What are your unpopular gaming opinions?

[FamilyTeam]

I think this counts as an unpopular opinion, because I barely see this anymore, but,
I miss rail shooters. I grew up with them, but I don't see a whole lot of people that like them, nowadays, which I guess has to do with the amount of them we get every year: Pretty much no games at all.
I'll also go ahead and say this, too:
Max Payne (the original) has a really good story but the game itself is massive bore and thanks to quicksaves, it's extremely easy on the PC version. With quicksaves, you can even make it through a few of the later stages (albeit if you're masochistic and have a lot of patience) without firing a single bullet. Speaking of bullets, sure, the game doesn't give you a whole lot of them, but you're also never exactly in short of them, either, though that might be because you can try plenty of unsafe ammo-saving techniques thanks to Mr. Quick-Save. The game itself also is massively repetitive for me, and the enviroments never chance too much, so I could never do very extended sessions of the game because of that. Time also hasn't been kind to this game's graphics. It looks better than GTA3 for sure, but not by much. I hope MP2 and 3 are better gameplay-wise, but I hope they kept the story as interesting as the first one's.

 

[Carrill]

I like Chrono Trigger but I don't love it as much as other people seem to.

The gameplay is fine overall but the ATB is slow for my taste. It works in a similar way to FFIX's ATB where it pauses every time someone attacks... and that just irks me. The system where techniques have an area of effect was nice but I was never much of a fan of double and triple techs. I never liked depleting multiple ATB bars at once.

I think the worst thing about it though is that I don't once remember feeling for the characters. From what I remember of them, their motivations were simplistic to the point of them being a group of boring do-gooders. They just never resembled people to me.

Admittedly though, I never finished the game so it's possible that there's something I just missed. But I think that even if I finished it, I'd still prefer FFVI.

 

[finalark]

I think this is my main problem: If a game is balanced around the idea that the controls are crippled, it's badly designed. I still haven't played Dark Souls yet (it's sitting on my shelf), but I have played the first Castlevania and despised it.

Hold on, so if a game is intentionally designed around intentionally difficult controls this means that the game is poorly designed because it's designed around it's intentionally difficult controls that exist so the came can be designed around them? That's some mad circular reasoning if I've ever heard it.

The only time that balancing around controls worked well was the first few enemies in Shadow of the Colossus. Even then, they're not really bad controls, they're just so specialized that no other game uses them and first-time players need to be eased in to how they work. Just a few Colossi in and the game stops doing that, and later in the game it's easy to be very fluid in using them to make Wander do exactly as you want him to.

This is actually how all of these games work. Take the first Castlevania for example. The game's jumping and attacking works differently from any other platformer. The first few screens throw endlessly spawning zombies at you. Which gives you plenty of time to hit B and realize that attacks need a second to charge up before they swing.

Then it gives you a simple platforming challenge. Some blocks and stairs with safe floors below. You jump and immediately realize that once you hit the A button you're dedicated to that jump. Next comes stairs, you try to jump on them and plummet to the bottom. Cool, now you know that in this games you can't just jump onto stairs.

It's a style that's not for everyone, and it sounds like it's really not for you.

Admittedly though, I never finished the game so it's possible that there's something I just missed. But I think that even if I finished it, I'd still prefer FFVI.

Aside from never beating it, your entire post sums how up I feel about FFVI. It's good, and I like it, but I guess it just didn't click for me the way it did with everyone else.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hold on, so if a game is intentionally designed around intentionally difficult controls this means that the game is poorly designed because it's designed around it's intentionally difficult controls that exist so the came can be designed around them? That's some mad circular reasoning if I've ever heard it.

It's badly designed because the developers decided to base the difficulty on something that serves no purpose but to frustrate and throw off the player. Bad controls are one of the few design elements that the player will almost never fully adapt to. Enemy AI? Most definitely. Puzzles? Of course, each game has its own style and players pick up on what tends to work in this game. Strange controls? Sure, as long as they're effective when mastered. Bad controls? I've played a lot of games with bad controls and they cause almost as much headache at the end as they did in the beginning.

This is actually how all of these games work. Take the first Castlevania for example. The game's jumping and attacking works differently from any other platformer. The first few screens throw endlessly spawning zombies at you. Which gives you plenty of time to hit B and realize that attacks need a second to charge up before they swing.

Then it gives you a simple platforming challenge. Some blocks and stairs with safe floors below. You jump and immediately realize that once you hit the A button you're dedicated to that jump. Next comes stairs, you try to jump on them and plummet to the bottom. Cool, now you know that in this games you can't just jump onto stairs.

It's a style that's not for everyone, and it sounds like it's really not for you.

