Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

[Marissa Moira]

Forbidden west succeeds in not becoming a tedious slog like other open world games even after 65 hours in.

My main gripes are that Machine Strike seems like wasted resources because there's not a whole lot to the game and you can win easily by playing defensively and waiting for the enemy to move their pieces to your side of the board. That and the bandit camps do not have a whole lot of variation to them, I was really expecting the Tribal Tremortusk to get more use, but it only got featured once, the rebels just use the chargers for mounts and occasionally a bristleback. They really did succeed in making their quest design not being ass and that really helps the flow of exploration.

I'm still afraid to like Elden Ring too much because I'm still early in the game and I'm afraid some stupid rare drop is going to rear it's head later and I'm going to need to dedicate many hours to farming it and it's going to ruin everything positive I feel about the game.

 

[Steinercard]

You say this as if New Vegas doesn't have Veronica.

There's a galaxy of difference between optional companions voiced by Gaming's Favourite Cumsock and That Guy From Chuck, and rewriting and scraping most of the game so you can rush making an actor the center of a game even though it makes no logical sense to the setting or plot.

 

[byuu]

It made the Zelda universe what it is today, and many fans remember it as their first Zelda, so they are going to hold it in high regard even if better ones come out.

OoT would've probably been a much more interesting and immersive game for me if I hadn't played any Zelda games before it and didn't knew that the story and world-building doesn't matter and just gets reset again in future installments.

 

[Agarathium1066]

You say this as if New Vegas doesn't have Veronica.

Veronica is largely inconsequential in the entirety of NV. You can blow her head off with no fanfare and next to nothing changes. Even funnier is if you do her quests no matter what you pick she's miserable.

The voice actress got the role because of her brief glimmer of nerd fame though, full agreement there.

 

[DavidS877]

Forbidden west succeeds in not becoming a tedious slog like other open world games even after 65 hours in.

My main gripes are that Machine Strike seems like wasted resources because there's not a whole lot to the game and you can win easily by playing defensively and waiting for the enemy to move their pieces to your side of the board. That and the bandit camps do not have a whole lot of variation to them, I was really expecting the Tribal Tremortusk to get more use, but it only got featured once, the rebels just use the chargers for mounts and occasionally a bristleback. They really did succeed in making their quest design not being ass and that really helps the flow of exploration.

I'm having fun, but they seemed to add a bunch of 'challenges' to bulk it up. There's the Machine Strikes, Melee Pits, Arena, Gauntlet Runs and still the Hunting Grounds. I never play any of those types of things since I hate time limits and mini-games and things where you have to use an exact specific combo. Sure, I could switch difficulty but I don't see much reason to bother with them. I guess that's my unpopular opinion.

I guess I wish there was a hide-quest option so I could clear those icons off the map.

I suppose the other bit I don't like is it seemed more climb-y than the first one, sure it's hard to screw up but it sure is tedious.

 

[Captain Syrup]

the story and world-building doesn't matter and just gets reset again in future installments.

"A boomerang and a hookshot? Slow down, Stanley Kubrick!" - Yahtzee

I never understood the hate for WW and its focus on exploration. Fans push this idea of Zelda being about "Hyrule Field" and beating the Big Bad. Obviously, up until then, there were technical limitations in the way of realizing WW. Fans wanted to milk the formula that Ocarina created.

 

[Marissa Moira]

I'm having fun, but they seemed to add a bunch of 'challenges' to bulk it up. There's the Machine Strikes, Melee Pits, Arena, Gauntlet Runs and still the Hunting Grounds. I never play any of those types of things since I hate time limits and mini-games and things where you have to use an exact specific combo. Sure, I could switch difficulty but I don't see much reason to bother with them. I guess that's my unpopular opinion.

I guess I wish there was a hide-quest option so I could clear those icons off the map.

I suppose the other bit I don't like is it seemed more climb-y than the first one, sure it's hard to screw up but it sure is tedious.

