Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

I think this is mainly only an unpopular opinion because this is a Nintendo website and Nintendo is currently doing it horribly.

I would like Nintendo's games as a service much better if they had buying options like you describe with Gamepass. I think basic NSO is fine for most people because it is dirt cheap and since it is already required for online games, the retro games are just kind of an added perk. But expansion pass, even if they added tons of more games, seems terrible to me. I wouldn't mind temporarily paying for a service to rent some games and basically try them out as demos, but I hate that you can't buy them so are 'expected' to pay for the service for the rest of your life/ the console's life.

Actually my opinion is that Expansion Pass is good, actually. ...but with some caveats. The biggest of which being the family plan, which means I'm personally only currently paying 12 bucks a year. That's not a lot of money, that's 1/5 of one full price game. Considering how many games I have access to, and the three DLCs (well two for me I guess since I bought the Splatoon 2 DLC before it was added), yeah I think I could make the case that it is worthwhile.

But tbh, 12 bucks a year is the big reason why it works for me. I don't care about Gamepass because I like owning games at all and Gamepass would only be worthwhile to me monetary-wise as a replacement to buying games at all. And most streaming services in general are notably more expensive, like I spent 15 a month on HBO Max when I still had it, and I did not use it enough for that to fully make sense in hindsight. I am not focusing all my time on what any one streaming service has, so streaming service money is money I could be spending on games, where most full priced games I will play a lot longer than use a streaming service in the same timespan. But I've been playing Mario Kart with its DLC and those N64 games and I am definitely getting my 12 bucks worth, which is better than getting 12 bucks worth out of services I would have to pay a lot more for. And that's the big thing for me, is that most streaming services only make monetary sense if its a replacement for entertainment, whereas to me its just an addition in most cases. It's a cool extra.

Now obviously its a much harder sell at 50 bucks a year with the solo plan, but I think that could still make sense to some people. But if you can get it cheaper, its smarter to do so, obviously.

And while Nintendo not allowing people to buy these old games is obviously bad and shouldn't happen, I do find its one of the few things where a streaming service for me is miles better than buying these games individually. It is a cool throwback of these retro systems as a whole rather than an eShop, that's basically the point of this as is, but if I could only buy them (especially at VC prices), there's many I would never try (at least not in any sort of VC-like setting). I am paying 2 bucks more than 1 N64 VC purchase for an entire year of the entire service. And if I play through 1 N64 game and literally any other game, per year, it still beats the VC prices for me. And honestly if VC prices were half the cost they were, I'd still be better off as is based on what I have played of Expansion Pass. And its not even something I've done the most to fully exploit every aspect of, is the thing. I never got around to Happy Home Designer, and the only retro games on this service I've played beyond N64 are DKC2 and Mario All Stars. But again, 12 bucks a year, so as is, it works.

But I'll also admit it works for me very specifically. I maintain the family plan is good, especially when Nintendo fixed those early N64 releases, but the whole thing works specifically for me, in terms of what it is and what it has on it. Not everyone is going to be disinterested in other streaming services, own a Switch, have fond nostalgia for the N64 and regret having played so few Genesis games and thus feel this is a relatively easy purchase while also knowing how to not pay 50 bucks a year on it.

I actually like live service games like apex or Fortntie because I think it lets be do something else I can always come back to, sure you can do that with solo player games, but once there over there over, so having something like that to go back to and enjoy whenever I please is pretty nice, and I don’t mind a battle pass as long as it’s done right, but paid games doing battle pass? Unless it’s completely free like splatoon is doing no way will I ever support it.

@kkslider5552000 I definitely understand it being good value to you specifically, but the fact that expansion pass is very inconsistent value is part of why I think it is set up very badly.

For me I:

a) would have to pay $50 because I have no family/friends who play Switch and:

b) The majority of the games I'm interested in on expansion pass I bought in collections before expansion pass existed (most of the Sega games do come in collections and of course some of the Nintendo ones like Mario 64). There are maybe 3 individual games on expansion pass I'd really like to have and don't. I would be happy to pay $20-$40 total one time to buy those 3 games, similar to other retro collections, but no way would I pay that much to rent them for one year.

The amount of worth per dollar I get from normal NSO with Tetris 99, I would argue a better retro collection than expansion pass has, online gaming, cloud storage, and game trials is absolutely insane compared to expansion pass. Plus basic NSO has common free trials and lets you buy 1 or 3 months at a time if you'd like instead of sticking you for a full year! If expansion pass had anything close to that much value and flexibility I would jump on it.

Thank you!

I'd think that, if Nintendo were to offer a service where you got to play every single game they released on day one, plus hundreds of other games from other publishers in a rotating selection, most of us would sign up for it in a heartbeat.

