Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

I'll actually be playing DQIII remake once I'm finished with animal well

@FishyS The remake. I don't have access to the original.

You said all this just to be proven wrong by anyone who has played Crash 1 and 2 in the same context (barring maybe the remakes). I played both emulated on PS3 and while I didn't love Crash 2 like I had hoped I would, it was still a very obvious jump in quality by most metrics.

The original on PS1 - which I played quite recently too - and regardless of how it was played, it doesn't change the fact that Crash's controls in 1 don't hold up particularly well. Not awful or unbearable, but his somewhat slippery movement and heavy jump for levels that demand precise platforming later down the line don't really mix well. That's not a hardware thing, that's a programming and design thing, which even Naughty Dog recognized was something to improve on at the time - go back and play the hardest levels of 1 and then jump right into game 2 and you'll see what I mean. Even the remake saw that and decided to improve on it - one of the few things I actually liked about the NST.

Because the originals mostly hold up really well in spite of their flaws and don't really need glossier versions that mess with the hitboxes and downgrade the visuals? Because that's pretty much what the N. Sane trilogy did.

You do know they don't own the series anymore, right? The N. Sane trilogy wasn't even developed by them.

Being one of the first 3D platformers of its kind, it's not hard to notice that the first Crash game feels like it's being held together with duck tape and glue, made by developers who were still trying to learn the hardware mid-development. It's very telling that Naughty Dog made an entirely new engine for Crash 2 that managed to look and feel infinitely better than the first game while taking up less space to boot. Crash 1 was an important step for the growth of the series and Naughty Dog as developers, but I don't blame anyone for finding it hard to go back to.

It's hard to believe that there was a time when Naughty Dog actually made video games.

As someone who has no opinion on "we are like movies and deep" Naughty Dog, the bigger issue is that they are like every western AAA studio now and can't make a single game in 5 or less years, which I think is borderline objectively bad for any developer.

At least the high profile indie studios that fail to do that as well became publishers of (AFAIK) mostly good games to make up for it.

I feel like I'm the only Xenoblade fan who doesn't like X at this point. No matter where I look, all I see are people saying how excited they are that X is coming to switch- or how X is the absolute best in the series. Its to the point where all public circles I'm in for this series is nothing but praise for the game, and I feel like I'm the only one who can't stand X as a whole. I don't like the world, I don't like the story, I don't like the characters, and I don't like the music. None of it resembles what I like about Xenoblade as a series at all, and I just really don't want to play it.

On top of that- I don't like the idea of X being canon to mainline. A lot of people are hoping X becomes canon to mainline, but I genuinely hope it won't. Mainly because I'd have to either play X or never play mainline again- and also because the implications that X would have to mainline means that the characters we know and love from 1-3 died horrible horrible deaths and their planet was pretty much left to rot.

I mean, you really don't lol.

It's like the people who think you need to watch every MCU tv show to get caught up-no you don't relax. At worst, look up things on the internet for a minute, you'll be fine (and at times, better than off than poor souls who chose to watch all of both She-Hulk and Secret Invasion :V)

@kkslider5552000 I mean, assuming Xenoblade X reveals something important to XC4, I'll still need to play it in order to understand the importance of that thing in Xenoblade Chronicles 4.

@VoidofLight No.

I played Neo the World Ends With You without playing the updated version of the original. and didn't even look up anything about it that ends up in the sequel and still thoroughly enjoyed it for what it was.

I enjoyed Metal Gear Rising's story despite having never beaten a Metal Gear game before and knowing the least of what happens in 4 out of the main series.

Furthermore, I don't think they're stupid enough for a spinoff game to be a required playthrough for their series of massive RPGs. That's a stupid thing to do. I will never feel the need to play X a 2nd time to see its ending this time or any further ending, at worst, I will look it up.

@kkslider5552000 I mean you need to play the Kingdom Hearts "spin-offs" to understand the narrative of the games that come after them. If Mira in X is the merged world from the end of Xenoblade Chronicles 3, then that right there is enough of a lore implication to force people to have to play it in order to understand the story of Xenoblade 4 or X-2. X might not be a spin-off. It might be the next arc of mainline Xenoblade. There's a reason why they're remastering it now.

Yes, one of the most hated creative directions for a JRPG series did happen. What does that have to do with this unrelated series by a much less stupid company?

And even SE eventually realized they should just give you the story only for certain games instead of expecting you to actually play them all.

@kkslider5552000 It's related because Monolith does a similar thing. X is most likely going to be directly connected to Xenoblade mainline (if the radio is anything to go by), and if the ouroboros-like mech in the newest trailer is anything to go by as well. It will most likely be counted as an important piece to understand for the future of Xenoblade, much like how Future Connected and Future Redeemed were.

@VoidofLight I mean, at worst, I will watch it on Youtube and save 100 hours. Especially for this game, that barely has a main story. I don't need to actually play a JRPG to enjoy or understand or get its story.

@kkslider5552000 For me I have to play it to enjoy what's going on fully. I tried to do it through just watching, but a lot of the time it just doesn't click with me.

I'm finding all this talk about Switch 2 hardware and leaks rather boring.

Not in the sense that the console itself is boring and "too safe" (as some people might put it) - if anything, all I want really is a more powerful Switch.

It's just that it's all pretty meaningless to me without seeing software running on this thing. It's all about games at the end of the day - what new games can we expect from Nintendo, and how do existing games run on this thing?

@Buizel I second this - and I also feel that the people demanding that Nintendo reveal the new system immediately are being a bit overdramatic. Like, I get it and I don't think it'll be too long until Nintendo actually says anything but I feel the outcry right now reeks of impatient desperation.

@N00BiSH It's definitely people being impatient, but it will also be a bit ridiculous if Nintendo decides to wait for a March reveal and by then literally everything is leaked except for the first party games.

I feel like at the current rate it's only a matter of time before a leaker gets a full unit with a functioning UI and the ability to run Switch 1 games on it to compare

@FishyS for my money I think they're gonna reveal the thing between mid-late January to early February at the very least.