Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Side note: i think one of the modt effective ways in a game to depict how bad animal harm is, is to allow the player to harm animals. I dont like the feeling when animals cry out in Breath of the Wild. I almost never hunt, usually I end up accidentally hitting them with my horse.

@Shambo Anything trying to force or solicit for a societal change from the traditional or standard is inherently politics. That's the entire meaning of politics. If it is gaining additional traction it is a trend. There's nothing incongruent about calling it a political trend. That is precisely what it is, very literally, there's no issue to be taken with that.

That said, when your response to my pointing out it's silly to take issue with animal hunting in video games while warfare and mass murder are fine and expected is to nitpick about the terminology of stating it to be political, discussing historical and anatomical dietary norms, and to discussing the industrial lobbies involved in health organizations..... while still not having an issue that nearly all video games are about mass murder and warfare......what else could I add?

@Losermagnet My point from the beginning, about games, was to offer options on how to play at least, in games where the character is supposed to "be", or highly likely to be a representation of, the player. I do agree that it shouldn't be pushed in games, just available without being a severe handicap. I play games to have a good time. And I also agree that a realistic depiction can indeed shock the player into questioning what they otherwise wouldn't have. But while I applaud it when that happens of course, I still don't think that it should be a mandatory thing to do in any game in the first place (and I obviously just don't play games where it is).

@NEStalgia It's not a MODERN political trend was the point. It's been around for ages. Many cultures throughout time had a much more moral standpoint towards animals than modern western civilisation. Gandhi said you can judge the ethics of a civilisation by how they threat animals. And, very much touching the next point, Tolstoy wrote,in War and Peace I believe it was, "as long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields". To quote Pythagoras on the matter: "as long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of living beings, he will not know health or peace". The prophet Mohamed said that anyone will have to stand trial for any harm they brought on any creature bigger than a sparrow". Even the bible has several references to how mankind was supposed to eat fruits, and animals were supposed to eat plants, in order for paradise to exist. Whether you're religious or not doesn't matter, it's just to make the point that different cultures in different times had a strong perspective on it. And of course I don't agree with genocide and all that, animal agriculture is just that going on in real life as we argue about it, costing many more lives every year than all documented human genocides and wars combined. Though in hunting (especially the "sport"), animals can't win, and never signed up for it in the first place. In war that's quite different, everyone has something to fight for and know what they're in for (goes without saying that war is never ok). And I rarely play a war game, since I despise seeing one side glorified, and one demonised, especially if the invading force is the "good guys" in contemporary war games. Just like I wouldn't play a hunting game ever, I won't play a modern Battlefield, CoD,... But just like how hunting isn't out of place in a game about certain time periods, having written out characters that don't represent the player, so is war not out of place in a WW2 game. Doesn't mean I'll like it, but I may, as a historical piece, or a fiction.
One final point: veganism is not a dietary choice or whatever. It is, to put it in your own words then, a political ideology, which comes with obvious changes in other fields that stray from the norm, such as the obvious dietary ones. I did not "become" vegan by following someone, I didn't even know the term when I "went vegan". It did indeed very much come from a "political", or anti-political, ideology, in which no life should be exploited. Personally, I think that just like most other people, most "vegans" are hypocrites as well, and probably no one is free from double standards. And I find that having these discussions in real life is far less likely to turn into conflicts, which is never the idea obviously. So please, if you take anything I said as personal or hostile, just reconsider and re-imagine it in a non-hostile way, despite how strong my opinions may be and how the medium of flat written text lacks a lot of nuance and interaction - I know my opinions are unpopular, it's why I live in a forest away from society, but I seek harmony, without taking away from the points I try to make.

@Shambo
It sounds interesting to hear a vegan player that dedicated the vegan lifestyle in both reality and video gaming style.
I understand your feeling for not killing animals or peoples even from the video games. But you wouldn't mind if the animal hunting are from very kiddie and kids friendly game like Fantasy Life 3DS ?

@Shambo I understand a bit better now and I think we definately have common ground on the subject. I'm done with this topic though, it's been a bit exhausting.

@Shambo No worries and no hostilities perceived! If only everyone with such a strong view of something were also willing to actually "coexist" rather than screaming at everyone to "do as i say" and declare it "coexistence" ,politics, and the internet, wouldn't be so ugly....

FWIW I'm no vegan, and never could be, but I do at least share the unease with how animals are handled all the same. Including hunting in AC: Origins, RDR2, and the like. Humans never seem to strike a balance... It's always one extreme or the other.

