Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

Fallout 3 and New Vegas are alright but I think half the pages of this thread are about those two games. I don’t understand why they warrant so much discussion 15 years later.
Dark Souls seems like a fine game, though not really for me. Dark Souls fans are irritating cunts that have permanently put me off the idea of giving the game another try ever.
They’re difficult for difficulty’s sake. There’s nothing really rewarding about those games. I could take some nails and pound them into my cock into the table while playing a video game. Sure that makes the game challenging but does it make it more fun? Many Souls and “Soulslike” games are miserable to play.
Politics in video games boil down to slap fights within echo chambers that no one cares about save bugmen and spergy women.
It took such a long time for politics to creep in because they’re a form of entertainment and escape. You play vidya because you’re tired of politics elsewhere. However it has definitely poisoned the well, especially big budget western games. Not only are they soulless and lousy with season passes and microtransactions, you have to deal with a bunch of niggers too.
 
Fallout 3 and New Vegas are alright but I think half the pages of this thread are about those two games. I don’t understand why they warrant so much discussion 15 years later.

They’re difficult for difficulty’s sake. There’s nothing really rewarding about those games. I could take some nails and pound them into my cock into the table while playing a video game. Sure that makes the game challenging but does it make it more fun? Many Souls and “Soulslike” games are miserable to play.
"Why is there so much discussion on F3/NV in this thread? *discusses Dark Souls*"
:story:
 
I see I’m triggering the Bethesda fags here. Something to keep in mind here for sure the next time yet another bloated and buggy Bethesda game gets pinched out.
Especially the Starfield thread
 
I don't think they're similar? Maybe I'm not understanding the question, but I dismissed Morrowind fans for a long time because they refuse to admit that Morrowind is bad. From the combat, to cliff racers, and the text walls that is NPC dialogue. It's all terrible, but good luck trying to Morrowind fans to admit it, assuming you can get them to stop raging about Skyrim long enough to respond.
Morrowind, to me, falls under the same strange category as Chrono Cross. There's a lot I really like about it. It is way ahead of its time by 2003 standards, and especially when you consider how it ran reasonably well on the original Xbox. The towns are big, you can steal anything, and the environments are really varied and interesting. Vvardenfell is awesome. All of that limitless enchanting and potion mixing and spell crafting to make insane shit really adds to the game.

But then, there's everything you said. Combat sucks. The cliff racers are insane. I can't upload a screenshot right now :dienull:, but dialog really is presented like spergy walls of text. I can believe it was all written by a dude popping amphetamines like there was no tomorrow, because it feels right on board with internet forum schizoposting.

I know it's got a lot of fans, and it's one of those games where I'd get beheaded for saying it's an awful game, but it kind of is. Even its biggest fans admit you really need a swath of mods to make it palatable. It's the game that sure made me have a disdain for mods early on, because I really didn't want to spend hours hunting down and installing tons of them to get the game to work well, only to have to do it all over again if I ever uninstall.
 
Regarding the Skyrim Civil War, anyone who thinks the Stormcloaks are a good choice clearly doesn't understand logistics. The Empire, which included Skyrim, barely kept the Elves out of their hair. Hell, the Dominion killed off the Blades early in the war, and even captured Ulfric Stormcloak in battle, and that was back then when the Empire had his back. What chance does an independent Skyrim have against a Dominion that took on Skyrim AND several other provinces in the last war? None. Especially since the Stormcloaks eschew magic, whereas we know from lore tidbits that the Mages' Guild has been replaced by new magical orders in the Empire that have been stockpiling magical artifacts for power.

As for all that nonsense about the Empire bowing down to the Thalmor, that's hogwash. In fact, if you talk to General Tullius, you'll find out that the majority of the Imperial army is down south preparing for Part 2 of the Great War, the Empire basically took the majority of its army down south to guard the border and sharpen their blades for some future Elf-killing. The war in Skyrim is a joke to the Empire, hence why Tullius is stuck using local recruited Nords with makeshift leather armor, instead of the Imperial Legions we know from Cyrodiil in the past game, who were dressed head-to-toe in metal. THOSE heavy legion troops are down south, already preparing for the inevitable future war with the Thalmor. In fact, if you win the civil war for the Empire, Tullius drops subtle hints about how the peace with the Dominion won't last and that a future war with them is all but certain. So yes, that White-Gold Concordat was a temporary peace, and people on both the Dominion and Empire sides agree that the war between them will resume at a later date.

