Do you have any unpopular game opinions?

[Sheep]

I'm sure we all have some. This can be anything ranging from games themselves, to video game development. What're yours?

 

[Janp]

The moment the game has words like "vast open-world", "survival crafting" or "multiplayer/online/co-op", I instantly lose interest in the game. To be honest, I think the modern concept of open-world is one of the most boring things that could ever happen to gaming. There are usually 3-4 simple boring activities you can do in them that get old quickly, the world around feels like a lifeless void that's there just to make the game longer, the loot you get from them is usually useless and it usually doesn't work with the urgency of the main story. I can think of maybe one or two games with tolerable open-world.

And on that note, I hate the "more time spend in-game=better game" mentality. There are way too many people, who tried to sell me the game saying it takes hundreds of hours to beat it. And all I can ask is: For how many hours is the game actually fun to play?

 

[Alex_Among_Foxes]

Mass Effect 2 is the worst one of the trilogy. I'm too tired to rant about why, but it answers the question of the thread regardless lol.

 

[Zeostar]

Here's my major two:

Final Fantasy 13 was one of the best in the franchise.

I've had enough of Breath of the Wild. I want a return to traditional 3D zelda. If this is seriously the new permanent direction of the franchise I find that to be incredibly disappointing.

 

[Nah]

A lot of people like Bloodborne the most and Dark Souls 2 the least of FromSoft's Souls games, but Bloodborne is my least favorite one and I do like DS2 (though there are still other souls/souls-likes I'd put ahead of it too).

There's probably other unpopular opinions I have, but I can't remember right now

 

[Megan]

Especially western game companies don't create games for people to enjoy playing. Instead they're built to show their shareholders that the players really put up with anything. And thus the former pour in more money as investments for further growth. And anything that doesn't meet their expectations gets canceled and ends up a tax write-off.

 

[The Mega Champion]

Bandai Namco are nothing but anime-game, anime-fighting game, fighting game and SAO simps and they refuse to throw their support behind their actually good franchises like Digimon, Klonoa, and .hack. I'm sorry but I just don't see the point in anime games or anime-fighting games. I'd rather just watch the anime. Most of them have failed and gotten bad to mixed reviews anyway. Before you scream at me I'm very well aware of the fighting game community and that fighting games have their own fans. But that series is over-saturated. End of story. But this shit is all Bandai Namco wants to do. They also want to do nothing but be apart of Kirito's harem and simp for him and his franchise when .hack is infinitely better. The result is the same. Nothing but mid to outright shit and dumpster fire games. But that's all they want to do. Instead of actively trying to kill Digimon, Klonoa and .hack why not sell them or give them to people who actually care about them and give them the respect they deserve? No? You'd rather kill them for good? Then go **** yourselves Bandai Namco. I'll dance on your grave if/when you implode.

What? You said controversial and I gave you controversial. I don't know what else you were expecting.

 

[RadEmpoleon]

I guess mine is just let people play whatever video games they like. Don't sh*t on people just because YOU don't like the game that they like.

 

[Explorer of Time]

What? You said controversial and I gave you controversial. I don't know what else you were expecting.

A popular, completely uncontroversial complaint about corporate greed in AAA publi...

Especially western game companies don't create games for people to enjoy playing. Instead they're built to show their shareholders that the players really put up with anything. And thus the former pour in more money as investments for further growth. And anything that doesn't meet their expectations gets canceled and ends up a tax write-off.

Oh hi there Megan.

 

[Explorer of Time]

For an unpopular opinion of my own: I despise equipment-based progression in most games. My typical response to opening a treasure chest is usually "ugh, inventory management" not "yay, loot!". I'd much rather get stronger by having my character level up, with equipment being a non-issue. One of the reasons I like Pokemon is that it's much less focused on items than most RPGs; each Pokemon can only hold a single item in contrast to all the equipment micromanagement in most other RPGs, especially western RPGs.

The only games I've played that did equipment-based progression right were the pre-BotW Zelda games and other games using the same model. Zelda's items were few and far between, and most of these items had actual gameplay effects instead of just being a stat-booster. You also didn't have to do any inventory management besides buying ammo or potions occasionally when you ran low. (Or buying new shields if you were unlucky enough to have it eaten by a Like Like.) You never had to worry about what to sell because your items were all unique and couldn't be sold.

 

[giradialkia]

Crafting.

So, Minecraft. I get it, that's literally half the game. Mine materials, craft usable and cool stuff. Thats totally fine, always love a bit of Minecraft.

But there was a stretch where every game would tout "their intricate crafting system" as a selling point and I just… don't see the need for it.
It's just an inventory with extra steps. Just extra forms of currency in the game.

Final Fantasy 16 had a crafting system. Baldur's Gate has one. Hell, even Legends Arceus. Ultimately it's a way to add interesting tidbits to the game and I see why it's viewed as a fun addition in most cases, but so often I'd just prefer to find *the item* rather than *the scraps to produce 2 of the item* in any given game. Not every single game needs a crafting system.

 

[gimmepie]

Final Fantasy 13 was one of the best in the franchise.