Ah yeah the Gauntlet runs I forgot about those, I finished them, but racing outside a game that's not built specifically for racing usually sucks. The first 3 races are not bad but the Las Vegas one took me a few tries. I wasn't a fan of them.

Melee Pits and Arena are not bad at all, you can actually finish most arena challenges in under a minute because explosion damage just destroys everything even the fixed sets for the boss challenges in the arena all have one explosive weapon. Melee pits is just combo practice but they're not hard, they're more confusing than anything because the instructions are not properly explained.

Hunting Grounds were signifgantly easier than the last game. The only one that was difficult was the tremor tusk one where you had to shoot off the tusks because depending on where it fell the ground would be covering the tusks.

The one thing I have to say though is that all the side objectives like the dig sites, arena, and pits all give proper rewards now, the legendary items are legitimately good. The best armor in the game you get from the dig sites. You finish those and they give you Osseram armor with a base 50+ Defense. Arena is where you'll get most of the legendary weapons, it's worth doing just for that.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole]

Seconded. For some reason, Vaas is considered one of the greatest video games villains and his definition of insanity is said to be legendary but he's not really crazy. He's just an edgelord and a sociopath who screams a bit. He isn't the least bit menacing either. Idk if people just got a hard-on for him because he reminds them of Heath Ledger's Joker (another overrated character).

That was the first and probably only time I paused the game and looked up who the voice actor was. Turns out he's an actual actor and not a Rial or Burch. Minnie Driver in Trespasser might have been the previous time a voice really stood above the production.

By that token we can finally admit that Fallout: New Vegas was fucking trash, given that the first 3 months were fucking horrible.

I played through New Vegas on disc with no internet connection and I still like it and so did people I know. I swear to god when it comes to bugs all you people would reject humanity because there is a VERY GOOD CHANCE, 95%, that you will be born with downs and get cancer when you're a kid and therefore being alive is not good unless someone mods in chicks with dicks. Bethesda pro-mod hate-fans are the worst.

• DMC2 ... had pretty cool areas and fun combat at times.

No it didn't.

 

[The handsome tard]

I played the first Wasteland game (remastered)

And I legit had to stop at the first town because I couldnt stand just how slow it was. It almost made me want to apologise for thinking that F1 could be slow at times.

For example

I had to find a cave, I spend half a IRL hour looking and couldnt find it. Gave up. Looked it up and saw that I had to, no joke, use a character's perception to find it by using said said on the very specific tile...which had no difference from the rest of the map.

I got legit pissed at this and saw I wouldnt be able to stand a whole game out of this.

Super Mario Bros 2 US is a shitty sprite hack. they should've ported REAL SMB2 (aka lost levels) on NES. yeah it's way harder than SMB1 but did they really need to spriteswap Doki Doki Panic and call it Mario? fucking late 80s.

Nintendo did redeem itself with SMB 3 tho...and there are aspects of 2 that did carry on like the Shy Guys.

I consider 2 to be the black sheep of a lot NES trilogies

Mario 2
Castlevania 2
Zelda 2

I'ma probably get shit for this but,

I prefer Rochelle over Zoey as a character.

Personally, I never got the hate Rochelle got and I can't help but feel most of the love for Zoey is that she exhibits a ton of traits of your stereotypical nerdy girl. Not that I dislike Zoey, far from it, she has a good personality and her sense of humor, while cringey, comes from a good place. And I love the bond she and Bill have, (Although I think that says more about Bill than Zoey in a sense) I just kind of grew to appreciate Rochelle's dry sense of humor and her attempts at being the "Team Mom" and putting up with the clashing personalities of the rest of the group.

The thing is, I dont think is even fair to compare both groups. Especially since they are meant to represent different dynamics.

1's about building a family out of loss (except francis, he never did seem to lose anyone important outside of his biker buddies)
2's about finding solace and friendship among a new chaotic world

I always say that 1 is closer to a horror game than 2. 2 seem more like a Zombieland game.

