Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

The one positive thing I can say about the menus in XC2 is that they're at least slightly better than the even worse ones in XCX.

Yeah, not respecting gamers time is lazy articulaton trying to grab hold of meaning without saying something. Along with stuff like over-rated, over-hyped, forced agenda etc it doesn't actually say much.

I take it this has come from the grinder article. My take on grinding has always been a simple one, it's only grinding if it isn't enjoyable otherwise it's just gameplay.

@jump I think grinding is a bit more than just what you're doing, but the context in which you're doing it.

Imo a key part of grinding is having to do something repeatedly in a somewhat unnatural fashion because the requirements of the game are higher than what you'd achieve through natural progression (e.g. a boss in an RPG requires level 50, but you would "normally" be level 40 at that point). In my opinion, a well-designed game shouldn't lock progression behind repetition, regardless of how good the gameplay is.

To be honest, I find I very rarely if ever have to grind for levels in RPGs. But grinding can come in different forms and different genres. For example, I'm playing The Simpsons Hit and Run at the moment, and money is a major barrier to 100% completion. To get anywhere near enough money to obtain everything you either have to repeat the same races again and again (and as solid as the driving is - that's no fun at all), or otherwise exploit some of the respawning systems in the game (my preferred option - but also very grindy and could barely even be considered gameplay). This is all just busywork, really, and not enjoyment of the game.

Older rpgs liked grinding .... While part of what's annoying with current games that do that is they often have pay to basically avoid that

@timleon I can't speak of Hit and Run as I never played it but at no point did I get bored playing Crazy Taxi.

One of the most grindy games I can think of is Fantasy Life, at no point did I ever get bored playing it despite how relentless the grinding was as it was so fun and charming.

@jump I honestly don't remember Fantasy Life to be grindy at all (that said, I think I only mastered 3 or 4 jobs) ! I guess it is the fun and charming context in which you do it that makes it all the more acceptable.

@timleon Sparse checkpoints can be poor design, but they can also be more well-considered, to help heighten the sense of urgency and danger in an area. How valid this game design choice is hinges on the role it serves in the game, not on one's emotional reaction to having to replay a section of the game over. That is more a testament to the patience of the person playing it than anything. Which, btw, is fine. It's fine to just not like something. But that doesn't translate to valid criticism, IMO.

Also, I disagree that it's as meaningful as any other criticism about a game that doesn't go into depth. Here are three statements about a game:

"The game doesn't respect the player's time."
"The game's XP distribution is poorly balanced."
"The game's level design is shallow."

All three are fairly basic, but only two of these statements are meaningful.

I disagree. People are going to have different amounts of patience in a game, yes, but every critical aspect of a game revolves around one's emotional reaction to playing it. If a game has a propensity towards making players feel like their time is being wasted, then the game is not respecting that person's time.

The difference is that the latter two are going into the specifics about the gameplay elements themselves. Sure, "the game doesn't respect the player's time" alone isn't very helpful - but it would usually be followed with something like "making you repeat sequences N times to achieve X".

I think another thing that affects some players experience with a game, is that some don't bother to read the game's mechanics or learning how to control the character (depending on the game). I was still a kid (11 or 12) when I mastered how to control Samus in Super Metroid. Also, I observed the enemies to learn how to fight them. After that, I never had problems with the game, ever again (in regards to the enemies and bosses). The aiming limitations in Super Metroid are not so bad if you familiarize with the controls and enemy patterns.

I do know that some RPGs are grindy, but I find that losing myself in the music helps with this. For example, in Octopath Traveler I play it without minding much about the grinding. If you are the busy type, just use an alarm or check the time in your consoles menu. It's not that difficult. I also think one's current mentality and mood affects the enjoyment of a game. So if you are in a bad mood and don't feel like waiting, play a game that relax you like Breath of the Wild (or other relaxing games. You know yourself what relaxes you). Try to play an RPG that appeals to what you like and based your current mood. It goes without saying that you should check reviews that go in depth about your game of interest before buying it.

@Ralizah But in a more literal sense, sparse checkpoints/save points literally don't respect a player's time in real life. They force you to choose between losing your progress when you have a real life thing to do, or to disregard what is important in real life to get to the next checkpoint. That's not an emotional reaction, it's unconscientious game design.

Probably the most egregious example of this I can think of is Majora's Mask. I have a pretty demanding lifestyle right now, so I don't often have hours of contiguous time to play a video game. But that's EXACTLY what Majora's Mask demands of you. Finish an entire dungeon in a play session, or every puzzle resets and you lose all your stray fairies. Needless to say, I usually get around to making progress in that game every 6 months to a year.

For an unpopular opinion of mine: top down sword combat isn't fun. It's tedious. The best 2D Zelda games are the ones that acknowledge this and focus on puzzle solving. Indie games that focus on top down 2D combat just perplex me.

