Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

Actually, Didn't Ocarina use the L button to toggle the map? That might be a third but I can't remember for sure.
I certainly remember fat-fingering the L-button while playing Ocarina of Time on an emulator, as I was playing with a keyboard at the time (I had all the buttons mapped onto ZXC ASD QWE2 with movement on the Arrow Keys), and yeah, I remember it toggling the map.
 
The video game industry is collapsing due to its success and the way investment works. Basically, these are the steps the gaming industry went through during its history.

1970s-1990s
Video game industry is born, makes decent money from short, but entertaining games.
Video games develop from short, quick games to longer, more challenging games.
Video game industry gets a boom and eventually, a crash.
Video game industry starts to experiment to see how far games can go.

1990s-2010s
Video game industry experiments to see what works.
Video game industry finds out what works.
Video game industry focuses on what works, gets a wazillion dollars from the gamers.
Video game industry eclipses Hollywood, gaining the attention of big-name investors.

2010-2015
Video game industry attracts big-name investors.
Big-name investors want less risk and want more guaranteed hits.
Video game industry takes the stuff people liked so much, and milks the formula to death.
Video game fans get tired of it and buys less product.
Less product sold means less money for video game industry.

2015-today
Investors promise more ESG money if video games become woke.
Video game industry becomes woke to get ESG money.
Fans buy less due to wokeness, industry needs more money, but they can only get more money if they stay woke.
Video game industry stays woke to keep the ESG money flowing even as they bleed fans.
AAA game developers lose consumers to AA indie devs who actually make what the people want.
Only guaranteed source of income for the AAA video game industry are microtransaction games like Fortnite.
AAA Video game industry makes more microtransaction games to keep the money coming.
Fans get tired and move on to playing older games for nostalgia, or going for AA indie games for fun.
Big companies sense the gaming community's nostalgia boner and start selling updated versions of older games.
 
Last edited:
its successor the PS Vita did not do well because it was overpowered and only had a library that Otakus and weeaboos would enjoy.

I can only think of a couple of games that used one handle but required pressing buttons on the other for minor functions.
So shooters like turok and duke nukem used c-buttons for movement so you could free aim with the stick but they also always centered to neutral so you have to balance it to aim, those and hexen used dpad for inventory stuff since they were designed for pc first and had too many buttons. And some games used the dpad for movement and not the stick.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ChampFantana
That's the Lufia 2 "remake" for the DS.

It's such a massive departure from the original SNES release that it's better to see it as a fully independent game.

I covered it on the 'Dex back then.

If you're on a low power system, that's the strength of emulating retro games and OEM handhelds over modern Android and indie shovelware: you no longer have that kind of ambition and production values associated with low horsepower.
Too bad it's an ARPG, but I'll probably still check it out.

Yeah, they used to push weak systems and it turned out great. There's something about a system-pushing retro game that just blows away modern stuff and looks more impressive in its own way. I guess it comes with an appreciation of the hardware or just photorealism fatigue.
 
Unpopular opinion: banal is good, assuming it's actually good.

Not every game needs to reinvent the wheel, I'm all for games from a well-threaded genre, playing it safe and delivering a familiar experience, as long as they actually deliver the polish and production.

Except it's not something you can write an elaborate essay about, you won't get millions of youtube views with e.g. "8/10, nice bombastic CoD clone campaign, you know the drill"; and on a more subconscious level people refuse to accept it as an answer, so they have to massively inflate the word count of their praise.

Case in point, the Sony cinematic games are certainly solid for their genre... but they have to be the most banal package ever. Except they deliver ungodly amounts of production money, and people enjoyed them as interactive movies that don't demand much of you but play Simon Says from point A to point B. If the story works for you, you're golden.

And now you have masses of people who like them and want to talk about it online; and instead of going straight to the real answer, they talk about how TLoU is a deep stealth game if you bump the difficulty or Uncharted is this or God of War is that, to justify their (seemingly) mysterious love for going through the scripted motions of their linear action game with lavish cutscenes.
 
BOTW is the only good Switch game
botw, bayo 3, pikmin 4, odysee, kirby, wonder, mario rpg remake, astral chain. pokemon gen4 remakes, (violet/scarlet have a healthy pvp thanks to teras but a terrible singleplayer), metroid dread, bowser's fury, totk. plus pretty much any good game on wiiu since they all got ported to switch.
 
