What are your unpopular gaming opinions?

[Ocarina Stealer]

Okay


No problem

Pointless replies are pointless.

 

[Raccoon Chuck]

Sad, really. Now here's another impopular opinion! The Nintendo NX ain't looking very attractive, to me.

I really can't see Nintendo making a 360-roundabout with the NX as things are. Each year they lose money, the more desperate I feel the NX will seem. Also; if it does succeed I still can't see much of a reason to actually buy a new Nintendo console until they've released a good deal of the traditional 1st party exclusives (and hopefully something compellingly interesting). I'll probably be hopping onto the PC bandwagon for everything besides Smash/Xenoblade/Zelda. :/

Edit: Also, they've really got to get their **** together when it comes to 3rd party offerings. Those are the literal lifeblood of a console when it comes to sustaining consumer-based income en-mass, and they've gotten nothing but table scraps (and they pursue nothing more). Hopefully with this new CEO situation they can catch up with the times. They seem to confuse "doing something different" with "fishing for past successes like the 3DS/DS in the console market without the same 3rd party support and vastly inferior technologies that hamper both the systems lifespan and the potential for any 3rd party who actually wants to donate to the library to optimize games for multi-platform release".

Another Edit: I don't think that opinion is unpopular within the realm of sanity. We don't even know the actual specs for the thing, and nintendo's situation hasn't helped with my predictions no-doubt.

Yet Another Edit: Paper Jam looks fun. I might play that this next year.

 

[MordhauDerk]

I think Little Mac is top 15. lol
Non Smash related. I thought DMC: Devil May Cry was pretty awesome. And I didn't much care for FF:VII, I thought the battle system was boring. I like Banjo Kazooie 1 more than 2( I'm not sure if that's unpopular or not).

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Kurri ★ being an idiot. That's what happened.

That might be a stretch. Looking back, I'd say at the very most Kurri ★ just overreacted a bit, which we all do at some point or another for whatever reason. And then people started jumping on that. On another note, can opinions really be wrong? I mean, if you like or dislike something for a particular reason does that really make you wrong?

Anyway, this discussion might garner attention so I won't delve any deeper.

Downloading patches wasn't really a thing in the past. If a developer wanted to make an update to a game they had to make an entirely new version. That and it makes more money. Thankfully there's only ever going to be one version of Street Fighter V. With the power of patches and DLC they don't have to resort to making new versions.

Wow. That's quite an unorthodox way of doing things. What if more developers had done that?

 

[Kurri ★]

That might be a stretch. Looking back, I'd say at the very most Kurri ★ just overreacted a bit, which we all do at some point or another for whatever reason. And then people started jumping on that. On another note, can opinions really be wrong? I mean, if you like or dislike something for a particular reason does that really make you wrong?

Anyway, this discussion might garner attention so I won't delve any deeper.


Wow. That's quite an unorthodox way of doing things. What if more developers had done that?

Doesn't feel too strange to me. If a game needs to be patched or have things added to it there really wasn't any way other than releasing a new version. It's not like the differences between vanilla Street Fighter III, SFIII Second Impact, and Third Strike are small.

Vanilla started with 10 characters (Yun and Yang were the same character originally); Second Impact bumped that up to 14 (Adding 3 new characters and splitting Yun and Yang) along with changes to existing characters and adding new mechanics; Third Strike bumped the character count to 19 with further changes to existing characters and more new mechanics.

 

[atreyujames]

So honestly I don't have the energy to read through all 44 pages of this thread. so apologies if some of these were already said.

Midna was a horrible character and in general I find the non cartoon style LoZ games to be kinda tedious (that includes MM)

Sandbox style games like Minecraft/Gary's Mod/etc. Are honestly just horrible games that feel like the developer was too lazy to do anything so he just gave you the tools to do everything yourself. BORING

On the same line, Mario Maker is a level editor and I wouldn't even pay half price for it

I like Third Person Shooters way more than First Person. I can't stand seeing nothing but the gun and arm's of the main protagonist

The Mother series is just plain boring.

Great gameplay sometimes just doesn't make up for cruddy graphics. I don't even care if the game is 10-15 years old. If it doesn't look good then I will like it less and less. I'm looking at you GTA: san Andreas, Pokemon Gen 1 and 2, Pretty much everything good on the N64, etc

 

[finalark]

I like Third Person Shooters way more than First Person. I can't stand seeing nothing but the gun and arm's of the main protagonist

I generally agree. My friends and coworkers recently got me into Destiny and while its a fantastic game I really feel like it should be third person. Being an MMO, it's a game about getting better gear to look cooler and fight bigger monster. Unfortunately, since Bungie decided the game should first person instead of third you get very few chances to admire how awesome your gear looks.

