Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

I actually didn't get that into Metal Gear Solid 3DS. Which I'm not sure how much of that is because of the game (hate the menu system) and how much of that is because its a not brilliantly rated port.

But I do like both versions of MGS1.

I remember years ago I was staying at my cousin's house, and he had a PS1 with the original MGS. I had heard so many good things about it so I gave it a shot. I remember thinking it looked and played like an exact copy of Hybrid Heaven, only HH had a deeper RPG battle system and a cooler setting. I'm pretty sure Konami made both, and while I don't know which game came out first, my unpopular opinion would be that MGS is just a poor man's Hybrid Heaven which unfortunately did not become as popular and get many sequels, because I loved that game.

This, a thousand times this. I love that series in every way and I'm amazed how different every entry is from the past one or the next one. The story is really long, and many things happen, but everything has a date and reason why, yet people call it a mess because most of them haven't played every entry, specially Peace Walker and Portable Ops, which some believe isn't canon, but it is and even some story events mentioned in other games because Kojima didn't direct it, however he approves most things about it. Most FF entries and Kingdom hearts series are a complete mess in terms of story, yet people attack the MGS series simply because most haven't even played them accordingly. Same with the cutscenes, which may be large in the past entries, but the game doesn't use quick time events and there's a lot of gameplay and different approaches to it.

This series has the kind of "heart" Nintendo games have. The passion and love of the people that worked on it can be seen at every moment. Oh well, to each his own. I'm really happy to be a fan of the series and while the ending of it was really bitter, the ride was amazing. If MGS 5 is an unfinished product as many say, Kojima is simply brilliant and even then delivered more than many others could ever have with a complete game. Just my opinion.

The Metro Kingdom is the worst of the large kingdoms in Super Mario Odyssey. The metro-art style got bland quite quickly. The linear side levels aren't all that well designed. It just felt like a lot of mini-objectives scattered everywhere, many of which weren't all that fun. Pretty much everything in the Metro Kingdom was done better in the Sand Kingdom.

ARMS is amazing. I hadn't had a feeling like that in a fighting game since playing Smash Bros Melee long ago.

Here's a few of mine:

• Rune Factory: Tides of Destiny is the best Rune Factory game
• I enjoyed Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World more than the original
• In terms of the "ultimate Wii JRPG debate", I prefer The Last Story to Xenoblade Chronicles
• In the Danganronpa series people say Kokichi is just a wannabe Nagito, but I think Kokichi is the better character

@CreamyDream I agree. Though I was far more disappointed with the Snow Kingdom, given that they got ice mechanics so right in the Galaxy games. It felt like a step back, while the Lake Kingdom just felt meh.

I think Sonic Forces is an amazing game! I am also really enjoying Mario Party The Top 100!

@subpopz I'm at the point that I more or less loathe indie almost as much as the AAAs. Every time one talks of PC there's always that one in the group that goes "but indie games and retro games!" That's not, to me, what made the golden age of PC so great. Sure there were breakout hits like Tetrinet and Subspace from the indie-ish scene. But what you say is an indication that the core of PC rotted out some time ago. It's now split between the same big budget AAA blockbusters that are garbage on any platform (now, lootbox enhanced!) and a vast sea of indies with insufficient budgets to realize their actual visions, most of which fall short of being genuine retail grade releases, and the "nods to older eras" are often hollow and introspective rather than genuinely advancing the medium. Where the corporate games are soulless, the indie games tend to be rough and unpolished, or primitive in scope. Every once in a while an indie appeals to me, usually on Nintendo platforms, I did just get my Axiom Verge retail bundle after all....

But if you look back at 90's PC gaming or early 00's, before the OG X-Box, before the uber-budget push into AAA there were all these mid-budget games from "big name" publishers. id's games alone (Quake 1, 2, 3, and the Ravensoft campaigns)....they were tech powerhouses pushing the envelope, but were done with MUCH more modest budgests and sales expectations of "AAA" today. Look at the great volume of work that came out of Interplay at the time. The "Big" games, Baldur's Gate (Bioware did that with a fraction of their EA budgets and it was a far better series), Descent, Freespace, Fallout 1 & 2, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale, and then the weirder games, MDK, Redneck Rampage, Twisted Metal, GIANTS, all kinds of mixed stuff. Sierra (that got bought by Vivendi (the same ones that want to buy out Ubisoft) and rolled into Activision, and then killed), they had their great Rainbow 6 competitor in SWAT, they had Leisure Suit Larry, They published Half-Life back before Valve became a bigger company than themselves! King's Quest, Arcanum....and then there was Activision itself with the Zork games. The mid-tier companies like Cyan doing Myst series by themselves....Acclaim with their mid-tier off the wall stuff.

That was the golden age. Something changed around the launch of the X-Box that broke PC gaming. That whole mid tear from names big and small has vaporized, and its replacement is a few dozen mega-budget games, and scores of indie games of varying limited quality, limited scope, or both, a few gems hidden between, all of them looking backward to recreate the past small pieces at a time, and few to none of them managing to reconstruct where that past was going before it was derailed.