The video game industry is collapsing due to its success and the way investment works. Basically, these are the steps the gaming industry went through during its history.

1970s-1990s
Video game industry is born, makes decent money from short, but entertaining games.
Video games develop from short, quick games to longer, more challenging games.
Video game industry gets a boom and eventually, a crash.
Video game industry starts to experiment to see how far games can go.

1990s-2010s
Video game industry experiments to see what works.
Video game industry finds out what works.
Video game industry focuses on what works, gets a wazillion dollars from the gamers.
Video game industry eclipses Hollywood, gaining the attention of big-name investors.

2010-2015
Video game industry attracts big-name investors.
Big-name investors want less risk and want more guaranteed hits.
Video game industry takes the stuff people liked so much, and milks the formula to death.
Video game fans get tired of it and buys less product.
Less product sold means less money for video game industry.

2015-today
Investors promise more ESG money if video games become woke.
Video game industry becomes woke to get ESG money.
Fans buy less due to wokeness, industry needs more money, but they can only get more money if they stay woke.
Video game industry stays woke to keep the ESG money flowing even as they bleed fans.
AAA game developers lose consumers to AA indie devs who actually make what the people want.
Only guaranteed source of income for the AAA video game industry are microtransaction games like Fortnite.
AAA Video game industry makes more microtransaction games to keep the money coming.
Fans get tired and move on to playing older games for nostalgia, or going for AA indie games for fun.
Big companies sense the gaming community's nostalgia boner and start selling updated versions of older games.
You are missing a big problem between 2010 to 2015, the Internet phenomenon. Internet becoming accessible caused a ton of problems like DLC, Microtransactions, Online Updates, Online only modes, Free to play, etc etc.

Also CRPGs are not real games. Theres a large chunk of the games industry new and old which thing playable choice flowcharts are actual games. No, Visual Novels are not video games. Just cause theyre interactible doesnt mean they have gameplay. Theres more gameplay in a choose your own adventure book than in a CRPG or visual novel.
 
???
You realize you're supposed to hold it like this, right?
View attachment 5848336
I can only think of a couple of games that used one handle but required pressing buttons on the other for minor functions.
That's really weird. I always grasped the analog stick between my left index finger and thumb, operated the dpad with left pinky, while using my right hand to press the other buttons: right thumb on Start, right index and middle fingers on L and R respectively, and so on. Sometimes I use my nose to hit one of the C-buttons. Never really had a problem with it.

Also CRPGs are not real games. [...] Theres more gameplay in a choose your own adventure book than in a CRPG
what
 
You are missing a big problem between 2010 to 2015, the Internet phenomenon. Internet becoming accessible caused a ton of problems like DLC, Microtransactions, Online Updates, Online only modes, Free to play, etc etc.
To be fair, the DLC phenomenon and the internet had been in gaming in the 2000s. Battlefront 2, from 2005, Oblivion from 2006, and Force Unleashed from 2008 are notable examples. The last one is the funniest because it allowed you to beat up the OT characters as Starkiller. But then you also had Halo 2 from 2004 taking Xbox Live by storm and bringing the internet into the Xbox.

Also CRPGs are not real games. Theres a large chunk of the games industry new and old which thing playable choice flowcharts are actual games. No, Visual Novels are not video games. Just cause theyre interactible doesnt mean they have gameplay. Theres more gameplay in a choose your own adventure book than in a CRPG or visual novel.
Heh. Don't let the CRPG fans hear you say that. They'll pop a gasket. You know how autistic they can be, especially since their digital DnD games barely cracked a few hundred thousand sales for over a decade while an RPG like Final Fantasy 7 was competing with the likes of Donkey Kong or Mario. They're still rather salty about that. Mostly because of the fact that JRPGs were more beloved by the public obviously made the CRPG fans go utterly bonkers. Many of them were D&D nerds, who were jeered at in schools, mocked and bullied by the other kids, while their elders thought they were up to no good, while the CRPGs they loved barely held any respect or attention from the greater gaming public, failing to expand the RPG formula despite spending a decade trying.

Then in came the weebs and their JRPGs, and not only did they face little backlash from the adults for their stuff (in fact, many kids had their parents buy these JRPGs for them during those days, and the adults just saw these games as cartoony games for kids) but these games became mainstream, like I said, to the point where kids in school would openly talk about things like Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Star Ocean, Shin Megami Tensei, and Xenosaga, and even the kids who would usually be the bullies also had their own favorites among the anime/JRPG pile.

