Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

Dead Space 3's focus on action over horror was perfectly acceptable for the third entry in a series.
It's an interesting idea. Resident Evil 4 that did that well. I think what damaged Dead Space 3 (I only played the first one) was why it was done. ie. Trend and money chasing. ie. To add co-op multiplayer, cover shooting, and micro transactions.

From what I understand, the Wii game was a lightgun shooter and was well received.
 
People became accustomed to rooting for the main character to mindlessly defeat hordes of monsters like an arcade game. People wanted to see Ripley and Hicks blazing machine guns on xenomorphs for three hours with some romantic ending. Rather than Hicks and Newt dying like nothing and Ripley being infected with only hope of suicide.

Deviating slightly from the game discussion, but I don't really think this is a fair way to describe it.

In Alien, you had a small group of unarmed people trapped with the alien, and one person survived.

In Aliens, you had a team of trained, heavily armed and equipped marines engaging an alien hive... and three people survived. One of them seriously wounded.

But they absolutely didn't "mindlessly defeat hoards of monsters like an arcade game". To quote Hicks, "we just got our asses kicked, pal". In every engagement save Ripley's encounter with the queen, the xenomorphs either won, or were using it as a deliberate faint.

There was more action, but it didn't really accomplish much more .

...

To loop it back around to Dead Space... In the Alien franchise, the message (which is reinforced with almost all follow-up media, like comics and such) is that fighting xenos is a losing proposition. The best you can hope for is for some degree of survival, at a high cost. You never "win". You just lose less.

But the xenos never win in such an overwhelming way as to effectively end the story, either. Even if a protagonist dies, it's a big galaxy, and the xenos are a swarm of locusts, not an angry god. There's a point in fighting. The xenos will make you pay a heavy cost, but the end of humanity isn't in the cards.

The Brethren Moon in Dead Space screwed with the formula. They're just a game-over event in the way that xenomorphs never can be. They were as close to being a literal angry god as you can come without invoking an actual divinity.

Basically, the Brethren Moon made the entirety of the first three games (minus the Awakened content for 3) pointless, because Awakened basically gave you the middle finger and pointed out that everything you did was futile. You were always going to lose. There was never any hope. Even if you stopped Convergence, the best you could do was very slightly delay Armageddon, because there were countless Brethren Moon and they were coming for you.

As a game design and storytelling issue, you can get away with "Haha, it didn't matter, you were fated to lose from the start" as a plot twist in a single game. You can't get away with it in a trilogy (almost a tetralogy, counting Awakened) where you've become massively invested in the storyline. People react... badly. See also: Mass Effect.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting idea. Resident Evil 4 that did that well. I think what damaged Dead Space 3 (I only played the first one) was why it was done. ie. Trend and money chasing. ie. To add co-op multiplayer, cover shooting, and micro transactions.

From what I understand, the Wii game was a lightgun shooter and was well received.
The Wii game is good. I've been trying to find it for a decent price. One of the things the Wii did well was lightgun shooters.
 
Maybe it's me with the times, but I prefer the Activision "reimagining" of Goldeneye 007 over the original.
They're very different games, but the Daniel Craig Goldeneye was very good (at least on Wii, I didn't play the "reloaded" versions)

IMO they were better Call of Duty's on Wii than the Call of Dutys that were on Wii.
 
By the way
In reference to my earlier Portal comments, Portal 2 is amazing. I'm not done with it yet but it's amazing and is an obvious massive step up from the moment it starts. Very fun, much better puzzles, actually feels more like an action-adventure game with a novel movement scheme with all the setpieces.
There was a time when Portal 2 got a lot of shit for being more narrative-focused than the first game, but it's stood the test of time imo. Both games are classics.
 
I think people who brag about always rolling generic strength build human warriors in RPGs are very insecure. It's something I see a lot on /v/ and then they get violently angry when you tell them there are other ways to play.
I've never heard this. I hear the opposite. It's always talk about how to make a "balanced party", or autism over magic systems (Final Fantasy 8 says hi).
 
how about Tenchu 2: Birth of the Stealth Assassins released in 2000?

Or Deus Ex, or Hitman...

Not that there was much point to it in Deus Ex, but you could do it.

Although I do think the original Metal Gear from the 80s may have been the first game that actually had it as a mechanic.I think my brain glitched. But it's one of those things that's sort of obvious as soon as you try to make a stealth game.

I think Thief may have been the first (And still only?) game that allowed you to clean up their blood, though.
 
Last edited:
how about Tenchu 2: Birth of the Stealth Assassins released in 2000?
Ok, but let me point out:
MGS2 was considered revolutionary
If you want to trawl the Wayback Machine for the many, many articles praising MGS2 in 2002 for its "revolutionary" mechanics, be my guest. I'm not a '00x game journo, so I don't know why you're trying to "debunk" me.
 
Back