Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

I think the main reason is because people find it doesn't bring enough "innovation" and is far to "safe" of a sequel.

@Yellowkoopa: Yeah, Adventure Mode in Melee was the best. I was kinda bummed that never happened again.

NSMB is trash
NSMBW is good
NSMB2 is lazy and crappy
NSMBU is the best one by a long shot

People care about the wrong things in Pokemon games. I NEVER hear discussions about the quality of the world design, dungeon design, collectibles, etc.

Instead, people love to talk about the story, characters, collection of Pokemon, and progression of combat.

I agree collection is a key element of the game. While I can understand combat as a major part (though IMO it's really too easy to have a discussion about relative to single player), Pokemon is a franchise that does not and should not have a substantial story or characters. It's all about your personal adventure, creating a team and taking down the bad guy on your own. Having companions come along, and Gym Leaders yapping about every city completely obstructs this sense of personal adventure.

It feels like most Pokemon fans today just see the single player as a mandatory story mode that allows them to "get to the good stuff", and as such, the actual gameplay outside of the combat doesn't mean anything. This is why people LOVED reusable TMs, when, in reality, they completely rob the single player experience of a sense of resource management.

Fixed.

I liked NSMB2, if the protagonist had been Wario there would have been less complaints. It is certainly better than the original NSMB

I don't get the praise that Sakurai gets a LOT compared to Miyamoto. Yeah, he made Uprising and Kirby(My favorite series) But this guy unlike Miyamoto doesn't like making sequels. And Uprising is better off being on Wii U rather on 3DS as good as the game is.

And his creative process is a bit debatable. Why is it that he intentionally uses smashing as means of running instead of using a run button or something? This is even apparent even in Kirby not that it matters there since its control supports the D-pad but seriously...smashing?

What a terrible person, he doesn't like making sequels and he made a game on the 3DS rather than the Wii U. Tbh he gets alot of credit because he's hands on making the games compared to Miyamoto who drops in and out of the development.

I think not wanting to make sequels is better than 20 different sequels succession. Allows for fresher ideas and less restrictions created by the rules of one universe.
As matter of fact, why do people want more sequels? Especially in cases where it is obvious its supposed the end and sequel would be redundant (coughcoughMOTHER4coughcough) or create an artificial conflict for more shoehorned adventures.

how about you stop deeming certain games "not games"?
the most common things stated as qualifiers for what is a game (from what I've read) are "Has a losing condition" and "Has a set beginning, middle and end"
Games without losing conditions that are still called games: Kirby's Epic Yarn, The Sims, Animal Crossing, Journey
Games without a set beginning, middle and end that are still called games: Minecraft, Tomodachi Life, Nintendogs

IMO it's significantly better. I have a much easier time controlling Kirby than I do controlling Mario, because I don't have to jam my finger across two buttons simultaneously.

Because people who play games enjoy the fact that they're overcoming a challenge in some way or another, or at least interacting with it in a way that matters. To not call things games is not necessarily an insult unless you take it as such, its just a useful way to prevent people from getting the wrong idea of what a product is. The reason people simply refer to these things as 'non-games' is because they're relatively new, and there is no set term for them.

I have no interest in what I'll simply deem the 'Interactive Art Pieces' or 'Walking Simulators' that are Proteus, Dear Esther and Mountain, and I know plenty of other people don't either. Games are about the interactivity. Holding W is not great interactivity, and if simply referring to these programs as 'non-games' is what it takes to ensure people don't accidentally buy them expecting gameplay, then so be it. These programs are pretty awful by standards of what a game is, which is why so many people complain about them. Either people start accepting that they aren't really games or they continue to get shunned and ridiculed for being labelled incorrectly.

Dear Esther and Proteus are games, though. Just because they're not as interactive as what you would like doesn't mean they're not video games, it simply means they're not aligning themselves with the same challenge-based paradigm most games exist within.

@Ralizah: It's not that they provide no challenge, it's that there is usually no interactivity with the worlds besides walking around, in some cases along a linear path. You can make a game with plenty of interactivity and minimal or no real challenge. The reason people don't call them games is because they're so drastically different to most that exist, and don't appease a large majority of people who play games in the first place. People get insulted by calling the genre 'Walking Simulators' despite it being pretty damn accurate for a lot of them. As with other games though, the problems mostly come down to people getting upset over other people's opinions of games they like.

@arronishere: yeah....the only games that he made are Meteos, Smash and Uprising whereas Miyamoto was involved like......a LOT?

Sakurai should have just let someone in charge of Kirby and at the same time did something in his own instead of just quitting Hal, forming a company of his own with little staff and exhaust himself to death to make quality games. Miyamoto let Eji Anouma in charge of Zelda and it turns out that we had better Zelda games that Miyamoto couldn't do.

You said it yourself, Sakurai tends to make games of a high standard. Why are you complaining about that? So what if he puts a lot of work into his games himself, that's how he prefers to create them. There's nothing wrong with that.

It's the same kind of debate that Visual Novels have sparked for years. They're more than novels, yet you don't go in it for the gameplay. I'm of the opinion that media should be classed based on what you're expected to enjoy ("WHY you should be playing/watching/partaking in this"), and in this case, the vast majority of your experience will be engaging with the story. Can you really call it a game in that context? I know I wouldn't, since the term "game" usually means competing within a set of rules, but that's rarely the case in these type of games. The objectives are about as complex as turning a page. I really do think a new term is in order to describe these new experiences, because they are different from what people expect a game to be. Simply making the term "game" more broad would simply trivialize the word.

@Artwark: If I had games as great as Meteos, Smash Bros., and Uprising on my resume, I'd be pretty damn proud of myself, I must say. Not to downplay Miyamoto, but Sakurai's games have almost singlehandedly sold or even saved systems. That's nothing to sneeze at, man...

So you're saying that they don't count as games because they are a bit different? the definition of game is:
a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen. In other words, if it's digital, interactive, and intended as entertainment, it's a video game. And so-called "walking simulators" meet that criteria.

@CanisWolfred: But giving it a definition would limit this medium. EDIT: I meant like, Has a set beginning middle and end, Has a losing condition etc.

@MrMario02: I want a source for your definition. Because I know that's not the definition I just read: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game