Castlevania's controls are still "move", "jump", and "attack", it's nothing new. "Move" is incredibly slow, "jump" takes years to start and has a really awkward trajectory, and "attack" isn't too bad but when most enemies are relatively fast and require 2-3 hits with upgrades anyone can see how inadequate it is. Now, if any one of these options were stronger the game might be playable, but as is your options are "die at every third enemy" and "memorize the whole game so that you don't die at every third enemy", because you can't respond to an unexpected fireball statue, Medusa head, or hunchback.

Now let's compare it to another game, Ninja Gaiden. Most of Ninja Gaiden's deaths come from being knocked into bottomless pits too, but unlike Castlevania the controls are responsive and the player can react to a sudden enemy appearance. It's still very hard and there's still a learning curve, but it's a much more enjoyable game because it's not based around crippled controls.

 

[finalark]

It's badly designed because the developers decided to base the difficulty on something that serves no purpose but to frustrate and throw off the player. Bad controls are one of the few design elements that the player will almost never fully adapt to. Enemy AI? Most definitely. Puzzles? Of course, each game has its own style and players pick up on what tends to work in this game. Strange controls? Sure, as long as they're effective when mastered. Bad controls? I've played a lot of games with bad controls and they cause almost as much headache at the end as they did in the beginning.

The purpose of tricky (not bad, mind you, tricky) controls is that they require mastery. The whole point is that you do adapt to them, and once you master them you realize that these controls are actually incredibly precise if you're willing to take the time to learn them. You even touch on this by separating them into "strange" controls and "bad" controls. Most of the controls that you're complaining about fall squarely into "strange" in this case.

Bad controls are where they're still **** even when mastered and/or if the game isn't designed around them.

As I said, these kinds of games aren't for everyone. Some people just can't take the learning curve.

Castlevania's controls are still "move", "jump", and "attack", it's nothing new. "Move" is incredibly slow, "jump" takes years to start and has a really awkward trajectory, and "attack" isn't too bad but when most enemies are relatively fast and require 2-3 hits with upgrades anyone can see how inadequate it is.

Yeah, but your hits stun lock enemies, and half the fun is studying your foes and figuring out when the best time to strike is. I'd say about 80% of the time it's pretty fair since all enemies of the same type move in the same exact patterns. There's even a part at the beginning where they teach you that water = fishmen jumping out so there's no surprises when they show up in watery areas later on.

Not to mention that you're also given sub weapons to compensate for Simon's tricky controls. Are enemies above you giving you ****? Throw an ax at them. Dudes on the other side of the room? Chuck a knife. Need to pump out damage quickly? Holy water has you covered.

The NES era Castlevanias were very much so games about rules and mastery.

Now, if any one of these options were stronger the game might be playable, but as is your options are "die at every third enemy" and "memorize the whole game so that you don't die at every third enemy", because you can't respond to an unexpected fireball statue, Medusa head, or hunchback.

Unless you're bum rushing the game like it's Sonic the Hedgehog, Mega Man or even Mario the game usually gives you plenty of time to react to what's going on. Fleamen (hunchbacks) always lingers on screen for a moment before they jump, Fire Ball Statues won't start attacking unless they're on screen, and even then they take a second to start going and Medusa heads always move in a steady pattern from left to right.

Hell, the whole point of the first level is to teach the player that they absolutely cannot bum rush this game and hope to win.

Now let's compare it to another game, Ninja Gaiden. Most of Ninja Gaiden's deaths come from being knocked into bottomless pits too, but unlike Castlevania the controls are responsive and the player can react to a sudden enemy appearance. It's still very hard and there's still a learning curve, but it's a much more enjoyable game because it's not based around crippled controls.

Your Millage May Vary on that.

As I said above, Castlevania is a different beast from other platformers. You're still going to die, a lot, but the whole game is built on slow progression and usually gives you a fair heads up to whatever you're fighting.

I totally get why you're not into it, because this style of games is an acquired taste, but you can't really call it bad just because you're not willing to deal with the learning curve. It's off-putting, I know, but the game itself is not bad.

 

[Iceweasel]

The purpose of tricky (not bad, mind you, tricky) controls is that they require mastery. The whole point is that you do adapt to them, and once you master them you realize that these controls are actually incredibly precise if you're willing to take the time to learn them. You even touch on this by separating them into "strange" controls and "bad" controls. Most of the controls that you're complaining about fall squarely into "strange" in this case.

Bad controls are where they're still **** even when mastered and/or if the game isn't designed around them.

Strange and bad are not mutually exclusive. In Castlevania's case, it's bot. The weird controls don't emphasize any particular ability or grant Simon any special combination of moves. The weird controls don't add anything to the game and it would work just fine with normal controls.

As I said, these kinds of games aren't for everyone. Some people just can't take the learning curve.

There's not as much of a learning curve as you think. Oh, fishmen show up once to tell the player that they can appear out of water. Whoop-dee-doo, every game ever does this. The controls (the one aspect I don't care for, and is a big enough problem to make the game nigh-unplayable) have almost none. They suck in the beginning, they suck at the end (or at least as far as I could force myself to play). I found myself fighting the controls every step of the way, and no matter how many times I tried to like Castlevania I just couldn't.

