Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Nocturne isn't hard

That would be covered under game "experience" ... I'm not sure why the acerbic wit is needful here.

I think that streaming has its place, and you certainly wouldn't get a game like Control coming to the Switch if it wasn't for it.

However, you're still looking at that subset of games that are too demanding to run on native hardware and have gameplay that's tolerant enough to latency and occasional dropouts. Simultaneously, they're only going to work for the section of the playerbase with internet access that's low latency, high bandwidth, reliable and affordable.

Combine all those things, and I'd think that you're maybe looking at a dozen games a year at the moment worth considering bringing to the Switch via streaming, and it's not going to be possible to make them available to all regions.

Also, out of interest, how does it play when you're out and about? My experience of streaming so far is that once you're off the home WiFi pretty much everything tends towards unplayable.

Yeah, while none of those games have much in the way of narrative, they've all got some very upfront themes and rich backstories for those who want to delve into the lore.

You're into the realms of Tetris and Picross before you're truly looking at games without any story elements at all.

@Matt_Barber it plays great out and about. I played Assassins Creed Odyssey on my phone at a garage last week using data. Ran perfectly. 4G and now 5G is helping with that.
I do understand the major pitfalls of it though. Its not an option for everyone. Internet speed is poor in many places. So straight away the player base is limited. But it's an option that a certain percentage of people can take advantage of so why not?!
The biggest thing in its favour is no downloading massive game files. The amount of Xbox Gold games I got as part of subscription that I never even downloaded is ridiculous. With Stadia of I wanted to try out one of the subscription games, just click Play and you're playing it a few seconds later. And no more worrying about hard drive space.

Interesting take on the Witcher games there, @Slowdive.... But what makes 3 the best for me is the various little gameplay improvements & I did like 2 a lot, as well

@Matt_Barber What do you mean? All true fans know the complete lore of Picross S4! (/sarcasm)

@Matt_Barber Well yeah but the comment was in context of story SPECIFICALLY

there is an important distinction between a game's self contained story and the lore

Like Souls games don't have deep stories at all, but they're great at worldbuilding through background info and lots of in game lore, and Metal Gear does both at the same time

Okay...So I didn't even know this was an unpopular gaming opinion until recently, but I am of the firm belief that reviewing , critiquing, or any form of judgement on video games, or anything of that sort for the matter, is always subjective, no exceptions. This is because it uses a criteria, therefore making it subjective, it's impossible for any of this to be objective, period. Everyone has different things they look for and different check boxes everyone has, it's impossible for everyone to have the same criteria. This forum proves it, any sort of discussion of any sort on gaming proves it, i don't understand why people don't notice it as they argue about it with other people (yes , i notice the irony of this all). There's no unanimous criteria across the world, that makes no sense at all.

But apparently, most people think otherwise. I don't know, i think this is a good discussion topic, i might miss something I haven't thought of that could change it up. Hope you all had a great Halloween.

@GilbertXI I've never argued with real life friends over opinions on games, so I've never seen the point to do it here.

Only parts of this would be unpopular but its a specific enough opinion that has nothing to do with any other gaming discussion (other than for 2 distinct games) so...

I love both games, but for a while I definitely preferred Mario Odyssey to BOTW. The required parts of the game are overall better, it has less filler, and I'm much more excited for a collectathon platformer over ANOTHER open world game.

But looking at both games in hindsight, my opinion has to started to reverse a bit. BOTW just has such great gameplay and exploring the world is so inherently compelling that its easy for me to want to go back to it, even though I've done nearly everything in the game. Whereas despite everything, I was just done with Odyssey. I didn't want to play anymore. Constantly going back and forth the same areas (partially because I spread things out to justify playing borderline every level 3 times, a mistake in hindsight), just reduced my enjoyment of the game. Post-game really changed Odyssey in a negative way that I didn't get out of BOTW. (I also left a good chunk of shrines for after I beat Ganon the first time btw). So my last experiences were way better with BOTW.

On top of that, more filler-y content changes when you play a game over 150 hours. I've thought this about shows as well. Most super long anime are not always great, but there's just so much of it that if you're into it, you can get past a lot of filler and lesser parts because there's still so much that's great. Whereas if you watch a 24 episode anime, and even 1/4 of it is meh, that's a major issue. At least in my experience. So like BOTW is massive long runner with some filler and Mario Odyssey is a masterpiece with an underwhelming sequel season that doesn't quite add enough to justify existing.

@WoomyNNYes ok, is that directed at me? If so, I'm not talking about opinions on games, I'm talking about how people perceive the objectivity and subjectivity on things, peoples criteria on things, not their views on the thing itself. I'd rather not go down that hole.

