Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@Jaz007: The reason is because Trading is a big mechanic in the eyes of the developer and becomes pointless if everyone can catch them all without any help. It is not a technical reason, it is a design and marketing reason. If you do not have someone to trade with then you can trade online. As a community builder trading has done a lot for Pokemon, and if it wasn't forced (to collect them all or at least certain ones) the community would not be as strong. Also providing different special Pokemon in each version of the game makes Players feel special and more connected to their game. It is a great feeling when you have Blue version and 5 other people have red, you become the needed player, you become the desired trade partner. The trade mechanic is less about the in-game mechanics but the out of game interaction.

You may not like it when certain things are a certain way, but it doesn't make them bad or evil. Sometimes it is just perceived as bad or evil.

I don't like Steam. Just don't see the appeal. Yeah its cheap but...

Start-up cost for a gaming PC? Pretty high. Plus the issues with the millions of combinations for components.

You buy a console every 5-6 years. £500 at most. That consoles plays games the same way it plays games very everyone else on that console. There you go. You buy a PC, have to change out parts semi-frequently. But there is no guarantee the game will run for you. It might be too much for you. That or the ports just break.

Steam is only a marketplace. I think your problems is with PC Gaming, not Steam.

@BLPs: you dont really need to swap parts semi frequently, unless you have an ancient CPU and motherboard then all you really need to change is the GPU and add ram if needed, i still got my i5-661 bought in 2009 and injust recently change my GPU which cost me $120. Take in mind, my last GPU, a GTX 580 didnt really need immmiediate changing since i could still run current games on high with 30-50 fps. Thats a $120 upgrade cost for 5 years

@Tubalcain: @DefHalan:

I should also add, I get told I shouldn't be a game dev student because I don't use Steam and acknowledge that it's the best thing ever and the games I play are factually bad since they aren't on the marketplace.

Apart from that, Steam exists but it's not for me. I don't see the reason to be super invested. If I want to do work or make games, I use my computer. If I want to play games I use a console or handheld.

It's a bit like the consoles these days. Yeah I can watch TV on it...or I can use this Sky box I already have.

@BLPs: dont listen to them. i wont judge whos right or wrong since i dont really know you. But more power if thats your passion. I would just like to ask what you dont like about steam? Because if its steam that you have a problem with then there are other market places on the PC such as GOG or you can sell it on your own.

You don't need a gaming PC to use Steam. There are plenty of games on Steam that are compatible with the layman's laptop or desktop. I don't consider myself a PC gamer, but I have a few games on Steam including KOTOR and Rollercoaster Tycoon 3. I got a good deal on the former, and IMO, Business Sims are most at home on PC/Mac.

Not true. There are no penalties in kirby's epic yarn, only rewards. And what i typed was literally what it said on the site.

I would say that Stanley's Parable and Gone Home are interactive stories.

Let's not argue over definitions, it's far too trivial and everything is subject to interpretation.

Tell me how you feel rewarded in Kirby when an enemy swipes your jewels, or you fall into lava, or even fail the last roulette and come away short of a medal? In a race the runners start out as equals before the audience, and they all progress from start to finish advancing their cause. But only one can win and down through the medalists is an increasing degree of "failure"; if Kirby walks from start to finish you might feel satisfied, but most people set out to accomplish more.

Here's a good one I heard the other day.

"The Atari Jaguar is a better system than the Wii U".

Now that it's been fixed, Assassin's Creed: Unity is a fantastic game. The combat revamp is much better than the kill-streak system and it's definitally the best AC game.

lame trolling aren't opinions though

@kkslider5552000:

This is from people who think my opinions don't count because I own a Wii U and don't use Steam. You'll be amazed at the human race.

@DiscoGentleman: I have no problems with 'jump scares' in general, but if they use a ridiculously over the top loud sound effect that appears out of nowhere to make the viewers jump, I find that to be a really weedy way of cheapening out what should be considered to be a proper jump scare.

We react more to unexpected noises more so than something visual. Less is more, I say.

