What are your unpopular gaming opinions?

[Ocarina Stealer]

Pokemon design now is better then that of Gen 1.

 

[finalark]

I feel like I've said this earlier in this thread, but back in the mid to late 2000s the general census was that SA1 was a dated, buggy mess of a game with too many game play types that didn't work and that SA2 was clearly the superior game. Then a few years ago it seems like everyone suddenly did a 180 on that and now says that SA2 is overrated, dull, and that only a third of the game is any good and that obviously SA1 was better.

Why can't people make up their minds on these games? I feel like SA2 getting overhyped and newcomers being disappointed by having unreasonably high hopes has something to do with it.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

I feel like I've said this earlier in this thread, but back in the mid to late 2000s the general census was that SA1 was a dated, buggy mess of a game with too many game play types that didn't work and that SA2 was clearly the superior game. Then a few years ago it seems like everyone suddenly did a 180 on that and now says that SA2 is overrated, dull, and that only a third of the game is any good and that obviously SA1 was better.

Why can't people make up their minds on these games? I feel like SA2 getting overhyped and newcomers being disappointed by having unreasonably high hopes has something to do with it.

Because SA1 IS better.

 

[Kurri ★]

I feel like I've said this earlier in this thread, but back in the mid to late 2000s the general census was that SA1 was a dated, buggy mess of a game with too many game play types that didn't work and that SA2 was clearly the superior game. Then a few years ago it seems like everyone suddenly did a 180 on that and now says that SA2 is overrated, dull, and that only a third of the game is any good and that obviously SA1 was better.

Why can't people make up their minds on these games? I feel like SA2 getting overhyped and newcomers being disappointed by having unreasonably high hopes has something to do with it.

it's less people are changing their minds a more people who prefer SA1 are coming out.

 

[finalark]

Because SA1 IS better.

If you have more fun playing SA1 than 2 then that's that. But from a technical standpoint, you can't break SA2 by performing a basic in-game action I.E. spin dashing. Not to mention SA2 has the benefit of its levels actually being designed around the characters rather than being Sonic's leveling with roadblocks hastily slapped in. That corner cutting, baby.

it's less people are changing their minds a more people who prefer SA1 are coming out.

You're probably right, but I feel like that number has grown significantly over the years. I still stand by what I say about SA2 hype backlash having a lot to do with it.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

If you have more fun playing SA1 than 2 then that's that. But from a technical standpoint, you can't break SA2 by performing a basic in-game action I.E. spin dashing. Not to mention SA2 has the benefit of its levels actually being designed around the characters rather than being Sonic's leveling with roadblocks hastily slapped in. That corner cutting, baby.
.

Apart from the Sonic levels SA2 was tedious. Especially the Tails levels. In SA1 you could choose which character you could stick with. Oh and SA2 had THAT glitch. SA1's story was better and so was the music. Worst thing about SA1 is the fishing.

 

[finalark]

Apart from the Sonic levels SA2 was tedious. Especially the Tails levels. In SA1 you could choose which character you could stick with. Oh and SA2 had THAT glitch. SA1's story was better and so was the music. Worst thing about SA1 is the fishing.

I never really found the shooting levels in SA2 to be tedious. I thought they were pretty fun. I liked switching between characters because it kept their game play from getting stale. I plus I don't like the world map in SA1, which I feel like was in there because it was a thing that Mario 64 did.

But eh, different strokes.

But objectively speaking, you really can't say that SA2 is more buggy than SA1.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

I never really found the shooting levels in SA2 to be tedious. I thought they were pretty fun. I liked switching between characters because it kept their game play from getting stale. I plus I don't like the world map in SA1, which I feel like was in there because it was a thing that Mario 64 did.

But eh, different strokes.

But objectively speaking, you really can't say that SA2 is more buggy than SA1.

I wasn't meaning to say it was more buggy but it did have a game breaking glitch.

 

[finalark]

I wasn't meaning to say it was more buggy but it did have a game breaking glitch.

Yeah, but SA1 had several.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

Yeah, but SA1 had several.

Not game breaking though.

 

[finalark]

Not game breaking though.

If you're talking about the controller glitch, that's only in the Steam version of SA2. Every other version of the game is fine.