I wouldn't go quite that far myself, mechanically it was pretty bad. But I do think that people are too harsh towards it as a result because the story and the character dynamics are some of the best in the franchise.

Oh but the "too linear" complaints are dumb, I think. Not going to sugar coat that one.

 

[Setsuna]

People are talking about FF13 but when are we going to acknowledge FF13-2 as the best game of the trilogy and a massive glow-up from the previous game

I don't really enjoy the shift to open-world gaming that a lot of series (Zelda, Sonic, etc.) seem to be going in. I couldn't bring myself to finish Tears of the Kingdom because I feel overwhelmed by how many things there are to do and how directionless it can feel to be told "You can do whatever you want", it's the same reason I never finished Skyrim even though I know there's a main quest you can follow. I guess it always felt like I was missing out on more of the game the more I played it.

A game being harder does not make it better. People who play games on only the hardest difficulties with the most unfair rulesets because it's "the correct way to play it" aren't better than anyone else. People who are higher on a competitive ladder are not better people than those who are lower. People need to stop gatekeeping difficulty in games and making it all about how good you are, gaming is meant to be fun.

Also I guess my spiciest take is that difficulty in typical RPGs doesn't really exist. A lot of typical RPGs can be made super easy if you're just overleveled and a lot of the time making an RPG harder just means raising the level of the bosses or enemies you fight, or making them do 2x damage or something. The claim that a game is bad because it's too easy or too hard falls pretty flat to me every time.

 

[BWZ]

Story as a criteria for judging games. I will never ever understand this. There are a lot of games who are boring as hell to play , to the point that I find it hard to qualify them as games, but are still critically acclaimed because of the "storytelling" or " interesting characters" or some shit like that.
On the other side, it pains me to see an amazing game like Fire Emblem Engage getting mixed reviews because of how bad the story is. Yes, it is bad but the story and cinematics are like what ? 0,5% of your total gametime ? Yet people don't hesitate to leave a bad review because of that ... I fail to understand the logic behind it.

Imho, gameplay is the only criteria that should matter, nothing else. If you like a game because of the story, then you liked the story, not the game.

A game being harder does not make it better.

I don't necessarily agree with that. For me, it isn't about being a better player or bragging rights, but simply the way a game is designed. If a game is hard enough that it makes you think harder about its mechanics and the interactions between them before taking a decision, isn't it by definition a better designed game ? As opposed to a slightly easier game that you can mash your way out of it ?
Of course, I'm not talking about unfairly difficult games like kaizo romhacks for example .

 

[gimmepie]

Story as a criteria for judging games. I will never ever understand this. There are a lot of games who are boring as hell to play , to the point that I find it hard to qualify them as games, but are still critically acclaimed because of the "storytelling" or " interesting characters" or some shit like that.
On the other side, it pains me to see an amazing game like Fire Emblem Engage getting mixed reviews because of how bad the story is. Yes, it is bad but the story and cinematics are like what ? 0,5% of your total gametime ? Yet people don't hesitate to leave a bad review because of that ... I fail to understand the logic behind it.

Imho, gameplay is the only criteria that should matter, nothing else. If you like a game because of the story, then you liked the story, not the game.

There's a few ways to look at it - as someone who very much does prefer games that have a well-written and engaging story. The first is that video games are an artform and a video game is a very different way to express a story than a book, or a movie. It's much easier to do certain things in the medium of games than in other mediums (and others are harder). There's even entirely new ways of telling stories that are opened up because of games and game mechanics. Story doesn't have to be a part of games, but it is an essential part of the experience for several of them.

Which brings me to the other reason... if you're going to make something a part of the experience, you should endeavour to make it good. If a game has literally no story and is just about the mechanical experience, nobody is going to complain about the story. But if you make a story a part of the gameplay experience and that story isn't good, then a central part of your product is not good. Simple as that.

Engage, as an example, has earned a lot of well-deserved praise for its combat (although I have some complaints about the way it does classes/levels). But the story was a lot weaker than previous entries in the franchise and the story has always been a big part of the experience of Fire Emblem games. So of course people are going to criticise that. Especially when much of the way Fire Emblem games are designed is that the story gets you invested in the character which increases the stakes and tension of the death mechanic, making the game more engaging as a result.

I do agree though that mechanics are still an important part of gaming as well and shouldn't be ignored. They're part of the experience too.

I don't necessarily agree with that. For me, it isn't about being a better player or bragging rights, but simply the way a game is designed. If a game is hard enough that it makes you think harder about its mechanics and the interactions between them before taking a decision, isn't it by definition a better designed game ? As opposed to a slightly easier game that you can mash your way out of it ?
Of course, I'm not talking about unfairly difficult games like kaizo romhacks for example .

I don't think harder=better designed inherently. That kind of depends on the experience that you're trying to provide. If you're aiming for a game to be a relaxed and casual experience, you probably don't want to make it incredibly difficult. If you want a game to be hard, you have to balance the experience carefully. The rewards should feel worth it. It should be challenging, but it shouldn't be unfair. There's some very easy games that are very well-designed mechanically imo and some hard games that are not well-designed at all. Consider: games that give extremely bloated HP bars to enemies. This increases the difficulty in a way, but it also gets very dull after a while.