Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Also, about Zelda OOT, I would like the game getting a remake that adds in a fully controllable 3D camera and the ability to log in from where you were last standing instead of at a fixed spot. I think it would also be pretty interesting to see the polygonal art style in HD/4K, but that's not as important to me as quality of life improvements.

After FFVII Remake. I'm surprised no one else has tried that modern re-imagining of a 5th gen era classic sort of thing. I have to assume because while it is successful, a lot of those sales aren't gonna be until the trilogy is properly out and complete so people can buy them all at once without waiting years to finish the story. Ocarina of Time is like the first game I would expect to follow that, as another overly beloved, overly popular game from that same time (MGS 1 too), and I'd be curious what it would be like. I'd love to see it, even though I can't possibly imagine Nintendo caring that much about doing anything interesting narratively with it.

Related hot take, unless when I finally get to the games and am proven otherwise, I've seen some people say that FFVII remake is too much of a compromise of being too familiar yet too different at the same time, and I couldn't disagree more. FFVII, but different and modern and action-oriented but not entirely throwing away its turn based roots like complete cowards, is EXACTLY what I wanted. Everything I've ever seen or heard about it (other than the 2nd game apparently being bloated with content to a fault), makes it seem like the ideal version of what I wanted from it.

Also, they were cowards with "look at us we're action oriented and serious, please buy our game!" FFXVI, and it was in fact, very funny when Baldur's Gate 3 blew up, not to mention Expedition 33 this year, while FFXVI has been comparatively forgotten. FFVII re-imagined with action gameplay is cool, because its a new take on a classic but the mainline series being scared of being turn based overall is cringe.

@kkslider5552000 I adore the Final Fantasy VII Remake games - I get people have lofty expectations and not everyone's gonna be happy with them, but I truly think they are the JRPGs of a generation. Hell, Rebirth is my favourite FF game full stop, and its battle system is possibly my favourite of any RPG ever.

If it means we get more gameplay like FFVII Remake/Rebirth, I'm completely happy for them to not revisit turn-based tbh. If I'm perfectly honest, I never found the turn-based battles in FF to be that engaging (and I have no particular aversion to turn-based battling - my top 5 games of all time include Pokemon, Persona 5 and Fire Emblem Three Houses!), but I found it preferable to the weird experimentation they did from like XII to XV. Kinda happy they finally settled on something good with VII remake. Not played XVI in full so can't comment much here - but I was really put off by the demo tbh.

@Buizel The demo has the best portion of the story too. It all goes downhill by the first crystal.

I do kinda agree. I think the beloved ATB system is good but not a favorite of mine either. Kinda think that particular battle system peaked in Chrono Trigger and would not be surprised if I end up liking FFVII remake's battle system more. It's more the implication of getting away from your niche genre entirely to be something "cooler" or supposedly more "mainstream friendly" that really rubs me the wrong way. And considering how SE's smaller titles do regularly have turn based battles but they've doubled down on the big, expensive mainline FF games not doing that, it does come across as trying to "appeal to a wider audience".

Feel the same way about the open world Zeldas. If I didn't absolutely love BOTW, I would likely hate BOTW even if it was "really good", because its a replacement for the classic formula that is, conveniently, more mainstream friendly (and successful). It's how much I enjoyed it combined with its more unique ideas that make it feel not cynical.

I understand what you're getting at but my perspective is a bit less cynical. My wider view on the FF series / not being overly enthused by the turn-based battles is that turn-based battles aren't necessarily a core part of FF's identity - it's the general role-playing aspects, world-building, character and story...and creating something that is more than the sum of its parts. And also experimentation and boundary-pushing. Sure, it hasn't worked out for the best in a lot of cases - but I really like that each new FF game is trying something different even if it falls flat for me a lot of the time. Contrast with DQ which is very traditional and hasn't strayed too far from its roots (even down to the sound design).

But for full transparency I'm a relatively new fan to the series (~10 years, although I started w/ the PS1 games), and not too familiar with the NES/SNES titles, so this probably colours my view compared to someone who's been around since the 80s/90s.

And IDK, I'm happy for series like Bravely Default and Octopath Traveller to be more "traditional" if it means mainline FF is going to remain experimental.

I don’t think Final Fantasy needs to be turn-based to be good. I don’t really consider it apart of what makes “final fantasy” a “final fantasy” game. Most series have evolved past their combat systems being turn-based but manage to still keep a solid sense of identity. I feel like despite how radically different FF games tend to be in both setting and mechanics, they still manage to feel like Final Fantasy to me. Even XVI, which I dislike compared to others I’ve played.

As @jfp said, the blind praise is just the other side of the blind negative reaction. Things either have to be the best thing or the worst thing and the people parroting these talking points don't pause to think

Like the DF video comparing Switch 2 to Steam Deck on the front page of the site. The video is a pretty solid, fairly scientific analysis of how these two similarly priced and sized devices compare in terms of performance and daily use. Each with their own pros and cons. Yet the comments are almost purely "rah rah my team this" or "Digital Foundry bad". Clearly without having actually watched the video which, broadly, the Switch 2 comes out of pretty well

On the same topic, I've made posts here and elsewhere comparing the two given I own and use both. It's always the same. The PC crowd tend to dismiss entirely any suggestion Switch 2 could be better, alluding to emulation on PC as if that's even an option. The Nintendo crowd go the other side and talk about sales numbers or that it doesn't count because "it's a PC"

As someone using both, these common whines are just BS talking points. They mean nothing. And that would be immediately obvious if anyone put any more than half a second of thought into their response. And this is the issue, people don't think.