Yeah, but your hits stun lock enemies, and half the fun is studying your foes and figuring out when the best time to strike is.

Not quite. If an enemy moves quickly or if you have to jump to hit it you're gonna have a hard time killing it (or avoiding it thanks to the controls).

I'd say about 80% of the time it's pretty fair since all enemies of the same type move in the same exact patterns.

That's a BS quotient of 1 in 5. By your reckoning, one in five enemies you encounter are not something the player can be reasonably expected to deal with.

Not to mention that you're also given sub weapons to compensate for Simon's tricky controls. Are enemies above you giving you ****? Throw an ax at them. Dudes on the other side of the room? Chuck a knife. Need to pump out damage quickly? Holy water has you covered.

You can only carry one subweapon, so having them be so situational is questionable. The only good ones are the holy water (for bosses) and the cross (for everything) anyways, and like everything else the player can do they have to know what they need to do well in advance of when to actually do it.

Unless you're bum rushing the game like it's Sonic the Hedgehog, Mega Man or even Mario the game usually gives you plenty of time to react to what's going on. Fleamen (hunchbacks) always lingers on screen for a moment before they jump, Fire Ball Statues won't start attacking unless they're on screen, and even then they take a second to start going and Medusa heads always move in a steady pattern from left to right.

Hell, the whole point of the first level is to teach the player that they absolutely cannot bum rush this game and hope to win.

It's not even possible to bumrush the game, Simon is too slow. Simon being too slow is why all the things you mentioned are BS. It's one thing to see what's going to happen in Castlevania, it's another thing to actually do something about it. Being able to see a fireball statue is one thing, but when it actually starts shooting fireballs you're boned because they're too close together. It's great that you can see hunchbacks, but if you don't get them before they start moving it's going to be a major pain to hit them. Being able to tell where a Medusa head is going to be is nice, but it doesn't help since you can't avoid or kill them if you make a minor mistake in timing your very laggy options.

It's off-putting, I know, but the game itself is not bad.

Castlevania is a perfect example of a terrible game that's had praise heaped on top of it due to a combination of good graphics, music, and nostalgia. It's pretty, it sounds nice, and a lot of people liked it because they were five and didn't know any better, but no amount of memories and presentation will make it a good game.

 

[Substitution]

Am I the only one who doesn't consider Undertale "deep"? Like, I always hear how it's "Changed my life." or "Make me think differently." and I don't get it. I mean, I saw a Genocide run once -- known as the one where everyone calls you "Satan" for doing apparently -- and I thought it was neat. Certainly didn't break my heart or anything.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but for the life of me I don't understand why people find it so emotionally deep; As if it's freaking Schindler's List or something.

 

[Kurri ★]

Am I the only one who doesn't consider Undertale "deep"? Like, I always hear how it's "Changed my life." or "Make me think differently." and I don't get it. I mean, I saw a Genocide run once -- known as the one where everyone calls you "Satan" for doing apparently -- and I thought it was neat. Certainly didn't break my heart or anything.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but for the life of me I don't understand why people find it so emotionally deep; As if it's freaking Schindler's List or something.

I think it's because it's just a really good game... At least that's what I'm told. I haven't played it cause I'd rather be playing Fallout 4.

 

[Substitution]

I think it's because it's just a really good game... At least that's what I'm told. I haven't played it cause I'd rather be playing Fallout 4.

Still, a really good game doesn't make me criticism how I play a game. Nor claim that it's a game that (and I quote from a Twitch chat I was in): "Broke fiction and reality." And then something involving changing their life.

Like seriously where's the line? Are we going to be comparing it to Homer? Are we going to be rioting in the streets if one game review site doesn't give it GOTY? Hell, are we going to beg for them in Smash?

When is enough, enough?

 

[finalark]

I haven't seen a single video on Undertale. But from what I've heard, I've already played the Mother series, so I get the impression its going to be a case of "been there, done that."

I going to play it eventually, and I'm going to do my damnedest to keep an open mind about it.

Castlevania is a perfect example of a terrible game that's had praise heaped on top of it due to a combination of good graphics, music, and nostalgia. It's pretty, it sounds nice, and a lot of people liked it because they were five and didn't know any better, but no amount of memories and presentation will make it a good game.

I didn't start playing Castlevania until I was 17. I'm 22. There's nothing nostalgic about it.

Maybe, just maybe, some people actually like the game for the reasons I listed and it's just not your cup of tea.

 

[Tomlanji]

I think shooters are an overrated genre in gaming.

 

[Kurri ★]

I think shooters are an overrated genre in gaming.

Because...?

 

[Champ Gold]

I think shooters are an overrated genre in gaming.

Because...?

It's pretty much like Platformers in the 90s and Survival Horror games now, it's just over saturated with generic titles and so many forced moments and 'innovations' that it seems boring and stupid.

