Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@EaglyBird That does seem to be a running trend with games like that, admittedly I haven’t played it myself but hearing about some of the big things in its plot annoyed the heck out of me, who knows, maybe I might like it, and many others once enough time goes by, but for the meantime that’s definitely unpopular lol.

@FishyS And this way I wouldn’t even have to do the weird talking Pokémon thing, plus (and yes I know that it was only one lucario) they can talk through telepathic means! I’m sure you can make it so that lucario learned how to do that so the game could work, plus I think they are popular enough to work.

Kirby is the most overrated series Nintendo has. I’ve met so many kirby fans who keep trying to say it’s incredibly dark and “the darkest nintendo series”, but it’s literally baby’s first platforming game. Most of these people probably never witnessed the horrors found in Xenoblade.

@VoidofLight Kirby is the all-devouring scourge which will eventually consume the universe itself.

Also, Kirby is cute. What more do you need? I feel like half of Kirby's popularity is in plushie form.

@FishyS I'm probably just bitter about Kirby because I knew some people who were huge fans of the series that kind of shoved how dark it was down my throat in order to justify their love for it (even though they really didn't need to do it.)

@VoidofLight I mean, there is some weird lore people like to joke about, but dark for real? You may as well call Mario dark for Goomba genocide. Some of the Kirby games are good, some not so good, but it's fundamentally a cute platformer with some boss rush and miscellaneous spinoffs. I generally like the series, but I do think it's kind of funny when some people portray it as particularly serious or difficult.

I dislike xenoblade, I hate fire emblem, and I can’t finish old Zelda games.
Insert link cdi “I win!” Gif.

@WaffleBoat You hate two of my favorite things, that….will just not stand!

I can't seem to finish new Zelda games. Never Played fire emblem or Xenoblade though.

What do I actually dislike? 🤔 monster hunter. Looks nice but plays like 'tedious boss fight the game' to me. Although monster hunters stories is fun.

I think @Zuljaras already won the thread though.

I like both Fire Emblem and Xenoblade but can totally get that they're relatively niche series that won't appeal much to the typical Nintendo fan.

Also, Old Zelda games are hard. Hands up who managed to beat The Adventure of Link at the first attempt? Certainly not me.

Adventure of Link is famous for being annoying to play without a guide, but it was intended to play at least partially with a guide — the in-box manual has a ton of information and of course magazines and such used to have walkthroughs back then before the idea of guides was somehow considered cheating. Jumping in completely blind is basically equivalent to ignoring the 3 hour tutorial of a modern game.

Personally I find Breath of the Wild harder than older Zelda. First off, it's like 5-10 times longer. Second off, although many Zelda games have maps which you can get lost in, BotW even more so. Just walking casually into a super powerful monster and getting 1-shot or freezing to death is not something that could happen in old Zelda games within the first few minutes of playing. Personally, I find the fact that all my weapons break during fights and I have no sane way left to damage the monster also very difficult. The amount of times I've died in BotW is definitely significantly higher than in older games.

@EaglyBird imagine Silksong comes out and it's a 7.

I don’t agree with the switch being the nest console library for Nintendo, since most of the first party offerings were incredibly disappointing, but I agree with both of these statements. NieR replicant is my favorite NieR game, as the characters, world, and music grab me more than Automata grabs me.

I also agree with 3D world being the last big 3D Mario of note. Odyssey presented more interesting ideas, but the gameplay didn’t feel satisfying. The art book had more interesting ideas than the game did, and on top of that the game itself isn’t really satisfying. Moons are everywhere, making them completely useless as a collectable.

It's weird to me, person who reliably complains about less than great 3d graphics replacing classic 2d games and characters, that people latched onto the Advance Wars remake as a major example of that. It's not the best looking game, and moments of it can look awkward, but compared to the utter blandness of the NSMB games and everything in a similar vain (or god forbid, Sonic 4), or that Capcom used modern technology to fairly accurately replicate 2D Megaman with 3D graphics in 11 and still made a game so much more awkward looking and less pleasing to look at then the PS1's Megaman 8...Advance Wars looks fine. In many places, it actually looks good.

I understand it looks below the par Nintendo has (arguably) set for the system's capabilities, and high quality 2D sprites would still likely look better, but I don't understand why its a deal breaker. It feels like people just didn't want to buy any Advance Wars at full price, and they found an excuse for it. Though if not, it would at least explain why some many people looked at the Link's Awakening remake and thought "yeah this is worth exactly as much money as BOTW". Which would put me at the complete opposite opinion (even though I did genuinely love the LA remake), because I waited until it was 40 bucks, like a remake of a Gameboy game should far more reasonably be at, when also on the same system that has BOTW in the same series. (quantity is not everything, but there's an ocean of difference in time spent between these two)

Also, when you get down to it, first party Switch games already don't look as good as full priced, AAA Ps4 games, technically, if that's all that matters to you. Yet they still cost the same.

