Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@roy130390 Your pfp goes well with that comment, what is this?

@roy130390
Are you sure ?

Last year I made my alter ego as Ice Skate Boxer. I have something on my feet.

I have to agree with this, I picked up a copy of this game for cheap, and my friend and I enjoyed our time with it playing online together. Co-op can be a bit hit or miss due to the third random, I do remember we both enjoyed the vs. mode.

Didn't know how limited single player was until playing it myself. I remember giving my friend this game one Christmas since he likes Zelda. At least we had fun playing together.

@losermagnet bimmy and I have been the reigning champs since money in the bank 2020. So good luck. When we hit the 3d on you and jump back to back, you'll be whistlin Dixie outta your doctors stethoscope.....BROTHER!

Unpopular opinion: I think GF probably made the right choice not pushing the Switch visually with Legends: Arceus. While some truly talented developers can push the system with high-end visuals while also preserving performance and image quality (SMO, BotW, Monster Hunter Rise, etc.), more often than not, the really demanding games on the system usually end up coming with pretty severe drawbacks to performance and image quality, especially when played in handheld mode (SMT V, XC2, and MHS2 all come to mind for various reasons).

It might not be the prettiest game in the world, but Legends: Arceus is very stable most of the time and runs at native resolution both docked and undocked, which allows for a pleasantly sharp image. And I think that's a better end result than GF going for more advanced visual effects and ending up with something blurry and/or unstable as a result.

Like, I just played the game on a 4KTV, and it actually looked... surprisingly good. That doesn't happen with a lot of Switch games, and I'm sure a big part of that is the game going for a higher resolution and stylized visuals over a more ambitious presentation that devolves into an ugly, low-res mess in practice. I'd much rather new games on the system pull back on the graphics a bit and work within the limitations of the hardware as much as possible.

Yeah, I really hate when people just call BOTW a Ubisoft game. There's more towers in your average 20-30 hour Assassin's Creed then in the 190 hours I put in BOTW (and they were often the most fun and interesting time I had with towers since the original AC btw), and I did not play them the same at all (well maybe the boat parts of AC4 in terms of being distracted by finding random, sometimes insignificant things on my way to somewhere).

@kkslider5552000 And, you know, a tower equivalent tends to find itself in most open world games now, because it's a smart way of unlocking new portions of a map. It'd be stupid to ignore intelligent, time-tested design traits like Ubisoft towers, fast travel, etc. just to be different. Instead, Nintendo pulls from other open world games where it makes sense, but likewise parts from them in significant ways to pursue their own vision of a truly open-ended adventure.

It makes me wonder though... how are we going to unlock the map in BotW 2? The towers are completely gone.

Towers.... In the sky.

Random encounters are the worst thing that games could have came out with, like the worst thing they could have came up with.

@Snatcher I'm in complete agreement. It's mainly why Chrono Trigger and Super Mario RPG remain my all time fav RPGs. You can actually see the enemies on the map, and avoid them,(in most cases), if you so choose.

@Snatcher
There are Pro and Con from random encounter and real encounter.

Random encounter
Pro = You can easily ignore the random battle when there is No Encounter ability.
Con = Enemies that appeared from nowhere looked awkward for 3D JRPG games.

Real encounter
Pro = You can avoid the battles as you can see the enemies clearly.
Con = You cannot have free enemies zone even you try to escape from them.

I'm currently playing through Tri Force Heroes solo, and haven't had too many issues with the experience. I believe I'm six dungeons/stages away from beating the game. It's not the best, and it's not the worst. It does certainly feel like it would have been better at times playing co-op, which does feel more intended in the game's design than a similarly marketed game like Federation Force. I do think if the game allowed me to pick what the Doppels would wear going into a dungeon, instead of defaulting to the Hero's Tunic, that would've in itself made the game a much better single player experience. Overall, my mindset and approach to the game has been like with Pikmin 3, knowing I'm going to have to do plenty of management between 3 characters, and it has not steered me wrong.

I don't know if I'm quite there with the game to recommend Tri Force Heroes as a single player experience, but I would certainly for a group. With Federation Force, I'm the opposite. I would recommend that more as a single player game than as one to experience in multiplayer. It's a much better designed game for the solo experience in comparison.

@Anti-Matter I just can't see None random encounters having any real cons. Random is just cons from every which way, it could take you forever to get to one place or the other just because of this.

But you could argue "But then you would be under leveled if you skipped all the of enemy's, No I wont, because there are times were I just can't fight at the moment, and I will come back and grind later.

Random gets even worse when you remember not every JRPG had a run feature, (Unless I missed them) so you were forced to fight, its a really poorly thought out mechanic, and it wouldn't be if they made the rate smaller, but by it being random, you can get like three fights in a row.

@OldManHermit This is why I love when you can see them on the map, sure they run to you if your spotted (BTW I haven't played mario RPG or trigger), But for the most part you were able to get away in a lot of those cases.

