What are your unpopular gaming opinions?

[finalark]

I also think that in a way, the SNES graphics have aged better than the 64's

Obviously. By the time the N64 came out devs knew how to make 2D games ****ing beautiful. Damn never every game on the N64/PS1/SAT is butt-ugly these days because nobody really knew how to do 3D right back then.

 

[Spak]

Obviously. By the time the N64 came out devs knew how to make 2D games ****ing beautiful. Damn never every game on the N64/PS1/SAT is butt-ugly these days because nobody really knew how to do 3D right back then.

One of the few 64 games that I think has aged extraordinary is the original Paper Mario, partly because of amazing art direction and atmosphere really emphasizing the paper kingdom in which they live) and the fact that most things on-screen were sprite-based. The things that weren't were intentionally left blocky to give it an origami-esque look, which fit the game perfectly.

 

[Dre89]

One of the few 64 games that I think has aged extraordinary is the original Paper Mario, partly because of amazing art direction and atmosphere really emphasizing the paper kingdom in which they live) and the fact that most things on-screen were sprite-based. The things that weren't were intentionally left blocky to give it an origami-esque look, which fit the game perfectly.

This is sort of off topic, but do you think it's worth playing if you've already played TTYD? I loved TTYD so I've been thinking of getting 64 on VC

 

[finalark]

This is sort of off topic, but do you think it's worth playing if you've already played TTYD? I loved TTYD so I've been thinking of getting 64 on VC

Honestly? Probably. Thousand Year Door blows it out of the water and it's going to feel quaint in comparison but it has its own merits and charm. It plays much closer to TTYD than any of the other sequels do and has lots of funny moments and memorable characters. If you can get it for cheap its worth playing.

 

[vexoskeleton]

i wish they hadn't made jigglypuff in 64, and instead went with a more iconic character. they were kinda trying to force jiggly to be popular at the time, but it didn't really work out in the end.

Jigglypuff was the 2nd most popular pokemon at the time of 64s release in japan, she also was widely known due to being in the anime by people in japan and on the west. They also probably included her over meowth who was decently popular too because the model was easier to make since its a changed kirby model.

 

[swampthingcs]

60% of "Retro/classic" games are awful hunks of crap that subside on purely nostalgia factor.

 

[Kurri ★]

60% of "Retro/classic" games are awful hunks of crap

This is true, but only because most games in general are "hunks of crap." Those that we do remember, fondly, are the gems, such as Mario 64, or Megaman, Castlevania and such.

I wouldn't chalk it up to nostalgia though.

 

[swampthingcs]

This is true, but only because most games in general are "hunks of crap." Those that we do remember, fondly, are the gems, such as Mario 64, or Megaman, Castlevania and such.

I wouldn't chalk it up to nostalgia though.

If I had to list the retro games I actually like, the main ones would be the old TMNT games, Mario 2, Barkley: Shut Up and Jam!, Earthbound, etc.

 

[Kurri ★]

If I had to list the retro games I actually like, the main ones would be the old TMNT games, Mario 2, Barkley: Shut Up and Jam!, Earthbound, etc.

And those are typically the games most people in general remember

 

[swampthingcs]

And those are typically the games most people in general remember

That's true, and for mostly good reason.
Though I do dislike SMB and literally every Zelda game.

 

[finalark]

There's lots of old games that people love that I can't dig because I didn't grow up with them. Banjo, Goldeneye, 90% of Rare's games and the N64's library really. I do agree that nostalgia has a lot of power in determining what games are remembered and talked about years later, although I do believe there are more cases where classics are generally good, if dated, rather than being complete piles of garbage living only on nostalgia.

EDIT: I will add that nearly every game from the PS1/N64/SAT era has not aged well, though. IMO when people talk about how great certain games from this era were it's best to take that info with a salty grain of salty salt.

 

[G Rank Zinogre]

So this one might ruffle a few feathers. I was just discussing this in a Skype group I belong to and it did not go well. People got super-defensive about it.

Kirby games' copy abilities are a shallow mechanic.