@iKhan, @Ralizah, @timelon The Save Anywhere feature in modern video games is a godsend, and that the manual save points in older games is awful and should remain in the past. Games off the top of my head that have save anywhere features are Final Fantasy VII Remake (literally no other FF game does this, but maybe XV, I haven't played that one), all three Xenoblade games, and most Zelda games (Skyward Sword was pretty cheap with saves because of the bird statues). It's good for people who have limited time available to game, and sometimes have to stop with a few minutes notice.

I've found myself frustrated by these older games that don't have this feature, especially because older games are getting remastered and ported to modern consoles, like Final Fantasy X/X2, which doesn't have it. Neither does Final Fantasy XII, you have these save crystals (oh god here we go again about FF and crystals. At least the "legacy of the crystals has shaped [them] for long enough"), but in Zelda: Twilight Princess, a game released the same year, you can save anywhere, except it'll transport you back to the beginning of a dungeon and all.

I'm glad so many games are adopting this feature, because it means people don't have to play a lot longer than they need to. I saw Diddy64 mention Octopath Traveler, that's a game that relies on nostalgia from the classical JRPGs of the '90s, and doesn't let you save anywhere! Xenoblade Chronicles was hailed as a game ahead of its time because of the save anywhere feature, which says a lot.

I have a ps4.

@alemaopro09 So do alot of other people on here too...

I have PS4 too.
And with its older siblings PS3, PS2, PS1 and the cousin PSP.

nintendo games should be harder

There are probably more people on here with a PS4 than there are with a Wii U.

Okami is a terrible game with a boring (and too long) story and dull gameplay (it is probably the only game I finished without loosing one single life all thanks to button mashing)

I don't like clickable analog sticks. I mean, for one thing, a modern controller has more than enough buttons, if you're designing a game and you've run out of buttons and are having to resort to clickable sticks, you're doing something wrong. But mainly, I just don't like the way they feel as a "button press". I mean, I'm not saying it's like orgasmic pleasure or anything, but the simple satisfying tactility of pressing buttons is one of the pleasurable things about playing video games (it's like how I much prefer typing on a computer keyboard than on a phone because the feel and the sound and the feedback of hitting keys is just more pleasurable and satisfying and tactile than tapping on a flat touch-screen). Not only does the stick-click feel awkward and clunky and uncomfortable, but also just kind of weak and flimsy and pathetic, it's just not as satisfying as a nice juicy button press.

Another reason I don't like them is that I would say that the standard video game controller is very clear, intuitive and elegant and everyone can instantly understand it; you press the buttons and push the sticks, simple, but how would anyone without prior knowledge know that there are now two special magical hidden buttons that are revealed by clicking down on the sticks. It's extremely unintuitive. With video game instructions nowadays being super-minimal, we now have a situation where the standard symbol to push down on the analog stick is an icon of a stick with a downward arrow, and the standard symbol for clicking down on the analog stick is errr, an icon of a stick with a downward arrow... Seems needlessly confusing for those not in the know.

What got me thinking about this was that my older brother recently expressed interest in maybe getting a Switch. Even though he got me into gaming when we were kids, he drifted away from it and hasn't owned a console (or even really played video games much at all) in over 20 years, but having played a bit on my Switch and his girlfriend's Switch, it seems to have piqued his interest in video games again. But I was thinking, there is no way that he would know that analog sticks are clickable now (because why would he, he's not embedded in the culture to know about it, and as I say, it's a completely obscure and unintuitive concept). So if he's playing a modern game and he sees an instruction of an analog stick with a downward arrow he would obviously automatically assume that that means push down on the analog stick and so he'd basically be completely screwed. I mean, it's not as if when you unbox a modern console there's a little note that says "Oh by the way, if you're new to gaming or have been away from gaming for a while, just to let you know; analog sticks are now clickable to reveal two secret extra buttons, so if you see an in-game instruction with an analog stick and a downward arrow icon, it doesn't necessarily mean push down on the stick, it might mean click down on the stick. OK cool, bye!" I guess what I'm saying is; won't someone think of the poor casuals! I suppose people would say "Well they can just Google it if they get confused or stuck can't they." But to me that indicates bad, clunky, inelegant design.

Minecraft ain't all it's cracked up to be. I don't think it's bad, it's just kind of a letdown for me. I get that some people enjoy it far more than I do, and that's totally ok, I don't want to bash them for that. But I don't see a whole lot of appeal. For the longest time I just thought I was playing 'wrong' because I wasn't enjoying it, but then I realized I just don't care for it much, even when I was a kid.

I do wonder how many people really do think it's one of the best games of all time and how many have rose tinted glasses. But Minecraft did have a significant impact on the industry and lots of kids' lives, so I'll give it that.

@TheUltimateFaker I can see where you're coming from. I can have lots of fun playing minecraft with friends, but I can't have fun by myself because I'm not very good.

I don't get how some people can play so much smash bros. I have friends who have played over a thousand hours of ultimate, and are on playing smash bros quite often. Don't get me wrong, its a really fun game but only with friends or family to me. Is it really worth a thousand hours? They'res not much to the game, just straight forward fighting and a story mode which I thought kinda sucked. It's the same thing with mario kart, but I like mario kart more because the online mode is playable unlike smash bros.