Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

Zaragoza said:
I was even for his argument that Rockstar was doing was very bad, but had to remind him that it's very common that plenty of Triple A developers work extra hours and even more to meet the quota. In response he tells me to point out other developers that did something very similar, I say that Bungie did the same shit to their own developers to meet the quota for Halo 2 and added a little bit of info on how Konami would make reviewers go through boot camp to say only positive things about MGS5 and other previous titles, he immediately dismisses the Konami part because Japanese law are different therefore it's out of the argument only for him to go an on autistic crusade against the evil Western developers.
Click to expand...
So a shitty thing is okay as long as it's legal? Good to know when I decide to ream 10yo girls in Afghanistan
 
The Ps4 has been incredibly disappointing. Apart from RDR2 and Persona 5 everything else I've gotten better on PC.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Guts Gets Some
I enjoy Twin Snakes more than the PS1 version of MGS1 due to the changes in gameplay.
All N64 games have aged poorly mainly due to the ugly blurry n64 textures and poor frame rates in games like Zelda OoT.
The Ratchet remake is the worst of the main line games.
Batman Arkham Origins is the only Arkham game with a good story.
Even as a Uncharted fan I can't say Uncharted 4 is anything but meh.
3DS is ergonomically the worst handheld of note.
The PS4 has Sony's worst 1st party output, as well what feels like the least about of 1st party games they have ever put out in a gen.
Super Rub 'a' Dub isn't a bad game.
The Dissidia games are pure shit.
Bandana Waddle Dee is boring and should be replayed when they need a 4h playable character in a Kirby game.
Zelda Breath of the Wild is a 6/10 game.
Other M was an okay game without the story.
Jade Empire is the only good Bioware game.
Second Sight was better than Psi-ops.
Sly 4 was overall a better game than Sly 3.
 
Ruin said:
The Ps4 has been incredibly disappointing. Apart from RDR2 and Persona 5 everything else I've gotten better on PC.
Click to expand...

According to wikipedia, the same Persona is also available on PS3 and it looks virtually identical too, so I guess that's one less thing for it.

I too since getting mine haven't been particularly impressed. Of course I've only played one pathetic Musou game on it so far. Not the best start.
 
I don't understand the sudden nostalgia boner for old school mmorpgs that is happening lately. I played FFXI and a few others on and off over the years and to be honest most of them were terrible. We only tolerated them because there was nothing else at the time quite like it. I get there is an appeal to the punishing difficulty and atmosphere of old school games but most of that was due to shitty game design. It's funny how most of the people nostalgia fagging over old school games absolutely hated them at the time. The endless amount of complaining over unfair difficulty of games like XI and classic Everquest is the reason why we have theme park mmorpgs today.

It's also why I laugh at people banking on Pantheon to "save" the genre. The game isn't even out yet and it already has so many delusional fanboys.
 
SnowBall said:
I don't understand the sudden nostalgia boner for old school mmorpgs that is happening lately. I played FFXI and a few others on and off over the years and to be honest most of them were terrible. We only tolerated them because there was nothing else at the time quite like it. I get there is an appeal to the punishing difficulty and atmosphere of old school games but most of that was due to shitty game design. It's funny how most of the people nostalgia fagging over old school games absolutely hated them at the time. The endless amount of complaining over unfair difficulty of games like XI and classic Everquest is the reason why we have theme park mmorpgs today.

It's also why I laugh at people banking on Pantheon to "save" the genre. The game isn't even out yet and it already has so many delusional fanboys.
Click to expand...
For me it's because most of those old school MMOs were at least inspired on some level. There was an almost autistic dedication to immersion in classic WoW which is absent both in that game now and in pretty much every other game released since. I remember playing The Old Republic at launch. Sure it had the quality of life improvements like random instance queues, streamlined character progression, and straightforward leveling. But it also had no sense of exploration or scale to its world. Which is what makes MMOs fun in the first place.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: BR55 and (deleted member)
Replicant Sasquatch said:
For me it's because most of those old school MMOs were at least inspired on some level. There was an almost autistic dedication to immersion in classic WoW which is absent both in that game now and in pretty much every other game released since. I remember playing The Old Republic at launch. Sure it had the quality of life improvements like random instance queues, streamlined character progression, and straightforward leveling. But it also had no sense of exploration or scale to its world. Which is what makes MMOs fun in the first place.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying and I do agree to an extent. To me most of the magic and sense of exploration was due to the lack of internet sites and social media. There were no wikis or youtube videos and even still you only got the basics. Not to mention data mining and leaks are everywhere and unless you live under a rock or avoid social media they're impossible to avoid. These days you're expected to watch a detailed ten minute video on how to clear something instead of being allowed to dive in head on. I get why it's like that but it ruins the immersion.