 

[Tomlanji]

It's pretty much like Platformers in the 90s and Survival Horror games now, it's just over saturated with generic titles and so many forced moments and 'innovations' that it seems boring and stupid.

Exactly, there isn't anything truly interesting me anymore when it comes to shooters. They are everywhere, and some usually get sequels yearly. Really loses its charm after the millionth shooter.

And to put down another unpopular opinion, I think the Five Nights at Freddy's series is rather meh. Its nothing scary, I don't see the huge fuss over "PEEK-A-BOO!" for the 8th time.

 

[Ghostly ~]

Am I the only one who doesn't consider Undertale "deep"? Like, I always hear how it's "Changed my life." or "Make me think differently." and I don't get it. I mean, I saw a Genocide run once -- known as the one where everyone calls you "Satan" for doing apparently -- and I thought it was neat. Certainly didn't break my heart or anything.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but for the life of me I don't understand why people find it so emotionally deep; As if it's freaking Schindler's List or something.

I really don't think Undertale supposes to "changed my life" or "make me think differently". It's just a game where you shouldn't kill everyone despite that it was a RPG like the Mother series. Of course the game changed the plot (if you care about the story) when you kill someone unlike most RPGs. It is best to go for the True Pacifist run if you want the true ending and you can have a wonderful experience with the characters you meet.

Maybe I should play the demo since I really like the story and the characters. I only watch the Undertale videos so pretty much the game is great despite me doing that.

 

[finalark]

Exactly, there isn't anything truly interesting me anymore when it comes to shooters. They are everywhere, and some usually get sequels yearly. Really loses its charm after the millionth shooter.

Eh, just ignore it and play the ones you like.

And to be honest, the shooter hype has died down severely compared to the mid PS360/Wii era.

And to put down another unpopular opinion, I think the Five Nights at Freddy's series is rather meh. Its nothing scary, I don't see the huge fuss over "PEEK-A-BOO!" for the 8th time.

Because they're fun to play, have pretty unique game play that we really haven't seen before within the realm of horror games, the enemies and premise are original and each new game does a fantastic job of staying true to the spirit of the original while still coming up with new and creative ways to play the game.

Here's an unpopular opinion: people put too much emphasis on spook factor when it comes to horror games. There's a ton of other stuff that goes into it that deserves to also be praised and admired. A horror game doesn't need to make you evacuate your bowels to be good.

 

[wedl!!]

I think to really understand why Undertale is such a praised game you have to experience it yourself. It's not a game that you hear about and are instantly attached to it; it grows on you as you play it. It's a great RPG (although not too lengthy, there are only a few endings and the main game isn't going to take you very long) with good writing and very charming characters. The entire concept of sparing and the morality system is actually pretty well incorporated and refreshing. That really seperates it from most games; instead of really obvious X or Y choices for a karma system, all decisions you make are factored in. You don't have to go around on a whim massacring everything in your path (nor do you really want to, the enemies are too cute), but you can.

Is this game going to "change the way you think"? No. Is it "super deep"? Not really, no. Is it a very enjoyable RPG with a storybook-esque theme and a unique mechanic? Yes, it is.

 

[Kasran]

I think to really understand why Undertale is such a praised game you have to experience it yourself. It's not a game that you hear about and are instantly attached to it; it grows on you as you play it. It's a great RPG (although not too lengthy, there are only a few endings and the main game isn't going to take you very long) with good writing and very charming characters. The entire concept of sparing and the morality system is actually pretty well incorporated and refreshing. That really seperates it from most games; instead of really obvious X or Y choices for a karma system, all decisions you make are factored in. You don't have to go around on a whim massacring everything in your path (nor do you really want to, the enemies are too cute), but you can.

Is this game going to "change the way you think"? No. Is it "super deep"? Not really, no. Is it a very enjoyable RPG with a storybook-esque theme and a unique mechanic? Yes, it is.

Precisely this. I'm baffled by people who render opinions on Undertale based merely on having seen videos or having played some of the material that inspired it. It's really something you have to actually play, in the same way that a good book is something you have to actually read (rather than, say, read the Cliff's Notes version or a review) in order to fully appreciate.

 

[Frizz]

Ignore and pardon my little rant if you will, but I just need to blow off some steam. It's something I always wanted to talk about, you know? A little pet peeve of mine.