@Shambo I only thoroughly read your first post, so forgive me if I say something that's already been addressed. I do appreciate your posts for having made me consider something about games that I never really have and I'd like to provide my mindset on the matter. If player expression or role-playing are mean to be one of the stronger elements of a game, making a game playable in a vegan way does further enhance that and I hope will be aspired to by some developers. I also think that games being non-vegan or not providing such options are completely valid. Non-veganism can exist in games as a statement or quality of the world. A survival game, for instance, is almost certainly going to be non-vegan. Vegan lifestyles are generally viable due to prosperity, but for worlds or characters who can't exist at that level of prosperity, veganism is not an option to them. Alternatively, the limitations born in a game as a result of a vegan play-style can actually mirror what I'd presume are extra inconveniences and struggles as a result of a vegan pursuit. At an extreme, if vegan alternatives can be accomplished in every aspect of a game at no greater cost, would the game properly represent actual veganism? If you can, consider not getting certain upgrades or fulfilling certain quests as a moral triumph.

Also, in terms of normalizing full-stop veganism, I honestly don't consider that possible. Veganism is the extreme of individual ideological action. While I get that settling at "some" animal suffering probably isn't ideal, selling it as "lessening someone's individual discernible contribution to animal suffering" would generally make it more attractive and tangible to the average person.

Apparently this is unpopular, though kind of related to the current discussion - I don't relate (or even try to relate) to characters in games, or other forms of media. Whatever the characters genders, ethnicity, beliefs or actions, even if they do match my own, I never directly relate to them and has no bearing on my enjoyment. I always take games (and movies, shows and books) as stories of other people, places and events.
Even in more open world games with many freedoms, I don't play as if the character is me. Depending on the amount of info given, I will either play as I think the character would if given a backstory, or I create a background for it if little to none is given and play as that character would, but not as myself in that situation.

I mean, that's a reasonable take. I don't do that for every game and much less so for other media, but there's plenty of games where unless the character is too reprehensible (in an unfun, serious way) to deal with, its just...whatever. And most games are generally not worth diving that deep into their protagonist tbh. I did not play Hitman and go on mass murdering sprees every time I couldn't do certain objectives like I wanted because that reflects any sort of ideal reality to me. It's all just too ridiculous to take as anything reflective of anything.

@Cotillion I'm like this as well. Whatever it is I'm doing (gaming, reading, movie) I try to let it communicate with me, and whether I identify with something or not is largely incidental. Come to think of it, I don't know if I could name a single video game character that I relate to as an adult. Earthbound and Mother 3 are probably the closest thing. As a 10 year old I could relate to Ness never actually seeing his dad. It's subtle, but its a surprisingly mature thing to put into a kids game. Anyway, I'm rambling now. Maybe video game characters you relate to would be a good forum subject?

As for unpopular gaming opinions, I recently watched gaming YouTuber Scott the Woz. I found him completely unfunny and unoriginal. Dude had a crazy number of views though.

@Losermagnet I think Scott’s a little to crazy. I prefer watching AntDude and Nitro Rad. They do similar stuff but are more serious and actually look really in depth at the games they talk about.

I don’t really know if this is an unpopular opinion but I’ve seen plenty of people hating on the Children element in Awakening and Fates. Personally that is what I love the most about those games. I find that it just adds more strategy and actually gives me a legitimate reason to use the pair up mechanic ( besides strength of course ) I was actually really disappointed to find that it wasn’t in 3 houses. I don’t understand why some people don’t like it. I hope that IS adds it into the next Fire Emblem. What do you guys think of the children in the 3DS Fire Emblems?

@Blooper987 I like Ant Dude and Nitro Rad. Watching their vids is a pretty chill time.

I loved the child gimmick in Awakening. I didnt know it was coming when it happened and it was a cool surprise. I hated the gimmick in Fates. Reason why was Awakening has a plot involving time travel, so there was a reason (however silly) for your kids to show up. Fates only did it because it was popular in the last game. In general, I think Fates had too many things going on with it.

If they bring it back I would like it to be in the context of a time leap. Have the game jump ahead 20 years. I think it could be really interesting.

@Losermagnet I 100% agree Fates had waaaay too many gimmicks. Building your fort, children, multiple games in one, dragon blood thing that changes the maps. I think if Fates was 1 game with a more focused story and they got rid of the gimmicky maps, then the children in it would’ve seemed less annoying. Fates’s character design also led to me caring less for the kids. I’m not gonna want a child unit for an adult unit I already hated.

I still think Fates is a good game but it didn’t implement the children as well

If it didn’t have children though we wouldn’t have Selkie and that would be a universe I don’t want to live in 😂

@Blooper987 Children were an organic, plot-entwined mechanic in Awakening. They were just shoe-horned into Fates because IS had tasted real success for the first time with Awakening and were probably terrified of going back to the low sales that previously plagued the series.

@Ralizah I fear the same thing is gonna happen with the next game. IS will put the teaching from 3 Houses into a game where it contextually makes no sense. I’m incredibly interested to see where the series goes next.

