Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@RubyCarbuncle As a former Sonic fan/powerscaler, I can tell you that opinion was nowhere NEAR unpopular.

Man I love this thread, even if I barely participate

@shiftbarackyeaugh is right. Every time I play Smash Bros. Sonic always beats the flip outta me specifically whenever I play Mario.

@BASEDSAKRI I can accept if you simply don't like Wonder. I know a lot of people who don't care for some of the specific choices made in that game, but claiming the developers made those choices out of desperation is just wrong.

@N00BiSH Don't even get me started on Quickplay Sonics. One word describes them: "TIME!" It's made worse by the fact most of the characters I play have poor mobility.

@FishyS most of the reviews Ive seen say its too easy, plus same friend I mentioned even said and hes not really what Id call a 'hardcore' gamer.

@BASEDSAKRI The bonus levels and post-game aren't very easy at all. A good chunk are actually pretty hellish in terms of design.

Although there exist reviews saying it is too easy, the majority of reviews (averaging at an insanely high 9.2/10 on metacritic) do not say this. But, fundamentally it's Mario, so not exactly 'hardcore' and meant to be playable by all ages and skill levels.

In the parlance of super mario maker 2, the last bonus level would be considered 'super expert', some of the other bonus and optional levels would be considered 'expert', and the majority of the levels in the game would be 'normal' (plus some that are easy). The game itself makes this pretty clear with their 1-6 star difficulty rating for each level, making it easy for less skilled players to skip the harder levels. It's definitely a game which is meant to be able to be beaten by anyone and 100%-ed (but not easily) by moderately skilled players. Again, harder than some Mario games, easier than others, but kind of in the expected range.

Side note, but before the game came out, there were a bunch of articles worrying Wonder would be too difficult; people just like complaining in both directions about the difficulty of popular games. That said, it is as with all games a matter of taste.

Free-to-play games are not trash games just because they have MTX. Some free games are actually really good games even without buying anything.

Unpopular or not this is definitely true. The number of people especially on forums such as this who will make noises about physical copies of games and cite preservation. Oblivious to actual industry best practice in terms of backups, the 3-2-1 backup strategy

If you want to preserve data, any data, including a game you'll ideally have three copies of it on at least two different kinds of media with at least one stored in a different physical location. Three copies, one copy you use and two backups. Two different kinds of media so you don't run into a problem where the device you use to read it fails. At least one additional location in case of fire, flood, theft etc

A physical copy of a game is one copy, one location, one media. Even worse, it's a proprietary media that's only readable on a device that, almost by definition, becomes obsolete once every console generation. At least with a digital copy you have a copy on device and another copy accessible via your account. A physical copy of a game is just..... the definition of bad practice

I mean, the more popular FTP games are often somewhat high quality. I feel like there are two general issues however:

• the super toxic practices some games take to manipulate and addict players and get them to spend real money. Even if it doesn't entrap you personally, it doesn't mean it isn't hurting others.
• For some genres like RPGs, they can feel pretty unsatisfying in the long-term because the plot never really wraps up and some parts of it might be paywall-locked. The story and certain other aspects just can't be as polished as a more complete game not designed to be extended out forever.

Not all games have these issues, but some of the more popular ones definitely have one or both.

I'm sure I brought this up already but I was reminded of this today. I still really hated the direction they took for the ending of TOTK. And I don't even know entirely why this bothers me, since I don't think the story of these open world Zelda games matters all that much, but something about Ganon being like "DARKNESS EVIL I WILL MAKE THE WORLD EVIL DARKNESS DARKNESS EVIL" and Zelda being like "JUSTICE AND LIGHT ARE GOOD" or whatever genuinely annoys me a lot. These words mean nothing, you're trying to make an epic out of the most basic nothing plot line imaginable, even by Zelda standards.

It's like the parts of Kingdom Hearts everyone makes fun of, but without it being funny at all. Like its trying to make these elements epic, but it just comes across as the laziest, least interesting storyline. Trying to make battles of good and evil to be about...nothing except the concepts of good and evil with no further context is too basic even for Nintendo. Or it should be saved for a platformer, not a 3D Zelda with all these cutscenes and voice acting trying to present itself as something epic. Even in OOT, the first every 3D Zelda game, Ganondorf at least...wanted power. He wanted the country of Hyrule. It's something at least. This is a huge downgrade even from that.

