Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

I can see you going onto it now and deleting all TRPG that aren't Fire Emblem.

@arronishere: Isn't it obvious that information on wikipedia is edited most of the time? Also, why would I ever do that?

You know, for a guy with a gentleman's avatar, you seem to be so damm picky.

@DarthNocturnal: I get that its not the first and I can understand that, but it did expand the genre further.

Doesn't Wikipedia require citations now? Because I'm pretty sure a recent incident with the Samus Wikipedia page* would make that policy more apparent now.

*No, I'm not telling you who or what happened. I'm not interested in a flame war or ban, just putting an example out there for those aware of the incident and please no more comments about it.

Yep but the rarely seen pages can be edited without notice as no one visits them.

In anycase that doesn't really change Artwark is trying to ignore Fire Emblem wasn't the first trpg and it isn't the only one that matters which itself was him trying to get out of being noticed that he's gone from saying trpgs are DOOMED to they are now mainstream.

I know you said no more comments, but misinformation like this needs to be sorted out because somebody's professional image, perhaps livelihood, is at stake.

There really was no incident. A certain writer did a piece on Samus's gender identity. It was a bad piece, using the flimsy evidence of a joke (in poor taste) that Samus's character designer made over 20 years ago, to argue that Samus is a transwoman. I can't defend the piece. It was bad.

But a certain online harassment/hate group that I won't mention the name of really hated that piece, and even more so the person who wrote it, so engaged in tactics as usual. There was a discussion on the Wikipedia entry on Samus's talk page of updating the page to include Samus's gender identity, citing the bad piece as a source. This is important though - the proposed change never actually happened, as it was not approved. But the hate group manufactured a story that the author of the bad article herself was responsible for the proposal and cited herself, spreading the lie on social media and friendly online hangouts.

Wikipedia itself has confirmed that the author of the bad piece was not involved at all in the discussion on the talk page. Honestly, and this is just speculation on my part, but I wouldn't put it past the hate group itself who came up with the proposal in the first place. The whole controversy stinks of their brand of deceit.

Clearing the air right now, I want nothing to with that group nor anyone related to it in any roundabout way. It is proof of internet stupidity and ridiculous mob mentality in both camps and in general, and if I had to be honest, even if that person wasn't involved with that I still would couldn't consider anything they do worth my time or attention. I only brought up that example because it first came to mind and nothing else. Hell, the only reason I know about it was because I came across a video covering it with knowledge known at the of the initial events relating to it.
And if you must know, I'm neutral on it. Being internet drama with a hint of anonymity, I have no real say on what happened and didn't happen and who was actually who.

In the desperate vain of trying to get back on topic and avoid flame wars and bans:
I feel like story telling in games is still not quite there yet, and probably won't be for quite awhile. Even if you didn't like Gone Home as a game, as an experiment in game design I'm interested in more games implementing some of the ideas it started/expanded on.

Crowdfunding is a great idea. It gives the gaming community a say in what gets released, and allows developers to not have to worry about publishers and investors ruining their game for the means of profitability.

@MrMario02:
Crowd funding is a good idea on paper, and in rare cases (shovel knight for example). The idea of supporting ideas with very little to back them up, and no commitment guaranteed by the devs is a recipe for either fraud or disappointment.

I'm...actually not fond of playing Super Mario games as Yoshi. I'm fine with him as a steed and like the general cuteness of all Yoshis, but it just isn't the same as playing my beloved plumber bros.

Halo 3 is the worst Halo game, by far.

I don't disagree, but I'd argue anyone intelligent and with any remote self-respect wouldn't ruin their reputation that way (unless your fans are eternal sheep like Peter Molyneux)

Triforce Heroes is a timely, relevant, inventive and fun addition to the Zelda franchise. Coming onto system that has already received a new, acclaimed top-down Zelda and two 3D 'main series' remakes, along with a WW Remake on the Wii U and a new epic in the pipeline, I don't think it can be argued that the 'proper' side of the series is being neglected (although admittedly, the Wii U version is certainly taking its time).