@Anti-Matter Funny that you mention that specific game, I used to play it co-op with my ex-partner, and we both had difficulties with the hunter job. But we decided together that it's just an archer, and we'd simply be doing what we did the entire time: god-tier every job, and level like crazy, and change a few things within our imagination. However, games like monster hunter series, that I used to enjoy, got harder and harder to play. I can't stand seeing those majestic creatures limp away to their nests, try to recover, only to be chased and harmed, captured or killed,... Their fear, pain, panic, it felt too real, and the goal was always to gather "materials" from them to create gear to go hunt some more creatures... Or how you have to kill peaceful herbivores for meat to restore your stamina. Mechanically it was a very well made game, and maybe I even have to give it credit for being too well made, because I felt terrible playing it before I decided to never play it again.

@Losermagnet alright, and thanks for sharing your views. I understand that it's a bit exhausting, I've been having these conversations for 17 years now, but mostly about real life stuff, so with higher stakes. In this context, it's almost become stress relieving to me But I'm gonna end it here as well.

@NEStalgia I'm an anarchist, I fight for freedom and equality for all, not systematic oppression. I'd love for the world to "go vegan" and "anarchistic" (both basically meaning we'd ditch the idea that one's life is of a higher value than that of an "other", that we ONLY have authority over ourselves, and only WE have authority over ourselves), overnight if it could, because I strongly believe that would bring more peace, health, joy,... For every living being. But definitely not by law and punishment, masters and slaves, those are the means of hierarchy. But that's my opinion, if hierarchists could just limit hierarchy to those explicitly and voluntarily participating, I'd happily let them have their hierarchy away from us who have other ideologies.

@SomeBitTripFan I think my initial point made it across pretty much intact, or we're just pretty much on the same page here, thank you for reading it and sharing your view. You may however actually be surprised by how many "poor" societies actually are almost "vegan" though, often without it being a moral stance. Most fruits and vegetables are much cheaper to "produce" and more efficient ways of getting food (I personally don't consider "meat" "food", or milk food for grown ups, let alone of other species). For raising animals for "meat", forests, often in poorer countries, are cut for soy or grain production for example, that could feed many more humans instead. While those people often aren't really vegan, these "poor" cultures eat far less animal products (and have far less health issues related to them), and there are few cultures that eat more animals than the "rich" western cultures. I for example chose to live below the poverty line, and have no difficulties feeding myself and the animals I shelter here in my forest. I used to travel around quite a bit, and stayed away from touristic hot spots, where they cater to the western eating habits, dressed up as "local specialties", at rich tourist prices. In many countries you can get a perfectly vegan feast "for an apple and a-", well, banana - a perfect "replacement" for eggs in pancakes ^^ Here in the "richer" parts of the world, veganism can be as expensive as you want,ranging from the cheapest option, to the most expensive one. From the healthiest to the most unhealthy lifestyle.

@Cotillion For most games -and media in general even more so- that works for me as well. In movies I rarely have an issue (I don't need to control their actions, or watch idly while they take away control, doing stuff that breaks the immersion or make me dislike a character I was invested in, in a way that didn't enhance the experience or story). Of course I have an issue with animals being considered "meat" (or trees "wood", humans "workforce" or "cannonfodder" or whatever,...), but I can see qualities in flawed characters, and flaws in otherwise relatable characters, or see value in a despicable protagonist in a movie. But in the example of Assassin's Creed 4, a game I thoroughly enjoyed as an open world and a story (just not the story missions), and where I related not to the protagonist but mostly to Black Beard, it felt unnecessary and cruel to go (whale) hunting, especially requiring several skins of specific animals for one upgrade, required to unlock access to the next, again requiring several skins of specific animals. Where in reality, even if you'd hunt for them, just one non-specific skin would suffice to create that final upgrade to a holster for an extra gun for example. As suggested by someone here (lost track with all of the reactions at once), I just made peace with not upgrading everything, and did use the skins gathered in self-defense when possible. But even if I found the main character somewhat dislikable, I just couldn't actively control him to go whaling and otherwise hunting.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time and for chiming in everyone. I was obviously right that it's an unpopular opinion, but I knew that going into it and I'm happy with the resulting conversations and even the content of them, as I've gotten used to trolling and ridicule, conflict and marginalisation on the internet, even from fellow vegans often.

Unpopular opinion I've had a long time, but the Paper Mario headline made me think of it again - Miyamoto has been revered as a game designer, which I agree with, but his ideals have been also been detrimental to many games. His absolute insistence on creating some new gimmick, some new mechanic, some change for the sake of change and forcing these gimmicks has ruined many a game and/or sequel. And his desire to throw the story away in every game. No, Mario doesn't need deep lore or backstory, but no story in an RPG series? This is the same reason Zelda has little story most of the time. I like the idea of each game being a 'Legend' and the overall lore and timespan between them being somewhat vague as a legend would be, but that doesn't mean each game can't have its own better story, with better developed characters.
At least, I think it's unpopular, because he seems be revered to the point of not being able to do wrong.

I agree with this general idea, but I equally blame everyone else at Nintendo for just going along with Miyamoto's ideas without any thought or compromise. Even the best people can make some really stupid suggestions, so blindly going along with it, is not ideal.