Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Did you even back the game?

Well then if they aren't the same, then how is it that many of the games you have to donate to make it happen and when it does happen, you have to buy the game again to get the game? You are pretty much paying more than the actual cost of the game. Yeah nobody's forcing you to pledge money on them but to those who decide to do it and just get little out of it isn't rewarding to them now is it?

And getting the games what we want isn't easy anymore so we're forced to rely on Spiritual Successors a lot more than the actual IP. I won't be surprised to see Kojima-San made a spiritual successor to either Metal Gear or Policenauts. Why? Because Konami being all mobile would just ruin those IP's anyway.

^ and no, I didn't back the game since I'm not around US. And even then, I'm not convinced to donate money in it because there is no gameplay footage to convince me alone.

I think Igarashi was quite clear when he said it was a spiritual successor to Castlevania. I mean...that was the entire point of the kickstarter trailer...

Lovely? Brainwashed? So creating a successful series is not enough for people to like Igarashi? Am I to assume that Miyamoto, Sakurai, and Aonuma are just as "evil"? As for the models, well, I have nothing to add to that matter.

Somehow I doubt that not using all models for a character is the same as splitting a game into three. Just a thought...

No, this proves that your posts are incredibly biased. I mean, I can't even put it politely, and I do apologize for that! But a lot of companies get a lot of flak for the wrong reasons anyway.

You are assuming that the critics of Fates and the fans (of Iragashi) are one and the same, which I cannot confirm or disprove.

Nothing to argue here.

@TingLz: atleast he knows its unpopular. :/

The fact that the creator himself is making a sequel is what is making the game big

What are you on about? Virtually all Kickstarters allow you to get a copy of the game, the only time when you can back a kickstarter game without getting a copy of the game is when you make a nominal pledge of something like $1-5 which gives normally gives you a credit in the game, all other pledge levels gets you a copy of the game.

Here's the actual Kickstarter page and there's no $80 pledge level at all where you don't get a copy of the game.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/iga/bloodstained-ritual-...

I think you missed the point. Sure there wasn't a shortage, but imagine wanting a Zelda game but not getting one for awhile.

Pledge $28 to get the game. Seems pretty straightforward to me...

@TingLz: to be fair, ask people who pledged significantly more than $28 to get their hands on Godus, Mighty No9 and Red Ash amongst others how straightforward it is and you'll be lucky to get a glowing review of Kickstarter and its use for those games in particular. I like Kickstarter a lot, but I don't blame people who have been turned off of it at all by hacks like Peter Molyneux or Inafune. They've damaged the reputation of Kickstarter as well as themselves with their handling of it.

Well there is a risk with Kickstarter just like any investment. To change Socar's point a bit, you are not really buying the game even if it's promised to you

And yet he didn't show any footage except his amateur acting.

Just because you're a famous game developer/ producer doesn't mean you can joke around and just put an unprofessional trailer that shows nothing but cheap acts. There's a reason why he's famous and he has to reflect projects based on his fame. What trailer he posted for bloodstained was more of his pride rather than him showing his passion about the game that he's making.

I'll state this example again. Remember Sonic Boom? You know who developed that game? Sanzaru games who are known for Sly Cooper trilogy and Big Red Button who had ex employees of Naughty Dog. Despite knowing that, Boom ended up bombing hard. It just shows that they joked around taking their fame for granted.

The devs behind Playtonic knew that paper art alone wasn't enough so they showed footage for the game because the truth is this, actions speak louder than words especially in games.

Meh....I get that all the time. I somehow get depressed that my opinions are counterattacked more than the others. But I'm used to it.

That's because he didn't need to show footage. His reputation and "bad acting" were all that he needed. At least he's showing footage now, so it all worked out.

Actually he appealed fans the perfect way. His fans were aware of the crap Konami did, and he played along with that. His trailer was actually pretty brilliant imo.

I don't ever recall Sonic Boom's marketing mentioning them...at all. But your point holds that not everyone is perfect.

Except they also pitched that they are the former Rare staffers who made Banjo Kazooie and other games from the N64 era. Their fame and reputation helped raise those millions of dollars too. However it was nice to see footage too.

No offense to you personally, but you contradict yourself a lot in your posts. You claim that other companies are bad, and you jump on them when they make even the smallest mistake. However, you jump down others' throats when they do the same thing with Nintendo. But, this is nothing unique and everyone is biased in some form. I want to be polite here, so I won't delve into this much more.

I was going to respond, but then I saw your post and it ended with the usual ''third parties are evil'' nonsense. I'm not going to respond to that.

Does it bother anyone else when a game is heavily based on User-Generated Content (something like Mario Maker or the Trials games) but there is developer created content that isn't accessible to users to use in their content?

Like what if there was a developer level in Mario Maker that had certain assets that Users couldn't use. Does that bug anyone else?
_{I am not saying there is something like that in Mario Maker, I wouldn't know since I don't own the game}

@DefHalan: That would absolutely bother me, unless you obtain those assets by beating the level.

Although Microsoft and Sony fans are pretty bad, It's time we acknowledge the faults of the Nintendo fan community.
1. We're overly defensive of Nintendo. Whenever someone brings up the Wii U's poor sales or the fact that Amiibo are glorified on-disc DLC, we get hyper defensive and incredibly accusatory towards the other console developers.
2. If it has an existing Nintendo brand in it, we'll buy it. We like to deny this but let's face it: If say Wii Music was called "Super Mario Bros. Orchestra", we all would've ate it up. We enable this sort of behavior too. It's why we have games that jump the shark like "Metroid Prrime Pinball" and "Link's Crossbow Training".
3. We expect too much of Nintendo We often expect really big things of Nintendo, such as the Handheld/Console Hybrid NX, Zelda U with an open world as big as Skyrim's, etc. When we do this, we always forget how unreasonable those things are. Bethesda spent forever building such a massive world for Skyrim. A hybrid console would not only mean splitting the market, but demanding that games work both on the go and in the living room.

@MrMario02: I'd argue in some respects Nintendo fans don't expect enough from Nintendo. In this day and age, cross-buy should be mandatory for example.

@CreamyDream: These don't apply to every Nintendo fans. And I only do those things sometimes. To prove it:
1. Although Amiibo are not as much as on-disc DLC in that they can be used for multiple games, they're still pretty big scams.
2. I refuse to buy Metroid Prime: Federation Force because it's not Metroid. It's a generic FPS with the Metroid brand slapped across it.
3. The idea of a "Hybrid" console NX wouldn't work. Also why would Nintendo make an incredibly risky gamble after their last console did poorly?

P.S. Did you seriously say "Yo"? It's 2016, not 1986.

@DarthNocturnal I thought that a Hybrid Console would unify the market too, but the more I thought about it, the less appealing it sounded. If the NX is a hybrid, it would mean that there would be some fans who prefer the handheld convenience, and others who prefer the features of the home console. Both sides would demand games be made more to tailor to their preferred portion of the console and the fanboy wars would be never ending (at least until the next console comes out).

Aren't most toys "scams" by the offenders' logic?

So you played it? How good are the controls?

...why not? You have yet to prove anything here aside from making a lot of conjecture.