Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@iKhan Imagine if you made a series for kids, let’s take Peppa Pig for example and when you publish it you lose “ownership”. The next thing that will happen is that people will make bloody variants of Peppa Pig or sexy stuff like rule 34 of straight up porn.

Your intention was just a series for kids aiming to entertain them or just learn them something about friendship or something.

I would be pissed as hell if I saw someone just using my IP to change the idea I had with it. Let alone charge for it.
I would allow some things if they asked and maybe sign up a contract for it or something.

Now with games I have the same stance as with movies and/or series.
The only problem I have with games is that they should always be released on the next platform. The company’s always want to stop piracy from mostly their older games.

If you would make atleast a port if you older popular games it would be downloaded much less on the internet.

@iKhan I’m actually okay with companies maintaining the rights to their intellectual property. Like mentioned before I think the creators have right to the property they created themselves. Otherwise it would just be a madhouse of knockoffs and “rush to market” products trying to capitalize on fads. There is already enough of that.

Although I think companies should be encouraged to make their older media public and put in some sort of digital domain for anyone to access. So you have something like the NES Legend of Zelda available online for anyone to access legally. It would take a ton of convincing for Nintendo to surrender digital rights to such a famous game, but if it became the standard they might just hand it over. They obviously could digitally distribute or make physical cartridges on their own with their own bells and whistles if they wanted to, but a free version would also be available. The same could happen with movies and books. Just hire a good preservation team that is able to catalogue and restore this old media and have an app on every device that can access the digital database.

I know that sounds a bit like a dreamer thing, but right now you have copyrights that companies just sit on without doing anything with their classics. Without the fans, hackers, and emulator community a lot would be lost and unavailable, so I say just encourage companies to donate them to some government preservationists body and make it public.

There’s a lot to such a plan but it would be ideal to have something like that one day.

@NotTelevision I agree fully with you compadre.

@Anti-Matter can you tell me how the hell Evoland 1and/ or 2 is better a game that is better than Final Fantasy 7 remake? A game that is not even out yet. Are you from the future?

What you just said can not even be a freaking opinion. Also you comparing Evoland 1/2 to Final Fantasy is the same is like comparing Sims to a frying pan: it makes no sense at all.

@BrintaPap I think his reason was that there was one swear word in FF VII and he condemn every game that has even a pinch of violence or swearing.

If you have interest in girly kiddie games. Then he is your guy.

@BrintaPap
I have seen FF VII remake from the demo version at my local game shop (the shop owner played the Demo for a while) and it was.... Blah ! 🤮
The more realistic, the more i want to barf. 🤢
And also, i heard explicit swearing word from FF VII remake trailer. I hate profanity. Once i heard that word, i banned the game immediately. FF VII remake will NOT allowed to be in my gaming room.

I have watched Evoland 1 & 2 gameplay, despite of being traditional 2D and cartoonish 3D model, the gameplay looked very appealing. And i was thinking Final Fantasy Classics should be learn from Evoland 1 & 2. I saw something like FF VII from Evoland 1 (at the end of the chapter) and FF VII should be like Evoland 1 if FF VII got simple 3D model. Other FF classics such as FF V and VI should be like Evoland 2 in 3D model.

Indie did better than SquareEnix.

LOL

Never change, Anti-Matter. It takes all kinds.

@BrintaPap

Would it piss me off? Yes. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

Even with copyright restrictions, franchises are bastardized and either violate the creator's original intents or violate what the franchise has become to its audience.

Comics were originally targeted towards children, but now there are R-rated Batman animated movies, and Harley Quinn drops f-bombs everywhere. Paper Mario has been transformed into a shell of it's former self. In these two cases it was due to creator changing, but you also have examples like George Lucas and J.K. Rowling where the creator fails to understand why their property resonated with people, and damages the world that they themselves created.

