Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

[Jonah Hill poster]

Spider-Man: Miles Morales was the first “woke“ game that made me subconscious about thinking that black (or mixed) characters are more selfish than special for replacing already famous characters that made the hero important and special to society. That and plus being white. For some reason, I don’t think The Last of Us: Part II made me think like that, since I always thought the first one was the better one.

Plus, there’s the cash grab mentality of that game having a successful TV show and (possibly) movie that no one asked for.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I always get incredibly suspicious when someone claims any game is a game 'for intellectuals'. The only games that might have that claim are puzzle games, but I find even that claim to be suspicious because I never quite bought into the meme that intelligence is tied to your ability to solve brain teasers. I've known too many blue collar guys that are savants at the one thing they do but make basic spelling errors and get a DUI every 3 years to really believe that anymore. The 'Bioshock is le game for intellectuals' remind me of the people that try to convince you that you actually need a pretty high IQ to watch Rick and Morty because they sandwiched a joke about Schrodinger's Cat in between the shit jokes, the fart jokes, and the incest jokes that totally aren't Dan Harmon's secret fetish, no siree.

Depends on who says it and how they say it
At the risk of sounding autistic, PLing, or projecting, I believe that there are qualities about games that take a certain intellect or capability to really appreciate. For instance, there are many story-heavy games that I would describe as "not for intellectuals" because the writing is vapid, the logic is inconsistent, there are retarded plot holes, there are huge flaws in premises, human characters don't act like believable humans, etc. Then there are games where the designers, producers, writers, consultants, or whoever it is, really think about the things they're creating and releasing to the world. The kind of games where, if you have a question or concern, if you are curious about the setting, if you are trying to understand it, you will end up finding out that the developers thought of these things, and you are being rewarded for your curiosity or thought. Those are the games I would say are more "for intellectuals" because those games reward the inclined player with love and care put into the development.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Taking your kid out for a burger once in a while isn't the same as gorging on them for hours a day.
Everything in moderation and Eve Online can't be played in moderation unless you've already done it for a long, long while prior to that. It's also not so much a game as an entire alternative reality with all the trappings I've mentioned.

There's no reason to play that game with your kid, which Foxtrot and his dad aren't doing either as I assume they are both adults.

Again, some people have more time and money to spare than others. Do not assume that everyone is as strapped for time and cash as you. There are more than enough people out there who have the time and money to play EVE Online.

 

[instant]

The kind of games where, if you have a question or concern, if you are curious about the setting, if you are trying to understand it, you will end up finding out that the developers thought of these things, and you are being rewarded for your curiosity or thought. Those are the games I would say are more "for intellectuals" because those games reward the inclined player with love and care put into the development.

The funniest thing ever is that of all games, this entire paragraph reminds me of Digimon World Dusk/Dawn.

Everyone said for the longest time that its a nonsense garbage game and that it's impossible to fill out the roster blind because it requires completely arbitrary requirements that are all hidden from the player.

I played it again, pretty recently now that Im old, and I suddenly realized that there was a pattern this whole time that nobody just happened to crack.

Not just that, the mathematical margins of the game actually serve storytelling and narrative purposes lmao. This is the most obvious if you choose Clockmon as your starter (though the same actually applies to all the starters), since it is physically impossible for you to ever evolve him into Alphamon without first going into BomberNanimon, a literal explosive diarrhea joke monster. But this was a mechanical and much more organic way of implementing one of the original concept of digimon all the way from the Vpets in the 80s, that if you're willing to suffer through and stick with the digimon you raise even after they turn into a disgusting monster that represents your disastrous failure, then they can still evolve into something amazing.

Honestly its a lot of things like that. So many digimon require unreasonable grind to get unless you happen to be doing things a certain way. So many people only saw the grind and for some reason assumed the fast method was an "exploit", instead of being intentional. But anyone who would look at the game from a macro perspective, they'd suddenly realize the "exploits" are way too commonplace for them to be anything other than intentional.

