Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@DarthNocturnal I personally don't think Zelda II needs a remake seeing as how you can already download Zelda II on their 3DS or Wii U already. However, I do think that the concept of a side-scrolling Zelda game should be attempted again.

@DarthNocturnal
1. MM and OOT wouldn't be on 3DS without those remakes. Also, the remakes were made because Nintendo knew it was a safe bet to make. Meanwhile Zelda II was one of the black sheep of the franchise for most fans (despite being a good game)
2. What do you mean "fix?" Ocarina Of Time was mostly kept in tact for the remake. They even preserved the glitches of the game. Sure, you could argue that changes were made for Majora's Mask when it got a remake, but they didn't change the game on a major level.

1. I literally said in my previous statement that Zelda II was a good game. Also, when I said that Nintendo didn't "fix" Ocarina and Majora in their remakes, I was referring to core mechanics.
2. In that example, Nintendo re-released remakes of Mario 2, 3, and World. For Zelda II, you're suggesting they create a remake for the game, which would take substantially more time and money to do.

@DarthNocturnal
1.Yes, Zelda II needs some mechanical fixes, but by trying to alter the game to be better on a mechanical level, the remake will cease to be Zelda II. It will become something else entirely.

2. Yes, Kirby Super Star and KSS Ultra are on the Wii U eshop. You know what else? Both of those existed before they were added to Wii U VC. They were simply ports. What you're asking is that Nintendo make a new remake of a game they made nearly 30 years ago.

@DarthNocturnal what you were suggesting was changing the game fundamentally by editing the game's form of difficulty which, while for the better, still fundamentally changes the game. If Nintendo decides to remake Zelda II, it would be better if it was kept the same, as young game designers would be able to learn from the mistakes it made.

You know what would be great? If nintendo released a Four Swords like Zelda for the Wii U where four players control the four links and one player builds the dungeons and controls enemies, similar to Fable Legends.

@DarthNocturnal: Point taken

First watch the video to get the idea of how incredibly worse extra credits is getting.

Oh really? What about Metroid? That series is clearly science fiction. Sure, the only thing that makes it fantasy would be Samus suit being part of her but other than that, everything else is clearly science fiction. Hell, they even omitted Descent a series that HAS science fiction.

Star Wars isn't science fiction? Get a grip. Screw them for brainwashing people thinking that their opinions are the best when they clearly aren't.

Seriously, these guys ought to stop with this garbage. Really, they don't do proper research and they expect people to like them. They claim that games matter and yet they don't seem to really explain the things that the industry really needs to fix like stupid youtube abusing fair use for let's plays and reviews?

They ignore the fact that Japanese games exist and you strongly focus on Western games and when you do cover japanese games, you only cover few of them. While I can understand that this is your personal choice, it doesn't matter because your cover says Because Games Matter so Japan games should be explained because they do freaking matter!

For someone who hates Youtube you watch and post alot of vids on it.

@Socar: Did you not listen to the explanation for their distinction between science fiction and science fantasy? Going simply by that distinction, I actually kinda agree with them. Yes, you could argue that games like Metroid are sci-fi, but I couldn't realistically look at Metroid and think it could happen in our future, thus why they classified it more as fantasy.

Also, if you don't like them, stop watching rather than show the video to everyone. Linking that video gives them more views and potentially more subscriptions.

I'm probably the biggest Star Wars on this website, and the fact that @Socar is so dense as to think that it isn't Science Fantasty is a surprise, even after all the ridiculous drivel I've seen him post.

@GrizzlyArctos: Then in that case, Descent is Sci-Fi because the planes are just not that realistic. Chrono Trigger isn't sci-fi simply because it has characters that look more like fantasy rather that accepting the fact that those fantasies are timelines that are actually sci-fi. By agreeing with them on this, you will most likely agree with the two games that I have just mentioned that they also don't fall under science fiction.

What about Watch Dogs? What about Earthbound? Again, they completely ignore that there are games out there that have dedicated sci fi.

@Waluigi: Excuse me for not being able to identify the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars despite them being similar to one another.

@arronishere: Ok, lets be clear on this one thing. I don't hate youtube. Infact, its one of the only ways for me to get some entertainment besides my usual TV.

I hate youtubers who simply rant claiming that they are the best in the entire world and that the ones who make the games deserve nothing but cheap criticism unless the rant is reasonable and constructive. Also Extra Credits seems to only have a channel and their main website heads directly to youtube.

For example, I hate how youtubers rant towards Nintendo claiming that they advertise their games and that its
The only great video player is youtube because if you try to use other players like IGN and Gamespot, they are poor in comparison simply because they have to buffer more

...Star Wars and Star Trek the same...Star Wars and Star Trek the same...Star Wars and Star Trek the same...same...the same...

Error 404 Waluigi not found.

Distinguishing between science fiction and science fantasy is, at best, splitting hairs. A fantasy doesn't have to be fantastical.

Well I guess if you only watch the two recent movies there are similarities... but Star Trek is way different than Star Wars

I thought it was quite common, it's mainly used by hipsters to put down rubbish sci-fi.

I'll quote you on that the next time you're throwing a fit declaring youtube needs to die and you hate it.

@Socar: I don't think you're quite getting my point. I was just simply stating that they gave reasons for their distinction between science fantasy and science fiction at the beginning of the video, with science fiction (or sci-fi) being something that we could envision happening in the future and science fantasy being more unrealistic, or more fantastical. Games like Chrono Trigger and Metroid would easily fall under the fantasy category rather than the sci-fi category. (Though I wouldn't really call Chrono Trigger Science anything, instead I'd simply call it fantasy.)

All of this is just semantics over something that's very subjective to debate though, and there isn't really a right answer for the distinction between science fiction and science fantasy. I haven't even really heard of the term science fantasy before.

Also, who's calling Earthbound sci-fi?

@GrizzlyArctos: So you're saying that Time machines are not possible? You're saying that Phantasy Star having bio monsters and having Control towers are not that realistic?

Even if you agree with them on this, that still doesn't change the fact that they simply don't do proper research and the fact that they ignore other types of games besides western games is really telling me that they have a sense of nationalism. Since their main cover says because games matter, they have to explore other types of games rather than just western games and when they do cover them, its just so few and far between.

@Socar, with our current understanding of how the universe works, there is no way time travel is possible.

Time slows down the faster you move, and completely stops when moving at the speed of light. The only way to move back in time would to be travel faster than the speed of light, which the laws of physics state is impossible.

I'm time travelling as I type, at a speed of one second per second (spoiler: the future isn't so great). Given that we considered atoms unable to be split (hence the name) then we go ahead and actually split them, our understanding of how the universe works amounts to squat. I personally don't think it's possible for other reasons.

Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.