Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

For whatever reason, I have absolutely no interest in the indie scene.

I realized that nearly all the smaller budget games I buy or add to my wishlist would more properly be described as a release from a smaller "A" to maybe "AA" studio rather than truly indie games.

For example I have Shantae 1/2 Genie Hero, Bloodstained Curse of the Moon, Sky Gamblers: Storm Raiders, & Fishing Star World Tour, but have no interest in stuff like Wargroove, Golf Story, Undertale, or Dead Cells.

@skywake agree 100%. There are probably 20 devices in my house right now that have Netflix/Youtube/Hulu etc.and like you said if someone can whine about it on the internet, then that means they already have at least one device that is capable already. Worst case scenario you can get a Chromecast for 20 bucks and cast to a TV or get a cheap $50 tablet and watch there. Ive always though it was such a bizzare thing to complain about.

@RR529

I'm kinda in the same boat. I do like some indie games, but usually I feel they're inferior to their "shill corporate" counterparts. Everyone always goes on and on and on about how "it's so artistic! You don't get it, Xbox Fanboy!!!!!1" (I don't own an Xbox lol) or "corporate game companies don't care about their fans!!!1" or "It was made by ONE GUY!!@!#@#!!!!!!!!".

But the question is...is it as FUN? 90% of the time I say absolutely not. Indie games are usually imitations meant to cash in on nostalgia while throwing in high-school level "art" to try and impress pseudo intellectuals (Rick and Morty fans that line up for sauce, haha).

I’m not at all interested in Super Mario Maker.

So just stay away from the games that are trying to be glorified art studio works. That's actually a small minority of indie games, since those rarely sell well. I mean, for crying out loud, the games RR529 mentioned are definitely not "arthouse" games. I can wrap my head around where he's coming from, but in your case it sounds like you're homing in on certain kinds of games for whatever reason while ignoring the more gameplay-focused ones.

Sure, all indie games have to go for stylized graphics, but only because hyper-realism is so expensive, even AAA blockbuster games are shying away from that route more and more. I don't know where you get this sense that most indie game aren't trying to be fun? Purely mechanical experiences are easier to make and iterate upon, so those are the overwhelming majority of indie games that get released. The problem I've seen a lot of people have with AAA games is that they aren't that fun anymore - not to them, at least. There's been a strong tendency towards homogenization, so it's all the same kind of fun, really. Indie games are, pure and simple, where you can find variety in the kinds of experiences you can engage in vs. what you'll usually see from most big game companies.

I know this is a purely opinionated discussion, but your argument thus far completely contradicts what makes the indie scene appealing. If anything, the problem is that there's so much that it's difficult to sift through, so most gaming news sites, Youtubers, and general fans tend to gravitate towards the familiar - so you'll see plenty of nostalgia bait, since it's familiar to most gamers. You'll see plenty of arthouse games because it's easier to write articles about. And of course, you'll see a lot of people talking more about those games when referring to indie games because it's the ones they know everyone knows.

@R_Champ, I wouldn't say they're not fun (as I'm coming from the perspective of not really playing them in the first place, I can't really have an opinion on their gameplay quality), but I'm not on board with a lot of the general fads a lot of them have (such as randomly generated environments/levels which is pretty popular in the indie scene, just as one example), and I'm not a big fan of a lot of the art styles & character designs most of them have, particularly the western indies (not anything in particular I could point out, they all just feel "off" in one way or another).

It probably also has to do with the fact that when I'm looking at eShop games, I'm looking to fill holes being left behind by the bigger studios. With Mario, DKC, Kirby, etc. available, I feel no need to shop around indie platformers, and the same for the system's JRPG selection. However, I got Assault Gunners HD to scratch that mecha itch until Daemon X Machina releases, and the Sky Gamblers games fill that Ace Combat sized hole.

@Ralizah

Every dungeon is built around the most unwieldy, poorly controlled item in the game. I just completed Great Bay Temple, and it would have been a blast if the ice arrows weren't so finicky and controlling the bow didn't feel like maneuvering a medicine ball.

The time travel mechanic is great, the save mechanic is a hot mess. I don't want to be forced to beat an entire dungeon in one sitting. I literally had leave my gamecube running for a few hours because I had to leave for a bit and I hadn't beaten Great Bay Temple yet. And it's not like I didn't give myself time, I just struggled with that dungeon more than I had anticipated (and I'm usually okay with that, but that's contingent on me being able to have my own life not strapped to my console).

Also, not being able to retry minigames without resetting the clock is extraordinarily tedious. I know I can come back on another day, but when I fail a quest, I have this deep urge to try again immediately, and the game doesn't grant me that.

All in all I do like Majora's Mask, don't get me wrong, but there are some severe QoL design flaws that completely hamper the experience.

I don't agree with this so much TBH. For example if the Wii had some basic media playback functionality that would've been pretty handy at the time. At some point during the Wii era it kinda hits peak "gadgets for everything" madness. I had a "dumb" LCD so I had one device for playing back discs, one device for recording TV, another device for streaming media and yet another for playing videos from a HDD or network share. Everything the Wii didn't do basically meant I had a specialised device doing just that thing. Even just DVD playback on the Wii would've been handy early on.

Today? Less so. As of today I can do everything I can basically do everything I could want to do with just my UHD BluRay player. Not only that but I can also do everything BUT playback discs with the built in functions of my TV. In a world of devices that do everything a console that just plays games isn't really a concern anymore. It wouldn't make the Switch any less of a device it's just that it's not really needed in the slightest.

I don’t like Mario 64, there I said it. I played it a few times back in the day and found it janky to control (N64 version). I also got very frustrated back tracking around Peach’s castle, and getting kicked out of levels when you completed an objective.

