Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@N00BiSH yeah I kinda get that, mostly because they are sorta water down versions of the fight from 64 though I think galaxy’s was pretty nice

Tail Concerto on PS1 is more enjoyable to play than Mario N64 / Sunshine.

@Anti-Matter Of course you think so. If you were locked in a room with only 1st party games, you would probably explode. Or you would go through withdrawals from not playing kids games in a while.

Most Mario final boss fights in the mainline games don't really captivate me- and aren't really the reason I play Mario. I don't really care if the Bowser fights aren't as good, since the main reason I really play is for the journey and the gameplay mechanics of the game itself. If the final fight ends up being amazing, then good on them for it- but it won't make me love the game or hate the game any more or any less. Super Mario Odyssey's Bowser fight was great, but it didn't save the game in my eyes. Meanwhile Super Mario Galaxy's bowser fights aren't the best, but I love the mechanics of that game so I'm willing to overlook it for the experience that Galaxy presents in the first place.

Oh, also.
I don't really like with the peoples who like 1st party Nintendo games too much and thinking 3rd party games are worse than 1st party Nintendo games.
I like to play certain 1st party Nintendo games but I have more interest with 3rd party games and that made me pretty flexible and quickly adapted with the games I have never played before and enrich my gaming knowledge.

I got a spicy one. I don't think super Metroid is very good. A couple issues I have.

1. The controls are awful. Jumping feels sooooo slow, and important maneuvers like the wall jump, grapple beam, and space jump are very unintuitive. Plus, having to use the minus button to swap between abilities is plain annoying. And...

2. The design is just... bad? A key design feature of Metroidvanias is memorable dead ends. A large pit you can't cross, or a door you can't open. Something to remember. But the things you have to do to progress in this game are so backwards. Like shoot a random block in the ceiling and jump through. There are more moments like that as well. I have genuinely no idea how anyone could figure it out without a guide.

Overall, I don't hate the game though. The visuals, music, and atmosphere are stunning. I just think compared to the other Metroid I've played (Zero mission, Dread, and AM2R, which I count as a Metroid.) it is BY FAR the weakest.

I don't hate Metroid, but it isn't my favorite of the Metroidvanias. Even Dread isn't as good as some of the other Metroidvanias out there. Hollow Knight pretty much eats Dread alive in terms of the gameplay and the over-all atmosphere.

Peoples here are too busy talking about next zelda games, next metroid games, next xenoblade games, etc.
Those games are unappealing for me so i like to bring my underrated / unpopular games in conversation, perhaps it will find some folks here that also have same interest with me.

This would probably get me hunted down by fossil fighters fans out there but I actually kinda like frontiers.

@Greatluigi Frontiers isn't that awful to me, but it just isn't as good as the previous two. Main issue is mostly just the battle system I feel, which gets rid of you actually having control over a team of three vivosaurs. It made the final boss pretty much excruciatingly hard for no good reason.

It also felt like they regressed with the Vivosaur count. A lot of the more unique species never made it in, and a bunch of recolors took their place. I get that every vivosaur got a redesign- which I like, but I genuinely think it suffers with that aspect for being a 3DS game. A lot of the redesigns look far uglier because they were pushing for realism in a game which was held back due to the tech it was on. Scales needed to actually be rendered.

After I played Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 4, I have 2 unpopular opinions for this thread:

1. Fallout New Vegas is my LEAST favorite Fallout game (of the new generation, post Fallout 2). I mean I really liked playing it and I can see myself revisiting it BUT I prefer Fallout 3 and Fallout 4.

2. Fallout 4 is better than 3 and New Vegas. I do not know what it is, but the environments and the general exploration is SO MUCH BETTER in Fallout 4 for me.

@Zuljaras finally someone said it.

Here's a contentious take: Tears of the Kingdom actually has a really good story and I don't get why people are so negative towards it. I get that the whole "cosmic stone of power" exposition is fairly rigid and the dragon tears don't work as well as they did in BotW, but the general narrative is actually fairly decent.