You are way, way more likely to fall through the world or send yourself flying into somewhere you aren't supposed to be in SA1 than SA2.

 

[Kurri ★]

What is THAT glitch?

 

[finalark]

What is THAT glitch?

In the Steam version of SA2 if you hit enter on the title screen while you have a controller plugged in it gives you a pop up that you can't dismiss. You have to uninstall and reinstall in order to get the game working again.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

In the Steam version of SA2 if you hit enter on the title screen while you have a controller plugged in it gives you a pop up that you can't dismiss. You have to uninstall and reinstall in order to get the game working again.

No actually. 1 in 3 games were printed with an error which about midway through the final level you will spawn and drop through the floor and DIE. (On the Dreamcast)

 

[finalark]

No actually. 1 in 3 games were printed with an error which about midway through the final level you will spawn and drop through the floor and DIE. (On the Dreamcast)

Huh. I actually didn't know that. I guess I've just gotten lucky since I've never encountered it on any copy of the DC version I've played.

That being said, it's literally only in one version of the game.

Would you mind citing a source on that? No matter how hard I look I can't seem to find anyone else reporting it. Honestly this is the first I've heard of it.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

Huh. I actually didn't know that. I guess I've just gotten lucky since I've never encountered it on any copy of the DC version I've played.

That being said, it's literally only in one version of the game.

Would you mind citing a source on that? No matter how hard I look I can't seem to find anyone else reporting it. Honestly this is the first I've heard of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_7Y9o3UAUw

 

[finalark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_7Y9o3UAUw

Hmm.

I feel like that's a hell of a lot more rare than he's letting on. Nobody on Sonic Retro, Sonic News Network, Gamefaqs or any other site I checked reported that glitch. I've played both games religiously and this is the first I've ever even heard of it. Hell, every variation of "Sonic Adventure 2 cannon's core" glitch I searched came up with zero results on the matter.

I really doubt it's 1/3 of the copies printing. I'm guessing its closer to 1/10.

EDIT: I just found someone who reported it on Gamefaqs.

 

[RebelXII]

Shadow the Hedgehog was actually a good game.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Your opinion is wrong

Opinions are wrong now? What world am I living in?!

Shadow the Hedgehog was actually a good game.

It's alright. The edge though.....

 

[Heroine of Winds]

It's alright. The edge though.....

Ow, the edge.

 

[Substitution]

Shadow The Hedgehog is one of those games that I believe the heart was in the right place, but the concept could have never worked. Like, I get Sonic is a cash cow, and maybe if they didn't something different with it (like leave Sonic out of the equation) than it would've done better.

But it just feels like some fifteen year old's fanfic. This is something I should see in a fan animation with Breaking The Habit in the background. Not some AAA developer.

 

[Kasran]

Shadow The Hedgehog is one of those games that I believe the heart was in the right place, but the concept could have never worked. Like, I get Sonic is a cash cow, and maybe if they didn't something different with it (like leave Sonic out of the equation) than it would've done better.

But it just feels like some fifteen year old's fanfic. This is something I should see in a fan animation with Breaking The Habit in the background. Not some AAA developer.

Hey, you have to give Shadow some credit. At least he is all of him.

sorry

 

[finalark]

Shadow The Hedgehog is one of those games that I believe the heart was in the right place, but the concept could have never worked. Like, I get Sonic is a cash cow, and maybe if they didn't something different with it (like leave Sonic out of the equation) than it would've done better.

But it just feels like some fifteen year old's fanfic. This is something I should see in a fan animation with Breaking The Habit in the background. Not some AAA developer.

IMO, if you strip away the 8th grade fanfic levels of stupidity and just take a look at the mechanics its honestly an alright game. It's certainly a step above Heroes, a game that it cribs a ton of mechanics from and shares an engine with.

The game is significantly more stable, Shadow is much easier to control than he and his counterparts were in Heroes, the levels don't drag on forever (usually, the objective based ones are pretty crap) and the guns allow you to quickly take down enemies with lots of (I.E more than one) HP which really helps with the pacing. Wall running and jumping is a much more sound and well implemented and there's no real gameplay roulette, which was a sore point among Sonic fans for years.