With all that said, I don't think any of those cases shouldn't have been allowed to happen, even when I find them objectionable. At the end of the day, we as consumers of media create a conception of the characters and stories we see that aren't always completely in-line with what the creator intended. I don't believe that necessarily makes them less significant. In fact, I think it would allow for multiple versions of characters to be available, and allow people to find a conception of a franchise that most resonates with them. I don't think a creator has any right to tell me how I can perceive his or her characters, and how I can share it with others. My understanding of their characters has become wholly my own upon reading/watching/playing their work. IMO that's the great part of ideas, they aren't zero sum, where two people can simultaneously have the same one.(unlike, say, a baseball, where if you give it to me, you no longer have it)

I do think it would make sense to have some sort of logo or certification that shows that a product is "from the original creator" or "approved by the original creator". Not only so that the creator can maintain some control over what is perceived as "canon", but also so that people can easily find work from creators who do produce a consistent product that resonates with people

Final Fantasy VII remake not being turn based was the best choice for a remake.

This is less unpopular than it was a year or two ago, but I don't get people who want to just play the exact same game with better graphics when the game already exists. Granted, I understand it more considering how dated the original looks, but I'm playing the original and largely enjoying it a lot. But that means, I would have no reason to play the remake myself ever if it was the same gameplay. I'm not spending 60 bucks for the same experience but prettier. Not done it for the many Zelda remakes (got WW HD for free, thx Nintendo and Mario Kart 8), not doing it here. And if I wanted to see how its updated, Youtube exists, I could just watch it. It also doesn't make sense because regardless, this has taken an eternity, don't spend all that time for the same thing. Give us a new version of this classic.

But as a counterpoint, Final Fantasy XVI should be turn based. It is time for a mainline FF return to classic JRPG gameplay. I don't want the old game remade to be turn based, I want the new one to be.

The Animal Crossing one island controversy resurfaces something that I feel is becoming more and more an issue with certain games nowadays. I’m fine with the option being there to be clear, but if it never comes does that make the game truly irredeemable?

It seems like atypical and unique design choices developers make in a game are just being stamped out. As a result, more games are just starting to feel like different variations on the on the same idea. Make all the fighters totally balenced for tournaments, include a ton of custom stats for all playstyles, include a steady difficulty curve so there are no random spikes, tutorialize and make the mechanic obvious so the player never feels lost, introduce fast travel early so people don’t need to spend so much time walking, include X amount of save points so people don’t get frustrated...

I’m fine with many of these things in games and yes a lot of this is “by the book” and “correct” game design, but you are also losing something in the process. Elements of surprise (not surprise mechanics I know what you’re thinking 😀) are something I’ve come to appreciate more in games as I’ve gotten older. Those quirks differentiate certain games and make them more of a special experience as a result.

Added: Though yes, when you are talking about something so broad you need to analyze mechanics on a game by game basis.

Which seems like a unpopular opinion on here (Which I guess makes sense in some ways). I find game companies like Nintendo that strike down fans that just want to make something that other fans in the community would enjoy in good fun and entertainment, disgustingly greedy. I find their use of "protecting" just a safe way to say they don't want anyone to enjoy anything they've made unless they buy their products. Not allowing fans to freely share what they made for each other unless its the ones they pick and choose. I just cant understand this morally that I gave up arguing with people about this.

@Ardisan Be happy to be free to complain about that. When Sony shut down a free fan game they also shut down reports and complains about it. Nintendo is far from being the biggest control freak company of the industry.

I mean the solution is that Nintendo has no need to care this much about IP laws that are only useful for protecting smaller companies in the first place. That's it, that's the entire solution. A lot of companies have been either ignoring or directly working with fans who make quality stuff for a decade. All video game companies that are all still around because surprise, surprise, fans don't have the marketing budget of the people who own the IP they're using. And in the first place, figuring out a reasonable balance of these things is probably not that difficult compared to the work people in these companies do.

tbh I could've just said "slippery slope fallacy" and just not written a real post, because that's all it is

So fans should be allowed to copy Nintendo’s games into Dreams?

Or they should be allowed to make a Smash game that may compete with Ultimate?

Where should the line be drawn?

I just...responded to these points. They're different questions technically, but my response is literally the same. Do you see my response? It's right above here...I just wrote it. It's right there. I just did this.

"Or they should be allowed to make a Smash game that may compete with Ultimate?" There's been a fanmod community for Smash for a decade, and the most recent Smash is the best selling fighting game ever. Your cause and effect possibility is a myth.