 

[Kurri ★]

Sandbox style games like Minecraft/Gary's Mod/etc. Are honestly just horrible games that feel like the developer was too lazy to do anything so he just gave you the tools to do everything yourself. BORING

That's pretty much the point of a sandbox game, dropping the player into a world to do as they please. I guess some people don't like that cause they'd rather more structure to their experience but for others having the freedom to do as they please is the entire draw to the genre. There's no goal outside of what the themselves wish to do.

I like Third Person Shooters way more than First Person. I can't stand seeing nothing but the gun and arm's of the main protagonist

As someone who enjoys both, first person shooters are just a lot more immersive. When I played the Star Wars Battlefront Beta I would swap back and forth between the two views all the time. First person made me feel like I was actually there, while third person gave me a much wider FOV and situational awareness.

Great gameplay sometimes just doesn't make up for cruddy graphics. I don't even care if the game is 10-15 years old. If it doesn't look good then I will like it less and less. I'm looking at you GTA: san Andreas, Pokemon Gen 1 and 2, Pretty much everything good on the N64, etc

I don't want to agree, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't turned off by some games due to graphics and/or artstyle (there's a difference).

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Great gameplay sometimes just doesn't make up for cruddy graphics. I don't even care if the game is 10-15 years old. If it doesn't look good then I will like it less and less. I'm looking at you GTA: san Andreas, Pokemon Gen 1 and 2, Pretty much everything good on the N64, etc

I'm kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've always preferred good gameplay over good graphics(though art direction can be factored into what constitutes graphics, good, bad or otherwise)though more specifically, I'm willing to forgive less-than-stellar graphics if the gameplay clicks with me. A game can look technically impressive, but the art direction can go a long way in terms of visual appeal. Of course, that doesn't mean much to me if gameplay leaves much to be desired.

 

[atreyujames]

I'm kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've always preferred good gameplay over good graphics(though art direction can be factored into what constitutes graphics, good, bad or otherwise)though more specifically, I'm willing to forgive less-than-stellar graphics if the gameplay clicks with me. A game can look technically impressive, but the art direction can go a long way in terms of visual appeal. Of course, that doesn't mean much to me if gameplay leaves much to be desired.

I guess I could've worded that better. Great graphics and aesthetics don't make or break a game for me. I just meant that it might lower my enjoyment of said game. I said Pokemon Gens 1 & 2 which are perfect examples. While they aren't my favourite pokemon games, I still think they aren't bad games and I did enjoy playing them... While, I enjoyed playing Gen 1. Gen 2 is actually my least favourite out of all of them.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Gen 2 is actually my least favourite out of all of them.

Gen 2 happens to be my all time favorite of the Pokemon games. I think it just had a lot going for it, like the kinds of Pokemon I enjoy using to this day.

 

[Sari]

I probably said this before, but I think To The Moon is incredibly overrated. An interesting idea ruined by weird plot choices and annoying characters.

 

[FamilyTeam]

I just came back from a Super Mario Bros. 3 Longplay. I gave up mid World 7, I just couldn't take it anymore.
Let's keep it real, people, it's not that great of a game, anymore. It's kind of weird that the SMAS version of all the 4 NES titles are just straight ports with better graphics, since they keep the same, honestly very outdated gameplay the NES titles had instead of the far smoother SMW physics.
Other than the gameplay, the game itself frankly hasn't aged well. The level design in some of the levels is insulting. The longest levels in this game feel like they're not even 16 screens long, and for reference: Super Mario World's Yoshi Island 1, the first bloody level, is 18 screens long, though they feel long because there is a surprising amount of autoscrolling levels, and a very large portion of the later levels are very pipe-centric. But it makes the game feel padded: not long. There are still plenty of levels in this game in all worlds that are just "Jump these pits and dodge these 10 enemies and then you win, now move on, we know you're sick of this".
And the levels themselves are sometimes quite obnoxious. Due to the way the camera is, I found myself taking plenty of leaps of faith throughout the later levels. The enemies are sometimes placed in somewhat annoying spots, jumping on noteblocks is a pain, the Star is underpowered (probably because the game gives you so bloody many of them), some of the levels in World 7 go ham with the invisible blocks, the bosses are essentially all the same, all of the autoscrollers take too long since they're slow and they're pretty easy (which makes it even more annoying if you die)... I dunno, I feel like this game kind of has no place, nowadays.
Basically, my unpopular opinion is that SMB3 isn't good. Atleast not anymore.

