Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

[MembersSchoolPizza]

I've heard that line before, and I know that Daggerfall is such a mess that you need a guide just to pass the first dungeon,

The first dungeon takes about 10 minutes if you've done it before. It's not huge. Even if you haven't, it's just not that big. There isn't enough there to take you more than an hour, even if you're really insistent on getting lost or something. The only "complicated" thing is the Imp, which yes, Bethesda dropped the ball by putting an Imp in the first dungeon. You don't have to kill it, you can just avoid it, but it's still dumb to put an enemy in the tutorial dungeon that can't be killed unless you knew to choose the obsidian dagger in character generation.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

There is a special kind of Bethesda hipster that loudly proclaims that their latest game is much worse than their previous game because it is "dumbed down," and by "dumbed down," they mean, "fixed broken garbage that made it a pain in the ass to play."

Daggerfall is, as far as I know, the first massive, procedurally generated game most people played. The demo that shipped with PC Gamer, which was just a single island with towns and dungeons scattered around, was, on its own, more game than many full games in simple terms.

It was kind of cool to dick around with, but eventually, you realized that all the towns were the same, that the random dungeons could be completely broken, and maybe never even get to the point of discovering that it shipped with a critical bug that prevented the game from being finished. This was 1995, so no internet yet.

Exactly. Most of the streamlining in Oblivion and Skyrim made the game easier to get into, easier to play, easier to have fun with, which meant that the player can spend less time spreadsheeting and more time killing shit and having fun.

The first dungeon takes about 10 minutes. The only "complicated" thing is the Imp, which yes, Bethesda dropped the ball by putting an Imp in the first dungeon. You don't have to kill it, you can just avoid it, but it's still dumb to put an enemy in the tutorial dungeon that can't be killed unless you knew to choose the obsidian dagger in character generation.

Which again, just limits the choice for character generation. Players who want an optimal build will choose the dagger off the bat.

 

[cia-log]

While I'm at it I didn't care much for the first Fallout game. It's so slow and empty and I just don't understand how that game came out in 97.

Also Mass Effect is just a shitty ripoff of Star Control 2 with worse writing and less fun gameplay.

 

[Road Work Ahead]

My main issue with the later Elder Scrolls games is that your character can do everything, and join every faction. While it wasn't executed the best, having the thieves' and fighter's guild being in opposition in Morrowind was an interesting idea and I wish they would have expanded on that idea.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

Which again, just limits the choice for character generation. Players who want an optimal build will choose the dagger off the bat.

Blech, did I really say Obsidian? I meant Ebony. Anyway...

Players who want to min-max will do it in any game and reduce it to one "optimal path". That's a flaw of humanity, not game design - gamers will do it even if the differences are so minute as to be irrelevant.

... The ebony dagger choice is an egregious example, and fairly singular. There are ways you can exploit the character generator, yes - the "take a weakness to something you have a racial immunity to" trick, for example. But the game isn't so hard that any reasonable build isn't going to be viable.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Blech, did I really say Obsidian? I meant Ebony. Anyway...

Players who want to min-max will do it in any game and reduce it to one "optimal path". That's a flaw of humanity, not game design - gamers will do it even if the differences are so minute as to be irrelevant.

... The ebony dagger choice is an egregious example, and fairly singular. There are ways you can exploit the character generator, yes - the "take a weakness to something you have a racial immunity to" trick, for example. But the game isn't so hard that any reasonable build isn't going to be viable.

Daggerfall's first dungeon feels like a puzzle, like many things in older CRPGs. Unless you've fucked around to know it by heart, then you can just make a build that can push through it like nothing. The wisdom of past players guide many new players, but people who play Daggerfall blind often bitch that they can't get past the first dungeon.

My main issue with the later Elder Scrolls games is that your character can do everything, and join every faction. While it wasn't executed the best, having the thieves' and fighter's guild being in opposition in Morrowind was an interesting idea and I wish they would have expanded on that idea.