So here goes... I actually don't like character customization. It's a simple and easy way to practically insert a self-insert or an OC into a game and have them pretend they're locked in their own fantasy world. It practically deflects all incoming hate because it's not a Sonic OC that's completely made up from the get-go. Robin is my greatest example. Before his reveal in Smash, pretty much nobody cared about him as the default playable character. Everyone played dress up and customized him to their liking all willy-nilly. Then they called him a different name and all sorts of things, which bugged me because it's like he didn't even matter. It's like he didn't even exist. Most people called him My Unit or Avatar at the time and not his default name, Robin, until Smash Bros. because they didn't think it was canon. All games have a canon to it, whether it's blatantly obvious or not. I acknowledge that while some people prefer to immerse themselves into the gameplay experience, while others like to pay attention to the story, like me. But I'm actually a mix of both, to tell the truth. Stories are what mostly make up a game to me, even non-storylinear games like Smash Bros. The thought of Nintendo's greatest heroes and villains crossing over and duking it out was enough for me, and the theory that they're all secretly playtime toys for some kid is even more appealing to me. Another example is Pokemon. I get some people like to think they're trainers and that they're all high and mighty with their over-the-top edginess that can cut like a knife, but they shouldn't ignore the storyline by all means. It's there for a reason. I mean, Pokemon actually makes sense now that I think of it. But they shouldn't say: "I defeated Team Rocket!" or "I became the Champion of______", because that's not true. At all. Player characters are there for a reason too. It's kind of the same situation over if Ethan/Gold truly defeated Red on top of Mt. Silver. The common response is "Ethan/Gold didn't defeat Red. YOU did. YOU defeated Red.", but if Red's story is literally proven to be canon, then obviously all the rest are too, unless proven otherwise.

Now that I got THAT out of my system, I'll be looking forward to other opinions henceforth. Hope I didn't bother anyone with my very own opinion there. I was just expressing my thoughts at the moment.

 

[Carrill]

Frizz

I disagree with that opinion. Games aren't books or movies. Game are interactive. The designers and writers can have their own idea of what events are canon but when you give it to the players, they can decide to do whatever they want with it (within the constraints the game will allow at least). The player can walk mindlessly into a corner for hours, turn the game off, and never go back to it again and that can be their story if they want.

Also in Pokemon's case, didn't they introduce the idea of a multiverse in the Delta Episode? That means Red's story can be canon but so can the millions of other player's experiences with the games.

 

[Frizz]

Frizz

I disagree with that opinion. Games aren't books or movies. Game are interactive. The designers and writers can have their own idea of what events are canon but when you give it to the players, they can decide to do whatever they want with it (within the constraints of the game will allow at least). The player can walk mindlessly into a corner for hours, turn the game off, and never go back to it again and that can be their story if they want.

Also in Pokemon's case, didn't they introduce the idea of a multiverse in the Delta Episode? That means Red's story can be canon but so can the millions of other player's experiences with the games.

Perhaps. Multiverses are a plausible way to fit many things assumed to be canon into one thing, so I can respect your disagreement. In fact, my favorite T.V. show employs the concept of it, and seeing the main characters interact with themselves is always exciting to me. Thanks for allowing me see the other point of view by refuting! But I'm afraid I'm still not particularly fond of OCs and self-inserts, bear that in mind. But once again, thank you. Truly.

 

[finalark]

Ignore and pardon my little rant if you will, but I just need to blow off some steam. It's something I always wanted to talk about, you know? A little pet peeve of mine.


So here goes... I actually don't like character customization. It's a simple and easy way to practically insert a self-insert or an OC into a game and have them pretend they're locked in their own fantasy world. It practically deflects all incoming hate because it's not a Sonic OC that's completely made up from the get-go. Robin is my greatest example. Before his reveal in Smash, pretty much nobody cared about him as the default playable character. Everyone played dress up and customized him to their liking all willy-nilly. Then they called him a different name and all sorts of things, which bugged me because it's like he didn't even matter. It's like he didn't even exist. Most people called him My Unit or Avatar at the time and not his default name, Robin, until Smash Bros. because they didn't think it was canon. All games have a canon to it, whether it's blatantly obvious or not. I acknowledge that while some people prefer to immerse themselves into the gameplay experience, while others like to pay attention to the story, like me. But I'm actually a mix of both, to tell the truth. Stories are what mostly make up a game to me, even non-storylinear games like Smash Bros. The thought of Nintendo's greatest heroes and villains crossing over and duking it out was enough for me, and the theory that they're all secretly playtime toys for some kid is even more appealing to me. Another example is Pokemon. I get some people like to think they're trainers and that they're all high and mighty with their over-the-top edginess that can cut like a knife, but they shouldn't ignore the storyline by all means. It's there for a reason. I mean, Pokemon actually makes sense now that I think of it. But they shouldn't say: "I defeated Team Rocket!" or "I became the Champion of______", because that's not true. At all. Player characters are there for a reason too. It's kind of the same situation over if Ethan/Gold truly defeated Red on top of Mt. Silver. The common response is "Ethan/Gold didn't defeat Red. YOU did. YOU defeated Red.", but if Red's story is literally proven to be canon, then obviously all the rest are too, unless proven otherwise.

Now that I got THAT out of my system, I'll be looking forward to other opinions henceforth. Hope I didn't bother anyone with my very own opinion there. I was just expressing my thoughts at the moment.

You must really, really hate MMORPGs then.