 

[TheDarkKnightNoivern]

Gen 2 happens to be my all time favorite of the Pokemon games. I think it just had a lot going for it, like the kinds of Pokemon I enjoy using to this day.

Really? I think gen 2 has by far the worst set of Pokemon, Gen 5 was somewhat questionable but at least they're less bland than 2, 3 and 4 are much better imo too. Gen 6 has the best set though, quality will always beat out quantity

 

[atreyujames]

Really? I think gen 2 has by far the worst set of Pokemon, Gen 5 was somewhat questionable but at least they're less bland than 2, 3 and 4 are much better imo too. Gen 6 has the best set though, quality will always beat out quantity

Finally. Some one else who thinks Gen 2 is the worst. You actually basically just described my order from best to worst
3>6>4>1>5>2

 

[finalark]

In terms on mon design, my personal ranking is:

X/Y tied with GSC: I like nearly every new mon from these gens, I'd have to really stretch to find ones I don't

RSE: I'm pretty indifferent towards most of the mons from this gen, although it does have a few I really like

RBY: Again, I'm most indifferent but in hindsight most of the originals are really bland and uninteresting

BW: Really hit and miss, with more misses than hits

DPPt: Most mons from this gen are over designed and ugly IMO

 

[FamilyTeam]

It's been a long while since I cared about Pokemon... but if I were to say my opinion on the Pokemon designs, I think I'd say IV-II-I-VI-III-V.
Also, I don't remember very well, but I think my list of favourite Generation didn't go that much different, I think it was II-IV-I-VI-III-V.

 

[TheDarkKnightNoivern]

I'm gonna go with
Gen 6 - Almost all of them are very well designed and feel fresh and mostly unqiue from other Pokemon, very, very few exceptions. These include all the starters and legendaries, talonflame, pangoro, florges, meowstic, goodra and aegislash among others.

Gen 3 - Tons of great mons however there are a few misses here and there. The good includes all the starters, rayquaza, deoxys, metagross, salamence, gardevoir and breloom. The bad are stuff like wurmple, nosepass, those 2 bug things that look the same, pikachu clones among others.

Gen 1 - Many feel a little simple however many of the designs are still nice and memorable. The obvious answers are the starters, mewtwo, jigglypuff, arcanine, ninetales, and alakazam who are all very memorable but then you have stuff like Muk or Seel and geodude.

Gen 4 - Although it's my favourite gen, many of it's pokemon weren't that great however it had a lot of my favourite pokemon like Garchomp, Gallade, Lucario, Darkrai, Shaymin and others.

Gen 5 - A lot of promising and original concepts however the excecution of some of them leaves a little to be desired such as coffagrigus, beheyem, garbodour etc

Gen 2 - A lot are very bland and simple but not memorable in the way gen 1 was, the only pokemon I can remember from this game as Ho-oh, Lugia, Suicune and by association the other 2 dogs (only because of the cover), oh and scizor.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I think people are too picky when it comes to video games and that a game being "okay" isn't a bad thing.

So, there are less bad games than we'd like to believe.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Really? I think gen 2 has by far the worst set of Pokemon, Gen 5 was somewhat questionable but at least they're less bland than 2, 3 and 4 are much better imo too. Gen 6 has the best set though, quality will always beat out quantity

I don't know, Gen VI had quite a bit of Pokemon that seemed pretty forgettable, at least to me(seriously, I can barely remember any of them save for the starters, Sylveon, and some of the legendaries). Same goes for Gen III, a lot of them just didn't appeal to me. Gens I and V were more or less middle of the road. II and IV are easily the cream of the crop for me, with II being the top and IV a close second.

 

[Ocarina Stealer]

Gen 1 is the worst.

 

[Arcturian]

Speaking of Pokemon:

I actually like Vanilluxe.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Speaking of Pokemon:

I actually like Vanilluxe.

It kinda weirds me out, personally.