That's basically what Game Pass is offering and, while you can debate the relative merits of Microsoft and Nintendo's first party line-ups, it just seems a shame that the latter isn't offering anything even remotely close to that with either NSO or the Expansion Pack.

@FishyS
Yea, I would say I include most RPGs and puzzle games like Tetris that take place in the same confines every time. I would also include MOBAs like Dota and League, and most multiplayer modes of shooters like CoD. Yea, and I'm definitely not an Animal Crossing guy - I tried to like it on 3DS, but again, the repetition just got to me. (Back to Harvest Moon strangely being the only exception when it comes to those "farming" kind of games.)

My favorite genre is platformers, though, and I think you're a little hasty in your characterization of them. There are tons, tons, tons of platformers that have no collection aspect to them, especially if you go retro (which I mostly do these days). The original Marios, Mega Mans, Castlevanias, etc. simply invited you to play through their varied stages and enjoy the game - no whatchamacallits to collect at all. The games challenge you to improve your skill and learn new abilities, sometimes literally learning new abilities in the game, but sometimes just learning as a player.

I would also say there is a huge difference in collecting something like the green coins in The Messenger, for instance, and grinding out animal pelts/enemy skulls/etc. to craft upgraded equipment in games like Far Cry and Red Dead and Destiny, etc. In a game like The Messenger (or heck, even like A Hat in Time or something like that), you're tackling new areas of the game AND utilizing new gameplay skills to get those collectibles - in "chore" games you're doing literally the same thing with maybe a different backdrop (think some of the earlier Assassin's Creed games - II comes to mind in particular with the feathers and flags, or shooting the same enemies or hunting the same animals).

But yea, if we want to nitpick, you can shrink things down and just pedantically say all games are repetitive by nature - but I'm trying to say the games that make their pretty-much-necessary gameplay loop rely on chores are not my style, but unfortunately they are becoming the big games these days. Just look at all these live service games Sony keeps teasing for the PS5 - ugh; just makes me not want to buy a PS5 even more.

Game Pass is a legit scam in my opinion.
I never like games renting service as I prefer owning games in physical rather playing the games by subscription that I will never able to own them forever.

Sorry for the long replies — this conversation about whether games are repetitive could have warranted a totally seperate thread but it ended up living here.

@rallydefault I wasn't actually trying to insult platformers as repetitive, I was just curious about your opinion. But if you still like platformers, fortunately they are still one of the most popular genres out there with new ones being made literally every week. They're my favorite genre and I have a zillion on Switch.

As for PS5 games, they mostly don't entice me for a variety of reasons. I'm happy to stay on Nintendo consoles both for some of their exclusives and tons of random indie games. I do get your point about many popular games being grindy (heck, a lot of the most popular games are literally mobile games which are 70% about doing your 'dailies') but I also think there are tons and tons of interesting games out there which aren't repetitive at all, including lots of indies and certainly some genres and publishers much more than others for AAA games. Given that there are so many thousands of new games being made nowadays, I don't necessarily care which are the popular ones and just go for the games I like personally.

As well as some games not being grindy at all, I think there are important sub-categories of 'repetitive' games which appeal to different people such as:

• Games selling addiction — includes many mobile games and F2P games. Things like dailies (or hourlies!) just to get you to keep coming back. Although not all of these games are bad, the general practice can be a bit toxic.
• Artificially long games - stick in a million similar side quests or level grinding to make your game last 100+ hours. Includes many RPGs but not all of them or limited to that genre. Personally I'm not a big fan of this practice (give me shorter rpgs and Zeldas!) , but I understand some people wanting to stay with a game for a really long time.
• life simulators/management/farming/etc - real life is repetitive, so why not a comfier or more exotic version for your games? These tend to be pretty honest about what they are selling and are a needed niche but not for everyone.
• rogue lites/randomized games -purposefully similar but also randomly different each time. I enjoy these because it is all about increasing skill or getting new abilities or information, but they can certainly feel a bit grindy also.
• puzzles/racing/multiplayer shooting/etc. — tons of game types are about playing over and over on the same grids or racing tracks or arenas. Everytime you play is different (and sometimes the exact rules or weapons can change) but fundamentally these are about playing a very similar thing over and over and improving your skills.

@FishyS
Oh, btw.
If you dig more PS5 games, you will find a lot of kids games on PS5 that also on Nintendo Switch (3rd party multi console games) such as Paw Patrol games, Ben 10 games, My Time At Sandrock, Paleo Pines, Harvest Moon Winds of Anthos, etc.

Since we're talking unpopular opinions, I've pretty much given up on physical. Half of my life involved physical games breaking, being stolen, being water damaged, being lost in moves, having the console which plays them stop working. Assuming Switch 2 is back compatible, I will definitely beat my record for keeping games 'forever' on digital than I did physical.

