Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@TylerTheCreator:

Explain! XD

@Artwark: I've never played that game. I haven't liked the recent Sonic titles.

@TylerTheCreator: The point you said was who cares what a video game is suppose to be when I showed you that as an example that its not always the case.

People have expectations. While I'm looking forward to Federation Force, a lot aren't going to buy it simply because of their expectations not meeting.

@Artwark: I still don't get what you're trying to say. I don't think you get what I'm saying either. I think we're on two different wavelengths.

everyone who says that free to play games are bad because they aren't free, is acting incredibly entitled. These games cost millions of dollars to make, and demanding that they be given away for free is just insane. And they still are free. You just have to pay to get extra content or convenience.

It's not entitled to say that the F2P model is a terrible thing in the modern mobile game industry and that they're not really free. The whole design of F2P is based around hooking the player early and then making the game increasingly more frustrating and unfair to play in order to entice people to buy microtransactions. "Convenience" is using money to buy a BP potion in Bravely Default, for example, which I'm OK with, as it is something that is provided for the player if they feel like they need that extra little bit of help. It would have been different if BD became borderline unbeatable later in the game unless you bought the potions.

I have no problem with people charging for their games. I've purchased several excellent mobile games. Unfortunately, the more profitable and thus more common model is to not charge anything up-front and then hook a few suckers with deep pockets on your cheap game,

Yeah, I agree with the above.

If mobile devs want us to pay for the games they develop, just go ahead and do the honest thing and charge us a one time fee up front (which is what console devs have been doing for years, and it's seemed to work out fine for them). Show some integrity and respect your consumers with your pricing plans, and I garantee you'll see success, if you're efforts are worth it.

If they still think they have to offer the game for "free" in order to be competitive, there's still much better ways to go about it:

• Built in demo - Make the game "free", with the first X number of stages available for unlimited play, and charge a one time fee to unlock the rest. If your game is good enough, people will pay for the full version.
• Ads - As much as people complain about them (and I agree that they should be completely absent from paid games), in a free game I'd take well placed ads over forced microtransactions any day of the week. I'm fine with ads as long as they don't interrupt gameplay (have one upon startup, inbetween levels, and on the game over screen and I'm good).

There's a way to do free to play right, it's just that it's not reasonable nearly ever. Either it's a terrible idea that will cost you money (potentially a lot) or you will be awful human beings and take the money of vulnerable people. Even when it works like Path of Exile or something, I'm just assuming they had to sacrifice people to some ancient god to make it happen, because convincing people to spend money on only cosmetic DLC to replace a game not costing 60 dollars is a giant risk.

Free to start seems like a much better deal tbh. It's basically a way better version of game demos.

I really liked the approach Sub Wars and Rusty's Real Deal Baseball took.

Personally, I have very few problems with Free To Play. If there is a pay wall, I'll either stop playing or play a little every day to get past it. No harm done.

My only qualms are when it's applied to existing games (Tales of Phantasia) or it interferes with the game design (PvZ2*).

*I know someone is going to ask me about how PvZ2's game design is impacted by free to play so I'll answer it here. 1. The way the world map is constructed, you are forced to navigate through boring challenges like Save Our Seeds and Last Stand (they are fun at first but they get old quick) to get essential items without paying. The problem here isn't just a pay wall, but that the only way around the pay wall isn't fun. Then there is the way that plants are revealed before hand to interest paying players. This totally ruins the surprise of the first game. Finally, because the game contains paid plants, they had to unmarry the new Zombies from the plants. In the new game, far fewer plants are directly tied to defeating specific zombies. Instead, the game is focused heavily on combat plants, with paid plants offering different combat options.

I think everyone views F2P differently. I like Sub-Wars, Rusty's, Pokemon Shuffle, Rumble World. The fact that those games are free-to-play doesn't really effect my enjoyment. I have put money into all of them. When the free-to-play elements start interfering with my enjoyment is when I start hating it. Basically, it is less about what kind of F2P is used and more about the way it is used.

Exactly.

Everyone who complains about Call of Duty and Battlefield getting annual sequels should realize that in the last 4 years (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014,) that there have been:
6 Zeldas
7 Tom Clancy games
6 Just Dance games
20 Lego Games(I'm not kidding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lego_video_games )

Half of those Zeldas are new games while 1 of those new games is a spin-off that has different gameplay. I find it odd when people compare a list of new games to a list of remakes and ports. Maybe that is an unpopular opinion.

@MrMario02: most F2P games don't cost millions to make. They're cheaply made cash grabs that play to the lowest and greediest denominator, how long you are willing to 'play' before you grow infuriated and impatient at the way they are intentionally designed and decide to spend your way out of the trouble. That's also forgetting the fact that most F2P games offer nothing in the form of gameplay, just tap here and wait 20 hours for a house or whatever to be built there, or spend $2 to have it built in an hour and then repeat endlessly. I honestly struggle to comprehend how Nintendo will succeed in this market, at least without bad press because the market is by a distance the most repulsive in all of gaming, and that is saying a lot when you look at the mess the triple A side of things is in ATM.

I like the way Nintendo approaches the free to start model. Like In Rusty's Real Deal, you buy one set game for an incredibly cheap price to get short bursts of fun while at the same time, most of them are completely optional and don't force the player to get them all.

I think Assassins Creed 3 was the best Assassins Creed game ever made even better then 2! Why? Cause it removed the problems the other games had. A huge open world filled with life,side quest that were actually great and a combat system that wasn't hard to learn. It was simple,quick and actually fun! More weapons to use and they all had their own different style! Jesus this game does not the credit it deserves.

Having completed both Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine to 100%...I can say I prefer Sunshine considerably.

It controls better, it has more comfortable levels to explore. Yes 100 coin missions are still a thing but with the exception of 1 or 2, they are significantly more manageable and less frequent than in 64. Blue coins are a bit of a pain yes, and there are a lot more Red Coin missions, but they are also more manageable. Less room to bugger up completely.

Topping it all off, with a few exceptions, namely Delfino Plaza side areas, and one or two missions, the game didn't infuriate me on a game design basis as much as 64. In fact, the game felt a lot more consistent. And I appreciate that.

Now for the flame war.

I generally prefer Sunshine as well, mostly for the advancements and some fair trade offs.
Better camera, no punching and kicking but you do get FLUDD whom has a bigger range and adds extra movement abilities, can't get shines out of order but missions are more straight forward and less cryptic, less hub to explore but still a fair amount of secrets and is generally a lot more streamlined and quicker to traverse, Yoshi, less levels but better level design and less repeating set pieces, dieing keeps you in the level or sub section rather than booting you out, and better coin shine handling (spawns in a set place).
Still has its fair share of problems like some pretty nasty bugs, removal of the long jump, no way to keep track of blue coins collected/ to be collected (bonus points if its an old save file from over a decade ago (I feel old)), and a bit less mission variety. But still I like it more than 64 overall, though that may be because I played Sunshine first, so a tiny bit bias.

While I'm not the biggest fan of the F2P model, if it's handled right, it can work well. It's mostly due to some of the larger F2P games that are largely just cash grabs that have caused so many people to look down on F2P games. This Cracked article shows pretty bad abuse of the F2P model and the tricks they use to make money.