It's not a fantastic game, it's most certainly not a great game. I don't even think I'd call it good. Maybe just short of average. IMO Shadow the Hedgehog is up there with Dirge of Cerberus as a game I don't really consider good, but doesn't deserve as much flack as it gets.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

IMO, if you strip away the 8th grade fanfic levels of stupidity and just take a look at the mechanics its honestly an alright game. It's certainly a step above Heroes, a game that it cribs a ton of mechanics from and shares an engine with.

The game is significantly more stable, Shadow is much easier to control than he and his counterparts were in Heroes, the levels don't drag on forever (usually, the objective based ones are pretty crap) and the guns allow you to quickly take down enemies with lots of (I.E more than one) HP which really helps with the pacing. Wall running and jumping is a much more sound and well implemented and there's no real gameplay roulette, which was a sore point among Sonic fans for years.

It's not a fantastic game, it's most certainly not a great game. I don't even think I'd call it good. Maybe just short of average. IMO Shadow the Hedgehog is up there with Dirge of Cerberus as a game I don't really consider good, but doesn't deserve as much flack as it gets.

It was a good game if you exclude the cringe worthy story and ****ty gun control.

 

[finalark]

It was a good game if you exclude the cringe worthy story and ****ty gun control.

Unless its a game with a heavy emphasis on narrative I don't really think story should even be a factor when judging games. Most video game stories are pretty terrible anyway.

Besides, if you enjoy a game but don't like the story you can easy get rid of that little annoyance by hitting the start button during cut scenes.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

The game is significantly more stable, Shadow is much easier to control than he and his counterparts were in Heroes, the levels don't drag on forever (usually, the objective based ones are pretty crap) and the guns allow you to quickly take down enemies with lots of (I.E more than one) HP which really helps with the pacing. Wall running and jumping is a much more sound and well implemented and there's no real gameplay roulette, which was a sore point among Sonic fans for years.

I can agree on the game's overall stability being a grade higher than Heroes and having a quicker pace at times, but I felt as if certain mechanics worked better in Heroes. For example, the Triangle Jump didn't have you shoot off the wall at a downward trajectory like it does in STH(I lost a few lives because of that). Also, it was slow as crap. Not necessarily a problem, but still. And the Spin Dash had NO momentum physics whatsoever, a complete contrast to the Rocket Accel. But other than that, yeah, it functioned pretty well.

There's no gameplay roulette like you said, though it's more like a gameplay mix. Seriously, it's like Sonic Team just mashed Sonic's and Tails' SA2 gameplay together and Shadow was the result. It wasn't terrible, just out of place.

It was a good game if you exclude the cringe worthy story and ****ty gun control.

I think Sonic Team was going through a phase at this point in their history, what with the ever increasing edge and lust for explosions. It has become pretty laughable at this point. Though, if this were another universe.....

Spoiler

F**K IT, GIVE EVERYBODY GUNS!

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

FFIX is the best Final Fantasy. I would be very close to putting X or VII there as well.
Kingdom Hearts is the most stupidly overrated franchise ever.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

Sonic and Sega in a nutshell.
Nintendo: Hey, SEGA! Let us make a Sonic game! We're known for making the best video games in the world and of course, the greatest selling video games in the world. You can totally trust us! SEGA: Nah, we don't trust you.

Sony: Hey, SEGA! Give us a shot to make a Sonic game! We're one of the greatest in the industry and we have made the best games the world has ever seen! SEGA: Nah, we don't trust you.

Microsoft: What do you think, SEGA? We can make amazing games. Just trust us. We can make a good Sonic game. SEGA: Nah, we don't trust you.

Big Red Button: Hi, we are Big Red Button. We don't have any experience whatsoever, we haven't released any games yet, and our presence is really shady. Can we make a Sonic game? We can't make any promises it will be good, though. SEGA: Yeah, we trust you.

 

[Substitution]

Unless its a game with a heavy emphasis on narrative I don't really think story should even be a factor when judging games. Most video game stories are pretty terrible anyway.

Besides, if you enjoy a game but don't like the story you can easy get rid of that little annoyance by hitting the start button during cut scenes.