Like many things blamed on Skyrim, that was there in Oblivion. Before I gave the Amulet of Kings to Jauffre, I became the leader of the Mages' University, the leader of the Fighters' Guild, the leader of the Thieves' Guild, the Listener of the Dark Brotherhood's Black Hand, the new Sheogorath, and the lead crusader of the Knights of the Nine. I literally had a monopoly on every professional fighting group in Cyrodiil outside of the fucking Imperial Legion, and I also lead the Legion's magical branch.

By the time I gave the Amulet to Jauffre, my character probably had enough minions and personal power to wage a war on her own. She could've probably crushed the Mythic Dawn and a good number of the Daedra invaders with all her minions, if the game allowed it. I mean, imagine the Shivering Isles Daedra invading Dagon's Deadlands, backed up by assassins, crusading knights, mages, professional fighters, and some thieves who can steal important shit from the Mythic Dawn. Like say, stealing their sacred book and getting back the Amulet of Kings.

In Skyrim, at most, you're the leader of a dilapidated mages' college, a small gang of werewolves, a small but growing Dark Brotherhood, and the strongest guild you'd have is the Thieves' Guild with power in each city, which is essentially the Skyrim version of La Cosa Nostra. If you chose the vampires in the Dawnguard DLC, you have a castle of bloodsucking killers at your disposal. And maybe a dragon or two. If you rebuilt the Blades, you'd have them too, but most folks don't because the Blades are assholes that try to get you to kill Paarthunax even after he's tried to atone for his sins.

Compared to the Hero of Kvatch, the Dragonborn isn't as influential or as powerful. It's like comparing a mafia don with some regional influence to the leader of a massive private army that can defeat professional armies from other countries. If the Dragonborn is Vito Corleone, the Hero of Kvatch is Senator Steven Armstrong.

 

[Pissmaster]

You can fuck a druid in bear form. You can murder and betray party members. You can randomly cut the throat of 90% NPCs with a quest line and the game doesn't care.

Aside from raping people as an animal, that is the exact kind of stuff that I bought Morrowind for 20 years ago, so I did that and had my laughs and it all got old pretty quickly.

"You can betray your party and destroy questgivers!" Great, so what am I supposed to do after that 15 minutes of frivolity?

That sounds like a "you" issue.

BG 1+2 won multiple awards, inspired numerous spinoff games, were basically single-handedly credited with reviving a flagging RPG market at the time, and have gotten rereleases with updated engines on Steam, GOG, Android and iOS.

I mean, at the end of the day it's like 25 years old, of course it's not gonna be "all the buzz" or anything, but the name carries a built-in market, and you're a fool if you don't think it does. So does the "Dungeons and Dragons" name, too.

I've heard of them here and there. I've also heard about how amazing Neverwinter Nights is, only to finally get it in a Steam bundle and find out that it's just a clunky computer RPG full of all the classic stock tropes that CRPGs tend to have.

It won a lot of awards! So therefore it must be good! Just as good as The Last of Us Part II, which has its own Wikipedia article for how many awards it won. Apparently it won 46 and got 97 nominations. Meanwhile, Yakuza 0, a game with over 50,000 Steam reviews that come out to a 95% positive rating, only got three nominations. Are you entirely sure you want to take awards seriously?

 

[The Last Stand]

None of this is present in 8 Deluxe because the game just fucking gives you everything at once. Yeah, it technically has a bigger roster, but personally I find it less enjoyable to have more content given to me with no effort than to slowly unlock less as I play.

Well, it IS a deluxe version of a Wii U title. I think the focus of online had Nintendo think about that sort of progression. Pick up and play. Nothing wrong with that. You want more stuff, buy it. And there IS stuff you can unlock in the game.

 

[ZipDisk]

I remember the first time I played a turn-based RPG I was filled with UNMITIGATED FURY.
Why do I have to hold still while that asshole monster strikes me, why can't I dodge?

I was very stupid.
Still have that reaction in micro though.

One thing I hate about leveling in Bethesda games is that friendly NPC's get ganked when they go out for a walk. I worked damn hard to upgrade the roving traders in FO3, only to lose them to fucking super mutants at that fucking trainyard.

