Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

As someone who can't afford PC gaming, I see nothing really wrong with this gen. All I really care about is being able to play good games that look good, and PS5 is enough for that, for half the price of what it would cost me to get a PC that could run those games. Another issue with PC are PC ports of console games, especially Square Enix games, are notorious for being bad.

As for games, I generally just wait for a sale, unless the game is good enough to warrant me wanting to buy it day 1. Like, the only game I really plan on purchasing day 1 is Final Fantasy XVI. Other than that, I'd rather wait until the games go on sale.

I don't see PC gaming as being particularly expensive myself. Sure, the sky is the limit if you constantly want the latest and greatest of everything, but it's not like you have to. Games will still run well on comparatively modest hardware.

A quick look at the Steam survey suggests that a typical 2023 gaming PC would have a GTX 1650, a six core CPU, 16GB RAM, and less than a terabyte of storage. A setup like that could easily be put together for less than the price of a PS5. It wouldn't perform as well, but you'd struggle to find many modern games that wouldn't run on it at all.

The other thing about PC games is that they're really cheap, often free. The Epic Store has free games every month. GamePass for PC costs next to nothing, especially if you farm Microsoft points and convert memberships; you could get three years worth for about $150. The Humble Bundle has regular packages on sale often for as little as a dollar and the discounts in Steam sales are way deeper than you get on consoles.

The things you don't get are the exclusive games, the ease of use and the access to Sony's ecosystem. They're going to be a dealbreaker for a lot of people but I don't think price is one at all.

@Matt_Barber
I don't want freebies and PC gaming as my role model. I don't like that way of playing video games.
I prefer old school style video games consoles / handhelds with disc or cartridge to play.
I'm dinosaur for this case.

@Anti-Matter I'm starting to become a dinosaur myself... Nothing like staring at case art while sitting down.

I didn't care for PC gaming until I got a PC from a relative for VR. It could be a pain and likely won't be my main machine, but it's cool.

Console owners: PC gaming is too expensive.

Also console owners: I buy fifty games a year on physical media.

@Matt_Barber It really isn't the same though. Most people who buy games buy them periodically, and just getting ahold of parts for a PC to play these games is sometimes more expensive than the consoles that they're made for. Like, I can afford a 60 dollar game every now and then, but I can't afford to pay for a whole gaming rig to play most games on high graphics, and I definitely can't afford to buy the parts needed to upgrade my own gaming rig.

Lol, it really is like talking to a wall, ain't it. There is so much myth making and misinformation surrounding PC gaming and no matter how much you debunk it, they just move the goal posts again.

You know physical media prices drop right?

Other than Nintendo, but that's a whole other thing.

I don’t even know how to respond to this Lmao. I mean, you have a point? But i feel like it depends heavily.

Playing some Apex this afternoon got me thinking, I really hate the whole "adding other modes is bad because it splits the playerbase" excuse people make when new modes get added to an online game. Like, when did having options to play other modes become a bad thing?

Call me old, but I do not recall complaints about having other modes to play in an online games of the past. Counter-Strike had two modes, no complaints there. Quake III Arena had four modes, no complaints there either. Medal of Honor had four modes, no one complained. Unreal Tournament had a ton of modes, no one complained.

Yet, in recent years, anytime an online multiplayer game gets a new mode, you have people who complain about the playerbase becoming split. Good example, I enjoyed Arenas in Apex, it's now gone because people complained about it splitting the playerbase. It's been replaced with Team Deathmatch, which is cool, I like a good old fashioned Deathmatch. I'm going to miss the mode. Again, I'm going to sound old, back when I played Quake III, Medal of Honor, or Unreal, people played the modes they liked. I don't recall ever seeing a Medal of Honor player complaining that having an objective based mode "splitting the playerbase."

My personal guess is battle royale is a fad, so those who like battle royale are afraid they'll lose players if other modes get added. Yet, looking at it, having Team Deathmatch in Apex could bring in new players who don't even want to play the battle royale mode. Arenas did this to Apex too. This is coming from a guy who enjoys Apex's BR mode occasionally.