To be fair, a CRPG is still a game; a math game, but a game nonetheless. It's like one of those educational games, the kind of game that I'd give to a kid to teach him a math lesson. Then I'll let him play a real game like Super Mario Brothers if he does well in his math exam from school.

As for visual novels, half the time they're just wank material anyways. They can be the type of game you play one-handed. The other half of the time, you're just breaking the system to figure out which choices are optimal.

People say they want games that prioritize fun mechanics rather than graphics but they're full of shit, even here.
Why not have both? Arkham Asylum, Mass Effect 2, and War for Cybertron had great graphics, but were also a ton of fun to play.
 
Last edited:
Heh. Don't let the CRPG fans hear you say that. They'll pop a gasket. You know how autistic they can be, especially since their digital DnD games barely cracked a few hundred thousand sales for over a decade while an RPG like Final Fantasy 7 was competing with the likes of Donkey Kong or Mario. They're still rather salty about that. Mostly because of the fact that JRPGs were more beloved by the public obviously made the CRPG fans go utterly bonkers. Many of them were D&D nerds, who were jeered at in schools, mocked and bullied by the other kids, while their elders thought they were up to no good, while the CRPGs they loved barely have any attention from the greater gaming public.

Then in came the weebs and their JRPGs, and not only did they face little backlash from the adults for their stuff (in fact, many kids had their parents buy these JRPGs for them during those days, and the adults just saw these games as cartoony games for kids) but these games became mainstream, like I said, to the point where kids in school would openly talk about things like Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Star Ocean, Shin Megami Tensei, and Xenosaga, and even the kids who would usually be the bullies also had their own favorites among the anime/JRPG pile.

To be fair, a CRPG is still a game; a math game, but a game nonetheless. It's like one of those educational games, the kind of game that I'd give to a kid to teach him a math lesson. Then I'll let him play a real game like Super Mario Brothers if he does well in his math exam from school.

As for visual novels, half the time they're just wank material anyways. They can be the type of game you play one-handed. The other half of the time, you're just breaking the system to figure out which choices are optimal.
What I hate about the CRPG and DND crowd is they act like dialogue is gameplay, like choices are gameplay. This is a favourite argument of video essayists. Like no? Dialogue is not gameplay Choices are not gameplay, its just a flowchart of choices. I liked the way JRPGs did it cause they added a ton of numbers stuff to stats, items and weapons which isnt half assed chance based dice rolls. Builds in a CRPG are just dialogue set A vs B, Builds in a JRPG affect stuff like combat and traversal a lot more. Another video essayist argument is CRPGs are simulations cause CRPGs influenced Immersive sims. No, CRPGs are the furthest thing from a simulation because theyre just a bunch of dialogue trees. Immersive sims are a combination of Tycoon/life sims and CRPGs, not a derivative of CRPGs.
 
Why not have both?
Non-argument.
Dialogue is not gameplay Choices are not gameplay, its just a flowchart of choices.
Neither is combat really, it's just a flowchart of reactions. Neither is exploration, really, because you're just pressing a button and having your character walk while gawking at scenery.

Videogames in general aren't even really games if you think about it.

Seriously why does dialogue choice not constitute gameplay? You're interacting with a system, often with mechanical benefits attached, to get a reaction out of another system. That's fucking retarded logic.
 
What I hate about the CRPG and DND crowd is they act like dialogue is gameplay, like choices are gameplay. This is a favourite argument of video essayists. Like no? Dialogue is not gameplay Choices are not gameplay, its just a flowchart of choices. I liked the way JRPGs did it cause they added a ton of numbers stuff to stats, items and weapons which isnt half assed chance based dice rolls. Builds in a CRPG are just dialogue set A vs B, Builds in a JRPG affect stuff like combat and traversal a lot more. Another video essayist argument is CRPGs are simulations cause CRPGs influenced Immersive sims. No, CRPGs are the furthest thing from a simulation because theyre just a bunch of dialogue trees. Immersive sims are a combination of Tycoon/life sims and CRPGs, not a derivative of CRPGs.
CRPGs 90 percent of the time are just the same game with different dressing. Can't say the same about say, Paper Mario, KOTOR, Mass Effect, or FF13. But CRPGs, if you know how to play DnD, you've pretty much beaten it already. Especially the turn-based ones that you can lazily push buttons for in combat. So long as you have the right values in combat, and the right skill number when you're doing things like lockpicking or persuading people, you've already won.