I love both tho, just for different reasons.

Far Cry 3's villain, Vaas, has no depth. Aside from his "definition of insanity," his occasional appearances account for nothing but general insanity for the sake of shock value. The protagonist is no better. Just some rich party boy turned warrior for gameplay reasons.

Far Cry tends to be pretty shallow main villains and characters but I do think Vaas and Jason did represent well the themes of the game. He also had this tinge of tragedy behind him that makes you see that he and Jason wer emore

I disagree with you on Vaas but I agree that anyone after him really didnt have much depth.

He said the unsayable too soon.

I would offer that Cruelty Squad is subversive. For instance: Bill Gurney in the "Mall Madness" level says that he is planning to implement a "revolutionary" 1% corporate income tax.
View attachment 3019875

I love how it mocked these "revolutionaries" wanna bes who either makes things worse or are so inneffective that they might as well not have done anything. And its almost always done for the sake for their own egos.

 

[Goofy Goober]

No it didn't.

I liked mission 9 and it was the one to introduce rebellion lol

 

[MysticMisty]

"A boomerang and a hookshot? Slow down, Stanley Kubrick!" - Yahtzee

I never understood the hate for WW and its focus on exploration. Fans push this idea of Zelda being about "Hyrule Field" and beating the Big Bad. Obviously, up until then, there were technical limitations in the way of realizing WW. Fans wanted to milk the formula that Ocarina created.

Nintendo tried to turn around and give them exactly what they wanted in the next game too, with Twilight Princess. It leans heavily on recreating the Ocarina experience, but bigger (and better looking). Only for those same people to turn around and shit on it for not being exactly like OoT.

Personally I like when Zelda games try to do things different (LttP, WW, SS) instead of trying to rehash OoT again. Though I do think TP was better than OoT. On a similar note I appreciate what BotW tried to do, but getting rid of non-weapon items and proper dungeons was not a smart move.

 

[Captain Syrup]

Nintendo tried to turn around and give them exactly what they wanted in the next game too, with Twilight Princess. Only for those same people to turn around and shit on it for not being exactly like OoT.

The weird cult-like obsession is kind of disturbing.

Do Mario fans act like this? We don't need Red Coins and 'Bowser fights where you just spin him around' coming back.

 

[MysticMisty]

Do Mario fans act like this? We don't need Red Coins and 'Bowser fights where you just spin him around' coming back.

For the most part, no. Many Mario fans are pretty accepting of new mechanics, to an extent. There's plenty of bitching and arguing for sure, but out of the 3D Mario games, only one (Odyssey) went back to similar SM64 gameplay, and that was primarily in the form of level design. It's a shame actually because Odyssey has a lot of good things going for it, but the level design kind of kills it. That and there's way too many Moons, and the over-the-top collect-a-thon aspect makes it not fun compared to the other 3D games. But no, Super Mario 64 does not have the same cult that Ocarina of Time has attracted.

 

[Captain Syrup]

I love how it mocked these "revolutionaries" wanna bes who either makes things worse or are so inneffective that they might as well not have done anything. And its almost always done for the sake for their own egos.

You would prefer one where the globalists are trying to improve the world, the UN is a force for good, and the Status Quo Warriors are holding them back? C'mon.

 

[Overcast]

The thing is, I dont think is even fair to compare both groups. Especially since they are meant to represent different dynamics.

1's about building a family out of loss (except francis, he never did seem to lose anyone important outside of his biker buddies)
2's about finding solace and friendship among a new chaotic world

I always say that 1 is closer to a horror game than 2. 2 seem more like a Zombieland game.

I love both tho, just for different reasons.

I can agree there. The games definitely both went for different feels and they both excel at what they do. Looking back, I think I may have been reaching a bit when I said what I said about Zoey and Rochelle, but I do still feel the hatred towards the latter's a bit much.