 

[Champ Gold]

You must really, really hate MMORPGs then.

Can't blame him.

MMOs suck. Nothing but grinding and paying to grind.

Also the gameplay of them is kinda meh

 

[finalark]

Can't blame him.

MMOs suck. Nothing but grinding and paying to grind.

Also the gameplay of them is kinda meh

But I love MMOs =/

 

[MOI-ARI]

My 'unpopular opinion' is

I think Zelda's green pointy hat is dumb looking :/

imho

 

[Frizz]

You must really, really hate MMORPGs then.

Maybe not hate them. Just not interested. Unless I'm mistaken, MMORPGS don't have a story to them, do they? I think they might, but I'm not sure.

 

[finalark]

Maybe not hate them. Just not interested. Unless I'm mistaken, MMORPGS don't have a story to them, do they? I think they might, but I'm not sure.

Ten years a ago? Not really. But now? These days cut scenes like this are the norm.

 

[Frizz]

Ten years a ago? Not really. But now? These days cut scenes like this are the norm.

Oh, sniggity sniggity snap goes the twig, that's amazing. Now that I think about it, MMORPGs might be pretty cool. I mean, the whole base around it is creating a character to fight/play with others, right? Well, in that case, OCs are cool, but ONLY in that situation. Anything else is a big no-no for me.

 

[FamilyTeam]

This ties into the fact that I just don't like most of Nintendo's IPs, but...
I tried extremely hard to like the The Legend of Zelda series, but I couldn't. I played five games in the series (LOZ, LOZ 2, ALttP, OOT and TP) and the closest I got to liking one of them was with ALttP. Even then, I was more "mildly entertained" than I was "having fun".
In my honest opinion, LOZ and LOZ 2 have aged ridiculously bad, and neither of them are any fun at all. When I did a playthrough of the original, I even downloaded an old strategy guide and the game's manual to get hyped, and I still had no fun at all. (I gave up after I got the first Triforce)
Kind of the same thing happened with OOT and TP for me. There was a point that I was playing it and I just gave up because I thought it was a waste of time.
I'm not insulting you if you like Zelda... but I couldn't like it.

 

[Rashyboy05]

This ties into the fact that I just don't like most of Nintendo's IPs, but...
I tried extremely hard to like the The Legend of Zelda series, but I couldn't. I played five games in the series (LOZ, LOZ 2, ALttP, OOT and TP) and the closest I got to liking one of them was with ALttP. Even then, I was more "mildly entertained" than I was "having fun".
In my honest opinion, LOZ and LOZ 2 have aged ridiculously bad, and neither of them are any fun at all. When I did a playthrough of the original, I even downloaded an old strategy guide and the game's manual to get hyped, and I still had no fun at all. (I gave up after I got the first Triforce)
Kind of the same thing happened with OOT and TP for me. There was a point that I was playing it and I just gave up because I thought it was a waste of time.
I'm not insulting you if you like Zelda... but I couldn't like it.

I think the main reason why you couldn't like the Zelda series was because you expected a lot from it. My general rule whenever I try out a new Video Game series is to either keep your expectations low or not expect anything at all. It really saves you from disappointment and the game will eventually grow on you as you continue to play it imo. You say that you tried to hype yourself up before playing the games and I personally think that was your problem as to why you can't enjoy the series. I will admit, I have a game from the Zelda series that I don't like and it was Twilight Princess, and I realized the reason why I couldn't like the game was because prior to playing it, I hyped myself up too much and was massively disappointed when I finally got the game.

 

[FamilyTeam]

I think the main reason why you couldn't like the Zelda series was because you expected a lot from it.

That was only true when I tried (re) playing the original.
I first played ALttP when I was 6. I thought it was okay, I kind of had fun with it, but I could never progress far in it because I couldn't read English yet.
Then, I played LOZ, LOZ 2 and OOT all at around the same time two years later. I went into those games with no expectations at all and I still didn't like them.
Then finally I played TP which came with my Wii, and again, I first played it with no prior expectations at all. At first I probably liked it as much as I liked ALttP... But then I started playing it more and I kind of gave up on it.
Something like 4 years ago, I was really into the Angry Video Game Nerd. He had just released his video on Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link and Hydlide, and in both of those videos he pretty he kept saying how the original game was a "masterpiece" and strong words like that. I went like "Wow, it looks like I've been missing out on a lot! I better give this game a second chance!", which was when I did all of that, then played the game after so long and went "This is what counts as a masterpiece?"
So yes, I did have that problem with the original Zelda but not with any of the others, so I probably wouldn't like this series anyway.

 

[Substitution]

You know, now that the whole Triforce Heroes having a meme thing has died down, I've begun to realize something that I think most if not all of us have missed: It's not the first time they've done memes. In fact, they've had a history of it. Such as in Pokemon X&Y:

Or hell even further back:

And this is just with video games. What about my body is ready or the Regginator? Maybe No Johns? Hell, even stuff like the Zelda rap could be considered on the same boat, as it was a dated commercial meant for the kids of that decade.