That said, I do generally prefer owning games digitally than just renting them on things like gamepass. I realize the ability to re-download purchased games on the Switch eshop may eventually be turned off, but that ability still exists for Wii, so my expectations are I can keep Switch digital games for 20+ years, maybe longer if Nintendo sticks with back-compatibility for a couple generations. That's close enough to forever for me although if it ever stops I'm sure I will complain when I'm old. 😝

@FishyS
I have more unpopular situation.
Every digital games I bought will be ended by neglected, like I never feel I have owned the games even I have purchased them.

If I owned a PS5, I'm sure I would find good games including some of the ones you mentioned, I'm just not a fan of some of the high graphics 'gritty' games PS5 seems to be known for.

Main reason I'm not a fan of Live service games is because of the update models. Unless a game has a ton of content at launch, then I usually drop it about a month after purchasing it. Take New Horizons, for example. I lost all interest in it the month after release, all because it was a gutted game. It didn't help that the content updates that did exist were small and infrequent as well. It just resulted in me going back to the game to check out the "new" content, and then dropping it again after I had my fill.

@FishyS

Very nice reply, I like those categories. I think the two categories that most fit what I'm talking about is the "selling addiction" and "artificially long."

I know it's not good to say (but we are in the unpopular thread haha), but I've been disappointed with the Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom games even though I've been a massive Zelda fan all my life. Personally, I would put them in the "artificially long" categories, and it's a total bummer for me. I can, however, appreciate how the devs of both games did an astounding job overall, but in Tears especially, there are just so many "Hey! Nice to meet you! Go take pictures of these things and bring them back to me!" collect-a-thons. You can argue, though, that you can just skip all of that stuff and go straight to the end if you have the skill to do it. I don't know, most of that stuff just lacks the substantive end rewards that you'd get by doing side quests in the older Zelda games (Biggoron's Sword comes to mind), so it just makes them feel like busy work rather than something cool that changes the gameplay but isn't necessary to beat the game.

I don't know. Like I said, I find myself mostly playing retro stuff these days and indies that hearken back to those days (and don't include too many superfluous collectibles). Games like Katana Zero, The Messenger, A Hat in Time, even Graceful Explosion Machine have been some of my favorites recently.

@rallydefault I think newer Zelda games have fallen into 'game of the year syndrome'. For some reason game of the year 'has' to be overly epic and large scale and graphical. No matter how good Mario Wonder is, it may win best family game or something, but game of the year will go to some huge game like TotK or an overly graphically intense game like FFXVI.

I haven't played TotK, but in BotW I thought the large amounts of side quests combined with the open world and directionlessness was not a great combination. You knew you had to do a ton of shrines so it was hard to tell the difference between an unimportant side quest and something which you kind of had to do to beat the game (assuming you aren't some 3-heart low stamina super ninja). Somewhat nonlinear and open is fine, but I'd like to be able to follow the main path to the end without going down 1,000 false paths. I realize this is a super unpopular opinion since most people love that game. 😆

I actually think Pokemon is pretty good at this; Arceus for example has a zillion overly silly or repetitive side quests and goals but they make it very easy to differentiate important from post-game or completionist goals. Even if you explore a lot you'll naturally end up along the main plot path in 30 or so hours and it is completely up to you if you want to spend 40 mote hours 100%-ing everything else.

@Professor_Plumber Animal Crossing games can work under a live service model, yeah, but it's just that New Horizons didn't due to the fact that it was forced. The game was launched in a barren state, with most of the update content being found in the code at launch. It had less content than previous entries, and got rid of things that were either considered series staples, or were big features in the previous entry on the 3DS. It didn't help matters that the game had infrequent updates, with most of them being small until the final update, and then when the game was set, they just dropped it.

The holidays fell flat as well, but that has less to do with the update model, and just a different approach to the game's design, with life sim elements taking a back seat in order to give full customizability. It's unfortunate though that they made the holidays updates, since it makes gathering footage for videos much longer than it needs to be. (I've been working on putting my thoughts into a video on youtube, mainly so I can put this past me, since it's been bugging me for a good while.)

@Professor_Plumber It'll be a while before I can get it out, since I'm still capturing footage, but I'm excited for when I can actually release it!

I’m just gonna put it out there. I love gacha games. Before anyone goes nuclear on me I just love the surprise of getting new characters. Especially ones that I’m hoping to get.
I’ve been playing a ton of blue archive (which is a Gacha game that is apparently putting up a good fight against genshin) and I only ever pull on the limited banners and it’s definitely fun getting surprised by a character you don’t have yet.

@FishyS
Interesting - so based on our short conversation here, do you think I should give Arceus a spin? As I mentioned before, I'm usually not a fan of RPGs due to the repetitive nature, but I did have a fun time just playing through the storyline in Sword a few years ago.