But it is still a big factor. After all, the plot is what moves along the gameplay nowadays. And while sure quite a few video game stories (especially back in the day) are excuse plots to be a moving force (like "Bowser kidnapped X") or have none at all, but Shadow The Hedgehog is clearly trying to have some sort of a cohesive storyline.

Hell, I could argue that the story is one of the biggest reasons Shadow The Hedgehog is so frequently mocked. Whether it'd be the cursing intertwined in dialogue, the damn forth Chaos Emerald, or even the shadow android. If the story was that inconsequential than we would have never made jokes about them, nor list them as reasons Shadow The Hedgehog is laughable.

And no, it doesn't matter if you can ignore or skip them, a problem is a problem. It'd be like saying: "It's not a bug. It's a feature."

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Honestly, I think that Shadow the Hedgehog was crippled because of Sega pulling itself out of going too far into the "mature Sonic game" idea. The game could have been really good if they'd stuck to it being a mature title instead of trying to get both the mature and child audiences, which ended up with the disaster we got; where the most mature thing anybody says is damn and everybody has green blood.

And really, as slippery and wonky as the controls were in Shadow, I found them decently playable, if tricky to adjust to. Same with Heroes, actually. Black Knight was the game that really made me hate it's controls. I bought the game in 2013, and to this date, I have not finished it. That's how tiring the game's controls are.

Unpopular opinion; I think that Sonic Heroes was a better game than Sonic Adventure 2, because it wasn't bogged down by melodrama and serious buisness storylines.

 

[Ghostly ~]

I think I should put more details of some of the reasons why I really don't like Zelda OoT.

Spoiler

Some of the items like the Ice / Fire arrow and the Stone Tablet are useless and of could of use them better in some of the dungeons (fire should be in the Forest and Water Temple / Ice Cavern and Ice should be in the Fire and Shadow temple. Also the rewards of getting the amounts of golden skulltulas need something better like infinite bombs / arrows, and unlimited magic rather than more rupees and the Stone of Agony.

Hyrule Field feels empty. Aside of Poes and Peahats, trees, and rocks, there really nothing interesting of going there other than doing some side quests and looking for hidden caves. More enemies (in day and night) should be put there and hidden caves should be in the walls rather than floors that I have to waste my bombs blowing up the ground.

The story was very dumb (and may be the reason why the timeline has some alternate routes) thanks to Zelda's plan of how she and Link should stop Ganondorf of taking over the world. By letting Link get the Master Sword in ToT, Ganondorf easily get the Triforce while Link was trapped in time. Also having Bongo Bongo to be awakened because of the Bottom of the Well was pretty stupid for Link to do it. I rather have Zelda telling Link to get the three stones and hide them somewhere while he (Link) need to have the courage of facing Ganondorf because he (Ganon) can terrorize Hyrule while looking the for the three stones. It could be much better than what we had then. Even so, in the end of the game, Ganondorf was dumb enough to let Link enter his castle rather than capture him just like he capture Zelda.

The characters like Adult Malon, Talon, and even Sharp and Flat could of done better if Link met them. Like if Ingo taunt and ask Link for a race for a reward of Epona, then Talon and Malon can cheer Link while both of them (Link and Ingo) are horse racing. And if Link win, then Malon and Talon could say something to Ingo before Link jump to the fence with Epona. Maybe Sharp and Flat could give more back story like a flashback of how they died because of something to do with Ganondorf.

I also forgot about Shiek who despite only appear next to the dungeons and in ToT, she could assist Link of defeating Ganondorf (if she doesn't reveal that she is actually Zelda and before getting captured by Ganon of course). Maybe showcase some of her attacks like the chain, needles and even the Light arrow. Then when Ganon is defeated, Sheik can show Link what she really is in the end of the game.

And finally, there should be more character interactions of Link, Saria, Mido and the Kokiri before the game actually started or during the day to go to the Forest Temple.

 

[finalark]

FFIX is the best Final Fantasy.

Ten years ago I would have agreed. But IX's game play is just too slow a tedious for me these days.

Kingdom Hearts is the most stupidly overrated franchise ever.

Yeah, but they're still fun.

