Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@DarthNocturnal: because seeing that no other developers developing those kinds of games want to touch Nintendo with a 10 ft pole, then yes, it is justifiable for people who only have Nintendo Consoles to want nintendo to develop mature title.

Oot isn't my favorite Zelda game.

((what???))

@Bolt_Strike: Oh....bolty here wants Nintendo biggie games that tough men would rather play than some italian plumber who rather risks his life to save Peach countless times (not always but most of the time)? How about Xenoblade, Uprising, Fire Emblem, Star Fox, Metroid and Advance Wars? Oh wait, I forgot, those series are sooo generic right?

Oh...what's the matter, little bolty upset about meanie words? Bolty sad about the big tough words that meanie dumb Socar said?

EDIT: In all seriousness, if you don't mind them going for the young audience, then why do you want them to make mature games? Its actually a bad sign for them ditching their image and changing it just for the adults.

Odd how you have a Pokemon avatar and say Kiddie things to Nintendo.

@Socar: I'm just gonna repeat what i just said earlier, because seeing that no other developers developing those kinds of games want to touch Nintendo with a 10 ft pole, then yes, it is justifiable for people who only have Nintendo Consoles to want nintendo to develop mature title.

Let me give you a list of game series that Nintendo has made for a mature audience recently or have done so in the past:

• Kid Icarus: Uprising
• Metroid
• Fire Emblem series
• Goldeneye 007
• Xenoblade
• Legend of Zelda series
• Pokemon (competitive battle is matured competition)
• Bayonetta 2
• Wonderful 101
• Smash
• Fatal Frame

I can go on here.

Even if Nintendo wants to focus on mature audience, the problem is the censoring that NoA does for the games that they plan to release in the west.

@Socar:

• golden eye, metroid hasnt even. Appeared this generation.
• zelda hasnt even been released yet
  pokemon mature, kid icarus, smash considered as mature titles?

I thought what were talking about are mature AAA titles like those developed by third parties? Your list is padded with games out of this generation, thos not yet released, or niche games. Plus you combined two platforms! Handheld and console!

@diwdiws: Isn't Xenoblade AAA? Cause it definitely looks like it.

@Socar: thats not the point! The point is that despite Nintendo having "mature" games, its so few that it is understandable for some people to want nintendo to develop more mature games. Its a matter of balance.

And I'm telling you that that is something Nintendo can't do at this point. All they can do to compensate for that is to buy either Capcom or SEGA so that they can get first party mature content.

@Socar: when? When dis you tell me that?? Why do you keep changing the topic? Ugh

Koji Kondo is a better composer than Nobuo Uematsu.

OoT is an ok game, defiantly not one of the best.

A. Nintendo didn't make Bayonetta 2 or Goldeneye 007
B. Fire Emblem, Metroid and Zelda have some mature and some kiddy games
C. KI:U was rather immature
D. Fatal Frame wasn't originally Nintendo's game. It was originally created by Tecmo for the PS2 and original XBOX.

@DarthNocturnal I agree.
Mortal Kombat isn't mature
The Last of Us is mature
Doom isn't mature
Spec Ops: The Line is mature.

I've not really played Street Fighter much in the past 5-10 years, but aside from that and Smash, every other 2Dish fighting game is boring and terrible imo.

Playstaion All-Stars was a fun game, and is different enough from Smash Bros. to be considered "not a clone". The fighting is fun and interesting, the lineup of Sony characters is excellent (even if quite a few of those are third party characters) the stages are fun to play on, the customization of characters via choosing taunts and skins is well executed, the visuals are strong, and the soundtrack is very fitting for the game.

Smash is still better though.

@MrMario02: Play Station All Star is a bad game IMO, the way you take lives is boring and uninspired. The characters movement is clunky in Smash-like stages, it's just not good.

I don't like most 2D fighting games either. Smash is amazing though.

Medium size rant that no one has to read:
When people say PS All Stars isn't a clone I'm like "lol okay", there isn't a fighting game out there that looks and acts closer to Smash. While it does plenty to stand apart, the core of it, the 4P battle system. Total rip off, no if ands or buts about it.
The thing was spawned during the height of the clones. They obviously thought they had come up with the best clone ever because everyone was too busy making Mario Kart Wii clones. I've played it a few times, it's a good game. But it sure is a clone. I mean the 4P, with the character special stages, the percentages on the bottom, it's too close. People who fight that it isn't a clone are usually people who wish Playstation had a different fighting game that's like Smash, probably hated or are against the Wii or WiiU/3DS, or are bitter that Nintendo managed to squeeze out what some consider one of the best fighting games. Maybe not THEE best, but amongst the best, which you can't say for PS All Stars.
It was mildly fun on my BF's Vita when I was away from my 3DS or WiiU and couldn't get Smash. I liked characters like Big Daddy or Fat Princess. Kind of cool to see a lot of them out of their elements, much like how Smash does for Nintendo characters (and etc)

I wish more people would realize that right there about games. "OMG ALL STARS WAS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL SMASH SO SHUT UP" okay but that came out in 1999, so 13 years later Sony couldn't outshine an old N64 game. That goes for soooo many games.

@DarthNocturnal: Yes, I agree that it's barebones. I also agree that it could use some more modes, that unlocking the skins and icons as apposed to just having them from the start would've been way better, and that the stage mash-up concept could've been done way better, but I'll overlook those things for 2 reasons.
1. It's SuperBot entertainment's first game
2. the core game-play is still fun