So yes, for those pissed off that Talos worship was banned, the ban is obviously temporary, and once the war starts again, prayers to Talos as a god would be offered all throughout the Empire as the Imperial Legions march against the Thalmor. It's funny, even, when you look at how Ulfric fears the stronger Imperial Legions; when you do the Dark Brotherhood questline alongside the Stormcloak questline and the Emperor appears on Solitude, Ulfric refuses to attack, since if the Emperor is endangered by his little war, the Imperial Legion will commence an all-out war with them, and that would crush their little revolution. So tell me, if Ulfric is afraid to meet the real Imperial Legions in battle, how the hell will he be able to face the Thalmor?


And even with General Tullius working with such sub-par forces scraped from western Skyrim's streets, he was still able to capture Ulfric and was on his way to decapitate the loser before Alduin intervened. If Ulfric can't even beat a makeshift Imperial militia of Nords dressed in leather armor, how the hell is he going to defeat Thalmor forces wearing plate armor and wielding magic alongside their steel? He can't. Ulfric has proven twice now that he's an incompetent military commander. If Skyrim breaks free of the Empire and fights the Thalmor on their own, Ulfric would just get captured a third time, except this time, there's no dragon to save him. The Thalmor will just mail Ulfric's head in a box to the Stormcloaks and watch as their morale plummets, before finishing them off.

If you're going to pick a military generalissimo to replace the Empire and take on the Thalmor, might I suggest someone who doesn't get captured like Princess Peach?

Now that I've pissed off half the people who play Skyrim, it's time to piss off half the people who play Fallout. Legatus Lanius and Frank Horrigan are awesome characters in-lore, but as in-game bosses, their hype far outshines the actual fight. It's not like the fight with Darth Traya from KOTOR 2 where the three lightsabers she telekinetically controls keeps you on your toes, or the fight with Bhunivelze from FF13-3 which is a long, taxing battle. A well-equipped, high-level Chosen One can gun down the turrets in the arena where you face Horrigan, and gun the fucker down himself.


Meanwhile, a Courier who's leveled high enough can and will crush Lanius in a melee-fight; my Courier who's got melee maxed out sent him flying during a sword duel. She then chopped Lanius into Legate stew then proceeded to annihilate his guards. And it wasn't just Lanius, either. Ulysses was similarly just as easy to kill; on normal, a single AP round from an anti-materiel rifle from a hidden position will kill him. On very hard, the same attack can rob him of half his life points; just destroy his healing robots when they spawn, then shoot the combat inhibitor on his repair bots so that they shoot him and he focuses his attention at them. Then pump AP anti-materiel rounds in his face while he's too busy to fight you, then use explosive rounds on the Marked Men who harass you after he's dead.

It seemed like these games counted on you being mid-level at most; once you know how to play these games, and how to break them, these bosses go from near-impossible to a joke. Which, incidentally, makes all that buildup for Lanius and Horrigan look comical when you have a player who takes the threat they pose seriously, then finds out through battle that they weren't that scary.

A player who plays RPG games well gets bombarded with lore and visuals of how powerful Lanius and Horrigan are, how scary they are, they see Frank kill people left and right and they hear about how tough Lanius is from the radio and from other characters like Caesar. So they juice up, they prepare their character for the inevitable showdown with the Legion commander who executes failures and the Enclave super-soldier who can kill a Deathclaw with his hands. Then when they come to the final fight, it just becomes a battle of arithmetic; you've got enough of X, therefore, the boss becomes a punching bag who goes down like a wet blanket.

This stands in stark contrast to other RPG games' final bosses. Especially JRPG boss fights where the final battle really does feel like a battle, where if you screw up, you'll have to start it all over again and it'll take half an hour or more. I remember battles with the likes of Bhunivelze and Barthandelus from the FF13 games being such a long slog that takes roughly half an hour, and I still had to take great pains to not die, or half an hour of work goes down the toilet. But even outside of JRPGs, Darth Traya in KOTOR 2 can fuck up even a fully-upgraded and max-leveled player with the lightsabers she controls with her mind, and other RPG bosses like say, Saren from Mass Effect, can really fuck you up even if you're max-level, like when he overloads your character and all your max-level abilities and your gun are locked out.