(for the record, my point is less "there is no valid reason to protect your IPs" and more "there's basically no reality in which this negatively effect Nintendo in any real way, and Nintendo would be smart to get some positive PR for stuff that will often be made regardless of Nintendo's wishes, which is what other companies do successfully already")

I don't think Pokemon Black and White has a good story relative to any other story-driven JRPG. It's just "good for a Pokemon game", and even then Pokemon Colosseum had a better story.

The reality is that the fundamental structure and design of Pokemon games isn't accommodating to a grand story, so trying to make one is kind of fruitless unless they completely upend the structure (which is what Colosseum did). There is no party, and the main objective is completely self centered (beating all the gyms). The most "character" they can give your avatar is just telling you that "oh hey you are a strong trainer", because there isn't much else special about your main character. There isn't a mystery surrounding your origins like in Fire Emblem, and even if there was, again, there's no party, so there isn't an effective way to develop character relationships.

One of the reason I like the older games is that they aren't desperately trying to achieve the futile goal of creating an engaging story with such a limited structure. They accept what they are, and instead go for a more laissez-faire approach to a story that takes the back seat.

Completely agree. Pokemon never needed much of a story, and it certainly never needed the number of cutscenes we've had in the past 3 generations. Gens 1 and 2 had perfectly fine narratives as they were IMO.

That said - I wouldn't mind a story-heavy Pokemon game. But I agree that they'd struggle within the constraints of the current set-up. I think they'd have to change the whole structure of the game to revolve around the story (much like Colosseum and XD).

@Buizel

That would be sweet. There have been so many amazing fan and official projects that have utilized the premise of Pokemon to tell great stories.

I see no reason why they can't tell a grand tale about some non-avatar character who becomes a hero with his or her team of Pokemon. Make it linear, but scrap the gyms, and and use the story to drive the game. Give the player a party, and make all the battles double or triple battles, or give the player the option to change teams.

I'd love to see a spinoff with a battle system like XC2, where you have a full party of character controlling a variety of blades.

I strongly disagree with this. Not as much as a defense of Black and White but because Pokemon Colosseum is just another Team Rocket plot. There is not much else to it. I actually distinctly remember being incredibly disappointed by it for that reason. Nintendo Power and other places kept hyping the game up as some more mature, darker, story driven game, I was getting so excited and its just another Team Rocket. A goofy villain team for children. It's like other Pokemon games, but less. Outside of when gaming sites tried so hard to convince me that Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts retained what made the first 2 games so good despite the radical shift in direction (this happened during previews, I promise you), I never felt more mislead by previews of a game. The Paper Mario games might as well be SMT compared to how little this game does for darker narratives. And I was like 13 at the time and still enjoyed the kid friendly Pokemon games, so its not that, it's really that it could've been so much more and just refused to be.

I mean I can agree with the idea that Pokemon should just be its own thing. But I do appreciate that B/W tried to address one of Pokemon's biggest critiques, and actually got something decently clever and interesting out of it. I think it did things as well as you could've hoped. Unlike Colosseum, which could've been cool and different (and had the main character and setting to pull it off) and instead did nothing.

...yeah ok this was mostly me ranting about something that's bugged me for 15 years, I'm sorry. I did like XD, probably because I never felt lied to about it.

(though the real answer for a good Pokemon story are the Mystery Dungeon games, tbh)

@iKhan I never had much issue with Pokemon Black and White's story - though like I think about most games with this mechanic - it's hurt badly by the silent protagonist avatar. I almost never like that trope. It's very hard to make work. Off the top of my head only Zelda and Fire Emblem games have done it well. And even then, not consistently.

My primary issue with Black and White is the way they decided to use only new Pokemon during the main story with many of the new Pokemon introduced obviously just designed to fill a niche for another Pokemon they were replacing, rather than being different or interesting. And at the same time, many of the best and most creative designs locked behind absolutely absurd evolution levels. Look at Pokemon like Litwick, it doesn't evolve until level 41! And that's the most usable of the ones I am thinking of. Pokemon like Bisharp, Brivary and Mandibuzz, and the unholy master of too high evo levels, Hydreigon! It makes all of these Pokemon unusuable in the main game unless you massively overlevel and restricted you to using the bland filler Pokemon for most of the story...

The main reason I vastly prefer Black/White 2 to Black/White. At least for the most part, they realized their mistake in that regard and later games have not repeated that nonsense.