So... How come it's only now we chastised them?

 

[finalark]

So... How come it's only now we chastised them?

Because memes have become associated with annoying people who push them until they're not funny anymore.

 

[Substitution]

Because memes have become associated with annoying people who push them until they're not funny anymore.

Still, people have been doing that since the concept of memes. I remember being able to go on Youtube and find an over-abundance of Hotel Mario Sparta remixes with Angry German Kid thrown in for good measure.

 

[SilkaN]

Something that bothers me about the current gaming scene is that there are people who believe that censorship in (Japanese) games that are brought to the west should just be silently accepted and that gamers should be happy to receive these games at all.
I think that censorship in a game is worse than the cancellation of a western release. Am I the only one that thinks the gaming community should NOT support censorship in any way? Publishers and localization teams (I hate this word, localization teams should become mere translation teams) butcher games, thinking that lower age ratings on niche titles such as Fire Emblem, Fatal Frame (which is still R18 lol) and Xenoblade X will lead to more sales while it actually only harms the company's reputation.

I'm aware that many people just want to play some games without thinking about them too much, but what is going happen to the western gaming scene if everyone just decides to shrug censorship off like it's nothing?

 

[Silent Phoenix]

I could never get a feel for Resident Evil or Tomb Raider. They can be fun but I'm not really into them and can't see the hype. Resident evil I can sort of see but Tomb Raider is just overrated like Uncharted (ironic since Crystal Dynamics tried to make the series feel more like that game. Fun but overrated as hell)

Same with the Silent Hill series except maybe Silent Hill 2.

I also couldn't get a feel for the Fallout games until Fallout 4. I feel like the writing in 4 is vastly superior to 3 and everyone has more personality and the game became more than just wandering around, helping a random stranger and they go "Oh yeah I got some stuff you can take care of" and then go shoot ghouls or super mutants.

I think Persona 4 is extremely cheesy with the whole "power of friendship" trope that often gets shoved down your throat when playing certain modern JRPGs. Even some visual novels. I honestly always hated the trope and always will. Only Undertale got me with that and even then.

Pokemon is stale and meh and I would prefer another story-driven game like the console RPGs (Colosseum and Gale of Darkness). Mega Evolution is also dumb and poorly-executed.

Devil May Cry is also fun and I love the music but it's also pretty overrated.

Wrestling games are only good for customization and creating either really cool or really funny outcomes from pitting your custom characters against each other.

Sonic Unleashed was wasted potential

I don't care for GTA. Even when I just mess around in the games I get bored very fast or get distracted easily.

I stopped caring about most Valve games a long time ago. ESPECIALLY TF2 and GMod.

MGS3 was the best MGS. None of the other games grabbed me as much as 3 did.

 

[Iceweasel]

You know, now that the whole Triforce Heroes having a meme thing has died down, I've begun to realize something that I think most if not all of us have missed: It's not the first time they've done memes. In fact, they've had a history of it. Such as in Pokemon X&Y:


Or hell even further back:



And this is just with video games. What about my body is ready or the Regginator? Maybe No Johns? Hell, even stuff like the Zelda rap could be considered on the same boat, as it was a dated commercial meant for the kids of that decade.

So... How come it's only now we chastised them?

Pokemon has always been little kids' fare. Even if it had an older following, we weren't the target audience and most of us recognized that this eyeroll-worthy BS wasn't worth the trouble. Besides, that was far from the only problem with X/Y. If you remember, there was a minor stink about the translation in D/P where they pulled this same stunt, but to a far lesser degree.

Zelda has always tried to present itself as a more mature game. One of those rare few things that actually can be enjoyed no matter what your age is. Less than five minutes in to LttP and your uncle dies. Ocarina's Shadow Temple and Kakariko Well. Pretty much all of Wind Waker. A lot of people expected better from this series, myself included. Though given how far this series has slid in the last few years, maybe we should change our expectations.

And, as Finalark mentioned, "meme" has become a dirty word in the last few years. Partially because they've gotten so terrible. All of the older ones are played out and most of the newer ones are so full of cancer for one reason or another that they're hard to stomach. They're either ****ty or stale, pick your poison. Or don't, which would be ideal but not "elbow" "hip" enough.

Something that bothers me about the current gaming scene is that there are people who believe that censorship in (Japanese) games that are brought to the west should just be silently accepted and that gamers should be happy to receive these games at all.
I think that censorship in a game is worse than the cancellation of a western release. Am I the only one that thinks the gaming community should NOT support censorship in any way? Publishers and localization teams (I hate this word, localization teams should become mere translation teams) butcher games, thinking that lower age ratings on niche titles such as Fire Emblem, Fatal Frame (which is still R18 lol) and Xenoblade X will lead to more sales while it actually only harms the company's reputation.