People cheer these pieces of sand and metal like they were a sports team. They should instead be playing games on them given they are, you know, platforms for playing games on. Any discussion about the game playing chops of game playing platforms instead devolves into seals clapping

And the same is true for any topic on the modern internet

I hate mega evolution, and I dislike that Z-A is focused primarily on that. To a point where I’m probably not going to get the games- as I’m a collector and Megas offer nothing of value as they can’t be transferred into Pokemon HOME.

@skywake: The problem with an objectively observed, verifiable truth is that engaging with someone who denies that truth is entirely self-defeating and frankly a waste of time outside of contributing to the unhealthy atmosphere you describe.

The real time elements of Expedition 33's combat were the worst part about it, I think they've tweaked it now, but the only way to adjust it in a granular way on launch was with mods, and I think that is awful. I really hope the lesson other turn based franchises take away from Expedition 33 is not that turn based games need ia really punishing real time parry mechanic. In fact, can we just stop with all the Souls stuff bleeding into everything in general.

On the flip of that, if Final Fantasy wants to remain fully real time, I think that is fine. The problem with FF16 wasn't that it was real time, its that the real time combat model it used sucked, and along with the real time combat, all of the depth, complexity, tactics, systems, rpg elements and everything else were also removed, just turning it into a mindless, linear, action game. Who wanted that from FF? Who thought this was a good idea? Who was the target audience for this? If you shove turn based combat into FF16 and change nothing else, it is still a bad game.

@Pizzamorg This was 100% my problem with Expedition 33 and what ultimately put me off.

I have nothing against Exp 33 - I just realised it wasn't for me. But I kinda dislike this notion some have that Exp 33 has "revived turn-based RPGs" (blatantly ignoring all the fantastic turn-based JRPGs we've had in the past decade) because I also kinda worry that people are going to see the universal "fix" to turn-based JRPGs to be to introduce such Souls-like elements.

@Buizel Honestly the amount of turn based JRPG tourism I saw online post Expedition 33 drove me up the wall. And like I know that is really snobby to say, but I also don't really care 😂 If Expedition 33 is what gets you into turn based JRPGs, awesome. But don't tell me how turn based JRPGs should be "fixed" because the first one you played since Pokemon when you were 8 years old is Expedition 33. Especially when there are like a thousand Souls games out there with a parry mechanic you could be playing instead. We need MORE premium JRPGs, we get barely any and even less if you don't count gacha games. We don't need more Souls games.

More JRPGs sounds like fun! I love me a good JRPG, especially Pokémon and Dragon Quest. 😃

I really wish that they didn't do Kalos for the next Legends game, or had done something more special for Kalos. I find that the futuristic theme for Kalos is horrible and being set only in Lumiose City only makes it worse. Don't you want to see how the rest of Kalos have modernised? I really like the exploration of Pokemon games. Legends Arceus had a giant world to explore and it was really fun, but being held into one city is really boring, and having the mini wild areas just make it weird. The mini wild areas are just a push to include Pokemon in Lumiose City because barely any Pokemon would be in the city if they didn't have the mini wild areas. I definitely would have preferred to explore a more futuristic Kalos than being locked in to one city.

I also think that other regions are also more deserving of a Legends treatment. I would love to see an Alolan Legends game, preferably more futuristic to see what the Aether Foundation has done. Johto and Unova should also have Legends, with the amount of detail and lore they have had. Maybe an alternate timeline where Kyruem froze the world, or before the Burned Tower actually burned down. The Legends series are a way of exploring the region in a different perspective, with Legends Arceus seeing the world before Pokemon were all buddies with humans. Z-A just doesn't fit the bill of exploring the region, and more of just exploring one designated area.

This probably doesn't make any sense. My ideas aren't always the best. Sorry about the rant.

I was just surprised that they jumped straight from Sinnoh to Kalos and skipped Unova. Still excited for Legends Z-A though!

@ParrakerriRush Ehhh, I think Kalos was deserving of a return more than any region given how royally screwed over it got with the transition into 3D. The region as a whole deserved more I feel- so that's why learning initially about the game being set in Lumiose and only within Lumiose sorta stung at first- but the more I've seen of the game, the more I feel like they made the right choice in that regard. Especially given how modern Pokemon games tend to have issues with tackling regions with multiple towns.

Kalos itself was a rich region visually, but suffered heavily lore-wise. The premise of the story for X and Y was interesting, but it fell apart in execution because they didn't have enough time to write something that fleshed out the villain of the story- along with the Aura trio (legendaries). Xerneas, Yveltal, and Zygarde sorta got screwed lore-wise- and while they were planning to touch upon that in Pokemon Z, they never actually made that game because they decided to make Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire instead. The trio didn't get the lore that they desperately needed- and Zygarde's forms were left-over and thrown into the Alola games, outside of the context for which they had originally been created for.

Also the Legends games are sequels technically. Pokemon Legends Arceus is a sequel to Diamond and Pearl and a prequel to Platinum. Z-A is a sequel to X and Y. Just because Arceus took place in the past doesn't mean that Z-A had to in order to reveal lore details about certain pokemon or the region itself. In fact, it fits more for the two being companion pieces under the same umbrella. PLA is set in the past, Z-A is set in the present. PLA focused on catching and building the pokedex as the main focal-point of the gameplay, while Z-A is focusing more on the battles.

Side order is the best Splatoon single player campaign. That is all.

@Bigmanfan never truer words spoken i honestly was shocked when most outlets gave it an 8/10 or lower

@OctolingKing13 Tbf, I would probably give it an 8/10 lol.