At least in Oblivion I could cast "heal other" after I rescued travelers. But once you get up to minotaur, they're fucked. FUCK OFF MINOTAURS!

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

I remember the first time I played a turn-based RPG I was filled with UNMITIGATED FURY.
Why do I have to hold still while that asshole monster strikes me, why can't I dodge?

I love how the Mario games subverted that. Paper Mario lets you block, and the Mario and Luigi games let you dodge.

I was very stupid.
Still have that reaction in micro though.

One thing I hate about leveling in Bethesda games is that friendly NPC's get ganked when they go out for a walk. I worked damn hard to upgrade the roving traders in FO3, only to lose them to fucking super mutants at that fucking trainyard.

I never bothered with those traders. I'd figure they'd get murdered by the Deathclaws and giant Radscorpions that spawn randomly in the wasteland.

At least in Oblivion I could cast "heal other" after I rescued travelers. But once you get up to minotaur, they're fucked. FUCK OFF MINOTAURS!

That's why a high-level Oblivion run can get very hectic near the end. Protecting Emperor Sean Bean while every monster is leveled to max is like trying to protect a cripple going through a warzone. If the enemy so much as farts on his general direction, it's all over.

Aside from raping people as an animal, that is the exact kind of stuff that I bought Morrowind for 20 years ago, so I did that and had my laughs and it all got old pretty quickly.

"You can betray your party and destroy questgivers!" Great, so what am I supposed to do after that 15 minutes of frivolity?

That's why I really can't get people who hate Skyrim and love Morrowind because of such features. I mean, killing questgivers and essential characters may be good for a laugh, but at the end, it's pointless.

I've heard of them here and there. I've also heard about how amazing Neverwinter Nights is, only to finally get it in a Steam bundle and find out that it's just a clunky computer RPG full of all the classic stock tropes that CRPGs tend to have.

It won a lot of awards! So therefore it must be good! Just as good as The Last of Us Part II, which has its own Wikipedia article for how many awards it won. Apparently it won 46 and got 97 nominations. Meanwhile, Yakuza 0, a game with over 50,000 Steam reviews that come out to a 95% positive rating, only got three nominations. Are you entirely sure you want to take awards seriously?

That's why it's important to experience the game on your own. Mass Effect 2 got a lot of awards, but that's not the reason I love the game; I love the game because it was fun to play and the stories of the party members were beautiful to behold.

 

[Pissmaster]

That's why I really can't get people who hate Skyrim and love Morrowind because of such features. I mean, killing questgivers and essential characters may be good for a laugh, but at the end, it's pointless.

Yeah, I really don't like that at all. What if the character will do something interesting later on? What if there's a twist that the character I can kill will help me out down the line? What if they become plot-relevant? If you just run around and kill people wanton, and get one of those "with this character's death the threads of fate of prophecy is sealed and now the world's doomed" message, you've kinda just spoiled a bit of the game for yourself. And that's even worse if they get killed in crossfire. All of that really is totally pointless once you're done with the wow factor of it all, and it just leaves you with a bunch of NPCs you can accidentally kill. Even worse is those guards in the Elder's Scrolls series, where you can accidentally piss them off and wind up with a ton of them chasing you all over.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Yeah, I really don't like that at all. What if the character will do something interesting later on? What if there's a twist that the character I can kill will help me out down the line? What if they become plot-relevant? If you just run around and kill people wanton, and get one of those "with this character's death the threads of fate of prophecy is sealed and now the world's doomed" message, you've kinda just spoiled a bit of the game for yourself. And that's even worse if they get killed in crossfire. All of that really is totally pointless once you're done with the wow factor of it all, and it just leaves you with a bunch of NPCs you can accidentally kill. Even worse is those guards in the Elder's Scrolls series, where you can accidentally piss them off and wind up with a ton of them chasing you all over.