Don't get me wrong. They're fun. I love them as much as anybody else. Yoyo Kirby from Super Star is my favorite, actually. They helped define Kirby as a character and as a franchise. But at the heart of it, they're really just a box of toys. You absorb a blade knight and you have a fun time hacking away at enemies with a sword. After that, you just get bored of it or you lose it at some point. Then, it's onto the next power. Instead of the game being designed around one mechanic that's multi-faceted, it's designed around several little abilities that come and go as you play.

It hurts the boss design as well. Because you can have almost any power at any boss encounter, there's almost no need to pay attention to a boss's attack patterns. You pretty much hack and slash at them until they're dead. Compare this to bosses in the original Kirby's Dream Land where paying attention to the boss's attack patterns mattered because the entire game centered around inhaling and redirecting what your enemies threw at you. I know Kirby games are supposed to be easy but hacking away wildly at a boss enemy feels formless to me.

Last, I'm going to say that copy abilities themselves have caused the series to stagnate. Remember how Kirby 64 was unique and fun for having the mechanic that allowed us to combine powers? We'll probably never see anything as cool as that again because there's not really much you can do to improve a box of toys other than add new toys. It's just not a mechanic that lends itself very well to being improved over installments.

What's also interesting is the fact that Kirby's Epic Yarn is the most critically acclaimed Kirby game in recent time. I think that the game being based around the concept of a world made of yarn that Kirby can manipulate offers way more freedom and depth in game design than the copy abilities could ever have.

I wouldn't outright consider a box of toys shallow, especially when the box of toy's are as broad and creative as Kirby power-ups. It's kinda like Dynasty Warriors, while the lack of needing forethought to win most stages in the games might come off as shallow to some, it may come off as very fun to others. So it's more about how you percieve it than anything else. So it's less about strategizing to beat a boss and it's more about how you want to beat said boss.


So Kirby games and the Warriors franchise are less about "how do I go about beating this boss" and more about "how do I want to absolutely **** on this boss". It gives a bit more replay value and fun to certain things. So I'd chalk up the shallowness of copy abilities more to just giving you more toys to cut down baddies with. Mindless? Absolutely. Shallow? Debatable.


Edit: Acknowledgement about using the word "so" a lot.


Edit Numero Dos: Hyrule Warriors (a spinoff) was the only good console Zelda since The Wind Waker and maybe FSA, not counting the majesty of Link's Crossbow Training and TWWHD.

 

[Lazerith]

Final Fantasy 7 is not the best FF game. In fact Crisis Core, its prequel, is much better.

Final Fantasy 8 and 10 are my favorite FF games.

Majora's Mask and Skyward Sword are the best Zelda games.

Smash Bros 4 is more fun to play than Melee, but Melee is more fun to watch

Runescape is better than World of Warcraft, but MMOs in general are boring grindfests

Dark Souls is better than Dark Souls 2, but Dark Souls 2 is not horrible like everyone makes it out to be

First person shooters are only good if they have an interesting story

DmC: Devil May Cry is not a terrible game

Final Fantasy XIII isn't as bad as everyone says it is. XIII-2 is still infinitely better though

2D Zelda games are good, but the 3D Zelda games are MUCH MUCH MUCH better

Uncharted 3 absolutely ruined the series for me to the point that I sold all of the games, did not care to play Golden Abyss, and am not sure if I want Uncharted 4 or not

Gen 1 Pokemon isn't enjoyable to play anymore. It has aged poorly, I've played it too much, the most recent version of it is extremely outdated

Megaman is very overrated

I dislike pretty much everything about Final Fantasy 12. I'll give it another chance if it gets an HD remake though.

The Playstation Vita is an absolutely amazing system with so many games that I will never be able to finish all the games I own

I very much disliked Wind Waker until it got a remake for the Wii U

Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are boring as hell

Minecraft is not a fun game. Terraria is much much better

 

[finalark]

Runescape is better than World of Warcraft, but MMOs in general are boring grindfests

Care to elaborate on this bodacious opinion?

First person shooters are only good if they have an interesting story

If you think a story makes or brakes a game then don't think the FPS genre is for you.

Uncharted 3 absolutely ruined the series for me to the point that I sold all of the games, did not care to play Golden Abyss, and am not sure if I want Uncharted 4 or not

Would you mind elaborating? UChart3 was certain a step down from UChart2 due to trying too hard to make the game interesting and introducing a lot of segments that just didn't work, but it was much better than Uchart1's horribly outdated motion controls.

