Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@DarthNocturnal Yeah, one or two lines each gen. Just the pseudo-legend and maybe one other. And it evolved so late because it had stats that were so high. 5th gen introduced a small mountain of Pokemon that all evolve very late.

Yeah, like I said, as much as I dislike B/W for a multitude of reasons, I will acknowledge that it has a solid story for a Pokemon game. But like you said, the main protagonist being a silent avatar really hurts the story. I only get to learn about Cheren, Bianca, and N through the lens of my incidental interactions with them as I go on my own adventure. It would be a lot more interesting if the main character had something interesting about him/her that I could attach to.

Also, now that I think about it, one of the issues Pokemon tends to have with it's story is that it never offers the illusion of agency. In Zelda games, I don't mind NPCs acting like I'm an amazing hero, because there was always a distinct problem offered, and I was given the opportunity to find the solution myself. At the very least, the games will set up a scenario in which they say "if only someone could do X", and you can feel a little bit cool for being "that someone". In modern Pokemon games, the way it often works is "Oh hey there's a problem, you there, go fix it by doing X".

So no, I'm not the hero, I just follow instructions, quit saying that I'm special.

@iKhan It comes down to one of the main problems I have with the "silent protagonist" in JRPG/RPGs. Very often you have situations where other characters are constantly speaking for you and making decisions for you to such and extent that it feels less like you're a character in the story, than like you're the weapon the other characters are pointing at the bad guys. I felt this really strongly in Pokemon Sun and Moon, which is very much the story of Lily and Gladion, not your story. As well as in Dragon Quest 11. In that game your party members are constantly just speaking for you. And two points that were really ruined by the silent protagonist for me were a part when a certain party member is confessing how devastated she was by your perceived death where she's just laying all her feelings out, her pain and suffering and "you're" just sitting there watching her like some kind of doll. She might as well have been talking to the wall! And then later you team up with a character who had been your enemy, after being separated from the rest of your party - said character hated you until presumably just hours prior, and suddenly is speaking for you in one cut-scene after another because your character doesn't speak. It made no sense that "you" would just let this guy speak for you.

These are just a couple examples of how not to do the silent protagonist. If you want to go that route, don't do such a story heavy game.

It's not impossible to make work. I think Breath of the Wild, albeit not as story heavy, made it work fairly well. Link still has a personality in the game and you have points where you have to answer questions - and though you don't have an actual voice, characters still respond properly as though you did reply. Another example: In Fire Emblem 3 Houses, Byleth is silent, but she (or he I suppose, I hugely prefer the girl version) has a good amount of personality just through their body language (lack of) facial expression and the few points where you do choose a response. There are still points where other characters speak up even when you're supposedly leading them, but it's a minor thing.

Anyway, I could really ramble on and on about this topic but the last thing I want to add is:

In a story heavy game with an avatar MC, you don't have to go the silent route. Look at the Mass Effect Trilogy or Star Wars KOTOR 1+2, you can really define your own version of Sheppard, Revan or the Exile but they are not silent. It's hard, it takes a lot more work but it very much can be done and done very well.

I'm not always the biggest fan of silent protagonists, but the best video game story is Mother 3, and it's almost hilariously consistent with how the main character you're playing (even if it's a different one later!) is silent. So if the best video game story has it, I guess I fail to see the problem tbh.

Pokémon Sword and Shield aren’t that bad

this is only an unpopular opinion on r/Pokemon :V

more controversial: Paper Mario Sticker Star isn't that bad. If you ignore what a stupid and hilarious drop in quality it is from the previous games at least. As a game on its own, it is a solid 6/10 that has great core gameplay and aesthetics but mixed level design, questionable bosses and an absurd misunderstanding of why people like RPGs.

I think this one might be a little unique. I don't personally consider gaming to be one of my hobbies.

To me, I define a hobby as something productive, that is, something that either produces a tangible product, something that I'm constantly trying to improve at, or something that offers significant meaningful learning.

I think that for many people, gaming fills one of those roles (e.g. You love to speed run, or you keep playing certain games constantly striving for a better score, or you play something competitively). But for me, it's more like watching an action movie. Fun and relaxing, but not exactly something that I'd consider productive.

@iKhan I have a similar thought, but it's more that I can only play games that I would consider what you define as a hobby. There are certain genres that I just can't play anymore. As a kid I loved to play beat-em-ups like Double Dragon and Battletoads, schmups like Gradius, fighters like Street Fighter, and some FPSs like Doom and Goldeneye. Now, though, those games are just mindless time wastes to me and I can't do it. A game has to do something for me, to enrich my mind at least a little bit. I try to branch out when something looks especially cool or unique, but my catalog consists probably 80% or more of puzzlers, RPGs, or adventure games with puzzle elements like Zelda or point-and-clicks. Mario is probably about as mindless as I can get nowadays.