Of the early 3D platformers I ended up much preferring Spyro, which is one of the few games I went on to 100%.

Not sure if this counted as unpopular or not, but I'm very big fan of easier / customizable difficulty in as many games as possible.

Even on games that keep being lauded for super hard... Like just give options, idk

Spirit Tracks is an amazing game.
I played a Link Between Worlds and loved it. Then, when I sat down to play A Link to the Past, something dreadful happened.
They felt too similar.
Nevertheless, I still intend to go back and play through A Link to the Past sometime soon.
The Thousand-Year Door's battle system is repetitive to the point of tedium.
I also feel like there shouldn't be M-rated characters in Super Smash Bros. As much fun as it is to brain Bayonetta with Dedede's hammer, I still think that the roster shouldn't go past T-rated franchises or games. (Although, a franchise like Tomb Raider or Castlevania, which wasn't M-rated initially or in all of it's installments, is something I'll take on a case by case basis).

@iKhan You should play the 3DS remaster of MM. It makes some quality of life changes (including changing the way saving your game works so that you can do it more often and enabling motion controls for aiming) that sound like they'd make your experience a lot better. Also, the remastered version is just gorgeous.

@Nessjestic I'm the opposite, I really don't care for 2D Zelda games. I found them okay back in the early 00s and before when technical limitations necessitated them (GBA and before), but now they just feel so archaic to me. Especially now that Breath of the Wild is out.

2D games in general do nothing for me anymore. Like you get bored with 3D games, I get bored with 2D games. Trying to play a 2D platformer nowadays does absolutely nothing for me.

But I know Nintendo wasn't going to produce a 3D Zelda in this time, so if the LA remake makes other people happy then so be it. Nintendo is just boring me to death with their releases as of late. lol

I totally feel that. The only 2D Zelda game that really resonated with me was Oracle of Ages, because I'm a sucker for puzzles, and that game was just so damn clever with them.

I find the combat in 2D Zelda to be so goddamn clunky and unfun. I do still enjoy some 2D Platformers, but generally I pretty much need to be able to take them on the go, because I have very little interest in playing them for an extended period of time. Specifically 2D Mario games are one of my LEAST favorite Nintendo games that I've played. Mario's movement feels so smooth and natural in 3D, while controlling him in 3D feels like maneuvering a brick (not to mention control issues that really shouldn't exist on a modern controller)

@Ralizah
I would if I wasn't over halfway done with MM's N64 version. I'll get through this and maybe play the 3DS remake years down the line.

Wario Ware Gold was one of the best games of 2018. I always was a Wario Ware fan but this one really just pushed the best of the best and added so much extra stuff that I can wholeheartedly say that it is at least in my top 3 of 2018.

I've recently felt more and more that the customizable/create-your-own main character in games heavily limits story telling and character interaction. I miss the days of fleshed out main characters in not only RPGs but in most genres. A recent couple examples of why: Pokemon Sun and Moon, and the more recent Daemon X Machina demo. In both of those, you have a lot of customization for your character, but it largely feels like it's not your story, and at times doesn't even feel like you are even there. You're just this vague nebula floating off to the side while everyone else talks and makes decisions. I think it's especially important in RPGs and fighting games, where memorable characters are what drive the stories and make the gameplay so iconic. Could you ever talk about Street Fighter without Ken and Ryu? Mortal Kombat without Sub-Zero and Scorpion? No one talks about the Dragonborn from Skyrim, but everyone remembers Cloud from Final Fantasy. Because we create the MC in Skyrim but Cloud was a defined character with his own, real personality that the story was told around.

On the other hand, games like Tales of Vesperia, Xenoblade Chronicles 1 and 2 and even silent protagonist games like Iconoclasts and Breath of the Wild still present a lead character who really feels like the main character, the star. And I've come to prefer that much more than the Skyrim/Pokemon style of self insert character/story telling.

But I seem to be in a minority in this opinion, as most games these days seem to be opting for the "create-your-own" main character route.

I really wish FF XI remade again in OFFLINE version.

@Snaplocket That can work, for things like character skills, armor and such. But I still prefer a character with a defined personality, written into the story. Much like Xenoblade Chronicles 1 where you could change up the equipment on your characters and their equipped skills to adapt a wide range of play-styles. But the characters remained themselves.

@Heavyarms55 It's a stylistic choice, and which is better depends more on what you want from a game's story - do you want well-written character interactions & a dynamic main cast that play off of eachother? Or do you want a story where you, the player, have a noteable impact on the world? Where you feel like your character is yours to make, and their story is (at least implied to be) unique to your adventure? I'm not saying it's always done well, when games like Mass Effect 1-3 exist, I don't think it's fair to say that it's a limiting factor on storytelling, or at least, not anymore than things like the necessity for boss battles, gear, action sequences, etc. Sure, plenty of times it's used as an excuse to not put in the effort required to make it work, but then the issue is with lazy writing, not with the create-your-character protagoist.

@CanisWolfred I adored ME 1-3 and thought they handled the delicate balancing act of character creation and story telling very well. But that is largely because the core story of Sheppard (I think that's how it was spelled) was the same no matter what else you changed. Man or women, merciful or a total jerk, who you chose to sleep with or not, the core story was still the same. The end result being a game with a ton of different details that can be changed without actually, radically changing the core idea. It was like the video game version of ordering a pizza, no matter what toppings you picked, you still ordered a pizza. That balancing act is a huge part of why I loved those games and still to this day want to see the full trilogy come to Switch and am still salty about only getting ME3 on Wii U.