 

[Lazerith]

Care to elaborate on this bodacious opinion?

While the combat system of RS was a bit boring and too simple, I didn't care, because I did not care for combat.

Most MMOs are pretty much the same: 95% combat, 5% minor support skills that assist your combat. Most quests are simple "Kill X monsters that are causing problems throughout the world but when you go to them, they aren't causing any problems whatsoever but you kill them anyway." Unless you love combat, there is practically nothing to do in most MMOs. Pretty much everything you do is the aforementioned kill x quests, PvE, PvP, raids, etc, all of which I find extremely boring and I have never been interested in them.

With Runescape, combat makes up about maybe 10% of the game's overall content. There are no "kill x monsters" quests, rather that is a skill known as slayer. The quests all have either interesting or funny stories and require you to do at least some thinking.

If you think a story makes or brakes a game then don't think the FPS genre is for you.

Halo. Bioshock. Mass Effect. Fallout.

Would you mind elaborating? UChart3 was certain a step down from UChart2 due to trying too hard to make the game interesting and introducing a lot of segments that just didn't work, but it was much better than Uchart1's horribly outdated motion controls.

The thing I loved about U1 and U2 were that they had really interesting stories and characters that kept me interested most of the game, and they had a great balance between puzzle, shooting, platforming sections and cutscenes. Uncharted 3, however, only had a good story the first 30 minutes to an hour and the last 30 minutes. The game also only took about 8 hours to beat, whereas the other games took maybe 14 hours. There was too much focus on giving the game multiplayer, which ultimately sucked. The story followed an almost exact formula to U1 and U2 so it was really predictable after playing them. The aiming was absolutely terrible. There were nowhere near as many puzzles or platforming sections as U1 and U2 and it had too much of an emphasis on shooting and action scenes. I really don't understand why so many people love U3. It was terrible compared to the first two games. The only thing that was an improvement was the graphics.

 

[finalark]

While the combat system of RS was a bit boring and too simple, I didn't care, because I did not care for combat.

Most MMOs are pretty much the same: 95% combat, 5% minor support skills that assist your combat. Most quests are simple "Kill X monsters that are causing problems throughout the world but when you go to them, they aren't causing any problems whatsoever but you kill them anyway." Unless you love combat, there is practically nothing to do in most MMOs. Pretty much everything you do is the aforementioned kill x quests, PvE, PvP, raids, etc, all of which I find extremely boring and I have never been interested in them.

With Runescape, combat makes up about maybe 10% of the game's overall content. There are no "kill x monsters" quests, rather that is a skill known as slayer. The quests all have either interesting or funny stories and require you to do at least some thinking.

Runescape has the benefit of being a pre-WoW MMO, so it was able to instead clone Ultima Online which had a lot more aspects to it than combat meaning that if you weren't fighting something you were probably greifing some poor ******* by breaking into his house and stealing his stuff.

If combat really isn't your cup of tea though I could see why you wouldn't like WoW. Being the game that invented twenty bear asses and the faction systems the focus of the game is combat. It's even in the title. World of Warcraft. So if you don't find combat that fun or exciting then I can understand why it's not your cup of tea.

Although there is a lot of really in depth stuff outside of combat in WoW. Gathering, crafting, a lot of people were actually hooked on fishing in that game for some reason I could never fathom. Then again, I'm one of those weirdos who was obsessed with archaeology in that game, so I can't really talk.

And I don't think it's really fair to say that all of WoW's quest are "twenty bear asses" quests or require no thinking. From a narrative standpoint, the original Legend of Stalvan is one of the best quests I've ever seen and The Day that Deathwing came is loved by the community for how ridiculously hilarious it is. And there are some quests that require exploration like the infamous Mankirk's wife quest. Thinking comes in at combat, which I guess is irrelevant to you since it's not really your thing. Back in the day it was really easy to die, so thinking about exactly how you were going to approach a group of enemies was critical. Unfortunately the streamlining the game has gone through has taken away a ton of the danger.

Halo. Bioshock. Mass Effect. Fallout.