All of this is to say that I think in the grand scheme of things, yes Advance Wars 1 + 2 is worth full price. I've yet to play a moment of the 2nd game's campaign, not touched multiplier, and only played two of the maps outside of campaign mode, and have probably put close to as much time into it as I did 100% LA remake. So at the very least, it makes more sense to me as a full priced game then...any of the Nintendo sports games on Switch, or the mid Pokemon remakes or countless non-Nintendo 60 dollar games that expected you to pay more than 60 bucks to get a complete experience (or would make the experience objectively worse and much less fun if you didn't spend more). But in reality popular IP can generally get away with whatever, but if you're too niche, the tiniest problems mean they totally deserve to fail. Apparently.

It's a bummer, because I've had a lovely time with the remake and will absolutely get my money's worth and then some.

@EaglyBird half of those aren't even particularly unpopular opinions. I think the last 4 are actively popular. I don't really know who Brie Larson is but I'd love pretty much any Metroid movie.

I agree with you more single player Splatoon stuff would be great.

Starfield looks boring but the Imagine Dragons song for the game (Children of the Sky) is fantastic.

For more context, I rarely find open world games enjoyable (there's some like Pokemon Scarlet that I enjoy and I imagine if XCX ever got rescued from the Wii U I'd enjoy that too) so Starfield taking open world to the extreme doesn't interest me. I do hope those who were looking forward to the game are enjoying it.

It's not just the lack of a guide though. I've been playing games since the 80s when such things were the norm but it still comes across as a very clunky game mechanically that can be quite difficult to execute on, even when you know what you're doing. I don't think that's a bad thing, as Nintendo were clearly wanting to evolve the series rather than turn out a cookie cutter sequel (how times have changed) but it did send them down a few blind alleys.

For instance, knowing that you've got to use thunder on Thunderbird (the clue is in the name) is half the battle, but the other half is chasing down a randomly juddering enemy who is whittling down your health while you're waiting for those rare occasions where you can jump attack its face. Suffice it to say that it took me a few goes.

Also, with half the bosses in Zelda 2 being ludicrously easy with cheesing strategies, having a decent guide is probably giving you too much info these days.

I dare say that it's an easy game for those with thirty years worth of muscle memory, but it's probably the most daunting in the entire series to someone coming at it fresh, and that's mostly because of the lessons in game design that have been learned since.

In contrast, the only thing you need to complete Breath of the Wild is persistence. All you have to do is complete the tutorial on the Great Plateau and defeat Ganon. If anything in between is too hard, just skip it; you'll be ludicrously OP for the final fight anyway. Get lost? You've got a map that shows your exact position. Meet a tough enemy? Run away. Freezing to death? Turn back, make food or put some clothes on.

You literally can't get one-shot killed except on Master mode so long as you have full hearts. The secret to never dying is merely eating food whenever you take damage. Even on the rare occasions when the game kills you, you get to pick up pretty much exactly where you were so it's not much of a setback. It's not like you're forced back to a hard save or anything so inconvenient.

As for breaking all your weapons, if only you had an inexhaustible supply of explosives that renews every few seconds...

@Matt_Barber It only takes about 2 hours of continuous bombs to kill some of the monsters in BotW. 🤪 You can beat almost any game with persistence, all I'm saying is I personally played Zelda 2 and BotW and died MANY more times in botw. And never beat it.

Yeah, I get it. You're terrible at playing BotW but somehow managed to beat Zelda 2.

All I'm saying is that makes you a bit of an outlier and I'm genuinely confused as to how anyone can get stuck on a game where pretty much everything you do is optional.

@Matt_Barber This is similar to how some people think e.g. super mario brothers 1 is a hard game and modern Mario is 'easy'. Yeah, you have fewer lives in smb1 and the controls are a bit jankier and the last boss is a bit of a 'hope and pray' single jump, but fundamentally it's a game that even a non-expert can beat in 20 minutes with a bit of practice. Zelda 2 is not quite that short or simple, but the vast majority of the combat and enemies are simple — there just isn't that much to them.

Honestly, I'd say pretty much every Zelda is easy in its own way if you don't get frustrated and instead just keep plowing through, using guides if you get stuck. What frustrates some individuals can be different than what frustrates others.

This is the unpopular opinion thread so I am happy to voice my opinion that 3D Zelda is harder than 2D Zelda and that open world games are harder than smaller scope games. And I also dislike some of the BotW controls and utterly despise weapons breakage (the last one may not be as unpopular of an opinion). Is BotW a better overall game than Zelda 2? I would say 100% yes. But that doesn't mean I had the energy and patience to beat it (note that I have tried to get back into BotW several times, I just never seem to be able to keep enough staying power. It's probably my most restarted-but-never-finished game)

@EaglyBird

A couple of them were less controversial purely because this is a Nintendo forum. Say all the bad things about PlayStation/xbox you want. 😆 I admit your statement about Pokemon was hair-on-fire controversial.

I've played Splatoon demos/trials, but never bought the game. I'll definitely be tempted if they add more single player in the DLC though. Honestly, I'm just not good at team games but love the Splatoon concept.

Definitely somewhat controversial, but I 100% agree with your preference of 3D World over Odyssey — I feel like it puts together some of the best features of 2D and 3D Mario.