Yet again mmorpgs are huge sperg magnets. I just read a huge 6k word autistic screed on r/FFXIV that compared the current producer Yoshi-P to a tyrant. Granted the guy did have legit points but I could barely stomach the autism and the cringe factor was off the charts.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Orkeosaurus
Call of Cathulu Dark corners of the earth is the perfect Lovecraft game. The fact the game will fuck with your saves sometimes guns wont load and puzzles will break for bizarre reasons.The fact the game will decided weither or not it wants to accept a puzzle solution or decided to want to function in general.Plus the game runs like it beinging programed as you go as a result the games really does feel like an other worldly horror beyond our mortal understanding decided to make a game and this was the result.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: demicolon, Not an_ime g_irl and Tron: Deadly Dicks
Hollow Knight is a shit Metroidvania. The fact that it is playable at all is a testament to how strong that genre is. The controls are a tad bit wonky, the map lay out is fucking awful. I shouldn't have to spend 10 minutes of platforming every time I need retry a boss fight, and it's shit game play to give me a sign telling me there is a save point, and it's a fucking boss. I can see Castlevania and Metroids sack hairs on your chin, they figured this shit out long ago, so rip them off better.
 
Skyclaw said:
Despite all the issues with Fallout 76 i still think it looks interesting. I like games where i can just wander around with no real goal.
Click to expand...
Enjoy getting constantly sniped by a guy who can see the position of every player on the map and modified his game files to make all his weapons do 99999 damage and have 0 inaccuracy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Replicant Sasquatch and CWCissey
Skyclaw said:
Despite all the issues with Fallout 76 i still think it looks interesting. I like games where i can just wander around with no real goal.
Click to expand...

I like those games too.

What I hate is other people being knobheads in my fucking game.
 
Skyclaw said:
Despite all the issues with Fallout 76 i still think it looks interesting. I like games where i can just wander around with no real goal.
Click to expand...

I would recommend playing the Call of Chernobyl mod for Stalker: Call of Pripyat then. It requires Stalker: Call of Pripyat to play, but considering how cheap that game is and how high quality the Stalker games usually are, I think it's worth it.
 
Visitor said:
Enjoy getting constantly sniped by a guy who can see the position of every player on the map and modified his game files to make all his weapons do 99999 damage and have 0 inaccuracy.
Click to expand...

Eh if something like that happens then i can always just block the guy so he can't interact with me, i hear thats a thing in the game that if you block a player they essentially disappear

CWCissey said:
I like those games too.

What I hate is other people being knobheads in my fucking game.
Click to expand...

I have Spyro to fall back on if my fallout session gets fucked over by some 8 yr old no skin off my back

scorptatious said:
I would recommend playing the Call of Chernobyl mod for Stalker: Call of Pripyat then. It requires Stalker: Call of Pripyat to play, but considering how cheap that game is and how high quality the Stalker games usually are, I think it's worth it.
Click to expand...

I'll check it out for sure, cheers.
 
vhstape said:
The Ratchet remake is the worst of the main line games.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you there.

While 3 I felt was pretty rushed, at least you can tell the people behind it wanted it to be a good game and it had some great things going for it.

The remake takes away a lot of the old charm and personality of the original series.

vhstape said:
Sly 4 was overall a better game than Sly 3.
Click to expand...

In terms of gameplay, I suppose it's sort of neck and neck. Both games had huge problems in terms of adding a whole bunch of extra characters and mini-games in place of interesting and well designed levels and challenges.

Although Sly 3 still had somewhat of a cohesive mission structure, in that every mission you do helps set up the final act in each chapter. Sly 4 on the other hand had no such structure. It felt like every mission you did was simply there just for the sake of it and there was very little in terms of build up. The whole thing just felt so sloppy to me. It didn't help that every mission marker was either really close to the safe house or just led to a completely different area which meant that the main areas weren't really capitalized on as much as they should have been.