The only thing I'll argue is that ME and Fallout are most certainly RPGs, not shooters. But Halo and Bioshock (the later of which mingles hard with RPGs and survival horror) I will agree are very good. Although I never really got drawn into Halo's story. It's a bit generic for me. Don't get me wrong, there's a ton of cool stuff like the Gravemind scene from 2, but IMO the whole "Two groups are at war in the future, but in a darker corner of the galaxy lurks a threat that could mean the end of civilization" thing has been kinda done to death.

Bioshock had some really creative stuff going on in it though. Plus one of the best twists in gaming history. If the actual story itself was in anything but a video game it would be really, really underwhelming since it relies so heavily off of the player's relationship to the. I do praise it for smartly using the medium, though.

That being said, I really dig the core FPS game play. The Quake series, the Doom series and Half-Life 1 and 2 are all FPS' I've enjoy that have little story. Although if you don't really dig FPS game play in the first place I can see why you'd need a story to carry it.

The thing I loved about U1 and U2 were that they had really interesting stories and characters that kept me interested most of the game, and they had a great balance between puzzle, shooting, platforming sections and cutscenes. Uncharted 3, however, only had a good story the first 30 minutes to an hour and the last 30 minutes. The game also only took about 8 hours to beat, whereas the other games took maybe 14 hours. There was too much focus on giving the game multiplayer, which ultimately sucked. The story followed an almost exact formula to U1 and U2 so it was really predictable after playing them. The aiming was absolutely terrible. There were nowhere near as many puzzles or platforming sections as U1 and U2 and it had too much of an emphasis on shooting and action scenes. I really don't understand why so many people love U3. It was terrible compared to the first two games. The only thing that was an improvement was the graphics.

I'm not going to argue that Uchart3 had a good story. It was pretty obvious that the MO of the narrative was to throw Nate into as many cool action scenes as possible. Not only that, but the game's unveiling of Iram of the Pillars was incredibly underwhelming since it had already been done in Uchart2. A ton of things that should have been major, series shaking revelations were shrugged off as nothing important and this game's twist on the supernatural stuff going down was just lame.

U1's twist on El Dorado is that it's actually a coffin that turns people into deranged zombies. U2's twist was that yetis aren't real, but the natives were made near immortal by the Chintimani Stone, which was a very real thing. U3's twist on the demons of Iram? It was drugs the whole time. That's it, nothing neat or clever. Hell, it would have been more of a twist if there was no twist.

The game play I'll make a case for. Yeah, the aiming sucked at launch but it was fixed in a patch. Yes, there were less puzzles but I feel like they made up for them by making them more challenging. U1 and 2 the puzzles could be solved by looking in your notebook and doing what it says. U3 actually forced me to use my head a bit. I remember the shadow puzzle in particular being surprisingly head-scratch worthy.

I wouldn't say that there were less platforming segments, it's just that they were mixed with a lot of the shooting segments. I actually liked this since it made the game feel more unified for me. Plus the platforming was always my least favorite part of Uncharted, so it made it much more enjoyable for me. The ship graveyard section in particular really stands out to me since ND took advantage of it to create some really unique scenarios with it.

 

[Lazerith]

While being RPGs, Fallout and Mass Effect are also shooters. But they lean toward the RPG genre.

As for Uncharted 3, the entire ship graveyard and cruise ship section of the game... God I hated it... That was literally like 30% of the game and was simply just Drake looking for Sully in a location that was really obvious that he wasn't there. Not only that but almost the entire thing was going room after room shooting things. No puzzles, somewhat platforming that was mostly just moving around to get better shots at people, no story progression, etc. That section of the game looked really good, but it was sooooo boring.

I don't know... I just really did not like U3. I might replay the series when the Nathan Drake Collection comes out but I'm really not sure... Uncharted 3 just left such a bad taste in my mouth.

Another unpopular gaming opinion of mine:

I actually enjoyed Golden Sun: Dark Dawn. It really wasn't a bad game. Not as good as the first two games, but not bad by any means.

 

[finalark]

While being RPGs, Fallout and Mass Effect are also shooters. But they lean toward the RPG genre.

I'd argue that they're much more RPGs than shooters. Yes, there is shooting in them but that's not the point. If ME1's wonky combat proved anything it's that the shooting elements are there strictly for formality's sake.

Although ME2 and ME3 did cut down on the RPG aspects and upped the shooter focus.