People who make these complaints about how it's more ''realistic'' that a game lets you kill questgivers and civilian NPCs are really into ''role-playing''. As in, they like to imagine that they are the character, and they'd do what feels like their character would do, even if it means killing children and essential questgiver NPCs. That's why they can't stand Skyrim and Fallout 3 making essential characters like questgivers and children. Meanwhile, the rest of us normal folk who played RPGs like the Mario RPGs, the Bioware RPGs, the Final Fantasy games, we really don't get why this is the hill that many of these autistic retards are willing to die on. It does nothing for the game outside of playing pretend and having a short laugh at the expense of possibly breaking a playthrough.

That's why I'm not that convinced with the argument that these people make. I've played RPGs were the only people you can kill are enemies, and I had a fun time with them, and these games were some of the best in the business. KOTOR 1 and 2, Paper Mario 1 and 2, Final Fantasy 6, Mass Effect 1-3, Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, Witcher 2 and 3, despite the fact that you can't just kill everyone in these games, people still loved these games, and they were some of the most well-received games in terms of fan output. Same goes for Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 3. Skyrim was so successful that Japanese devs started copying it, and Fallout 3 was so successful that it led to the excellent Fallout New Vegas coming out, which was the height of the Fallout series. And yet the people who whine about not being able to kill everyone trash talk Skyrim and FO3 and act like all RPGs should allow you to kill everyone.

 

[The Foxtrot]

I liked Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim and the only mainline TES games I can't get into are Arena and ESO. None of these games are truly "bad" in my opinion.
Skyrim is the easiest to get into because the game doesn't kick you off into the deep end after 2 minutes of character generation, and there's nothing wrong with the more streamlined and accessible gameplay that Skyrim offers.
If Oblivion had a better leveling system, the game would be 5x better because unless you're really paying attention during character generation, you'll be punished in the late(r) game.
Morrowind is janky as fuck, and I think the fact it's from 2002 should mean people temper their expectations as a result. Morrowind's from a completely different era of gaming, and it was almost Bethesda's very last game. That being said FUCK Cliff Racers.
Daggerfall Unity, I'd argue, is what actually brought Daggerfall back into the gaming consciousness. Having played both it, and the original release via DOSBox, I can tell you right now that the original release is just too fucking clunky and scuffed to enjoy. Daggerfall Unity is why this game has such a new lease on life.

And being able to kill every single NPC is fine, but I never felt like games that allowed you to were actually encouraging it. Morrowind, for example, I don't think the game was encouraging you to go full Murderhobo McSlaughterhouse on every single NPC in all the towns. Rather, the game was allowing you to do so, IF you were willing to accept the consequences. Which could be as minor as catching a 1,000g bounty if you didn't taunt them first, or it could be as severe as completely breaking your ability to complete the game's questlines.

That being said, Morrowind and Daggerfall are two games that I feel like you really have to tiptoe and pay attention in order to not fuck up your progression in. Oblivion, not quite *that* much, really just making sure you didn't bork your character generation. Skyrim, you really have to try and break the game in order to fuck yourself.
I can understand if someone doesn't want to have to tiptoe and consult a guide to make sure they didn't hard or soft lock themselves into a bad ending/bugged playthrough.

 

[Scarthew]

None of the Bethesda RPGs are good

Daggerfall and morrowind are pretty damn good.

I thought i was the only one!

Really, every time i hear someone talk about Baldur's Gate 3 it's always because of the coomer bait shit. "You can fuck x!"

I didnt even know it was a turn based RPG until today. Then again, i dont keep up with gaming anymore.

BG3 is honestly impressive how detailed it is at the level of polish its at. I can't recommend it enough, its a new benchmark for computer games that likely won't be surpassed for another 20 years. The insane attention to detail and an uncountable amount of story paths never stops impressing me. It's combat/exploration/looting is incredibly open ended and is designed to reward creative solutions.

 

[Spud]

really don't get why this is the hill that many of these autistic retards are willing to die on. It does nothing for the game outside of playing pretend and having a short laugh at the expense of possibly breaking a playthrough.