The plot is... definitely a bit pants though. Not goofy and charming in an subtle, charmingly goofy Zelda way, but generally overblown and crass, with a host of supporting characters that don't even looked like they were designed to live in the same world as Link. I don't mind the fact it's stupid, I'm just slightly peeved about how much it shouts about it. There have been a few bits of nice scripting though (in the EUR version, anyway).

I've got through the first 3 worlds (+ a few bonus challenges), and so far, playing with strangers Online has been perfectly useable, even with just 8 emoticons to communicate. I've found it quite fun learning how to combine them into a sort of lumpy language.

I've found the whole MonHunt-esque clothes crafting thing is quite engaging too. I'd tentatively recommend anyone with an internet connection to try it. Just try not to destroy the game before the plot shuts up and lets you get on with the dungeons.

I will never understand why so many people claim that Nintendo is not coming to the modern times really.....because if they really weren't, they wouldn't be this huge by now would they?

I mean, what is it that Nintendo isn't doing what Sony and Microsoft aren't? Powerful graphics don't mean a thing except to make the systems more expensive and worsen their business. Online gaming isn't always perfect even outside of Nintendo.

Nintendo's unique way doing things come at a cost of being perceived as "behind the times". Sony and Microsoft going a more conventional route let them streamline and rebuild certain aspects of the online experience Nintendo hasn't/doesn't yet understand. Tying game purchases to systems, initially using Friend codes as opposed to User accounts, etc. All steps MS and Sony got around due to conventional thinking and experience versus Nintendo's more "creative" routes.

Can Just Dance please stop coming out? Stop buying it on the Wii. Stop supporting the past and this terrible ugly series.

If that's the case, then why did Visceral turn Dead Space 3 into an FPS with fee to pay elements? Why did Spec Ops: The Line, Singularity and the Turok reboot cram in a multiplayer mode despite being a primarily singleplayer shooter? Why did Rare let Microsoft turn Banjo-Kazooie into a game about cars? Why did Sony turn Ratchet & Clank into a Third-Person Shooter? Why did Konami bail on Six Days in Fallujah?

Those aren't crowd funded games. Those games are paid for by publishers. The Publishers make certain demands to change those games to sell more. Crowd funded developers won't want to ruin their reputation because that is really all they have. Those other companies don't get to deny the publisher (or parent company) to save their own reputation because that company is the one paying them.

@AceDefective: And that's bad because of what? The lack of inconvenience? Innovative technology made it more convenient than before when playing games.

I don't mind one screen gameplay but after the DS showed up, I really want dual screen to last forever! The idea of having basic interface on one screen and having main gameplay on the other is my favorite part of the system. On one screen, developers have to optimize the game's map, camera angles and as such, its a lot inconvenient.

I can't tell you the amount of frustration I had to just pause the games just to see the map repeatedly until I got to the location. Also, putting too many things on one screen can really make it inconvenient big time. Examples? Final Fantasy Tactics. The game doesn't give you more details so the game is optimized so that you have to use the help button inorder to get details. Granted, they can easily just explain the details within one screen itself but even then, details of enemy units can't be optimized without the other screen.

Or how about games that have a short map at the top right corner of the screen. Wouldn't it be cool if the map was more enlarged to easily see it instead of pausing the game to do so?

Or how about in terms of control where you don't feel like moving the game's camera through a second stick but instead use a touchscreen to get sharp turns? Kid Icarus Uprising for example. If that kind of game was released for the Vita, I doubt that it would do as well as Uprising.

Online services? They have been doing that as soon as they started the NES. Problem was the technology was just not ready at the time and seeing as how they failed several times, they just gave up on it until now.

I swear that even if Nintendo fixes the online services and makes them better, people will still curse Nintendo that they are stuck in the 90's and whatnot.