 

[Kasran]

All you guys hating on gen 2 and saying it has no memorable Pokémon, while I'm just looking at my avatar and signature and shaking my head... ;-;

 

[Denjinpachi]

Opinion: Smash 4 will last half as long as brawl, and maybe a fourth as along as melee did, due to the way that the game functions combo, grab, and move wise. In comparison to other titles you can have vastly different results due to character weights, DI, and thing like that. These traits are still present in smash 4, but they are all basically pointless. The better characters in the game, sheik being the best example, are considered so due to their large arrangement of fast, far reaching, and auto cancelling moves. These are bolstered in combination with their near guaranteed follow ups on one or more throws. And if there is no Immediate follow up for a combo, they are set ups for delayed follow ups, or punish opportunities. This wouldn't be nearly as bad if the games edge guarding wasn't based on either relying on a ridiculously strict timing window to punish a snap to the ledge, "ledge trumping," or having to risk and entire stock by going off stage to try to finish it. Yes, people take the same risk in Melee, Brawl and PM respectively, but the snap magnets are way too generous, and the games can either last too long, or they feel way too short. Now, that of course is dependent on match ups, and I am referring to mid to low level play. Not the Top level (Zero, Anti, Nairo, etc) play that ive observed. Comparing an ordinary player in a general tournament set to the top level is not what im doing. Top level anything is more interesting, and faster paced that mid to low level anything. So, if you are assuming I meant the best always play like how I dislike, please understand that's not what im getting at. Everyone cant be, or play like the best. There are more players like you and I (assuming you aren't a "top" player in your game/region) than there are top players. And because of that, those players will always be the best, rotate, or have a select few come in to replace or cycle them out. Happens all the time. But standard level competition on Smash 4 is relatively boring, and tedious to watch for long periods of time. Getting back to my original point of how long itll last, im saying that you should look at how the game's lifespan has already been. We've gone through the use of standard characters, then utilized customs to "push forward" or "develop" a meta only a few months after the game was out. People complained, and couldn't agree on what should've stuck. This is like melee's "item/any stage" rules back in its early stages. Smash 4 has already rushed through its crazy developmental stage within its time of release up until now. Now the game has already been fleshed out to a point where people are relying on patches, and DLC to "keep the game fresh." If the game was as fun and as worth mentioning as a competitive entity, wouldn't you want to study it where it's at, and give it time to sit, and grow like the games before it? No. A majority of opinions ive gathered with that question disagreed with that notion. So, I believe this game will serve its purpose of selling to the general Nintendo fan, sell to the true die hard competitors its developed, and also be a good cash grab for the brawl vets that have moved to the top of its scene. But I don't see it reviving after it dies or nearly dies. Not on the scale melee, or even brawl are at this point. Not for a near 50,000 dollar prize pool national tournament.

 

[Kenith]

In terms on mon design, my personal ranking is:

X/Y tied with GSC: I like nearly every new mon from these gens, I'd have to really stretch to find ones I don't

RSE: I'm pretty indifferent towards most of the mons from this gen, although it does have a few I really like

RBY: Again, I'm most indifferent but in hindsight most of the originals are really bland and uninteresting

BW: Really hit and miss, with more misses than hits

DPPt: Most mons from this gen are over designed and ugly IMO

Hm...Personally...

X/Y: They went for quality over quantity, and it shows. X/Y new Pokemon are almost entirely great
GSC: very similar to Gen 1 but has a lot of less ugly/boring Pokemon
R/S/E: Some dumb designs, but most of them are memorable
D/P: Lucario, Weavile, Magnezone, Floatzel, and Luxray are some of my favorite Pokes, but indifferent otherwise
Gen 1: I like most of the popular ones, but yeah there's a lot of really boring Pokes
BW: Some good Pokemon, but far too many WTF ugly and stupid additions

Midna was a horrible character

This hurts me in many, deep, psychological ways

 

[finalark]

Midna was a horrible character and in general I find the non cartoon style LoZ games to be kinda tedious (that includes MM)

Putting the entire game on hold so you could go grind money and derp around the world trying to find charts wasn't horribly tedious and stupid to you?

 

[Kenith]

Putting the entire game on hold so you could go grind money and derp around the world trying to find charts wasn't horribly tedious and stupid to you?

Or running through the same dungeon multiple times
Or escort missions on a slow train surrounded by evil trains that one-shot kill you on contact
And if Skyward Sword is considered cartoony...well...yeah...