Plus I'm kinda talking out my ass as far as Fallout 3 goes. I've only ever really played Fallout 2 extensively, which was decidedly not a shooter in any way shape or form. From what I've played of 3 though it's much more of an RPG, which the only think making a shooter is the that that there's guns in it.

I don't know... I just really did not like U3. I might replay the series when the Nathan Drake Collection comes out but I'm really not sure... Uncharted 3 just left such a bad taste in my mouth.

I'll be honest, I thought U3 was kinda mediocre when I first played it too. It wasn't until I replayed it along with the first two games that I decided it was better than U1 but not as good as Uchart2.

I wouldn't have sold my copies of U1 and 2 if I were you, though. Just because you didn't like U3 it doesn't stop U1 and 2 from being good.

 

[radio silent]

Plus I'm kinda talking out my *** as far as Fallout 3 goes. I've only ever really played Fallout 2 extensively, which was decidedly not a shooter in any way shape or form. From what I've played of 3 though it's much more of an RPG, which the only think making a shooter is the that that there's guns in it.

Fallout 3 and NV are kinda shooters, they just lean very heavily into the RPG side of things. Like when I think of shooters, I think "point gun, shoot guy, guy dies." In Fallout 3/NV (and in something like Mass Effect as well), the "guy dies" part is pretty much entirely based around how many points you put into the weapon involved. New Vegas refined the shooting mechanics a bit more to make them serviceable, but it's still predominantly an RPG.

 

[G Rank Zinogre]

"I very much disliked Wind Waker until it got an HD remake for the Wii U"

On the streets. See me.

 

[Iceweasel]

I didn't like they Bleed Pixels. This is a fairly well-known PC game, but Smashboards may not have heard of it. I loved the aesthetic it was going for, but the game just felt like it needed a lot of work done on it. I can count all of the enemy types on one hand, and most take the form of "shapeless black blob". The levels all look the same, just black floors and walls, frosting on slippery surfaces, spikes, and buzzsaws. And of course, the controls are simply awful.

Another unpopular gaming opinion of mine:

I actually enjoyed Golden Sun: Dark Dawn. It really wasn't a bad game. Not as good as the first two games, but not bad by any means.

I wouldn't say Dark Dawn is simply bad. It's just so mediocre (and padded) that it's absolutely unbearable to play. It almost causes physical pain, it's so boring.

 

[Champ Gold]

Final Fantasy 7 is not the best FF game. In fact Crisis Core, its prequel, is much better.

Final Fantasy 8 and 10 are my favorite FF games.

Majora's Mask and Skyward Sword are the best Zelda games.

Smash Bros 4 is more fun to play than Melee, but Melee is more fun to watch

Runescape is better than World of Warcraft, but MMOs in general are boring grindfests

Dark Souls is better than Dark Souls 2, but Dark Souls 2 is not horrible like everyone makes it out to be

First person shooters are only good if they have an interesting story

DmC: Devil May Cry is not a terrible game

Final Fantasy XIII isn't as bad as everyone says it is. XIII-2 is still infinitely better though

2D Zelda games are good, but the 3D Zelda games are MUCH MUCH MUCH better

Uncharted 3 absolutely ruined the series for me to the point that I sold all of the games, did not care to play Golden Abyss, and am not sure if I want Uncharted 4 or not

Gen 1 Pokemon isn't enjoyable to play anymore. It has aged poorly, I've played it too much, the most recent version of it is extremely outdated

Megaman is very overrated

I dislike pretty much everything about Final Fantasy 12. I'll give it another chance if it gets an HD remake though.

The Playstation Vita is an absolutely amazing system with so many games that I will never be able to finish all the games I own

I very much disliked Wind Waker until it got a remake for the Wii U

Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are boring as hell

Minecraft is not a fun game. Terraria is much much better

Anyone who says Gen 1 Pokemon still holds up is literally delusional or has never played later games of the series. That has aged worst than Zelda 1 and Metroid 1.