Telegraphed jump scares are the worst and the most common in PG-13 horror movies. When I'm watching them at home, I know exactly when to turn the volume on my headset down to avoid ear-shattering loud noises when a "surprise" comes up.

Sparingly used, they're OK as tension relief. But when they're relied on, it's the calling card of a bad or lazy storyteller.

... or a bad film altogether!

It is true that tension must build up to some extent for a good jump scare, but they rely on reflex rather than real fear. Jump scares are relatively easy to create, but a sense of fear, and not just a fear of something suddenly appearing and making you jump involuntarily when there's nothing you could do about it, is much harder to create. If a horror game consists of too many jump scares most players will get tired of it and find it predictable. They're cheap because they're easy to manufacture and pale in comparison to the creation of a true sense of terror, one that doesn't hinge on a player not wanting to have to endure a sudden surprise. If anything they act as a measure of how good a horror game is. If a horror game is still very scary but has little to no jump scares, you know it did its job very well. If it had to rely on jump scares for most of the horror, then it probably wasn't anything special. They're equivalent in story telling terms to a predictable overused cliche. They can be used well in small amounts, but they're not difficult to think up, and relying on them just shows a lack of confidence and skill in actually creating something scary.

It's also worth noting that creating tension through music and atmosphere is surprisingly easy. Since that's all jump scares rely on, they work very easily. Try watching a horror film with lots of jump scares on mute without the music that ramps up the tension - the effect of the jump scares will be lessened considerably. Fear and tension are not wholly the same.

Who are the idiots saying The Stanley Parable isn't a game? A book? An interactive book? Well that would be true, except there aren't any pages, there is no book to hold ergo that comparison is dumb. The arguement in itself is dumb as well, where do we draw the line? Anything that doesn't fall into defined categories, with a game over screen, score and guns? Who decides these categories? Then what happens for popular series like all of Telltales' games? Journey, for many the GAME of the year in 2012? The previously mentioned Kirby's Epic Yarn? Then if Telltales' games are out because they're 'interactive books' does that also rule out Another Code? Ace Attorney? Professor Layton? There's just no way you can draw the line, as every game I mentioned has gameplay, and is interactive and unique to each player (what order you play through TSP's scenarios and how long it takes you to spot a contradiction in Ace Attorney), saying games aren't games only stifles the uniqueness and creativity that is left in this industry, and plays into the hands of Activision and EA that if you're not shooting someone, it's not a game worth your while. The argument is moot IMO.

See now this is what I meant when I say a large majority of the problem is people actually being insulted when being told that something they enjoy shouldn't necessarily be classified as a game, as if being something other than a game is inherently worse, despite context and understanding. There's also the implication that all discussion about what makes a game forfeits our souls to the demons of EA and Activision, which is a humorous notion that one could only expect from a Nintendo site.

You ask who decides on these categories; the answer is gamers as a collective. When enough of these pieces of software emerge that a large group of gamers come up with terms to describe them other than games, it is for the good of everyone. It comes down to knowing what you're purchasing and knowing what to expect. One could possibly and simply take all of these games which contain absolutely minimal gameplay/interaction and make it a genre - but the problem is that traditional genres still apply to these programs, such as adventure, romance, horror, and for people interested in having these experiences, those titles should be the main focus. However, at the same time, a regular horror game fan probably wouldn't be interested in a horror program that he/she could barely interact with, just as they may not be interested in watching horror films or reading horror novels.

I think the important thing is that the people who care about making these distinctions and helping people pick the products they actually want can and are actively doing so anyway. People can fight all they like about the fact that they think Dear Esther and Mountain are games, but all I care about is knowing that they contain very little interaction and aren't the experience I am personally looking for, and luckily there are enough people who feel the same way to label these products for my benefit. I'm sure over time better labels will come to describe these products that give them more respect, because in the end, someone not wasting money on something they really didn't actually want is more important than someone getting personally insulted that something they like has a new label, at least in my opinion.