But it is still a big factor. After all, the plot is what moves along the gameplay nowadays.

Unless your playing something like Heavy Rain, I highly disagree.

Hell, I could argue that the story is one of the biggest reasons Shadow The Hedgehog is so frequently mocked. Whether it'd be the cursing intertwined in dialogue, the damn forth Chaos Emerald, or even the shadow android. If the story was that inconsequential than we would have never made jokes about them, nor list them as reasons Shadow The Hedgehog is laughable.

Had the game had no story it probably would have just passed as a forgettable game, that's true.

And no, it doesn't matter if you can ignore or skip them, a problem is a problem. It'd be like saying: "It's not a bug. It's a feature."

A game having a bad story isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the story. A game can have a garbage narrative and still be a fantastic game. The Fire Emblem series is a testament to this, same goes for the Castlevania RPGs or even Resident Evil. Saying a game is bad because the story is bad is like saying a book is bad because it had unappealing cover art.

Unpopular opinion; I think that Sonic Heroes was a better game than Sonic Adventure 2, because it wasn't bogged down by melodrama and serious buisness storylines.

Here's my reasons for disagreeing with this:

Does having a less stupid story fix Heroes' broken engine?
Does having a less stupid stupid story fix Heroes' speed-up-slow-down pacing issues?
Does having a less stupid stupid story fix Heroes' slippery controls?
Does having a less stupid stupid story prevent you from having to play through the same game four times to get last story?

I don't see how narrative makes Heroes a better game than SA2. Yes, a better story, but not a better game.

 

[FamilyTeam]

There are a few games that rely a lot on story. The first one I think of is Spec Ops: The Line. GTA4 also banks a lot on the story but not to the same extent that some other story-heavy games do.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

Okay the main issue with Sega and Sonic is they get an idea and they don't stick with it. The amount of reboots the series has undergone since Sonic 06 is ridiculous.

Absolute ton of spin offs too and none of them any good. (3 SONIC RIDERS GAMES WHY!?!?!?!) He's gone from a broken and buggy game based around saving some out of place anime character. To onrails with awful motion controls. To being a werewolf (de-listed after 2 years). To being a knight. To some game with weird ghosts in it (Sonic Colours is massively overpraised).

Then to finding a brilliant game with Sonic Generations but noooo let's move on to Sonic Lost World which I admit if they put some effort into and made a series into it would have been good and they could have solved issues. Then we come to Sonic Boom which I am not going over again. PICK AN IDEA AND STICK WITH IT! I find it pretty hard to believe Sonic still well exists to this day.

 

[Substitution]

A game having a bad story isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with the story. A game can have a garbage narrative and still be a fantastic game. The Fire Emblem series is a testament to this, same goes for the Castlevania RPGs or even Resident Evil. Saying a game is bad because the story is bad is like saying a book is bad because it had unappealing cover art.

But I am not arguing Resident Evil nor Castlevania. In fact, I agree that the story doesn't kill the game. Like I highly doubt people play Street Fighter for the story. But I'm not arguing it overall, I'm arguing about Shadow The Hedgehog's plot being a dump and a reason it should be fixed.

And it is clear that in SoH that there is a flowing narrative along with an attempt at moral ambiguity. The plot wasn't just something you could tune out, as it moved the gameplay along. Both went hand in hand to tell an experience.

Also, your analogy confuses me. I get you're trying to say "story is inconsequential", but using a cover art as the metaphor makes just as much sense as if I said a movie poster killed the experience of a movie: Both have nothing to do with each other, and are built on different ideals.

And yes story does have an importance (at least more than cover art of all things). Even something as simple as level progression is like telling a little story. You need to make sure all the pieces fit, or otherwise you'll end up with a confusing mess.

Personally I would've used something like the artstyle of a game or the music of a game killing the experience. That would've been a tad stronger.

 

[finalark]

But I am not arguing Resident Evil nor Castlevania. In fact, I agree that the story doesn't kill the game. Like I highly doubt people play Street Fighter for the story. But I'm not arguing it overall, I'm arguing about Shadow The Hedgehog's plot being a dump and a reason it should be fixed.