I do agree on the MMOs thing and Minecraft. I really don't see the appeal in those games. Also the Vita is dreaming amazing but would be better if it had emulation and some PS2 ports

 

[Eggggggggggbert]

I love Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 as well as Sonic Heros. I can't even tell if its out of a sense of nostalgia or irony at this point, I just really enjoy playing them. The music also blows my mind, I adore it. Just the entirety of the games contribute to this overarching sort of aesthetic that is like a ****ty 90s straight-to-video movie. It's just so goofy; the game play is still exhilarating because you fly at the speed of light and the difficulty can be derived from the instability of it. You shouldn't play them thinking "I'm here for a good game", you should play them thinking of a)The context in which the games were created and b)I know the game isn't well made, but it is still memorable for a reason. I do not like 2D Sonics because it feels like a platformer on ice, they're playable but it feels like a good game with bad features as oppose to the 3d games which are bad games with great features. The first one sets my bar high and dips below and the second sets it low and rockets above.

This has been a ****ty, poorly thought out sonic rant by yours truly

 

[CptJPuff]

Spoiler

I hate games like League of Legends, Dota, World of Warcraft, etc. game that is "free-to-play" and tries to vacuum your money.

Sandboxes like GTA V, Minecraft, Animal Crossing, etc. are extremely boring.

Amiibos may be a noble idea to bring your favorite Nintendo characters into your house, but they're really are just a cash grab.

The DSi was the best controller/handheld.

95% of indie games are absolute crap.

Heavily story-based games like Danganronpa are great.

I somewhat dislike the newer Pokemon games because they're in 3D. There's just something about 2D that gives off more charm.

Spoiler

Spoiler

The only relevant gaming platforms in today's world are Nintendo and PC. (not sure if this unpopular)

SEGA related stuff. (I'm not one of those huge Sonic fanboys lmao)

Spoiler

Spoiler

The only good game SEGA has released in the past ten years would be Sonic Colors.

I wouldn't mind seeing SEGA die due to their lack of effort/care with their recent games.

I can't see why people want a new Sonic game in the style of "Sonic Adventure". The first two SA games were absolute crap. Why do people want more crap shoved in their face?

damage control

 

[finalark]

The only good game SEGA has released in the past ten years would be Sonic Colors.

Spoiler

 

[Kurri ★]

The only relevant gaming platforms in today's world are Nintendo and PC. (not sure if this unpopular)

This is an opinion popular only amongst diehard Nintendo fans, so yes, it is unpopular. Would it be okay if I asked you to expand on this? I'm looking at my PS4 and I'm struggling to see how it's not relevant, I also fail to see how the Xbox One is irrelevant (PS Vita sadly is...).

The only good game SEGA has released in the past ten years would be Sonic Colors.

Do rereleases count? Cause i would definitely recommend Jet Set Radio HD. If not, I'm certain there's still other games Sega released that were actually good, Bayonetta comes to mind.

I can't see why people want a new Sonic game in the style of "Sonic Adventure". The first two SA games were absolute crap. Why do people want more crap shoved in their face?

Because we don't see them as crap, pure and simple.

(This video can prove all my points of why SA is crap: )

I don't know why this line peeves me off so much, it's probably because it says prove as though somehow this opinion is factual and ends with why "x" is crap. That's just being offensive now...

You wanna know why I like Sonic Adventure 1 (SA2 is good, but not as good), because it's fun. Yes it has a lot of bad (Big the Cat), and it hasn't aged too well (better than SA2 imo), but what it does right, it does very well. The levels are open allowing you the freedom to explore, experiment finding the fastest route, searching for little secrets. The soundtrack is great:

Spoiler

The game is just a really nice Sonic adventure. Also, I enjoy Amy's levels, they were slow, but I felt they made for nice, pure platforming levels.

 

[Eggggggggggbert]

I only like to play Smash 4 because it's the most followed right now and I adore the artstyle. I'm not a fan of a lot of the character styles and the game feels uncomfortable compared to melee. While I will say melee can feel extremely beaten up meta wise and claustrophobic character wise, it just operates more smoothly. I have fun operating in that environment with the precision it offers, say what you will about melee that is something smash 4 doesn't achieve.
A perfect world would be the character design and balance of PM, the physics and speed of melee and the art design of smash 4.
There is a lot more to be said about this, but that's the quick summary of my ideas.

 

[Spak]

I only like to play Smash 4 because it's the most followed right now

http://smashboards.com/threads/evo-entrant-numbers-finalized-smash-4-1926-melee-1869.408570/

The entrance numbers for EVO between Sm4sh and Melee were less than 100 away, making them spots 2 and 3. They have pretty even followings at the moment.