Random encounters probably don't have much of a place in modern story-driven RPGs, but they were necessitated in the past by the severe storage limitations of early hardware, particularly in the early 80s.

Then again, Rogue-likes are basically nothing but a succession or random encounters. It really depends on what kind of game the creators are intending.

For the longest time, I didn't mind and even kind of preferred random encounters in RPGs. But nowadays... yeah, I'm kinda over them. Pretty much every major RPG property has transitioned away from them as well.

Ubisoft basically invented the modern open world template and pretty much every open world game rifs on the foundation Ubisoft created. This is just the reality of it.

BOTW has a pretty insane level of detail and polish, it has a lot of stuff going for it that makes it a really enjoyable game, even if I don't agree with every decision. What it does also have is a lot of empty space, very minimal activities in it's open world which are repeated often, a mostly static and unchanging map and a lot of really uninspired side content to bulk out the game.

When reviewing a title, you take the good with the bad, take a step back and then assess the product as a whole. But it seems often when people talk about BOTW, there is always this heavily weighted positive bias where people scoot around the rough edges, so they can throw a spotlight on things like it's incredible psychics engine.

This is a luxury something like say an Ubisoft open world game is not afforded, with the popular narrative around those games being that we are all tired of them, with people focusing in on any bad creative choice, or poor world design and then disregarding absolutely everything else. Had BOTW remained unchanged, but been an Assassin's Creed game published by Ubisoft, I do not believe we would have been kind to it.

Was say Valhalla way too damn long and fully of scuzzy MTX? For sure, but we're clowning if we're going to call BOTW a 'genre defining evolution of the open world' but then just write off Valhalla as another repetitive Ubisoft game.

BOTW simply does not get the same scrutiny, and maybe that is because Nintendo don't do a lot of these sorts of games or what, but I will forever be so frustrated by the heavily weighted bias for that game.

And I think what makes it worse is that I actually like BOTW and despite popular belief here, I am not here to ruin anyone's fun, but I just see so many circle jerks for BOTW and it is like... that is your opinion man, but the hyperbole around this game is just crazy.

Absolutely agree. The performance is great - not once did I notice it dropping below 30fps (except for animations in the distance...). And it actually looks pretty nice in handheld mode.

I also think the strong character and Pokemon models redeem the lacklustre environments. My main focus when exploring is on the Pokemon anyway.

Can't agree with this tbh. Generally when I play an RPG with random encounters, I like the battle system of said RPG so I don't have much issue having a random encounter (and I've not yet found an RPG where I find the encounter rate to be too high). I guess my main issue with random encounters is when you're overleveled so would be getting miniscule amounts of experience from the battle.

That said, in most cases I think it's preferable to have encounters visible on screen, so I wouldn't say I "miss" random encounters. I'm just less bothered by them than most.

@Buizel Fair. I have played many RPG's with it, my first RPG's and such after had it.

I guess thats why I just, kinda started to dislike it? idk, it just got in the way for me a lot of the time with a lot of thing.

But hey if it doesn't bother you, It just makes the game all the better.

@Pizzamorg I've seen more scrutiny of BotW than any other game in recent memory. Over the years, it has been picked apart every which way, with angry detractors eager to trumpet its perceived flaws every time the game is talked about online. It's absolutely not a gaming sacred cow in the same way as a number of other releases where people get angry at you for picking them apart. Have you seen how people react when you criticize something like The Witcher 3 on a lot of gaming sites?

Now, see, here's the problem with your premise: BotW COULDN'T HAVE BEEN an Assassin's Creed game from Ubisoft, so your (inherently unfalsifiable) claim that people would have been harsher on it if it had been an Assassin's Creed game becomes meaningless. The two games aren't similar enough in their construction. It's like saying: "If Knack was called Super Mario Odyssey, it'd have been praised as a masterpiece."

And that does, sorry, tie into BotW being an evolution of the open world genre in a way that other modern open world titles simply aren't. I wouldn't necessarily call it genre-defining, since I think its priorities are different from other open world games. As I said before, BotW is an almost completely re-contextualized approach to modern open world game design, with a respect for and consideration of player agency at the center of the experience. There's nothing else like it out there in the industry.

@Buizel There are definitely framerate dips below 30 in PLA (especially docked), but they're the sort of dips you'd expect from a game on Switch. Comparing the performance to the two really good monster collecting games released on Switch last year, it's neither the often stuttery rollercoaster ride that Monster Hunter Stories 2 was nor the more stable but consistently sub-30 fps of something like Shin Megami Tensei V. Those games felt like they were cramming ambitious experiences onto Switch that would have benefitted from more powerful hardware. PLA feels like a perfect fit for Switch, though. I've seen the game emulated on PC, and it just doesn't really... look like a much better experience.

Just kinda wish more developers did this. I don't need SMT, MH Stories, Xenoblade, etc. to push the envelope. I just want something that's fun, runs smooth, and looks good as a hybrid title.