Unpopular gaming opinions
- Thread starter an874
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dark Souls: "Tedious" does not equal "Challenging"
Challenging is a boss that takes you ages to beat because you're playing the boss battle over and over to find the strategy to beat him.
Tedious is having to defeat the same groups of zombies over and over again every time you want to take on the boss.
When you realize that you've reached the point where you actually get *worse* at fighting the zombies with each try, even though you've already figured out the correct strategy to beat them, that tells me you're increasingly giving less and less of a shit.
Sense of Accomplishment? That's what I feel when I've figured out the strategy to beat the aforementioned badass boss. Not because I'm giving myself a pat on the back over my patience at fighting the same zombies over and over again.
Really, it's amazing that an FPS immediately gets blasted when checkpoints are too widely dispersed, but Dark Souls actually gets praised for using it as a means of artificially increasing its difficulty.
Challenging is a boss that takes you ages to beat because you're playing the boss battle over and over to find the strategy to beat him.
Tedious is having to defeat the same groups of zombies over and over again every time you want to take on the boss.
When you realize that you've reached the point where you actually get *worse* at fighting the zombies with each try, even though you've already figured out the correct strategy to beat them, that tells me you're increasingly giving less and less of a shit.
Sense of Accomplishment? That's what I feel when I've figured out the strategy to beat the aforementioned badass boss. Not because I'm giving myself a pat on the back over my patience at fighting the same zombies over and over again.
Really, it's amazing that an FPS immediately gets blasted when checkpoints are too widely dispersed, but Dark Souls actually gets praised for using it as a means of artificially increasing its difficulty.
Mass Effect 3's ending was for "big boys", and presumably "big girls"?asteroth21nox said:
Mass Effect 3's ending was realistic!?
What, the what? *raises eyebrows*
Realistic? It seemed plausible either in real life, or within the game's established canon somehow? It was logical somehow? It actually made any sense whatsoever?
You don't seem to be trolling,... Your Halo 4 review seems to only apply to Halo 4, and seems quite expect, ergo not sarcasm,... I'm at a loss here.
While saying it was realistic and for big boys is a bit much, I do want to point out that it is consistent with the theme of the third game. "Victory at any cost." "Ruthless calculus." The idea that the war would have its cost no matter what is going with that theme. It was the method of doing that is what the problem is.Monster_user said:
I love Dragon Age 2, it is far superior compared DA: Origins, which I couldn't finish because I found it so flawed.
The complainers that were behind the Mass Effect 3 debacle were overreacting by ten-thousand percent.
I found the game to be appalling. It looked like Sonic Team went on vacation and left a drunken monkey with only one-fourth of its brain functioning on half power to slam its butt into a keyboard to make the game, then before Sonic Team got back from vacation, Sega stuffed it straight into a box without any testing and said, "What could be wrong with it? Besides, it's a Sonic game, so it will sell."
The amount of loading in that game is proof alone that the game wasn't tested, because every tester in existence would have told them to fix it or don't make the game at all.
The complainers that were behind the Mass Effect 3 debacle were overreacting by ten-thousand percent.
I think you win the thread on that one, I have never heard a person actually say they like that game. I've never played the game, but I watched most of the Game Grumps play through of it on youtube.Exius Xavarus said:
I found the game to be appalling. It looked like Sonic Team went on vacation and left a drunken monkey with only one-fourth of its brain functioning on half power to slam its butt into a keyboard to make the game, then before Sonic Team got back from vacation, Sega stuffed it straight into a box without any testing and said, "What could be wrong with it? Besides, it's a Sonic game, so it will sell."
The amount of loading in that game is proof alone that the game wasn't tested, because every tester in existence would have told them to fix it or don't make the game at all.
Really now. Come on, you're a big boy, why don't you actually sling an insult in my face as opposed to hiding behind some comic that fails utterly at being witty?Olikar said:
Did you manage to find the part when I said "It's not hard"? Because it's not, you see. Once you know what you're supposed to be doing, it's piss easy.
No, I did not run in there with a "LOL YOLO" attitude and if you insinuate that just once more, I will pull a Liam Neeson, are we clear?
Well basically, I don't like how Nintendo/GF treat westerners like second class citizens despite the fact that a vast portion of sales come from the US alone.Dosbilliam said:
Just look at all the Wi-fi event pokemon Japan gets that the west will never get to see, and the few we do come months later.
And should we miss the event, we have no hope of ever collecting that Pokemon again outside of trading with complete strangers over the Internet, should they be so kind as to give you such a rare Pokemon. [http://img.pokemondb.net/artwork/deoxys-normal.jpg]
I also don't like how they include all this social gaming nonsense that only works if you constantly play near half a dozen other people who are also playing the same version as you. [http://nintendo3dscommunity.com/topic/7402-how-did-black-and-white-2-really-screw-up-difficulty-levels/]
EA may be greedy, stupid and whatever else people think they are these days, I will say that I'd much rather be forced to pay $10 to unlock a legendary's in game event than to pray that Nintendo, in all their benevolence, decides to throw it our way for a few months.