I don't know why people hold that era in high regard so much. Not only did their games fail to become mainstream, but like you said, it's just numbers, stats, and builds, while JRPGs valued traversal and combat way more, which felt more adventurous, since you're running around killing shit and experiencing the world. CRPGs have an acquired taste and aren't for everyone, unlike a game like Paper Mario or Final Fantasy which your average goon can pick up and play.

In a CRPG, you can give your character the right stats and pick the right choices, and you can lazy-boy your way to victory. Especially with how slow and methodical combat is. Can't say the same about a game like Super Mario Brothers 3, where by the end, you'll be jumping around like hell just to avoid getting shot.

Non-argument.
The thing is, we should get both. Good graphics AND good gameplay. That is what used to constitute a AAA game.

Neither is combat really, it's just a flowchart of reactions. Neither is exploration, really, because you're just pressing a button and having your character walk while gawking at scenery.
I disagree. Combat in a good RPG forces you to strategize and will get you killed if you don't pay attention, while exploration is all about finding all the hidden goods in every nook and cranny. Hell, non-RPG games like Metroid Prime made exploration their bread and butter, and combat in different game genres like fighting, adventure, and FPS is a selling point. So even if you don't have dialogue trees, you can sell a game on exploration and combat alone. God knows the Metroidvania genre's been doing it for a while.

Videogames in general aren't even really games if you think about it.
So I suppose games in general aren't games, even board games, since it's just a flowchart of reactions from the other guy.

Seriously why does dialogue choice not constitute gameplay? You're interacting with a system, often with mechanical benefits attached, to get a reaction out of another system. That's fucking retarded logic.
Because it's talking, not killing shit or exploring. It's more like reading an interactive novel or watching an interactive movie. It practically is the latter, in many cases. Although if you widen your definition of gameplay, then perhaps it would constitute gameplay, if picking choices for an interactive movie is your definition of one. As for me, it's 50/50. It's still gameplay, but a smaller part of it, since the real meat of the game is exploring and killing shit.

Hell, look at how Bioware handles dialogue. They make it look as cinematic as possible, in games like Mass Effect, KOTOR, and Jade Empire. They know it's not gameplay in a conventional sense, but an interactive movie. Gameplay, in a conventional term, is when you slaughter a bunch of goons with your lightsaber/assault rifle/kung-fu skills. That's different from dialogue, which is entertaining in a film-sense, but most gamers just skip that part and get back to killing shit and exploring once they've seen it once.
 
Last edited:
Non-argument.

Neither is combat really, it's just a flowchart of reactions. Neither is exploration, really, because you're just pressing a button and having your character walk while gawking at scenery.

Videogames in general aren't even really games if you think about it.

Seriously why does dialogue choice not constitute gameplay? You're interacting with a system, often with mechanical benefits attached, to get a reaction out of another system. That's fucking retarded logic.
Its not a system if it has predetermined isolated outcomes instead of a spectrum/samplespace of possible outcomes. In technicality it is because a system converts input A into output B but in gameplay terms systems have reactivity, dialogue systems are not reactive because theyre isolated outputs for isolated outcomes, all of which are predetermined by the developer. A more authentic system would be something for which the developer has engineered the functionality instead of matching X input to Y output and is something which can be leveraged by players in ways the developer did not intend or foresee. For example the Zelda weather systems, MGSV AI and associated systems.
Coming to the combat argument. Its a gameplay system which has a large spectrum of possible inputs with corresponding outputs. The developers might have designed the basic functionality of each weapon or item but did not design it to be a bunch of predetermined singular outcomes. A gameplay system with a functionality is different from a gameplay system designed with predetermined possibilities.
The key here is predetermination. If any part of the gameplay in a game is completely predetermined by the developers beyond just a rough design of mechanics, it is staged inorganic and unreactive thereby being just a flowchart of options.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: Whoopsie Daisy
I liked the way JRPGs did it cause they added a ton of numbers stuff to stats, items and weapons which isnt half assed chance based dice rolls.
I don't even know what this means. The primary difference between western RPGs and JRPGs is how narrative is handled - the fundamental mechanics of combat are conceptually very, very similar, with RNG that's modified by stats and equipment.

It's all dice rolls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whoopsie Daisy
Back