I mean, don't get me wrong, Frank Horrigan and Legatus Lanius aren't Kai Leng levels of bad, as characters, they were well-designed, in terms of story, they were well-crafted, and the cool factor for them is such that young boys who see these guys would obviously fantasize about being them, but still, they seem to only be challenging to mid-level players who didn't max things out and were just plowing through the game as fast as they could. If a max-level player can kill your final boss in a few minutes, or hell, with Lanius, it took less than a minute for me, then it seems to be a gap in the game design.

It seems like Bethesda's idea of having the boss level with you is the better idea, that way, if you have a max-level player go up against the final boss, the final boss levels with him, and the final fight becomes a battle worthy of a player who cleaned out every dungeon and researched every skill. I remember when I first faced Alduin in my first playthrough where all my low-level character needed was nerves of steel and an itchy trigger finger to fire lightning bolts, but when I faced Alduin as a high-level character, he killed me with one gush of flame despite the fact that I was kitted out in Daedric armor, because I forgot to put enchantments on. Once I did, the fight still wasn't that easy, since he leveled with me and his attacks hit really hard.

In the same vein, that was how Obsidian designed KOTOR 2, and Darth Traya going up against a Level 50 Jedi Exile on hard mode is a battle worthy of John William's most brilliant scores, since it's the kind of battle that can still end either way even if you juice yourself up with stims, buff yourself up with the Force, and activate the best shields you can find. Same thing went for Saren in Bioware's Mass Effect, where even if you're max-level and have all sorts of abilities that can even the playing field, he has abilities of his own that can disable yours and force you to fight him with guns that you're not good with.

I was thinking that maybe, Lanius and Horrigan would have more to them than just being really tough, since that could easily be countered by a player with the right equipment and enough numbers pumped into the right stats. Like say, imagine if Lanius ambushes the Courier with several squads of top-ranking Legion troops, then he shows up and engages only when he thinks they're bushed, instead of just waiting at the tail end of the assault force with his thumb up his butt like a dateless dweeb on prom night. Maybe he leads the attack himself, and he's there trying to lure Courier 6 into a pitched battle where his Praetorians can defeat them in detail.

Maybe Frank Horrigan can call in brainwashed Deathclaws if he finds that the Chosen One is way too strong for him to handle alone; that's something I can see a Secret Service agent doing. Maybe he flees and gets the player into a room where several Secret Service agents are in sniper positions, he's there to lure the player in so that his pals can give the Chosen One the JFK treatment, and the player will have to use cover while engaging him so that his friends don't give you a new hole in your head to breathe out of. Heck, a smart player can get the drop on the snipers and give Frank a new hole in his head if they're enterprising enough, but they'll have to risk getting shot by both Frank and the snipers, which won't be easy. With an isometric, turn-based game, that could be done. That would justify giving Frank all 10s across the board for his attributes, instead of making him dumb as a brick despite having 10 in Intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Games are too easy these days, and that makes them all boring and gay. Every single game is just "press forward to win" now, and it's boring as fuck.
Being bad at games is a boon then, I suppose, because I still think they are tough enough. Then again, I don't play many modern games, especially not the AAA Sony/Ubisoft/etc stuff. But one of the more recent games I played like that was Resident Evil 2 remake, and it was too hard actually.
 
Games are too easy these days
and it was too hard actually
Hot take, arguments about how hard a game is are largely a waste of time. People always say "It's too hard/easy" when they should be saying "I think the game is too hard/easy" or "The game is too hard/easy for me." Only times when complaints about difficulty are legit is when a game is outright unfair or has false info that will straight up mislead or trick the player (Dark Souls lol), or if something requires a massive grind just to get an item or achievement. There's a difference between labbing in a fighting game to learn a character and to improve and doing a dungeon over and over again for a single item drop.
 