XBox, today, is, of course, just a PC with a monthly fee. PS straddles that line a bit...it's become part of what XBox is, but also maintains occasional traces of its PS2 era roots (rarely ever touching its PSX roots, sadly.)

Nintendo, particularly with it's Japanese library tends to stay closer to the past's version of the future.

@Xaldin While I didn't like Dawn of the New World better than the original, I did really like it and thought it was a really good game. But I definitely liked Last Story the best of the Operation Rainfall trilogy. That game was great.

This is kinda factually untrue considering it rewards you with exp, sometimes quite a bit IIRC. I think X does too, but I'd put Xenoblade 1 above X in this regard purely on the basis of how often exploration will lead you to running into overpowered enemies in X (not that this doesn't happen in 1, but it's less frequent).And tbh, in both games, I've always considered exploration for the sake of it to be the main draw of exploration.

The rest of your complaints are valid enough.

So far in my playthrough, XCX is a game full of highs and lows. It's a bit too complicated and unwieldy, and the extent to which aggressive high level mobs make exploration annoying is a bit of a bummer, but, at the same time, I love how exploration is actually worthwhile compared to the original, and the landscapes are pretty stunning. I also liked how beefed up the sidequests were in comparison to the original.

No? There's some parts that do but at least in the first half of the game, you can ignore at least 1/3 of each area entirely if you want.

Yes, and the entire lake and the other beaches and areas around it.

Or nearly the entirety of Makna Forest that isn't the straight path from Inner Bionis to Frontier Village.

Or most of Valak Mountain.

I don't know what the point of this reply is other than "HEY THAT ISN'T TRUE OF THIS ONE AREA!". If there was a 2nd point, it's lost on me. I just assume it was obvious that I was talking about the average amount of optional areas (or at least my best guess without researching to get an exact number) in Bionis levels and not that every level had an equal amount of optional areas. And beyond that, I don't get the point in the first place. Yes the game that had way more story focus had less optional exploration. ...ok?

XC1's open world is pretty much pointless. Nothing to discover or do in it.

There's a pretty decent JRPG hidden under the slow pace and the metric ton of padding, but, ultimately, I got fed up with it.

Oh I see. The problem is you read it as "first area" but I said "first half" as in the areas in the first half of the game (basically pre-Sword Valley). Misunderstanding.

Sorry if I seemed aggressive. Unfortunately, people try to pull a "well this one example doesn't perfectly follow what you're saying, so you're wrong forever" all the time, so it's hard for me to not assume. :/

I actually do agree that general exploration and movement and the like is better in X (at least when high level enemies aren't constantly in your way).

@Snaplocket Maybe it's just a coincidence from all of the posts I've seen, but after I beat the game I checked out a lot of subreddits and forum topics about the game and most of the posts I read about him mentioned that he felt like a cheap Nagito knockoff. I never said people disliked him (although there are still quite a few who do), just that from what I read it seems like the popular opinion to prefer Nagito over Kokichi. I think it's pretty hard for anyone to deny that the game would be much more boring without him.

Here's a doozy of an unpopular opinion:

Calling Uncharted an adventure game is about as accurate as calling Super Mario 3D World an adventure game. The entire premise of the game is that you are reliving the most action packed moments of Nathan Drake's adventure, without the stuff in between.

That stuff in between, exploring the environment, figuring out where to go, is what defines the adventure genre, because it conveys the feeling that YOU are on an adventure. That's the reason we call Metroid Prime a first person ADVENTURE game.

Uncharted is an adventure THEMED third-person shooter with puzzle-platformer elements, using adventure the same way Metroid uses Sci-Fi or Zelda uses fantasy.

@subpopz Action-Adventure means it has components of the action genre and the adventure genre. Most adventure games are action adventure or adventure with some other genre. Only a handful of games Journey are about adventure and adventure alone.

Uncharted doesn't have components of the adventure genre any more than 2D Mario games have components of the adventure genre. Adventure is just a surface level theming of the gameplay, rather than having the player take part in the Adventure.

@iKhan The definition of ''adventure game'' according to Wikipedia is ''... a video game in which the player assumes the role of a protagonist in an interactive story driven by exploration and puzzle-solving.''

Interactive story? Check. Puzzle-solving? Check. Exploration? Err.. depends on your definition. There are hidden collectibles, so you are definitely encouraged to explore, at least to the degree that is possible in a linear game. Uncharted 4 and especially Lost Legacy had some impressive open levels. And if anything, I would definitely call Lost Legacy an adventure game.

And it's most definitely an action game. So I have no problem with people calling it an action-adventure game.

Here are some of my video game opinions that might be unpopular:

• Arms should win the category of best fighting game at the upcoming Game Awards. Maybe not because of how good it is (that's open to debate) but because of how original it is and what it does for the genre in general.
• The trailer for The Last Of Us 2 from Paris Games Week was horrible. All it showed was violence for the sake of violence without any context as to why or what was happening.
• I don't like overly long and convoluted stories in video games. Most RPG's fall victim to that and I can't stand them.