I'm aware that many people just want to play some games without thinking about them too much, but what is going happen to the western gaming scene if everyone just decides to shrug censorship off like it's nothing?

Exactly. If you have to localize something, unless it's incredibly language/culture specific (like that seasons puzzle in Secret of Mana or a plot-critical dual meaning) you're doing your job horribly wrong.

In other words, if your translation looked like this it would be hard for somebody to have done their job worse. Unless they went full 4kids and actually redrew the sushi into hamburgers.

Spoiler

I have a better version of that comic somewhere. Someone changed the dialogue to reflect how various companies translate it in various ways. I think I know where it is... but it's on my ext4 partition, and I booted into Windows today.

 

[SilkaN]

Exactly. If you have to localize something, unless it's incredibly language/culture specific (like that seasons puzzle in Secret of Mana or a plot-critical dual meaning) you're doing your job horribly wrong.

In other words, if your translation looked like this it would be hard for somebody to have done their job worse. Unless they went full 4kids and actually redrew the sushi into hamburgers.

Spoiler

I have a better version of that comic somewhere. Someone changed the dialogue to reflect how various companies translate it in various ways. I think I know where it is... but it's on my ext4 partition, and I booted into Windows today.

I found this online.
Also, a petition that won't change anything but can at least get some attention:
https://www.change.org/p/nintendo-o...of-japanese-nintendo-games-in-western-regions

 

[Iceweasel]

I found this online.
Also, a petition that won't change anything but can at least get some attention:
https://www.change.org/p/nintendo-o...of-japanese-nintendo-games-in-western-regions

I've got that one too. Lots of fun to bust out. The one I was referring to was more of a translation comparison than a censorship thing.

 

[Kurri ★]

Something that bothers me about the current gaming scene is that there are people who believe that censorship in (Japanese) games that are brought to the west should just be silently accepted and that gamers should be happy to receive these games at all.
I think that censorship in a game is worse than the cancellation of a western release. Am I the only one that thinks the gaming community should NOT support censorship in any way? Publishers and localization teams (I hate this word, localization teams should become mere translation teams) butcher games, thinking that lower age ratings on niche titles such as Fire Emblem, Fatal Frame (which is still R18 lol) and Xenoblade X will lead to more sales while it actually only harms the company's reputation.

I'm aware that many people just want to play some games without thinking about them too much, but what is going happen to the western gaming scene if everyone just decides to shrug censorship off like it's nothing?

I'm not going to discuss the "censorship" of games as that generally leads to ****slinging and bull****, but you can't take a game and just translate it, language doesn't work that way, nor do cultures. I'm sure someone already explained this on a previous page.

Edit: Found the post!

I feel like people really downplay how hard a translator's job is. Probably because it sounds easy - replace one word with a word that means the same, right? But being a good translator requires an in-depth knowledge of two languages and two cultures, not to mention a knowledge of translation techniques, which only comes with years of study. Translation should only be one-to-one when it's the best option, and it usually isn't.

I've been studying Russian for a long while now, and one of my hobbies is translating Russian text. Although there are a lot of times when a one-to-one translation provides a grammatically correct translation, that's not sufficient for it to be a good translation. Because certain words tend to pair up with other words more frequently, a phenomenon known as collocation, a translation can sound off because you're using a word combination that, while not wrong, isn't the most common one.

In a good translation, you shouldn't be aware that you're reading a translation. People shouldn't speak with odd word orders or rare grammatical constructs. Archaic words shouldn't be dug up because they happen to be cognates with the original word. It shouldn't feel like it was ever written in anything other than the language you are reading it in.

It's virtually impossible to preserve every aspect of an original text. For example, Russian uses diminutives much more frequently than English does, and uses them to express the speaker's feelings towards an object or person. They are infamously difficult to translate into English. In fact, you are usually advised to just not translate them, otherwise you end up with awkward phrases like "let's go for some little vodka" and "I love you, my little darling sisterlet." This is something that is lost in English. Russian also has a T/V distinction, which no longer exists in the English pronominal system. Where this distinction is important to the plot/characterization (e.g. an early scene in Anna Karenina), translators usually try to make the entirety of the speech sound more formal, which isn't necessarily the case in the original. Here something is added in the translation.

And this is all just in Russian, a language related to English where the neutral word order is SVO (although Russian has a much more flexible word order than English, which poses yet another translation difficulty). Japanese, with its SOV word order and topic-prominence, as well as notably more removed culture, must be an absolute nightmare to translate. Stuff like connotations of using kanji vs hiragana vs katakana is sometimes near impossible to get across well. There are 11 different English translations of Crime & Punishment for a reason - translation is an art, and there's always room for interpretation or trying again. When you consider translators are apparently not given text as it appears in the game but completely out of order... I really got to give 'em props.

Honestly, if you believe that localizers are just there to censor a product you really have no understanding of how things work.