 

[Eggggggggggbert]

http://smashboards.com/threads/evo-entrant-numbers-finalized-smash-4-1926-melee-1869.408570/

The entrance numbers for EVO between Sm4sh and Melee were less than 100 away, making them spots 2 and 3. They have pretty even followings at the moment.

I'll rephrase that. I'm not sure followed is the right term, rather the most new blood coming into it. Smash 4 is just expanding faster, no fault to Melee but its just a new game and it has a much more casual appeal. More casual naturally means more competitive eventually, more people to transition. It also feels like newer and fresher ground to make a mark.

 

[finalark]

I don't know why this line peeves me off so much, it's probably because it says prove as though somehow this opinion is factual and ends with why "x" is crap. That's just being offensive now...

Plus ProJared's conclusion on the game is that it's deeply flawed, but has a ton of fun parts scattered throughout, not that the game is complete garbage.

Plus linking a video to define your argument just looks bad. You might as well say, "I can't make my own points, so here's someone else's."

I'll rephrase that. I'm not sure followed is the right term, rather the most new blood coming into it. Smash 4 is just expanding faster, no fault to Melee but its just a new game and it has a much more casual appeal. More casual naturally means more competitive eventually, more people to transition. It also feels like newer and fresher ground to make a mark.

Not to mention that the Smash 4 scene is just more exciting right now. There's new characters and stages constantly being added to the game, new things are always being discovered and there's a ton of match ups and techniques to explore. Now, don't get me wrong, Melee is a fantastic game but it's been around for fifteen years and is nearing that point where it's starting to feel like it's almost down to a science with little room for new things.

EDIT: Sorry about the double post, for whatever reason it ended up as a new post instead of getting edited into my old one

I hate games like League of Legends, Dota, World of Warcraft, etc. game that is "free-to-play" and tries to vacuum your money.

This makes me think that you've never actually done more than two seconds worth of research into WoW.

 

[CptJPuff]

This makes me think that you've never actually done more than two seconds worth of research into WoW.

Yes, I know that WoW isn't free to play, you have to pay a subscription to play it. It's just another example of a game trying to eat your money.

Here's the vacuum. I'm sure there's much more in-game.
https://us.battle.net/shop/en/product/game/wow

There's no possible way to argue with the rest without making this thread toxic.

Perhaps I was too harsh demonizing SA, though. Putting it short, I hate it because it's a poorly built game.

 

[Kurri ★]

Yes, I know that WoW isn't free to play, you have to pay a subscription to play it. It's just another example of a game trying to eat your money.

Here's the vacuum. I'm sure there's much more in-game.
https://us.battle.net/shop/en/product/game/wow

There's no possible way to argue with the rest without making this thread toxic.

Perhaps I was too harsh demonizing SA, though. Putting it short, I hate it because it's a poorly built game.

I wasn't going to say anything, but I may as well now. You understand these things aren't required to play the game? I don't Play WoW, but I do play DotA 2, another game that apparently "vacuums your money." None of these things bar you from any sort of experience, they're all cosmetics. It's not like I have to buy a $30 Arcana to play ranked matches in DotA, but if I want to look awesome, sure I'll buy it.

As for SA, yes, you were too harsh.

Poorly built? Well it has aged, but I don't think you can outright say it's poorly built. Tight controls, primarily good level design, and the most important feature, homing attack.

 

[finalark]

Yes, I know that WoW isn't free to play, you have to pay a subscription to play it. It's just another example of a game trying to eat your money.

Here's the vacuum. I'm sure there's much more in-game.
https://us.battle.net/shop/en/product/game/wow

There's no possible way to argue with the rest without making this thread toxic.

There's nothing wrong with a subscription fee. Fifteen dollars every two paychecks isn't a whole lot unless you're living in a scenario where you can barely afford rent. And if that's the case then you have way bigger things to worry about than video games.

The thing is, MMORPGs are huge games that take a lot of manpower to run. Keeping the servers up, paying the dev team to constantly make new content, plus paying say, customer service employees, play testers, artists, composers, and countless others, it gets expensive. I'm fine with having to pay a subscription fee if it means I get a better game out of it.