Always did love how Nick himself develops and grows as a character throughout the game. Going from wanting to split off from the rest of the group at first to openly stating that they're the only people that he's ever really trusted. Then in the Parish you have him openly expressing anger and disgust towards the Military butchering people who weren't even infected.

And Zoey herself also ends up toughening up by the end of the Sacrifice and adopts Bill's mindset of looking out for your own.

For me personally, as much as I loved the classic horror film feel of the first game, I've always kinda loved the start contrast to the less serious and comedic dynamic with 2's cast to the nasty things happening around them. Such as CEDA's failed attempts at containing the infection, the people in the swamp's attempts at blockading themselves against the zombies, the abandoned neighborhood in Hard Rain and the remnants of the Military taking more brutal measures and signs of people looting and killing each other during the panic in the Parish. Something about it all really hits me in a way the first game didn't. (Not that it needed to)

It's as you said, 2 is about finding solace and friendship amongst a new chaotic world. Which is something I've grown to appreciate a lot considering the crazy stuff that's been happening right now for a while.

 

[The handsome tard]

You would prefer one where the globalists are trying to improve the world, the UN is a force for good, and the Status Quo Warriors are holding them back? C'mon.

Okay, you didnt get what I mean.

I was just saying that these wanna be revolutionaries arent doing jack to change anything significantly but as long their egos feel satisfied, they are happy.

Im not taking the side of the globalists. I just find both sides pathetic for different reasons.

Always did love how Nick himself develops and grows as a character throughout the game. Going from wanting to split off from the rest of the group at first to openly stating that they're the only people that he's ever really trusted. Then in the Parish you have him openly expressing anger and disgust towards the Military butchering people who weren't even infected.

Nick might be a scumbag but he is still human. Both groups have their "criminal" member that turns out they are far more human than they seem. Also Nick has this vague past that we can make almost any sort of backstory for him (like him saying stuff like "brains come off, swamp water doesnt, DONT ask how I know that". Kind of implies he either killed someone or at least witnessed someone getting their brains shot off during a deal gone wrong).

I also recall how right before the Parish's finale, he says

Nick: Are we even going to entertain the possibility of a plan B ?
Couch: NO
or
Couch: The military will take care of us
Nick: OR they will line us against a wall and shoot us...

Knowing what we know from the comics, Nick is kind of in the right here...At least we know L4D1's survivors had a good conclusion, the ones from 2 have their fates up in the air...for all we know, Nick may have been foreshadowing something.

I think Rochelle is alright, she clearly is the "straight man" member of a group of excentric characters and she does the job well. Tho thats as far as her character goes to me, just the "straight (wo)man" in this case.

Thats why I love L4D, no matter which group you stick with, you will be satisfied and it will never be a "stale" experience.

Unlike, you know, Back 4 Blood, which seems already be on its way of being a failure. It did serve to show people that L4D cult status is owned more to Valve than people gave credit for. Seriously, watch some comparison videos and you see how small attention to details go a LONG way at keeping players engaged for years (also, you know, L4D is perfect in its fun simplicity, B4D tries to update a formula that didnt need any updating).

Edit: actually, this whole thing reminds me of Overwatch and all of these TF2 clones that tried to be the next TF2 but failed miserably, some faster than others. Valve's games show that true quality doesnt age.

 

[Gender: Xenomorph]

He doesn't annoy me but he literally just throw shit on the wall until something sticks. He talks and talks and talks and tries really hard to be funny but I'm giggling maybe 5% of the time.

That's literally the whole Borderlands 'humor'

 

[WULULULULU]

Okay, you didnt get what I mean.

I was just saying that these wanna be revolutionaries arent doing jack to change anything significantly but as long their egos feel satisfied, they are happy.

Im not taking the side of the globalists. I just find both sides pathetic for different reasons.