@kkslider5552000 That's actually a very interesting take. Now, my opinions on open worlds are a little mixed. i love open worlds, there's a reason why they are praised all over by many people of different tastes. But there is such an over saturation of bland and unoriginal open worlds (cough* ubisoft *cough)that makes it understandable for people to be skeptical whenever one comes out. Another problem is many linear franchises get the open world treatment for no reason. MGSV comes to mind, but I think that is one of the few that actually handled the transition very well, but still unneeded nonetheless. If it was given the more time it needed (completely Konami's fault), it would have been magnificent on top of what was already great.

But I never consider BOTW to be one of these. I think you need a certain perspective going into the game, that you can do literally anything. Every single thing possible is a sandbox for you to use, bokoblin camps always a stones throw a way for you to needlessly harass, a hill to climb, a butterfly to chase around, and a shrine to mark on your map. The world is not bland because the gameplay is integrated into the world itself, something many open worlds sorely lack. Is it perfect: not at all, but it is still one of my favorite games of all time nonetheless. But to be fair, Zelda games take up most of my favorite games of all time slots.

Now, Mario Odyssey. I think the problems you highlighted are a problem in the 3D Mario games as a whole, sandbox style at least. Always jumping immediately back into the painting or warp pipe or whatever to get the next star/shine/moon, and the next, and the next. Only 64 integrated it extremely well, sunshine and Odyssey? Erm, not so much. I actually think out of the two games, Odyssey is better because of overall polish and gameplay, the movement and mechanics of Mario in Odyssey is utter masterpiece. But BOTW leaves a bigger impact on me, mostly cause of personal taste, even though from a mechanical standpoint, Mario is the better game by a longshot.

Also the unneeded wailing on BOTW from the Zelda fan base made me appreciate the game more in spite, cause I'm that kind of guy.

@GilbertXI I think what can be graded objectively by reviews are measurable characteristics, e.g. framerate, resolution etc.. I think there's room too for acknowledgement of innovative techniques, but that really depends on the reviewer's knowledge of the medium. Otherwise, yeah it's just whether they like it or not. I've hated a ton of games that get constant praise (for instance, anything Naughty Dog has ever made). The quality of work can most likely be generalized as good or bad, but there's no way to account for personal tastes.

We argue because it's the internet and, legally, we have to.

I tend to use "objectively" in those sort of arguments as shorthand for "acknowledgement of a widely agreed upon qualities of a game that are difficult to ignore, regardless of your personal tastes". The most obvious example for me is Gears of War, which is good at what it is, I just hate what it is. Same with nearly the entirety of MMORPGs.

That's not what objectively means, but the amount of truly objective things to point out in reviews that's worth doing is not especially large beyond the basic summary of what the game is, and I think that's what most people point towards as objective. The fact that that's not what that means doesn't matter after a certain point, which is something people keep missing the point of. (you might as well tell people gay still means happy lol)

Though I think it gets more interesting when you get to RE6, a game that obviously sucks and is one of the most cynical games I've had the misfortune of playing (I'm unconvinced the marketing team didn't design the entirety of it), yet people keep enjoying in hindsight anyway. Subjective! I also like Glover and Bomberman 64 more than a lot of well made-ish games.

I don't think there are wrong opinions as such but they can sometimes be formed upon mistaken beliefs so it's a good idea to leave yourself a little waggle room for change before pronouncing them as being set in stone.

Certainly, I've had my opinion on games flipped by finding out that an issue I thought was game breaking could be dealt with, and have gone on to enjoy them. Often it's just a matter of getting over a hump or two.

Then again, sometimes I'll think they still suck and nobody can tell me otherwise. Its subjective to that extent at least.

A Link Between Worlds is better than A Link to the Past.

Skyward works perfectly fine and is a great game.

BotW is great but not a amazing Zelda game.

OoT isnt the best game of all time.

Twilight Princess doesn't copy OoT.

I agree with ALBW being better than ALTTP. But ALBW had ALTTP's infrastructural ideas to build upon and "improve" upon, so....

I agree Skyward Sword wasn't as bad as people made out and I ENJOYED the quirky, wiimotionplus controls as not many games ended up the improved motion control usage. I liked the art as well (I know that got some mixed reception?).
I agree Twilight Princess is a great standalone game in its own right external to OOT.
I love OOT though of course. Dearly.

Yea I like ALBW far more than ALTTP. But OOT might be my favorite game of all time 😋

OoT is honestly far from my favorite Zelda. I actually liked Majora and Twilight Princess way more, but that's probably because I don't have the nostalgia for it since I didn't grow up with that game at all

But then again I still think FFVII is one of the best Final Fantasies so there is that