Hot take, arguments about how hard a game is are largely a waste of time. People always say "It's too hard/easy" when they should be saying "I think the game is too hard/easy" or "The game is too hard/easy for me." Only times when complaints about difficulty are legit is when a game is outright unfair or has false info that will straight up mislead or trick the player (Dark Souls lol), or if something requires a massive grind just to get an item or achievement. There's a difference between labbing in a fighting game to learn a character and to improve and doing a dungeon over and over again for a single item drop.
Technically you're right since player skill varies, but there probably is an average skill level developers can work around.
 
but there probably is an average skill level developers can work around.
Yeah and I guess this skill level is through the floor, crust of the earth, and past the core itself. Casual players seem to be so retarded today that they can't decipher a breakable object from a non-breakable one unless if it's slathered in yellow paint and wrapped in tape like a shitty last minute Christmas present. Remember, Valve didn't include melee weapons in Half-Life: Alyx because casual players don't understand how objects work and would constantly get their shit stuck in doors. This could be a big reason why a lot of people think that games are "too easy."
 
This stands in stark contrast to other RPG games' final bosses. Especially JRPG boss fights where the final battle really does feel like a battle, where if you screw up, you'll have to start it all over again and it'll take half an hour or more.
I think that's more of a compromise based on leveling mechanics. In most JRPGs, leveling is pretty straight forward as partymembers have a distinct class and new equipment acquired pretty regularly as the story progresses so by the end game the devs have a good idea on how powerful the player's party is and what abilities they have so they can balance the boss around it and make it a drawn out epic battle. In Western RPGs like old school fallout, the player has a lot of freedom to build their character and also have a lot of freedom to move around and skip the intended route, which means the devs can't anticipate the player, so the final boss is just a tough but rather generic enemy so as long as the player has an ok build, they can beat him. As a result if a player min/max they blow him out the water.
 
In Western RPGs like old school fallout, the player has a lot of freedom to build their character and also have a lot of freedom to move around and skip the intended route, which means the devs can't anticipate the player, so the final boss is just a tough but rather generic enemy so as long as the player has an ok build, they can beat him. As a result if a player min/max they blow him out the water.
True. I just finished Cyberpunk 2077 with the secret ending and the final boss "supossed" was improved in the last patch.
Man, i just whacked the shit of him like in 3 minutes just using a special electric batton. My level reached the cap long ago and one of the skills capped too. In the highest difficulty.
 
I think that's more of a compromise based on leveling mechanics. In most JRPGs, leveling is pretty straight forward as partymembers have a distinct class and new equipment acquired pretty regularly as the story progresses so by the end game the devs have a good idea on how powerful the player's party is and what abilities they have so they can balance the boss around it and make it a drawn out epic battle. In Western RPGs like old school fallout, the player has a lot of freedom to build their character and also have a lot of freedom to move around and skip the intended route, which means the devs can't anticipate the player, so the final boss is just a tough but rather generic enemy so as long as the player has an ok build, they can beat him. As a result if a player min/max they blow him out the water.
The thing is, Mass Effect, KOTOR 2, and Skyrim made it work by having the final boss level with the player. If you're the kind of guy who just breezed through the story, then the final boss is just some above-average boss you can beat with nerves of steel. If you've maxxed out leveling, then the final boss does the same and you're facing off with a guy that can give even max-level players a headache. I can understand Fallout 2 making that mistake, since RPGs were young during its time, but you'd think they'd have fixed that for Lanius in FNV. Even in the highest difficulty level, he's a joke for my maxxed-out Courier. I suppose someone like Rawr serves as that game's real final boss. Or the Legendary Bloatfly........

True. I just finished Cyberpunk 2077 with the secret ending and the final boss "supossed" was improved in the last patch.
Man, i just whacked the shit of him like in 3 minutes just using a special electric batton. My level reached the cap long ago and one of the skills capped too. In the highest difficulty.
Basically, the same experience I had with Lanius. I beat him with a special sword and maxxed-out melee stats after reaching the level cap.
 
Last edited:
Hot take, arguments about how hard a game is are largely a waste of time. People always say "It's too hard/easy" when they should be saying "I think the game is too hard/easy" or "The game is too hard/easy for me." Only times when complaints about difficulty are legit is when a game is outright unfair or has false info that will straight up mislead or trick the player (Dark Souls lol), or if something requires a massive grind just to get an item or achievement. There's a difference between labbing in a fighting game to learn a character and to improve and doing a dungeon over and over again for a single item drop.
There's a lot more to difficulty than being too hard/easy. There's the cause of the difficulty, and the intended experience.

I don't like games that are heavy on RNG. It's why I don't like rogue-likes much. I love Xcom, but won't play it above normal because the game rigs the dice in the CPUs favour.