Nick might be a scumbag but he is still human. Both groups have their "criminal" member that turns out they are far more human than they seem. Also Nick has this vague past that we can make almost any sort of backstory for him (like him saying stuff like "brains come off, swamp water doesnt, DONT ask how I know that". Kind of implies he either killed someone or at least witnessed someone getting their brains shot off during a deal gone wrong).

I also recall how right before the Parish's finale, he says

Nick: Are we even going to entertain the possibility of a plan B ?
Couch: NO
or
Couch: The military will take care of us
Nick: OR they will line us against a wall and shoot us...

Knowing what we know from the comics, Nick is kind of in the right here...At least we know L4D1's survivors had a good conclusion, the ones from 2 have their fates up in the air...for all we know, Nick may have been foreshadowing something.

I think Rochelle is alright, she clearly is the "straight man" member of a group of excentric characters and she does the job well. Tho thats as far as her character goes to me, just the "straight (wo)man" in this case.

Thats why I love L4D, no matter which group you stick with, you will be satisfied and it will never be a "stale" experience.

Unlike, you know, Back 4 Blood, which seems already be on its way of being a failure. It did serve to show people that L4D cult status is owned more to Valve than people gave credit for. Seriously, watch some comparison videos and you see how small attention to details go a LONG way at keeping players engaged for years (also, you know, L4D is perfect in its fun simplicity, B4D tries to update a formula that didnt need any updating).

Edit: actually, this whole thing reminds me of Overwatch and all of these TF2 clones that tried to be the next TF2 but failed miserably, some faster than others. Valve's games show that true quality doesnt age.

Unfortunately, it does show that Valve is lazy when it comes to Quality-of-Life updates. I could think of different ways to make TF2/CSS/CSGO/DoD:S/L4D1-2 an improvement (optimizations, better bots, separation between casual and comp balance) but sadly, after Valve told the rest of the Team Comptress 2 mod to shut down (which had a ton of optimization fixes), I am honestly skeptical.

As for B4B, everyone shares that same opinion. Getting bought out by Tencent only worsened the case because Pay-to-win ahoy!

As for unpopular opinions, there was one review of Elden Ring that surprisingly was not a full-on dicksucking of the game:

And I kinda do agree with him. Demons' Souls was around 2009, the first Souls game (Blade of Severance may as well be the true maker to be honest) and every single game has since borrowed elements and refined it. Problem is that these Souls games, good as they may be, may as well turn every single "Souls" gamer as junkies, since they have basically been fed the same game with major/minor changes for like 13 years. When it comes to the most "disliked" souls games, it boils down to 2 games: Dark Souls II or III. And Elden Ring is basically Dark Souls III but with added poise, powerstancing and stealth + open world. From basically doubled-down on the boss design of III, hence the easily stunlocked characters of the Abyss Watchers applied to characters that are supposedly strong to make them easily trivial (Malenia), gimmick bosses like Yhorm (Radahn) and multiple boss-phases like Sister Friede (Radagon and the Elden Beast). I've played the game and it is fun I admit but criticism must be placed and sadly he makes a point. We came from boss designs that were unique and has risk (Demons' and DSI) to becoming utterly boring and predictable (DSII, portions of Bloodborne, DSIII being the worst offender, and Sekiro).

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole]

And I kinda do agree with him. Demons' Souls was around 2009, the first Souls game (Blade of Severance may as well be the true maker to be honest)

Please, it is Severance: Blade of Darkness. I don't know when people jumped on that as the progenitor of Souls.

 

[LeChampion1992]

Veronica is largely inconsequential in the entirety of NV. You can blow her head off with no fanfare and next to nothing changes. Even funnier is if you do her quests no matter what you pick she's miserable.

The voice actress got the role because of her brief glimmer of nerd fame though, full agreement there.

Not really she's a good character for the brotherhood of steel. I mean she had depth but that's what made new Vegas good the story had multiple choices and felt more impactful.