Anyway, after I figured this all out I really had to sit down for a sec and let it all sink in. "Grinding-based storytelling" just sounds like such a nonsensical term that I can't process it properly, even after experiencing it firsthand.

 

[DavidS877]

It's not necessarily a bad game, but by the time it quits being easy, the maps start getting getting huge and time consuming. They're not really a test of your intelligence so as much as they are a test of how much unpaid tedium you're willing to put up with.

I feel this way about minigames. Pick this lock, pick this lock, pick this lock.... Mass Effect had all the 'hacking' ones which were equally annoying.
One of the first mods I usually pull down is "Delete all the Mini Games"

 

[Calandrino]

I never quite bought into the meme that intelligence is tied to your ability to solve brain teasers.

"Actually, if you think about it, GAME_X is just a disguised puzzle game"

^works for most games

or "disguised rhythm game", if you like

 

[Hazel Motes]

I feel this way about minigames. Pick this lock, pick this lock, pick this lock.... Mass Effect had all the 'hacking' ones which were equally annoying.
One of the first mods I usually pull down is "Delete all the Mini Games"

The connect the dots door lock minigame in ME 2 was hilarious. I can not see how anyone could fail it.

 

[Meat Target]

"Actually, if you think about it, GAME_X is just a disguised puzzle game"

^works for most games

or "disguised rhythm game", if you like

Forget "disguised" puzzle games, what about "puzzle games" that lack actual puzzles?

Bendy and the Ink Machine outright gives you the answers. It's not a puzzle, it's a fetch quest.

 

[Neet Tokusatsu]

It's not necessarily a bad game, but by the time it quits being easy, the maps start getting getting huge and time consuming. They're not really a test of your intelligence so as much as they are a test of how much unpaid tedium you're willing to put up with

And that's the reason i could never get into Helltaker.

 

[Judge Dredd]

I believe that there are qualities about games that take a certain intellect or capability to really appreciate. For instance, there are many story-heavy games that I would describe as "not for intellectuals" because the writing is vapid, the logic is inconsistent, there are retarded plot holes, there are huge flaws in premises, human characters don't act like believable humans, etc. Then there are games where the designers, producers, writers, consultants, or whoever it is, really think about the things they're creating and releasing to the world.

But the kicker is that games claimed to be for intellectuals are usually for former, not the latter. Games like Gone Home and Bioshock that fail the first layer of scrutiny.

Agreeing with your point though, I was watching reviews of The Twilight Zone a while ago, and he kept describing the show as something loved by creatives. I thought this was navel gazing nonsense. But ever since then I've been noticing a pattern. People I know that love it are all creative in some way, but people who hate it are either young or not really creative. Some of this could be confirmation bias on my part.

"Actually, if you think about it, GAME_X is just a disguised puzzle game"

^works for most games

I still remember something game journo Patrick Klepeck said about Halo.

There was an interview where the combat designer said he approached level design like he was designing a puzzle. Patrick, ever the intellectual, dismissed the idea of replaying Halo games because "I solved that puzzle already".

 

[Chuck McGill]

I feel this way about minigames. Pick this lock, pick this lock, pick this lock.... Mass Effect had all the 'hacking' ones which were equally annoying.
One of the first mods I usually pull down is "Delete all the Mini Games"

It really seems like including puzzle minigames in a game that doesn't incorporate puzzles into its core gameplay are a doomed prospect from the jump. Either you make them difficult and risk alienating your players, or you make them the most entry-level color matching games and astute players will realize their time is being wasted. Game devs should identify what their core gameplay mechanic is, hone that down to an art, then do everything they can to keep the player doing it.

Everyone said for the longest time that its a nonsense garbage game and that it's impossible to fill out the roster blind because it requires completely arbitrary requirements that are all hidden from the player.