 

[Denjinpachi]

I would personally like to see how the development on the whole "Zelda wii u" game is coming. was it cancelled? anything new come from it? Whats all this I hear about a "Linkle?"

 

[Kenith]

I would personally like to see how the development on the whole "Zelda wii u" game is coming. was it cancelled? anything new come from it? Whats all this I hear about a "Linkle?"

It's still coming to Wii U and Linkle has no confirmed involvement with it. She was added to Hyrule Warriors 3DS due to demand.
But um...no, we haven't gotten anything new about it. Lol.

 

[Kurri ★]

Opinion: Smash 4 will last half as long as brawl, and maybe a fourth as along as melee did, due to the way that the game functions combo, grab, and move wise. In comparison to other titles you can have vastly different results due to character weights, DI, and thing like that. These traits are still present in smash 4, but they are all basically pointless. The better characters in the game, sheik being the best example, are considered so due to their large arrangement of fast, far reaching, and auto cancelling moves. These are bolstered in combination with their near guaranteed follow ups on one or more throws. And if there is no Immediate follow up for a combo, they are set ups for delayed follow ups, or punish opportunities. This wouldn't be nearly as bad if the games edge guarding wasn't based on either relying on a ridiculously strict timing window to punish a snap to the ledge, "ledge trumping," or having to risk and entire stock by going off stage to try to finish it. Yes, people take the same risk in Melee, Brawl and PM respectively, but the snap magnets are way too generous, and the games can either last too long, or they feel way too short. Now, that of course is dependent on match ups, and I am referring to mid to low level play. Not the Top level (Zero, Anti, Nairo, etc) play that ive observed. Comparing an ordinary player in a general tournament set to the top level is not what im doing. Top level anything is more interesting, and faster paced that mid to low level anything. So, if you are assuming I meant the best always play like how I dislike, please understand that's not what im getting at. Everyone cant be, or play like the best. There are more players like you and I (assuming you aren't a "top" player in your game/region) than there are top players. And because of that, those players will always be the best, rotate, or have a select few come in to replace or cycle them out. Happens all the time. But standard level competition on Smash 4 is relatively boring, and tedious to watch for long periods of time. Getting back to my original point of how long itll last, im saying that you should look at how the game's lifespan has already been. We've gone through the use of standard characters, then utilized customs to "push forward" or "develop" a meta only a few months after the game was out. People complained, and couldn't agree on what should've stuck. This is like melee's "item/any stage" rules back in its early stages. Smash 4 has already rushed through its crazy developmental stage within its time of release up until now. Now the game has already been fleshed out to a point where people are relying on patches, and DLC to "keep the game fresh." If the game was as fun and as worth mentioning as a competitive entity, wouldn't you want to study it where it's at, and give it time to sit, and grow like the games before it? No. A majority of opinions ive gathered with that question disagreed with that notion. So, I believe this game will serve its purpose of selling to the general Nintendo fan, sell to the true die hard competitors its developed, and also be a good cash grab for the brawl vets that have moved to the top of its scene. But I don't see it reviving after it dies or nearly dies. Not on the scale melee, or even brawl are at this point. Not for a near 50,000 dollar prize pool national tournament.

Reading one big block of text is hard.

But I see something about patches/DLC and keeping the game fresh. Just because a game receives patches and DLC doesn't mean the game isn't fun. You can't look at StarCraft II and say the only reason people liked it was because of the expansions. Rather the expansions are what added to the joy.

I know there was other stuff you brought up, but again, big blocks of text aren't easy to read.

 

[Denjinpachi]

Reading one big block of text is hard.

But I see something about patches/DLC and keeping the game fresh. Just because a game receives patches and DLC doesn't mean the game isn't fun. You can't look at StarCraft II and say the only reason people liked it was because of the expansions. Rather the expansions are what added to the joy.

I know there was other stuff you brought up, but again, big blocks of text aren't easy to read.

Understood TLDR: Patches aren't bad, but the game won't last due to its design. I also believe that the community has become dependent on the patches to push the game forward. Also mentioned in game functions. I also recommended for whomever read my opinion to omit the thought that I was referring to top level play for comparison to how standard, or general competitive play goes on a regular basis. Finally, game won't revive because its advancing through its lifespan too fast in my opinion.

Edit: I also don't think its a bad game. but just because it can be enjoyable casually, I don't agree with it being pursued in a competitive fashion for very long. And I mean, as a tournament game. Smash brothers will always be competitive, I love to beat my friends.

