Would you score New Super Mario Bros on the DS down because it ran at 256 x 192, at a time when consoles were moving to HD?

Similarly, would you score a game down because it runs sub- 720p 30 fps on someone's potato PC?

It's important to temper expectations based on the hardware. Although it doesn't sound like the performance is ideal, it's about what we'd expect for a game of this scale on the Switch.

It is that Nintendo bias which is the problem for me "the technical performance is bad, but it's good in the context of the Potato Switch, so nine out of 10 I guess". Like it just renders that review meaningless to me.

So if Xbox tomorrow chose to release a console that maxed out at 510p with a target of 30 fps and demaked their highest rated titles to run on this system, you think they'd get the same treatment? Of course not. So it shouldn't work in the other direction, either. If Nintendo choose to run games on bad hardware, that is 100 percent on them and the reviews should reflect that.

And in fact technical performance for PC reviews is a huge part of them, at least good PC reviewers. They will run the game on different machines and report back on how it performs on each of those machines, as each person has a slightly different set up, so they want to give as wide of a range of experiences as they can and the review will reflect where it suffers. No, that doesn't equate to forcing a game to run on a potato, but that is basically what Nintendo does, and for some reason that is fine here and foolish in any other context.

Edited on by Pizzamorg

My @ handle everywhere is Pizzamorg.
My Friend Code is: SW-6997-6872-4381
Switch games currently playing: RingFit Adventure.
PC games currently playing: The Division 2. Monster Hunter Rise. Dark Pictures Anthology. Tiny Tina's Wonderlands.

Buizel

@Pizzamorg Not sure about Xbox, but we have examples from Sony. Reviewers weren't judging PSP games by the standards of the PS3, nor were they judging PSVita games by the standards of the PS4.

At least 2'8".

Pizzamorg

Buizel wrote:

@Pizzamorg Not sure about Xbox, but we have examples from Sony. Reviewers weren't judging PSP games by the standards of the PS3, nor were they judging PSVita games by the standards of the PS4.

But those were pure handheld, the Switch is sold as a home console.

My @ handle everywhere is Pizzamorg.
My Friend Code is: SW-6997-6872-4381
Switch games currently playing: RingFit Adventure.
PC games currently playing: The Division 2. Monster Hunter Rise. Dark Pictures Anthology. Tiny Tina's Wonderlands.

Tremblucay

@Pizzamorg
It's all about the gameplay for me, not the graphics.
Switch is a hybrid console by the way, it's not a home console in the traditional sense. Yes, graphics aren't as good as its competitors, but Switch lets you play on the go. There's a trade-off there and I think most people are perfectly fine with it.

Silenzio, Bruno!

Twitter:

Buizel

@Pizzamorg True, but the handheld component of the Switch is a fundamental difference between it and its competitors.

I understand your argument, but contextual factors just always seem to come into play when it comes to review scores. Why else would we still be seeing 9 and 10/10s for rereleases N64 games when, if released today, they'd get no such praise? And how does an indie 9/10 compare to a AAA 9/10? Is one better? Is it worse?

Using a single numeric scale to judge a game is always gonna have its problems, especially when different factors mean more or less to different people.

At least 2'8".

Pizzamorg

Tremblucay wrote:

@Pizzamorg
It's all about the gameplay for me, not the graphics.
Switch is a hybrid console by the way, it's not a home console in the traditional sense. Yes, graphics aren't as good as its competitors, but Switch lets you play on the go. There's a trade-off there and I think most people are perfectly fine with it.

I'm glad you don't suffer from motion sickness, playing these choppy, unlocked, frame games on Switch make me feel physically sick if I play for an extended session. And it isn't all Switch games, either, to make it clear and that is also kind of my point.

But yeah, gameplay is more important than visuals, but technical performance at least to me is the most important thing of all. Great gameplay is meaningless if it runs like arse.

Buizel wrote:

@Pizzamorg True, but the handheld component of the Switch is a fundamental difference between it and its competitors.

I understand your argument, but contextual factors just always seem to come into play when it comes to review scores. Why else would we still be seeing 9 and 10/10s for rereleases N64 games when, if released today, they'd get no such praise? And how does an indie 9/10 compare to a AAA 9/10? Is one better? Is it worse?

Using a single numeric scale to judge a game is always gonna have its problems, especially when different factors mean more or less to different people.

But again, the circumstances are different here. Rating a game made in 1991, by 2022's standards, would of course be foolish. But that isn't the same as releasing a game in 2022, which runs like a game made in 2006 but reviewing it like it came out in 2006.

I guess indie games do muddy the water a bit, as do intentionally retro titles, but there is a difference between loving homage and just intentionally running like crap. There is also a reality around indie titles having smaller budgets but taking that context in mind again the difference is obvious. A small several person team making a game that runs at a target of 30 fps is not the same as trillion dollar plus Nintendo doing the same thing. Any rational person can see the difference.

But I agree that review scores, while offering some utility and convenience, are ultimately more harmful than they are helpful and deserve to go in the bin.

Edited on by Pizzamorg

My @ handle everywhere is Pizzamorg.
My Friend Code is: SW-6997-6872-4381
Switch games currently playing: RingFit Adventure.
PC games currently playing: The Division 2. Monster Hunter Rise. Dark Pictures Anthology. Tiny Tina's Wonderlands.

kkslider5552000

Your problems are a minority issue, at the end of the day. Phenomenons like Pokemon Go and PUBG just a few years ago made that abundantly clear. If those are deal breakers for you, that's fine. But they clearly are not for many people.

Though I do think you could make the case that the vast majority of Switch exclusive games (particularly nowadays when everyone has a handle on what the Switch can and cannot do) with significant performance issues have those issues because they decided making the game graphically more impressive in one way or another was more important. You can blame the console but people still knew what the console could do and specifically chose not to make games with great performance.

To me the real issue is that more non-PC games should (to a reasonable degree) have the ability to make the game look worse so it plays better. The moment "performance mode" for console games became a thing it should've become one of the most normalized aspects in AAA console games. Or that time Xenoblade X improved things like draw distance via a large but ultimately optional download. A thing that if its happened a second time in a console game, I don't remember it.

Edited on by kkslider5552000

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Bioshock Infinite Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy BIOSHOCK < Link to LP

KryptoniteKrunch

The Switch may be sold as a home console, but it's running on mobile tech, hence the different standards. Regarding reviews, I suspect most folks aren't that sensitive to some frame dips or lower resolution, I know I'm not.

I view it differently, getting these console scale game running on mobile hardware is impressive to me. Before the Switch came out, the best looking games on handheld were 240p 3DS and whatever Vita games ran at, which is still far weaker than the Switch.

But yeah, I don't see it as "Nintendo bias" just people adjusting their standards accordingly. I don't think people would have a problem with a weaker Xbox as longer as it could play games natively on the go like the Switch.

KryptoniteKrunch

Nintendo Network ID: KryptoniteKrunch

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic