Forums

Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Posts 5,761 to 5,780 of 12,254

Anti-Matter

LuckyLand wrote:

I don't know if this one is unpopular or not, or even if anybody ever cared, but:
I think that Nights is a very interesting game because of its uniqueness and charm, but at the same time I think it is extremely flawed, almost undeniably bad. I'm glad to have it on Steam, I enjoy playing it every now and then but it is so incredibly flawed. I have read that Sega cancelled Sonic Xtreme back then because they were not sure about the quality of the final product. My opinion is that Sonic Xtreme would have been much, MUCH better than Nights for sure. And also much better than Sonic Adventure.

Another opinion that I believe is unpopular: I HATE, really HATE with all my soul the beginning and first stage of Super Mario Odyssey. It is a Mario game, we all know how important and influential Mario games are, and it begins with a bland, uninspired and blatant rip-off of Nightmare Before Christmas. It is totally shameful expecially for a game that is so important, valuable and esteemed. It is the worst starting point a game like this can have. The rest of the game is great, it really has the quality and uniqueness you would expect from a Mario game, but the beginning is plain horrible and underwhelming imo

Actually, when i saw First Stage on Mario Odyssey, Cap Kingdom, i was thinking about..... Underworld.
Literally... Mario was "Dead" by fallen from the sky after struck by Bowser's hat, landed on Cap Kingdom, co-operate with Cappy, the Ghost Cap.
So, Cap Kingdom was like a Underworld place where the ghost lived.

Anti-Matter

Haywired

@CreamyDream
Yeah I've said that all along. In fact even somewhere in the dark recesses of this thread. I've never liked non-Nintendo characters being in Smash Bros (even if I like the characters themselves). For that reason, I'll always see Melee as the last pure Smash Bros. I realise that crossovers are always born out of desperation and it was always going to happen to try and keep the franchise fresh, but yes it was nicer when it was cohesive, ie. Just the Nintendo "universe". I dread to think how bloated the next Smash Bros roster is going to be.

Similarly with non-Mario characters in Mario Kart. If everything just becomes a crossover then what does anything actually mean? It's just an ugly, inelegant mess. Maybe it's a little pretentious to worry about canon when it comes to Nintendo, but I do...

Edited on by Haywired

Haywired

Vinny

kkslider5552000 wrote:

I feel like I'm risking repeating myself but in case I haven't...

Kirby's Dreamland 2 is one of the best Kirby games. Mostly because it's just Adventure with a new twist, which is fine by me.

I remember picking this one up on a flea shop to play on my GBA SP, a loooooong time ago, and I had a lot of fun with it. The first Dream Land game was also nice considering it was Sakurai's first game and he had a really small amount of memory to work with.
DL3 is one of my least favorite games on the series, I only liked the artstyle and the Samus cameo.

This blue eye perceives all things conjoined. The past, the future, and the present. Everything flows and all is connected. This eye is not merely seen reality. It is touching the truth. Open the eye of truth... There is nothing to fear.

PSN: mrgomes2004

Haywired

CreamyDream wrote:

Soul Calibur made it a staple to have guest characters as soon as the 2nd game

Ah, Soul Calibur. When Link appearing in a non-Zelda game actually meant something.

I mean in the last couple of years Zelda characters/costumes have appeared in Super Smash Bros, Super Mario Maker, Bayonetta, Mario Kart 8, Monster Hunter Stories, Miitopia, Animal Crossing New Leaf, Skyrim, Monster Hunter 4, Yoshi's Woolly World, Nintendo Land, Fatal Frame 5, Phantasy Star Online...

I remember when it was announced that Link was going to be in Soul Calibur, it was huge news. Nowadays it would be more newsworthy if he didn't bloody show up in some form...

Haywired

LzWinky

Would Bayonetta really count as a 3rd party anymore? Nintendo now publishes her sequels.

Anyway, I disagree with the no-3rd-party stance. I think having gaming icons like Pac Man, Mega Man and Sonic has a great significance on Smash. I would, however, like to keep 3rd parties to a minimum though.

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

Octane

@TheLZdragon SEGA still owns the IP. A future sequel could be multiplat in theory. So yes, I'd say that still counts as third party.

Third party characters in Smash are like non-Mario characters in Mario Kart. They're fine as long as they kept to a minimum, so they can be switched out for each new game. They can be the guest or surprise characters. I'd be more interested if the next Smash has Bomberman for example instead of Pac-Man for a second time.

Octane

LzWinky

Okay fine. She's a 2.5 party character

But still, I wanna beat the crap out of Sonic in the next Smash

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

Octane

@CreamyDream No, because Nintendo paid for those games, so it's just as likely as Mario Odyssey appearing on other consoles. I mean, maybe in a hundred years when Nintendo isn't around anymore. But in the foreseeable future? Nah, it'll remain a Nintendo exclusive.

Octane

Chandlero

CreamyDream wrote:

We all know they'll eventually make their way to other consoles, even if it takes years.

In the case of Bayonetta 2, this is only possible if Nintendo agrees to this and wants to make money outside its own market. And there is no reason to do this.

EDIT: @Octane You beat me in response time

Edited on by Chandlero

Octane

@Snaplocket Because they're making money while Nintendo pays for the franchise and Platinum Games develops it.

Octane

Madelleste

Unpopular opinion: 2D gameplay is much better than 3D gameplay... in all genres.

Madelleste

LuckyLand

Madelleste wrote:

Unpopular opinion: 2D gameplay is much better than 3D gameplay... in all genres.

2D gameplay is way unrated now and I'd like to see it more often but I don't agree that it is always better. I would like more balance between the two and I would like more high budget games being in 2D, I'd like more 2D games as good looking as Rayman legends or maybe even better but very often 2D games are made to save money instead...
But 3D gameplay is important as well and depending on various things (and genres is one of those) can be better than 2D gameplay.

I used to be a ripple user like you, then I took The Arrow in the knee

Madelleste

CreamyDream wrote:

Yes I love all those incredible 2D fps games.

I'd argue that the 2D equivalent of FPS and 3rd person shooters are the schmups and run and guns. Think Gradius and Metal Slug. And in that regard I stand by my opinion.

Madelleste

Octane

@CreamyDream SEGA and Nintendo own the rights of Bayonetta 2 and 3. Unless Nintendo says so, they won't appear on other consoles.

Octane

Madelleste

@Snaplocket But those are still 3D gameplay. I was talking about 2D gameplay being superior, not necessarily the graphics.

Madelleste

Chandlero

CreamyDream wrote:

It's not the same as Mario at all.

Are you forgetting Viewtiful Joe? Resident Evil 4? No More Heroes?

This is also not the same as Bayonetta 2. Capcom and Nintendo made an exclusive deal for a fixed amount of time. We can't see the contract, but usually, the publisher rights are restricted to a fixed console for one or two years and the other partner gives free developer kits, helps in marketing or simply pays money for exclusivity.

This is completely different in the situation of Bayonetta 2. There, Nintendo paid for the developing. Nintendo simply owns the game (in part).

Edited on by Chandlero

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic