Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@TheFrenchiestFry

When you say "Omega Force" you mean Team Ninja, right? I don't believe Omega Force had a hand in MUA 3's development. Anywho, clearly DoA 6 and Nioh 2 projects received the lion's share of the developmental talent at Team Ninja while MUA 3 got...just enough.

[EDIT: Just in case anyone ever stumbles upon this post again, I now completely disavow it: It dawned on me that through their anniversary celebrations they have released some really cool products (for example, like those recent updated Mario and Zelda Game & Watches for the last anniversaries). Products that likely wouldn't have been made outside of that context. So, I realized that my post is basically inadvertently advocating for those cool products (and potential future ones) to not exist. So, if anyone ever sees this again, please ignore it. Obviously I could just delete the post, but annoyingly the commenter after me has quoted it in its entirety, so it would still be there...]

Bit of a silly one, but nevertheless: I don't think a 35th anniversary of a video game franchise is a legitimate anniversary to make a big deal out of (as Nintendo have been doing with Mario these last few months and I guess will be doing with Zelda soon as well). If Nintendo is going to make a massive song and dance about a Mario anniversary every 5 years (and release about 20 Mario games all at once to celebrate) that's going to get pretty tiresome (not to mention all their other major franchises as well; they'll pretty much be celebrating anniversaries practically all the time, thus rendering them fairly meaningless and putting themselves in a state of permanent self-congratulatory smugness). Now, in fairness, I suppose you could say that Nintendo didn't make anywhere near as big a deal of the 30th anniversary (if memory serves), I guess because that landed during the arid Wii U era, so it would've been basically like celebrating your birthday party on your own, so instead they've decided to convince everyone that the 35th anniversary is "the big one" now that we're living in the far more bountiful times of the Switch, but in any case, as a general rule, in terms of big outlandish anniversary celebrations of franchises; Every 10 years? Fair enough. Every 5 years? You're pushing it... (I mean, that's not even the length of a single console generation).

Here's how a 35th anniversary of a franchise should be celebrated:
Company puts out tweet: "Did you know, this year is the 35th anniversary of [insert franchise]?
General response: "Oh cool, that's nice. Though it's not quite a 30th or 40th anniversary is it?"
THE END

Oh and if you're thinking "God, I feel sorry for his wife when their 35th anniversary comes around", joke's on you, I'm lonely and single.

Agree. But the 30th anniversary of Mario was a much bigger deal, because they actually released a new big Mario game (Maker) rather than a bunch of rehashed ones.

https://www.mariowiki.com/Super_Mario_Bros._30th_Anniversary

I'm happy for them to do every 5 years for big franchises like Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon. 5 years is quite a long time (more often then not, each of these anniversaries is in a different console generation), and there's no shortage of ways in which they can celebrate these.

For smaller franchises it would probably make sense to have something small like a Tetris 99 theme or add some free cosmetic DLC to an active game or something.

But in hindsight, it's very easy to forget that X release was an anniversary release (who remembers that Mario Maker was Mario's 30th anniversary, or Sonic Adventure 2 was Sonic's 10th?). I think it's more marketing than anything - most games released for an anniversary would make sense without it, the anniversary is just a good excuse to release it at that point in time.

The Imprisoned is among the best bosses in the Zelda series, especially his second incarnation. While lacking in spectacle or stylistic flair, he doesn't fall into any major Zelda boss archetype, supports multiple approaches to taking him down, and rewards the use of many of Link's tools. The first fight serves as a decent tutorial, but makes it a bit too easy to get into the mindset that you should only be slashing at his toes. The second is the best iteration, but Groose's stuns provide a bit too much leeway to allow players to continue brute forcing by slashing toes again (as frustrating as this strategy is). The third fight doesn't hold up on repeat plays due to playing out the same way each time, but the tension and surprise of the first time is still solid. I'd really like to see the idea of the boss revisited in another entry.

The boss is really awesome.

Skyward Sword is good actually, is not a real unpopular opinion. Half the people who dislike it just hate motion controls by default, so whatever.

But what I will say is that the game would be better with less mandatory content. The pacing of the game kinda sucks and made it a bit more of a drag to get through than it should've been. Like when I got to the lightning dragon part and it wasn't even a gimmick like the other two dragon song quest things, it was just MORE OF THE GAME, I had this real feeling of "I don't need any more Skyward Sword. I'm kinda done."

I've seen the imprisoned on a lot of "worst boss fight lists." I've never minded him much. Its a reasonably different fight every time you see him.

I disliked the battle with the fire rock spider thing much more than the imprisoned.

Actually almost everyone that dislikes the game mentions also the biggest flaws as Fi (don't need to mentions why), rehash content (either in maps, dungeons and fights) and boring pacing.

Open worlds are bad game design.

Open Worlds and traditional linear storytelling don't play well. You struggle to generate a sense of urgency with an open world.

@Wargoose THIS. SO. TRUE.
(the fact that breath of the wild lacks a substantial plot is a nod to minecraft)

@ComradeThom
Not really.
Depend on the game.
Yonder the Cloud Catcher Chronicles was one example a good Open World Adventure indie game.
I have finished the storyline on Switch on July 2018.

No, I'd definitely say at least half of the takes I've seen have been nothing more than "motion control bad". I've seen this take hundreds, possibly thousands, of times over the past decade.

I think video games could actually cause violent behavior. Not on the scale that is often brought up when a politician needs a scapegoat. But for impressionable, unsupervised, stupid kids. I was one such child and I distinctly remember wanting to tournament fight all the other second graders.

@Losermagnet I always took it as the impressional people being impressed upon. If it’s not a video games then it’s books, music, movies, poetry, religion, sports, history or something else which will make them violent. Like a book inspired someone to kill John Lennon so unless there’s ban on all forms of everything then it makes no difference and teaching the psychos ways to managing their psychoness is the real solution.

It's pretty obvious that if people can be inspired to do good things they can also be inspired to do bad.

In the grand scheme of things though, I don't think I've ever seen a video game so bad that it stands out from anything you might see on film or TV.

And let's face it, people have been inspired to do far worse by other influences such as, say, listening to politicians.

There are valid concerns about video game violence, they just utterly pale in comparison to the sheer hypocritical embarrassment any time those concerns have appeared in the news.

Honestly, that's at least half my takes on anything. "There are valid concerns, but terrible and stupid people ruined those concerns with their hyperbole".

@jump @Matt_Barber @kkslider5552000
The reason I posted my opinion is I feel like this topic is often presented in a very black and white way: either games do cause violence, or they don't. As you three have said in various ways, we could see how games could contribute to such a thing under the right conditions. So, in other words, I don't think video games are completely harmless but I also agree thst they shouldn't be ostracized for material present in movies, books, etc..

Having said that, do you think that because video games allow someone to participate in violence that they are more of a risk than a movie or show? Personally...I dont see it. Using myself as an example again, as a kid I got hurt a lot more often imitating pro wrestling than anything with video games. But that's just me.

The irony here is that I absolutely hate fighting games now.