Just something that's been on my mind. I really don't see how having optional modes is a bad thing, especially when it helps bring in more players who wouldn't play a game where the main mode is battle royale. Calling this unpopular because "it splits the playerbase" is really a popular opinion within the online gaming space in recent years.

Apologies if this got a bit ranty, I just really don't like the "splits the playerbase" argument everytime an online multiplayer game gets a new mode.

Edit: fixed a typo on the second paragraph I did not pick up on while typing.

Natsumon and Fashion Dreamer are more interesting upcoming Switch games for me than the new zelda game.
I quickly stop watching the Direct once I saw something from the Direct that I knew it will be new zelda game trailer.
I don't care, it was very uninteresting game for me.

@Eagly, Eh, if it's like Jedi Fallen Order, it's structure is going to be more in line with a "Metroidvania" than what I'd like to see from Zelda (it's worlds are largely a series of intricately intertwined "hallways" that you can further explore with the more abilities you unlock).

I agree that I'd like to see some sort of more "focused" areas in Zelda (like bespoke dungeons), but it should still feature some sort of open area to explore & play around in-between the more linear segments.

That said I'm definitely going to be getting both games!

I mean, that's a pretty reasonable opinion, in that its pretty clear Souls-like games replaced Zelda-like games, at least for 3D gaming. Like it stands out that Dark Souls came out around the same time as Skyward Sword and the last major Zelda-like (barring me having not played the new God of Wars games to know how Zelda-y it is) was Darksiders 2, just a year later.

@Sunsy Everything decides the player base, we can have sequels come out on the same console no problem but different modes are a curse? Heck no, favoring characters in patches divides the players base more then modes, I will never understand ether.

@Snatcher Thanks for reading my post, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I remember, older online games had multiple modes and people played what they wanted. No one complained about one mode taking players away from another mode. It just feels like a thing in recent years whenever a battle royale game dares to get an additional non-BR mode. Maybe it might bring in players who would have never touched the BR mode, which means more players for the game. To me, it just feels like BR players are scared of having less players to play BR with, in case of Apex, there's lots playing at any given time, so there shouldn't be a worry.

Will be honest, I had more fun with Arenas, Winter Express, Gun Run, and Control modes in Apex than battle royale. This is coming from a guy who does like playing the BR mode too (seriously, just played some no-fill duos just to chill, have fun, and see how long I'd survive, lol).

Honestly, having some fun with the new Team DM mode at least (won three games today), I'm ok with it as a replacement for Arenas. I do miss Arenas as an option though.

Hot take: Battle Royale is one of the most casual game modes I have ever played. Aside from the times there's a gunfight in-game, and the fact you can't respawn (unless it's Apex or Realm Royale), most of the game is spent looting weapons and gear, staying out of enemy sight, and traveling the map.

This is coming from someone who likes Apex and Realm Royale too. Just an observation I made having played other online games.

@Eagly Indeed, and everyone is spread out compared to an arena shooter like Quake. You could stay out of sights and have a chill time in a BR and get lucky, where as the other, it's close quarters chaos with like 16 players bunny hopping around!

Here people call Fortnite sweaty, play Quake and the difference is day and night.

I never like Online Only games as those games only depended on active servers, not to mention ultra stable connection and monthly subscription to continue the game. And once the server get closed, adios the games and it was a scam for me.
I found the socializing aspect from online play was really lame excuse, I mean we can have actual conversations face 2 face without using online games as the options to have socializing aspect.

@Anti-Matter I don't think that's an unpopular opinion. A lot of people do enjoy playing online only games, but I don't think anyone likes a server shut down for the simple reason it means you can't play the game anymore.

Personally, I like the old-school method of online gaming. In the past, many PC games allowed players to host the game server itself, and others would join via IP address. Developers use to include this option on many PC games. It's actually why some older online games could still be played to this day.