I'd also like to add another unpopular opinion I have which is I don't think EA is the devil. I enjoy their games just as much as any other publisher that isn't Blizzard.
A fellow veteran!Grape_Bullion said:
It's one of those "You had to be there" games and so much of the problem with the latter games simply comes down to map size, especially those that screw you over if you're not riding a vehicle since they always prevent truly vehicle vs vehicle maps.
FFVII rightly deserves all the praise it gets, it just hasn't aged well, at all. It might be hard to imagine nowadays, but the graphics did drop jaws, even the sprites.
FFIX was the last good one in the series, and yes, I like it and consider it one of my favourites.
Xenogears is the best game made yet by Square, faults and all.
WoW was always "Meh". Not six years on, but from release which is when I played it from.
UO and EQ are still the best MMOs ever, even if they had massive flaws. Yet again: You had to be there.
Games like CoD and modern Battlefield aren't bad, but then again, my expectations of them have never been high.
I was unimpressed by HL2 when it came out and remain unimpressed, however I don't think it's bad. It's always been merely average to me.
I really love the Witcher series and the direction it's helping lead games, but it takes the sex and others things it's well known for too far to impress.
The flak Obsidian gets for buggy games is too much. Yes they are buggy, but they always make up for it in others ways that'll keep me buying their products.
Empire Total War is my favourite of the series despite having the worst flaws in the series, the AI being terrible and modding it being very restricted to the point of having no control over map creation.
The Mount and Blade series is very bland and the most of it's qualities are terribly shallow. With that said, it should be played for its mods and mod-ability (and ONLY played for those qualities, the vanilla game is terrible as it is RPGness, which it's been praised for in some circles) and because of both, it's one my favourite games.
Skyrim is fun, but that is only thanks to the exploration element. Story and combat are terrible, but for a game to waste hours aimlessly wandering around, it's great. Same applies to Oblivion, while Morrowind is the exact opposite unless you mod the winged lice from the game.
Blizzards stories are terrible and it seems all of them revolve around someone being corrupted by something (The whole premise of Diablo, Kerrigan in Starcraft, Arthas in Warcraft).
CivIII was where the series peaked.
Metroid went under when it started become first/third person without placing it on PC for keyboard/mouse to make up for how terrible controls are for any shooter used with a controller.
A big problem for why Space Sims are now rare is the fetishistic sensibilities of both their developers and their main player base to make them too complex, especially those where building your own industry is key. They need to go back to the days of Starflight where exploration was the heart of the series and earning money to upgrade your ship didn't turn into a second job.
I actually really liked The Witcher 1 and considered it's storyline to be better than that of its sequel.
KOTOR 2 is better in every way to it's predecessor, bugs and all.
Only good C&C games are the first two in each branch of the series. I hated RA2 and Tiberium Sun and found the graphics they settled on to be repulsive and a step back from what they used in in their predecessors while their plots were less inspiring.
I'm more for a Fallout reboot, or better, re-imagining, than more sequels. Centuries have passed since the nuclear war, the world should be more than recovered some two centuries onwards. Go back and use the most with the initial post-apocalyptic environment, then go a place no other game of that type has done: What the world would be like when that was all past and everything to do with radiation and nuclear warfare faded into history.
I'm sick of both the patriotism and anti-patriotism in shooters. Just put the player back in the position of taking an object and skip the complex plots and moralizing on both ends. most especially, I want CoD to go back to the style from the first two in the series where you're put in such a position and the complicated politic crap had no place in single player.
I have a question for you. It isn't meant to spark an argument, just friendly debate.beastro said:
Do you think the fact that "you had to be there" makes those games good? I mean, I feel as though things just get outdated. Mario 64's controls got outdated, and have been vastly improved by more recent Mario games, and yet people still recall 64 as the second coming of Christ. I still respect Mario 64, because heck, I played it on the N64 and enjoyed the hell out of it for being one of the first of it's kind, but the only reason I'd play it today would be nostalgia. I don't think it's awful, but certainly outdated and I really wouldn't ask anyone to play it.
So are you trying to say that you respect these games or are you trying to say that they're still good and people should like them?
You mean like the trading that's been part of the series since it started?BanicRhys said:
You know what I do in this situation? GO WITHOUT. By the time I get close to getting all the Pokemon I can in one playthrough (personal record being over 300 without trading with other people, I believe close to 350) I'm usually bored out of my skull since the Elite Four is little more than a tool for evolving what I don't plan on using. I don't care about having Mew, Celebi, Jirachi, or any of the other event Pokemon because of that. Granted, I got all 150 on Blue before Yellow came out, so I don't care about the old goal anymore either.BanicRhys said:
Oh, I see, there's the problem. Well, I suppose that's just too bad then.Olikar said:
If you had actually wanted to talk about it without trying to sling assumptions and vague insults my way, we could maybe have had a proper exchange of viewpoints here, but as it is, have a nice day.