Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@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.

"Demon King? Secret Stone?"

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.

In regards to Ganon, I like what they do with him for the most part. My personal gripe is that barely any characters reminisce about Calamity Ganon nor connect it to Ganondorf the person. Kinda felt like everyone (save for the important ones) just forgot about the apocalypse (or at least the final battle of it) that literally happened a couple years ago. Like, nobody hears the name Ganondorf and thinks "Hmm, that sounds familiar."

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.

I think the only reason why TotK isn't forgettable to me is because it has two of my favorite moments in the series. The scene with Ganondorf being sealed, and then the scene at the end of the game after you beat the final boss. These two were genuinely great scenes.

I've always said that Tears of the Kingdom feels like it'll be one of those Zeldas that will be done waaaay better when they actually get around to writing a manga for it. There's a lot they can do to play around with Link as a character, and a good few jumping off points to have him deal with. Things like losing his arm or having to deal with the fact that he failed Zelda again, only to realize that she became a dragon for him. Hopefully it'll get a Twilight Princess-like Manga.

Don’t know if it could be one, but is it bad that I think the gameplay of a game is way more important than graphics or art style? While a game having a nice and pleasing art style and top notch visuals is a nice addition and I definitely do like games having nice graphics, I think having fun and engaging gameplay to keep the player invested is important above all else, as well as how it controls too, like a button scheme. I don’t actually care a lot about the game’s graphics when I play, I only really care if it’s fun to play. Even if the game has bad or older-looking graphics, I’ll still play it anyway if it’s super fun. I know some people are going to come for my head now…

@Pastellioli I care about game longevity a lot. Stories are awesome in games, but it’s much harder to come back to a game with a story I already experienced compared to just gameplay. I think content, mechanics and whatnot also eventually make me ignore story problems, while gameplay problems are usually harder to ignore. It’s a lot easier to get excited for me about gameplay I never experienced but not story.

I think the problem with story vs gameplay discussions is how self-defeating it is and how it boxes both traits separately rather than acknowledging the fact they build on one another. Gameplay is a foundation, presentation and story help it come to life. It’s an aid, not something separate. I never pick up games because I wanna see their story, the gameplay has to be fun too. It’s all one package.

@Pastellioli Great controls, but the art style is a 100% black screen 😝

Joking aside, art style often contributes to something being fun and engaging. That doesn't necessarily mean modern or non-modern graphics, but it often means a fitting, coherent, and pleasant art style which meshes well with the controls and action, whether that means 8-bit graphics or photo-realism. Stardew Valley may have retro graphics, but if the art style was making the characters and items ugly blobs rather than aesthetically pleasing low-bit pictures, I don't think anyone would play the game.

There are also aspects of the art style such as bad hit boxes (e.g. not consistent with the art) or wildly fluctuating frame rate which can interact with controls and turn great controls in theory into impossible to use ones in practice.

@FishyS Interesting, I never really thought about stuff like the hitbox aspect!

Yeah, I do think the art style plays a role in sort of convincing the person to play. Even just bad looking art styles or graphics can be enough to turn away someone who wants to play a game. I’ve heard a lot of people bringing that up. It hasn’t really happened for me even though there have been some games I’ve played that don’t have the best art styles (like Nuts and Bolts, though if I’m being honest the art style isn’t extremely bad-looking like others make it out to be) but I don’t think the art style of a game is really brought up in reviews of games, it usually is graphics that are mentioned. Though, there are of course games that do have bad art styles and graphics intentionally for comedic effect, like Goat Simulator.

I think the one time I probably would be super concerned or feel something about graphics is if it was a big triple-A game from a big company with an endless amount of money having bad graphics, because the company has a lot of money and can put in the effort to make great looking visuals but they didn’t and wanted to be lazy. That is where I’d criticize it a lot.

Playing Modern Combat Blackout on Switch recently, I actually like it more than Call of Duty. I remember a few years back playing the beta to Modern Warfare II on Steam, and didn't enjoy it as much. I remember getting Modern Combat Blackout on sale years ago because it looked similar to COD, whenever I play it, I have a good time with it.

Plus, unlike the PC version, the Switch version has no microtransactions and lootboxes only open with credits earned from playing, instead of paying real world money. Plus, I still notice some people still play online.

Unpopular because Nintendo Life gave it a 5/10, and I know Call of Duty is still popular.

This is something I've thought a lot about in recent years, but I'd much rather a game be reliably good over being horribly inconsistent but being incredible occasionally. Or to be exact, I'll take less high points if it means those low points are much less frequent. Sonic Colors/Generations > Unleashed, Paper Mario > TTYD, Xenoblade 1 > Xenoblade 2, the higher highs did not make them better when the lows are so annoying.

Speaking of which, I think people going nuts for Sonic Unleashed nowadays is largely people who have not actually gone back to the Werehog sections, they just replay the daytime stages forever. The Werehog's not even bad necessarily but it was mid BEFORE Platinum was putting out games and before I had played any other game like that (to this day I've not even touched Devil May Cry nor God of War), so I imagine nowadays going back to the Werehog might as well be like going back to Final Fantasy 1.

@kkslider5552000 I'm not totally sure how you were ordering those games, but Sonic Colors (and honestly a lot of Sonic games) definitely annoy me a bit in terms of consistency of quality. Sonic Colors has some great parts but also some kind of terrible parts. I compare to e.g. Mario Wonder which had some good parts and plenty of medium parts but I would consider it to have only one true low and it's optional. Or like Kirby and the Forgotten Land, which didn't always have the most exciting action but I can't recall even a single true 'low' in the game. Random bad parts in an otherwise good game tends to leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

I've been told Sonic Colors had terrible parts, but considering how I put 15 hours into it back in the day, and only 5 of those were initial playthrough, I'm not sure what they were.

I can tell you that very few parts were as bad as the Werehog, which wasn't even bad.

But I also really liked Sonic 4 episode 1 to the point of getting into the top 10 leaderboard near launch like months before I played Colors so that might nullify my opinion on any Sonic game.

@kkslider5552000 I haven't played Xenoblade so I had no idea whether you were rating Sonic as worst or best in your list 😆 Regardless of personal opinions on specific games, I agree with your general opinion of consistency. Even a mostly great game isn't always worth it if you have to sludge through many bad parts.

I tend to prefer games with higher highs (Paper Mario 64 isn't even in my Top 3 entries in the series for this reason) than games that are consistently solid, but there's definitely a limit for me, especially when it comes to something like Sonic. Ambition alone can't carry a game for me and I'd vastly prefer something boring but competent (Colors, Lost World) over something ambitious but heavily and perhaps fundamentally flawed (Frontiers, Black Knight).

In the case of Xenoblade 2, the lows really take me out of the experience. I can stomach lower lows or lulls in a story-based game, but Xenoblade 2 was just a lot of jokes that felt like bogged the tone of the story down completely. The high points are amazing, with everything after Chapter 7 being great- but in turn the journey to Chapter 7 was god awful.

Xenoblade 3 has a lot of low points, but the higher points make me genuinely love it's narrative.

I do agree the jokes are cringe and bad and take away from being invested in anything going on (the Thor: Love and Thunder of video games), but those paled in comparison to the dozens of hours I wasted of my life just stuck in menus and the like doing tedious nonsense just so I could do a lot of the sidequests.

Not dozens of hours in the sidequests, dozens of hours doing tedious nonsense for the sake of doing sidequests. Not the parts of sidequests that are in any way fun or interesting, just the stuff in-between. The definition of "busy work" and "content" and "mobile game mechanics are the worst". I don't think dozens is even hyperbole.