And it is clear that in SoH that there is a flowing narrative along with an attempt at moral ambiguity. The plot wasn't just something you could tune out, as it moved the gameplay along. Both went hand in hand to tell an experience.

Also, your analogy confuses me. I get you're trying to say "story is inconsequential", but using a cover art as the metaphor makes just as much sense as if I said a movie poster killed the experience of a movie: Both have nothing to do with each other, and are built on different ideals.

Alright, I see what your saying. I still feel like you can skip STH's story and it would be better for it, but you are right. They did put effort into trying to make it a genuinely dark and ambiguous story but failed horribly due to piss poor writing

Yeah, book cover is a bad metaphor. I should have taken more time to think that one out.

And yes story does have an importance (at least more than cover art of all things). Even something as simple as level progression is like telling a little story. You need to make sure all the pieces fit, or otherwise you'll end up with a confusing mess.

I get what you're saying, and I kinda agree. Although in the context of progression and I'd use the word "cohesion" instead of "story."

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Sonic and Sega in a nutshell.
Nintendo: Hey, SEGA! Let us make a Sonic game! We're known for making the best video games in the world and of course, the greatest selling video games in the world. You can totally trust us! SEGA: Nah, we don't trust you.

Sony: Hey, SEGA! Give us a shot to make a Sonic game! We're one of the greatest in the industry and we have made the best games the world has ever seen! SEGA: Nah, we don't trust you.

Microsoft: What do you think, SEGA? We can make amazing games. Just trust us. We can make a good Sonic game. SEGA: Nah, we don't trust you.

Big Red Button: Hi, we are Big Red Button. We don't have any experience whatsoever, we haven't released any games yet, and our presence is really shady. Can we make a Sonic game? We can't make any promises it will be good, though. SEGA: Yeah, we trust you.

It would be hilarious if this actually happened.

Okay the main issue with Sega and Sonic is they get an idea and they don't stick with it. The amount of reboots the series has undergone since Sonic 06 is ridiculous.

They had the right idea for the first 3 games and it worked just fine, I don't think they had any real reason to migrate away from it. A lot of the big players back in the day maintained their methods and they turned out just fine, more or less. I can understand the desire to go bigger and better, but it shouldn't come at the cost of what made a developer so great in the first place. I think SEGA is just forgetting about these moments in their history, and you know that old saying about history.

Absolute ton of spin offs too and none of them any good. (3 SONIC RIDERS GAMES WHY!?!?!?!) He's gone from a broken and buggy game based around saving some out of place anime character. To onrails with awful motion controls. To being a werewolf (de-listed after 2 years). To being a knight. To some game with weird ghosts in it (Sonic Colours is massively overpraised).

I think Riders was a reasonable attempt(arguably one of SEGA's best at least to me)at a spin-off series, particularly ZG. Though I'm not sure why there was an exclusive Riders on X360 which required the use of a control scheme that apparently nobody wanted. Other than that, yeah, he's had some odd moments to say the least.

 

[finalark]

They had the right idea for the first 3 games and it worked just fine, I don't think they had any real reason to migrate away from it. A lot of the big players back in the day maintained their methods and they turned out just fine, more or less. I can understand the desire to go bigger and better, but it shouldn't come at the cost of what made a developer so great in the first place. I think SEGA is just forgetting about these moments in their history, and you know that old saying about history.

To be fair, the reason why Sonic went 3D in his fourth (or fifth, if you count CD) adventure (ba-dum *tish*) is because there was a ton of pressure at the time to make games 3D. Everyone else had made the jump, so everyone was eargly waiting to see Sonic in the glorious, glorious third dimension. Sega really had no choice but to migrate away from the style of the first three games, lest Adventure be bashed for being "dated."

Believe it or not, this is what happened to Street Fighter III back in the day.

Not to mention that 2D throw-backs to old school platformers didn't become acceptable among the gaming community until the late 2000s.

 

[Kurri ★]

It was a good game if you exclude the cringe worthy story and ****ty gun control.

****ty? The gun control was the best part

 

[Substitution]

On a non-Sonic related note...

I like F.A.N.G. I know some are a bit negative about him, but I think he fits right in. Plus I am interested to see how they implement the poison mechanic.