I get tired of being told how I'm the awesome super omega le heckin bad guy killing machine and that only my power can stop this world ending catastrophe that no one else can wield this power as it will destroy them only to then be denied the Ability to have a meaningful impact on the game. These are the games that give you quick save and reload and make it fit in the story as mastery of CHIM but I can't destroy the courier who tells me my companion died and left me 100 gold that the Jarl takes 10% of. I care not for "realism", I just want to murder hobo then reload the save before I started. It's fun but you can't have fun in modern games cause then there's no reason to buy the sequel that took away features and functions.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

I get tired of being told how I'm the awesome super omega le heckin bad guy killing machine and that only my power can stop this world ending catastrophe that no one else can wield this power as it will destroy them only to then be denied the Ability to have a meaningful impact on the game. These are the games that give you quick save and reload and make it fit in the story as mastery of CHIM but I can't destroy the courier who tells me my companion died and left me 100 gold that the Jarl takes 10% of. I care not for "realism", I just want to murder hobo then reload the save before I started. It's fun but you can't have fun in modern games cause then there's no reason to buy the sequel that took away features and functions.

I really don't give a shit about things like that. I mean, I see things from beyond just the Elder Scrolls picture; tons of great RPGs did not let you kill civilians, much less essential questgivers. And yet they became classics that were well loved by gamers like me and the masses. So this silly debate of essential characters just feels like a silly hill to die on. And don't make it about modern games, many of these games came out before Skyrim. Back then when gaming was this untamed thing not influenced by big money DEI/ESG interference.

Killing main characters in a game like Morrowind, me and my friends did that when we were fucking around with the game. It gave us 3 minutes of laughter, but then, after that, nothing. We really didn't care. So we got tired of the game and went back to playing Jade Empire, FFX, Paper Mario 2, and KOTOR 1. My character in KOTOR 1 is a Force wrecking-ball who slaughters entire armies for shits and giggles, yet I don't complain when the game doesn't let me kill some NPC. It just didn't really matter to me.

 

[Night Crawler]

I have been watching some videos about STALKER Anomaly. I keep hearing the term save scumming being used. When did saving your game become a thing? That's the whole point of being able to save your game. So if you screw up or the game fucks you over you can go back to a previous save. It's not just there for you to save your game so you can comeback and play later. That's kind of an obvious use for the ability to save. I don't remember a time when a game in the past or a manual for a game didn't tell you to save often. This was usually some of the gameplay tips and hints in manuals and strategy guides. If you are going to a new level or whatever save your game. Going through that door in a dungeon? Save your game. Save your game before you fight a boss.

When did people get so autistic and retarded that saving your game became a bad thing to do?

While I'm at it I didn't care much for the first Fallout game. It's so slow and empty and I just don't understand how that game came out in 97.

Also Mass Effect is just a shitty ripoff of Star Control 2 with worse writing and less fun gameplay.

That's probably because of the games setting. It's called a post apocalyptic role playing game. It's supposed to be that way. The developers of Fallout 1 wanted to make an RPG in a different setting. It takes place in a destroyed world. It's not like your typical RPG where everything is populated and is pretty much like normal life.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

When did people get so autistic and retarded that saving your game became a bad thing to do

It's kinda like save states, some people don't like them, others do. Abusing these features can ruin the experience, but it's entirely optional to do so and people shouldn't care either way.

 

[Spud]

yet I don't complain when the game doesn't let me kill some NPC. It just didn't really matter to me.

That's fine, just means your okay with paying more for less.

 

[skykiii]

Yet the number of action-games far outstripped them. Especially when the 80s and 90s marked a shit ton of space shooter games and adventure games.

I should point out an additional factor here:

Games with an action component are easier to program (heck most intro programming courses start off by having you make a space shooter). RPGs or strategy games are not--they take a metric fuckton of planning even before you get to the headache of how to implement the rules and behaviors.

So I'm not at all surprised there's a ton of action games when a lot of those can easily be someone's first game (even Id Software had a space shooter called Slordax).