 

[Denjinpachi]

It's still coming to Wii U and Linkle has no confirmed involvement with it. She was added to Hyrule Warriors 3DS due to demand.
But um...no, we haven't gotten anything new about it. Lol.

would it be pretty safe to guess that she would appear in a 3DS specific title for her first game? I wouldn't be surprised at all if she ended up in "Zelda Wii u" or whatever the title is.

 

[Kurri ★]

Understood TLDR: Patches aren't bad, but the game won't last due to its design. I also believe that the community has become dependent on the patches to push the game forward. Also mentioned in game functions. I also recommended for whomever read my opinion to omit the thought that I was referring to top level play for comparison to how standard, or general competitive play goes on a regular basis. Finally, game won't revive because its advancing through its lifespan too fast in my opinion.

I will admit, that maybe the community has become dependent on patches, but I'm not sure if the end of patches is an indicator of a dying game. Marvel Vs Capcom 3 survived for a few years without patches, and even when you literally cannot download patches anymore (because Disney revoked the license) the community is still strong, although obviously weakened. I feel the real blow to Marvel is removing the ability to patch rather than lack of patches.

 

[Denjinpachi]

I will admit, that maybe the community has become dependent on patches, but I'm not sure if the end of patches is an indicator of a dying game. Marvel Vs Capcom 3 survived for a few years without patches, and even when you literally cannot download patches anymore (because Disney revoked the license) the community is still strong, although obviously weakened. I feel the real blow to Marvel is removing the ability to patch rather than lack of patches.

I agree that the lack of patches won't be the end of the game, but I think it will act as like a slight or noticeable catalyst to its decline. I can see how saying it dying is a little harsh, but I definitely think its decline will be steep as far as attendance in the future will be concerned. Kinda like how marvel is now. Strong in parts, but relatively weak in the spread of the country (referring to the US.) In that I mean strong representation in the pro play like east coast, west coast, the south, etc. But kinda weak in between, and elsewhere.

 

[Kurri ★]

I agree that the lack of patches won't be the end of the game, but I think it will act as like a slight or noticeable catalyst to its decline. I can see how saying it dying is a little harsh, but I definitely think its decline will be steep as far as attendance in the future will be concerned. Kinda like how marvel is now. Strong in parts, but relatively weak in the spread of the country (referring to the US.) In that I mean strong representation in the pro play like east coast, west coast, the south, etc. But kinda weak in between, and elsewhere.

Isn't that most games though?

 

[Denjinpachi]

Isn't that most games though?

True to a point I'd say. But it depends on if you mean like specific installments like Melee in comparison to Smash 4. Or comparing Smash brothers as a series to Marvel vs. Capcom. Cause in that case every game is hugely represented in the east coast/west coast with a few specific selections im sure I don't really know to recognize off the top of my head. Because if that were true, then any game that wasn't patched should theoretically be dead. In my personal opinion my foresight on the games decline is just based on how I've noticed the lack of interest, mentions of uninterested purchase of content, and lowering numbers ive seen. But, it may be an opinion that im giving due to people having to focus on school again, which i'll admit is kinda unfair. But I think the jist of my opinion is still the same on the game competitively.

 

[Malkasaur]

Twilight Princess is the worst Zelda game. It's story and characters are forgettable, the art style is godawful (I've gotten headaches playing the game because of how bad it looks). Also, one of the most useful items, the horse call, isn't available until near the end of the game. Also, **** Ilia, she's the worst.

 

[Denjinpachi]

Final Fantasy 7 is overrated. It has iconic characters, and a few notable turning points in the story that were kind of blown out of proportion in comparison to how impactful they really were as far as how much hype its received. It's fun, and definitely worth playing, but its not as amazing as a lot of the die hards lead on to be. Theres a lot of wasted time due to cutscenes, (some are more enjoyable than others) dialogue, and the random encounters lead to a lot of time dedicated to either choosing to waste time farming an enemy not worth the time, or running away from a fight. This is kinda typical of Final Fantasy games, and I don't sting it for having that in general, but that's what the game is overall. If I wanted a more menu, dialogue, and cut scene based game, I'd just play Tactics (war of the lions included) I like 7. I just wasn't wowed by it like how I was lead to believe I would be by the reviews, and opinions I got from other players.

 

[finalark]

Final Fantasy 7 is overrated.

I hear the sky is blue too.