Something I've noticed in newer games is just how rare it is to have an item/quest/plotline gated behind a hidden requirement. I think we can partially thank microtransactions for this, partially the fact that every single thing in a game costs serious resources to render at a level of graphical fidelity acceptable by AAA standards, so devs are reticent to include anything that the player doesn't have a decent chance of seeing. I remember being impressed that The Outer Worlds has almost an entirely separate plot line for the 'evil' route and not just a Mass Effect/Fallout 4 style of "do the same thing but be a dick about it and ask for more money". I don't know if anyone watches Ross' Game Dungeon, but he's a guy that makes reviews of 90s-early 2000s games, and it's amazing just how much content that's gated behind hidden requirements or wonky balancing issues that would deter everyone outside of cheaters and Koreans from pushing hard enough to ever see it.

And while we're on the topic of Mass Effect, I partially blame Mass Effect 3 for killing this trend well before microtransactions and developer bloat really did it in. That game had the most convoluted set of requirements that needed to be filled scattered across three games, and that was to achieve the best possible ending. Hidden stuff is dope, but you don't gate the true ending behind whether or not you repaired the condenser coils on a Turian garbage scow in an easily missable side quest two games back.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

games claimed to be for intellectuals are usually for former, not the latter. Games like Gone Home and Bioshock

Claimed by whom?

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

And while we're on the topic of Mass Effect, I partially blame Mass Effect 3 for killing this trend well before microtransactions and developer bloat really did it in. That game had the most convoluted set of requirements that needed to be filled scattered across three games, and that was to achieve the best possible ending. Hidden stuff is dope, but you don't gate the true ending behind whether or not you repaired the condenser coils on a Turian garbage scow in an easily missable side quest two games back.

Really? That never happened for me. Last I checked, you can get the best ending in ME3 by just getting enough EMS points, and if you don't have that, you can play the multiplayer for a few matches and get your EMS to the top level. Hell, just choose all the paragon choices for the first two games, and you'll have half the work done for you when you start, to the point where you don't even need to play multiplayer to get the best ending.

It's the people who choose renegade that usually get shit endings. Like say, if you kill off the Rachni, or if you sell Legion to Cerberus, or if you kill Samara for Morinth. And even still, you can do enough faffing about with side quests and the main quest to get enough EMS.

 

[Chuck McGill]

Really? That never happened for me. Last I checked, you can get the best ending in ME3 by just getting enough EMS points, and if you don't have that, you can play the multiplayer for a few matches and get your EMS to the top level. Hell, just choose all the paragon choices for the first two games, and you'll have half the work done for you when you start, to the point where you don't even need to play multiplayer to get the best ending.

It's the people who choose renegade that usually get shit endings. Like say, if you kill off the Rachni, or if you sell Legion to Cerberus, or if you kill Samara for Morinth. And even still, you can do enough faffing about with side quests and the main quest to get enough EMS.

I seem to recall reading a guide when the game came out that there were a bunch of really small side quests from the first game that were required to get the perfect ending. You'd probably get them if you were going 100% on all games, but they'd be fairly easy to miss. I can't find any posts on this game prior to 2021, and the game's been through multiple revisions at this point, so I have no way of confirming this. Maybe I'm just remembering it wrong, I admittedly only ever played 1 and 2 and skipped 3 upon hearing from friends that the ending wasn't great.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

I seem to recall reading a guide when the game came out that there were a bunch of really small side quests from the first game that were required to get the perfect ending. You'd probably get them if you were going 100% on all games, but they'd be fairly easy to miss. I can't find any posts on this game prior to 2021, and the game's been through multiple revisions at this point, so I have no way of confirming this. Maybe I'm just remembering it wrong, I admittedly only ever played 1 and 2 and skipped 3 upon hearing from friends that the ending wasn't great.