I personally enjoyed Oceanhorn 2 on my PS5 than botw on Switch.
Smooth 60 fps, better environment design, better haircut for main character.
And that's why I sold my botw in year 2021.

Sure? It's definitely better than the previous game's, its just still like...7th place at best for Zelda stories, for me.

Might've been a bit higher but I really hated the generic "light vs. dark" nonsense talk at the end. Like strongly disliked it, its the type of stuff people make fun of Kingdom Hearts for except without the part where its at least funny.

@N00BiSH I'd say it's less that the story itself is terrible, and more that the method of delivery is insufficient. BotW's game design is very cohesive, and so it told a minimalistic story that fit perfectly with the setting and manner of delivery. The dragon tears were a terrible delivery device for the story, the scenes themselves are experienced totally out of order unless you use a guide to find them. They took the game design and delivery mechanism that worked so well in one game and tried to apply it to a completely different game where it didn't fit as well. We we saw this sort of thing as well in Fire Emblem, where the adult children mechanic worked brilliantly in a narrative centered around time travel (the story in Awakening), but less so when applied to a more standard war story (the story in Fates).

The lack of involvement in the story is another issue. Again, in BotW, which is all about stepping out into this post-apocalyptic space and discovering your hidden memories, it made a lot of sense. But just sort of... watching the past play out through Zelda's eyes? Not nearly as interesting.

Doesn't help that the little snippets of story added by characters at the endings of dungeons is totally repetitive, either.

I'll be honest, I don't really care about the past story in either game. It's a cool attempt of something but I didn't care about what was happening for them all that much in either game. I just think the actual story you actually experience as it happens is done better in TOTK (even if again, below what they did in the past style of Zelda games).

Honestly the best part of BOTW as a story was just experiencing the world of 100 years without the hero and the best part of TOTK as a story was seeing how the world changes from the last game.

I distinctly remember in BOTW where one of the memories is on a hill next to the destroyed town that's now like wetlands, and I was so very annoyed they actually had the potential to show what it was like in the past to contrast the ruins you see now, and they just...didn't, for no reason. That always bugged me.

Edit: And yeah the post-dungeon repetition was terrible, obviously. I forgot about that. I'd take linear dungeon order if the alternative is...that.

@Ralizah Yeah, that seems in line with everyone else's complaints and I do agree. I think the best way to fix the post-dungeon scenes would be to make them more dynamic - have the cutscenes change depending on how far you are into the story. Instead of wasting time with the same beat four times, each one would reveal more info and history on the Ganondorf, which, if handled right, could've been a good way to insert some relevant dragon memories in there. Make it feel more like you're actually progressing through the story.

Oh I 100% agree on this. I didn't mind the reuse of the overworld because I knew it wasn't gonna be 1:1 with Breath. I like the idea of going back to a game world to see how it adapts and changes and Tears was exactly that.

I like the core idea of TotK's story, but I dislike the execution. The execution is mostly what ruins it for me. The ideas they have could've made it one of the top Zelda stories- if we actually got to play through the exciting parts. Instead we suffer through what BotW had where we collect memories while doing things in present Hyrule, being taken out of the action completely. Doesn't help that we don't get much in terms of background info on Hyrule's past. We don't see what environments the sages lived in, or why they decided to join up with Rauru.

I feel like Ganondorf in TotK is one of the more intimidating incarnations of him. He's at least one of the more powerful ones, given the stuff he's able to pull off. Just wish he got more screen-time and his motivations didn't get neutered in the English dub. They made him seem more like a 2D character when in every other version of the game he has more depth.

Yeah, I don't really have much of an opinion on the actual plot of either of these games. They're fine and have their moments, but for the most part they're pretty forgettable and generic as Zelda stories go. Experiencing the world through playing the game itself and interacting with the characters was the part I felt more connected to.