In addition, every time you beat a mission you get sent straight back to the safehouse instead of going back there on your own, which discourages exploration and getting the feel of the level you're in.

Also the loading times are absolutely abhorrent. How did we go from picking a character and instantaneously going outside the safehouse to explore to picking a character, sitting through a thirty second loading screen and then leaving the safehouse?

Overall, despite sharing general design problems, Sly 3 I feel is still better in this regard. If only because the basic structure and design choices from Sly 2 are still there and it's generally better optimized.

Also, I don't even need to mention Sly 4's final boss fight. What a goddamn embarrassment that was.

Story wise, Sly 3 wins out for me there hands down. Yeah, it had some pretty glaring issues. For one, I wasn't really a fan of how you've essentially became an errand boy rather than... well a thief. It makes sense in the context of the story, but I don't think it translated well into the game. Some of the new characters were kinda hit and miss, and the whole thing with the Panda King was an interesting idea, but probably could have been handled a bit better.

I think the climax and ending though actually wrapped things up pretty nicely overall thematically and character wise for the most part.

Sly 4 however was pretty much glorified fanfiction. Characters getting flanderized or acting out of character, time travel, repeats of previously established character arcs, the main antagonist being the poor man's Clockwerk, and a shitty cliffhanger ending.

I guess the one positive thing I can say about Sly 4 is that it brought clue bottles back which were strangely absent in 3. But that's about the only thing going for it I think.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: vhstape
scorptatious said:
Not disagreeing with you there.

While 3 I felt was pretty rushed, at least you can tell the people behind it wanted it to be a good game and it had some great things going for it.

The remake takes away a lot of the old charm and personality of the original series.



In terms of gameplay, I suppose it's sort of neck and neck. Both games had huge problems in terms of adding a whole bunch of extra characters and mini-games in place of interesting and well designed levels and challenges.

Although Sly 3 still had somewhat of a cohesive mission structure, in that every mission you do helps set up the final act in each chapter. Sly 4 on the other hand had no such structure. It felt like every mission you did was simply there just for the sake of it and there was very little in terms of build up. The whole thing just felt so sloppy to me. It didn't help that every mission marker was either really close to the safe house or just led to a completely different area which meant that the main areas weren't really capitalized on as much as they should have been.

In addition, every time you beat a mission you get sent straight back to the safehouse instead of going back there on your own, which discourages exploration and getting the feel of the level you're in.

Also the loading times are absolutely abhorrent. How did we go from picking a character and instantaneously going outside the safehouse to explore to picking a character, sitting through a thirty second loading screen and then leaving the safehouse?

Overall, despite sharing general design problems, Sly 3 I feel is still better in this regard. If only because the basic structure and design choices from Sly 2 are still there and it's generally better optimized.

Also, I don't even need to mention Sly 4's final boss fight. What a goddamn embarrassment that was.

Story wise, Sly 3 wins out for me there hands down. Yeah, it had some pretty glaring issues. For one, I wasn't really a fan of how you've essentially became an errand boy rather than... well a thief. It makes sense in the context of the story, but I don't think it translated well into the game. Some of the new characters were kinda hit and miss, and the whole thing with the Panda King was an interesting idea, but probably could have been handled a bit better.

I think the climax and ending though actually wrapped things up pretty nicely overall thematically and character wise for the most part.

Sly 4 however was pretty much glorified fanfiction. Characters getting flanderized or acting out of character, time travel, repeats of previously established character arcs, the main antagonist being the poor man's Clockwerk, and a shitty cliffhanger ending.

I guess the one positive thing I can say about Sly 4 is that it brought clue bottles back which were strangely absent in 3. But that's about the only thing going for it I think.
Click to expand...

I agree with most you said, only reason I like Sly 4 more is because Sly 3 went way overboard with the mini games which most of them weren't enjoyable at all, while Sky 4 also had too many mini games it felt like it still had way less of than compared to 3. Not sure why the 3rd in a 3d platformer series normally goes overboard with the mini games and new gameplay types that don't work well.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Overcast
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back