But here's the thing, the optimal way of playing those games, which is required on higher difficulties, is boring. Inching forward and spamming overwatch. They tried to combat this in the expansions and sequel by adding turn limits, but people complained because their cheese tactic didn't work any more they "didn't want to feel rushed".

There are also games that have dozens of unique weapons and abilities, but jokes on you, only 5 are viable.

And then some are just outright false. I've been told that Batman Arkham games are easily beaten by just mashing the counter button, but having played those games, that's not really a viable strategy. Especially later when special enemy types are introduced.
 
There's a lot more to difficulty than being too hard/easy. There's the cause of the difficulty, and the intended experience.
I'd say design and strategy also factor in. If you design a final boss that you can't just power through without consequences, or if you have the boss level up with the player or have strategies that adapt to the player, you can craft a more substantial experience than if you just gave the boss max-level stats across the board and beefed him up. Any player can kill a roided-out moron by beefing up the right stats and using the right strategy at that point. Especially if the player also juices up and the final boss doesn't level with him.

I don't like games that are heavy on RNG. It's why I don't like rogue-likes much. I love Xcom, but won't play it above normal because the game rigs the dice in the CPUs favour.
You can pretty much fuck RNG games into the dirt by leveling up stats like luck. In New Vegas, I leveled up luck to the max, and I kept getting critical hits up the ass because the RNG always swings in my favor, even on the highest difficulty. RNG just adds another stat for you to pump points into, be it luck, dexterity, or strength. For example, in an RNG-based game, a character with high dexterity is more than likely to dodge enemy attacks.

And then some are just outright false. I've been told that Batman Arkham games are easily beaten by just mashing the counter button, but having played those games, that's not really a viable strategy. Especially later when special enemy types are introduced.
I pretty much played those games on New Game Plus where they don't signal the enemy about to hit you. Makes it harder and more challenging; you actually have to watch the enemy as he moves in to punch you in the face.
 
Last edited:
But here's the thing, the optimal way of playing those games, which is required on higher difficulties, is boring. Inching forward and spamming overwatch. They tried to combat this in the expansions and sequel by adding turn limits, but people complained because their cheese tactic didn't work any more they "didn't want to feel rushed".
Exactly, the perfect difficulty is one that forces you to engage with more of the game mechanics, not less. For example in Witcher 3 when I play on normal I would walk into monster fights half cocked and still do fine, but on harder difficulties I actually need to do homework on what the monster is and prepare accordingly with potions and oils or else I get trounced.


You can pretty much fuck RNG games into the dirt by leveling up stats like luck.
I'm not sure of any games that does that. Even fallout NV I think luck is just for crits and gambling, it doesn't improve base chances to hit. The main problem with RNG based games is that the dice rolls can feel biased, Xcom is especially bad with its 95% really means 75% nonsense.

I don't like games that are heavy on RNG. It's why I don't like rogue-likes much. I love Xcom, but won't play it above normal because the game rigs the dice in the CPUs favour.
I think Valkeria Chronicals does Xcom shooting better than Xcom because instead of using percentages it uses a reticle that you manually aim. So if the circle is bigger than the target, you will get some miss shots (most classes fire bursts so each bullet has a chance to hit), but if the circle is smaller than the target, every shot hits them. This is great because:
  • It gives a visual representation on your chance to hit so you don't feel ripped off when you miss.
  • You need to weigh the pros and cons of risky head shots vs safer body shots.
  • Rushing an enemy with a shock trooper and mag dumping a machine gun into his face feels really good.
It no longer feels like a dice roll and you have a lot more control over your actions.
(VC 1 and 4 are great games if you want an Anime ww2 turn based tactics game)
 
I just realized, that with the very advanced livery editors in today's racing games, and the amazing liveries that you can create with them, makes me thankful that those are the equivalent of various cosmetic microtransactions in other games, i.e. weapon and character skins, but liveries are free and created mostly by the community. And it's probably thankful that racing games haven't decided to monetize liveries (I think), when they just monetize the cars instead.

Also, when it comes to cosmetics, I don't really mind the more outrageous looking skins that some games have, as SMITE comes to mind as one example. The way that Hi-Rez will be handling how skins transfer over to SMITE 2, does sound scummy as hell though, but it's not too out of place for Hi-Rez, sadly.
 
Back