And once you've gotten balls deep into a true-blue subscription based MMOs then the free to play stuff just doesn't cut it.

And yes, I am aware of the cash shop. I remember back in Wrath when it was introduced with the celestial steed how controversial it was. But once people calmed down nobody cared that Blizz was doing it because it was all aesthetic stuff that looked cool but in no way buffs your character.

 

[vexoskeleton]

@CptJPuff So what exactly do you hate about these games? just that they have things you can buy when you have already purchased the game that are effectively dlc? cause for almost every game like that they make it so any thing you can buy with real money you can buy with their in game currency and that stuff usually also has no affect on your gameplay and aren't p2w, they are just cool things you can buy as status symbols and cool **** which while on a surface layer seems mildly scumbag its really quite harmless as they generally don't hurt the game's ecosystem to making it become a p2w experience though it may make it in some way a pay 2 be popular experience but that can usually be done through putting numerous hours into the game.

Perhaps you just see things in the ways of the past where everyone had every thing and had to work for every thing and nothing could simply be gotten by having money and that's what made the games pure.

 

[Frisk.]

Here are a few of my opinions.

Super Paper Mario is a better game than the original Paper Mario. TTYD is by far the best though.

The Five Nights at Freddy's games aren't scary in the slightest. The games certainly aren't deserving of their absurd levels of popularity either. People argue that the "interesting lore and backstory" is what makes the games so great however the lore and backstory aren't anything special either.

The Sonic Adventure games weren't good. Why people refer to them as the last good Sonic games I'll never know. I guess they have charm to them? Whether you like them or not people shouldn't be naming them as being "some of the best games of all time".

Mother 3 isn't "THAT" good. I really enjoyed the game believe me, however I don't believe it's "the best game of all time" like many have claimed it to be. Still a great game though just like Earthbound.

Something about Minecraft being stupidly popular and some rant about Minecraft let's players or something.

 

[Spak]

The Sonic Adventure games weren't good. Why people refer to them as the last good Sonic games I'll never know. I guess they have charm to them?

Because they were good considering the time period it was made in and people put them in the frame of the late 90's where everyone was experimenting on how to do 3D.

 

[Frisk.]

Because they were good considering the time period it was made in and people put them in the frame of the late 90's where everyone was experimenting on how to do 3D.

I guess it's fine for a game to be glitchy and flawed as long as the fans eat it up.

 

[Lazerith]

The Five Nights at Freddy's games aren't scary in the slightest. The games certainly aren't deserving of their absurd levels of popularity either. People argue that the "interesting lore and backstory" is what makes the games so great however the lore and backstory isn't anything special either.

I agree with you. Almost every one of my friends that likes horror games is obsessed with Five Nights at Freddy's because they are "scary" and have "great lore and backstory" and are "fun to play."

I have tried playing a little bit of the series and watched some playthroughs and 1. It isn't scary, it relies almost entirely on jump scares, which is a very pathetic method of scaring people in a video game. 2. The story is stupid. 3. The games aren't even fun.

I don't understand why the games are so popular. There are much much better horror games out there.

 

[Eggggggggggbert]

I guess it's fine for a game to be glitchy and flawed as long as the fans eat it up.

All early 3D games are glitchy and flawed, Sonic especially. It's what also makes these games interesting speedruns, but thats another subject. my point is that just because the quality was somewhat questionable doesn't mean that all it offered should be ignored.
For example, Freud's early psychological theories were sexist and unsupported, people still identified them as establishing pillars of psychology. As much as people regret it Sonic has done something significant in gaming history and while it may be a shameful memory, we can't ignore it forever.

 

[Frisk.]

All early 3D games are glitchy and flawed, Sonic especially. It's what also makes these games interesting speedruns, but thats another subject. my point is that just because the quality was somewhat questionable doesn't mean that all it offered should be ignored.
For example, Freud's early psychological theories were sexist and unsupported, people still identified them as establishing pillars of psychology. As much as people regret it Sonic has done something significant in gaming history and while it may be a shameful memory, we can't ignore it forever.

Okay I have no problem with that. However a lot of people will defend the games and say that they hold up by today's standards. Some even say they are the best Sonic games of all time and if that's the case then it doesn't say many positive things for the other games.

It seems to me that the majority are blinded by nostalgia.