I don't think anyone but me cares about this, and again, the story is such a tiny part of open world Zelda it doesn't matter that much, but it still feels like its a downgrade from even the older games (or at least the older games that had spent much time on a story in the first place). Which is a shame because there was some improvement to getting me invested in its story compared to BOTW, but I disliked that one aspect of the ending enough that I'm not sure I like the story more than BOTW anymore. It's also just a shame that even though the bar wasn't the highest, I still easily prefer the stories of the older 3D Zeldas. I don't feel they need to have worse stories but they do.

Also just makes me wonder if the new Zeldas wouldn't have been better if they went fully minimal with the story and just let the atmosphere and environments tell the story. That aspect is often way better anyway.

@kkslider5552000 That’s why Wind Waker Ganondorf is my favorite iteration of the character. I think he’s easily the most engaging version. “Your gods destroyed you!” and the desert wind and all that. It wouldn’t take a lot of effort to give the Big Bad some kind of real personality or motivation. They put a ton of work into BOTW and TOTK, but that part is a lost opportunity.

@kkslider5552000 The thing is that Ganondorf does want power, but it's just explained very poorly and the ending just becomes mush afterwards. Ganondorf's whole desire is for the world to be one where only the strong would be fit to rule, and where the strong would be allowed to survive. He believed that the Kingdom of Hyrule was incredibly soft, and that it's ruler was complacent. It didn't help things that apparently in other versions they make his hatred for the Zonai much clearer. How he hated Rauru and saw him as unfit to rule because he saw him as soft and arrogant- thus taking advantage of that arrogance and killing Sonia.

The issue with Tears of the Kingdom is that Ganondorf devolves from something more interesting into the generic "Light vs Dark" thing that Kingdom Hearts was known for. It just bothers me that not only the game quality feels like it's losing its edge in the series- but on top of that the writing quality is falling apart at the seams. The other Zeldas weren't master-classes in storytelling, but they were at least something compared to what BotW, EoW, and TotK are. They had more compelling characters and ideas imo- along with just more interesting dungeons and NPCs.

It feels like at times BotW and TotK are sort of this sterilization of Zelda as a series. A lot of the more hand-crafted aspects feel far and between due to the open nature of the world, and the story is permanently crippled due to having to take into account the player doing it in any order. Freedom has become a hinderance to AAA gaming, and Zelda is a prime example imo.

@Nancyboy A lot of what Ganondorf said in that scene was pretty much a bold faced lie though. Especially the part about caring about his own people.

@Dev1024 for sure.

@kkslider5552000 I mean, BotW... mostly does that (keeping its actual plot minimal and relegated to environments and locations). You get some optional flashbacks that flesh out the relationships between characters in the past, so it doesn't go quite full Souls in that respect, but it's still VERY minimalistic in terms of its narrative presentation, which I absolutely loved.

Despite the initial reaction of "TotK is an improvement in every way," I like that the script flipped pretty quickly, and people are admitting that BotW's advantages aren't just timing related.

BotW is just another illustration of how limitation breeds creativity. The devs couldn't make all their ideas work in that game due to hardware limitations, but the end result was a much tighter, more balanced, and satisfying experience.

IDK I still feel TotK is better in every way. I found it very difficult going back to BotW after playing TotK.

That sums up my thoughts. I guess, 'objectively', TotK could be seen as an improvement in many ways... but I don't think bigger necessarily equals better. BotW has such a simpler and more streamlined experience, and all the better for it IMO. Similar to SM2, Forbidden West and Ragnarok... I felt like TotK I had kind of 'seen it all before' (!)

EDIT - all those sequels mentioned, inc TotK, are games I really rate highly. But by virtue of their very existence, and building upon what players loved about the original predecessor titles, for me they just aren't as exciting!

Is it an unpopular opinion that I sort of prefer single-player offline games over online games?

I still like playing some online games like Overwatch 2 and find those fun plus they are super popular, but I find that playing online is hard, mainly from the fact that your required to have the internet on at all times and the internet can sometimes choose to disconnect unexpectedly, and even the smallest bit of lag can ruin game experiences and matches greatly, not to mention some players rude and toxic and it’s hard to take care of important tasks when you have to have your eyes on the screen at all time and can’t pause.

I find myself liking offline games more since you can play leisurely and at your own pace and can pause, plus you don’t have to worry about the internet ruining your game experience. Again, I still like online games, but I prefer offline games over online games.