I'm not sure if this is unpopular or just unknown, but the "Stage 2" theme of Gourmet Race is nearly as good as the "Stage 1" theme that everyone knows, and it's a shame that it gets over looked

I’m not sure if this an unpopular opinion or many people feel this way, but I don’t see any point to linking (no pun intended) the Zelda games into a timeline. Every time I read something or watch videos explaining what game came first, or what version of Link or Zelda you are playing as it just ultimately confuses me. When there is a direct sequel like Majora’s Mask, it doesn’t even feel that much related to its predecessor. So I’m not sure how I am supposed to parse what is related to the overall (if there is one) narrative of Hyrule or unrelated. Certain games aren’t even in Hyrule, so are those supposed to be spinoffs or is it still Hyrule with a different name?

I’d prefer to think of the main characters as familiar faces they can plug into different settings, while retaining basic elements like are quintessential to Zelda like puzzle solving and exploration.

The lore of Zelda is great but connecting it all becomes a big mess, and may detract from the merits of how Nintendo essentially reboots the franchise every generation or so.

So while it’s fun to see reoccurring characters in the games, how or why they appear I think has more importance on the individual game, rather than some grand metahistory.

My unpopular opinion....Splatoon 1 and 2 make no effort to maintain a beginner level/casual player base. Playing any of the modes these days will result in a wipeout for a beginner player who gets no chance to experiment with weapons and gear. Nintendo's bare bones approach to lobby set ups and online gaming has made Splatoon, ARMS and maybe some others a "shoo noobs!" zone.

@NotTelevision I feel the same. And come to think of it, it's not really something that people try to do with other franchises. Where is the Mario timeline? Or the Sonic timeline?

I'd much prefer the series to have a completely open canvas to experiment in, rather than to have each entry fit its way into some preconceived timeline.

I think there's some merit to trying to connect the games, but at the end of the day, long term continuity between games is basically never a focus for the series. It's a thing to do for fun, but people will be disappointed if they think Nintendo cares that much about it.

The timeline also doesn’t explain the constantly changing geography (looking at you, Death Mountain) and logically how the races co-exist.

Not sure this will be an unpopular opinion, given this is a Nintendo forum, but I am not remotely excited about the forthcoming next generation of consoles. The graphics and processing arms race between Sony and Microsoft has never felt more redundant - all you get is a flashier sound and light show.

Of course, it doesn’t help that we haven’t seen any real thunderbolts in next-gen software yet. I’m sure there will be great games - but how many of them will be great only because the technology has taken another leap forward? Guess we’ll see.

Dillon's Dead Heat Breakers on 3DS needs more attention from gamers.
It was a crime for being a forgotten Nintendo game. No One here ever talking about Dillon's Dead Heat Breakers but me.

I have a really good one that's actually controversial:

Game devs who are on huge teams where they have no real creative input on the final product need to get over internet criticism of their game. And it's rare for me to defend internet criticism, but if you had nothing to do with something people are complaining about, directly or otherwise, then its not about you.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of devs, especially with how poorly treated they can be in these large companies. But that's exactly why this bothers me, the companies sometimes don't deserve for them to really care. But I hear that some people working on Pokemon were upset by Sword and Shield's reaction and I feel bad for them, but they have NOTHING to do with their complaints. Maybe not even the creative people at the head of the game, because its very obvious that the big problems people had with the game were based off of limited time and resources, not because the devs intentionally decided that less Pokemon and dated aesthetic problems were good, actually!

I used to work at Target and I actually did like that job (surprisingly, with all the horror stories about retail I always hear). But I don't feel personally attacked because of recent things I found out about their anti-union stuff, that'd be stupid. And in general, its often just a bad idea to tie yourself that closely to your job, arguably even when you're able to be creative.

@kkslider5552000

I usually agree with you, but in the case of Pokemon Sw/Sh, some of the comments were truly toxic, with people calling GameFreak lazy or a bad developer. To use your Target example, I imagine that would be closer to people criticizing Target for poor retail service, saying "Target employees are lazy and don't care"

I should have mentioned that it's probably also not good to look up fandoms for what you work on if you have nothing to do with creative decisions in the first place. That's not even me justifying it, since even decisions I LOATHED for some games (ME3 original ending, classic example), still get obnoxious, moronic and hyperbolic complaints that no one should waste their time on. The fact that the comments go too far only adds to my point tbh, why would I want devs to deal with that?

I know the common response in any scenario remotely like this that it isn't the devs fault and that's unfair. Correct. Life is unfair. You noticed. But there's no reality you're ending bad online complaints, it's never ever happening, so this is the best thing someone can do for themselves.

And I'd argue having a life beyond your work is just a healthy thing regardless, devs don't need MORE time thinking about their game. Let them live their lives.

I don’t think Sword and Shield were “lazy” at all. They were full-fledged games too.