I played 3 a lot after playing 1 and 2 a lot. In fact, most people, regarding the ending, only hated the part with the Starchild which ruins the whole thing. I remember many people liking the game up to the point where you and Admiral Anderson were bleeding out on the citadel, and it was only after that did the Starchild turn up and everything you knew about Mass Effect got ruined.

Most people like me just pretend the Starchild part doesn't exist. Hell, there's mods to remove him and just have Shepard survive and hold a private funeral for David Anderson aboard the Normandy.

 

[DavidS877]

I seem to recall reading a guide when the game came out that there were a bunch of really small side quests from the first game that were required to get the perfect ending. You'd probably get them if you were going 100% on all games, but they'd be fairly easy to miss. I can't find any posts on this game prior to 2021, and the game's been through multiple revisions at this point, so I have no way of confirming this. Maybe I'm just remembering it wrong, I admittedly only ever played 1 and 2 and skipped 3 upon hearing from friends that the ending wasn't great.

I don't remember the ending specifics, but there are definitely some decisions/missions from 1 and 2 required for some of your teammates to survive ME3.

 

[WULULULULU]

Atomic Heart was leaps and bounds better than Bioshock. Prey was too.

As much as I like the game, there are some serious issues everyone seems to gloss about it
>90GB of unoptimized shit
>A fucking roadmap
>Any DLC outside of Annihilation Instinct are shit
>Denuvo

 

[The Last Stand]

I hate inverted controls in video games. If the analog stick is UP, I should look UP. What's the point of that?

Only game series that has great flying is GTA. That's even accounting for Vice City's RC vehicles.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

>Denuvo

That's a deal-breaker for me.

Another thing for me is that, when it comes to video game companies making mistakes, as much as people rag on Bethesda now, and yes, that includes them being salty bitches over Starfield's reception by the fans, at least they were decent enough to admit that they made a mistake with Fallout 3's ending. The original FO3 ending was just as bad as Mass Effect 3's ending, where you're told to sacrifice yourself and activate a purifier that has lethal levels of radiation, even though you could easily have a robot or a super mutant activate the damn thing without being hurt by the radiation. It makes just as much sense as the Starchild saying that he has the Reapers kill people to stop the people from making self-aware robots that kills them, even though a paragon Shepard would've mended the split between the Geth and the Quarians, and even a renegade Shepard still has a self-aware EDI riding with them.

Bethesda admitted the fact that FO3's ending was a stinker, and they fixed it with DLC that changed the ending and allowed you to play past the ending of the main campaign, which is what the fans wanted. Now you could send your super mutant party member to activate the purifier, and even if you do the deed yourself, you survive, and the Brotherhood has you engage in a final war against the Enclave that, once you finish it, you can go back and explore the DC wasteland yourself.

Compare that to Casey Hudson and his team saying that they were sticking with ME3's crap ending because it was their ''artistic vision'', even though they tossed away the original ending that was already penned by Drew Karpyshyn about how a Human-Reaper can save the galaxy from Dark Energy pollution, so you can either sacrifice humanity to save the other races or you can refuse that option and work to find another way. Bioware just rejected all fan calls to change the obviously-flawed ending, and they even doubled down on the extended cut where if you shoot the Starchild, you automatically get the worst ending.

And this trend just got worse and worse as time went on. Any time fans protest something flawed about a piece of media, the company just tells them to get fucked. Gone are the days of ''the customer is always right''. TLOU2 kills off Joel, and the fans protest, but Neil Druckmann basically dismisses them. Last Jedi pisses off many Star Wars fans, including the actor for Luke Skywalker, Mark Hamill, and Disney refuses to budge, which then led to them losing viewers and Solo tanking. For all the shit Bethesda's done, at least they did budge and give the fans what they wanted with Fallout 3. Little did we know that such acts of penitence wouldn't be followed by future developers and directors, even though their hard-headed decisions to tell the fans to go fuck themselves would lead to their franchises and their companies losing money in the long run.

 

[Damien Thorne]

Omori is popular, but really, I thought it was middle school emo grade.