Gaming Unpopular opinion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

We've already lost the lootbox war and there is nothing we can do about it.

Kerg3927:

B-Cell:
90% of open world games are trash

I agree.

Id like to hear the argument why they are consider trash.

Phoenixmgs:

1) The new Tomb Raiders are at best fun romps (I did enjoy playing them more than the last 2 Uncharteds) but I can't rate them anymore than a 6/10 or maybe a 7 on a really good day as I feel they are only slightly above average (5/10). The gameplay is really just bog standard TPS gameplay, even Watch Dogs lets you have more fun. The setpieces are always just running away from stuff instead of integrating all the gameplay onto a moving environment like when Uncharted is at its best. The platforming is better than Uncharted but barely better and the puzzle solving is OK at best. Tomb Raider should be a puzzle-platformer but those don't sell so they just copied Uncharted basically. The story is pretty bad overall and the worse part is that it takes itself too seriously whereas if it had been on the level of a B-movie with fun camp and cheese, the story and characters would've been so much more enjoyable. The worst Uncharted with regards to story is UC3 because 1) it's completely nonsensical and 2) tries to actually be serious that totally doesn't fit with the gameplay while failing horribly at being serious to boot. Tomb Raider tries to have that level of seriousness (especially the 1st one) but it doesn't mesh with the gameplay plus just plain being horribly written and executed if just taken on its own and divorced from the gameplay. Overall, I do like new Lara decently enough though.

3) GTA along with all of Rockstar's games are pretty bad IMO. I'm going to put this out right away, Rockstar has never understood how to make an open world game. Even back when they sorta invented them, they only seemed good because they were the only ones basically and we didn't know what a good open world game was then. The very first Mercenaries game (from the same gen as GTA3) showed me what an open world game is supposed to be like and basically ruined Rockstar's games for me. An open world game should have missions that are based on using the world and the tools provided to complete missions in a variety of ways. Many of the missions in Mercenaries are more akin to solving a puzzle as you're trying to figure out how to complete a mission in a way that doesn't alert the enemy/faction that you did it. So the whole world/building destruction wasn't just there to see shit blow up like a Michael Bay movie but properly using airstrikes was also strategic in nature with the added bonus of seeing shit blow up. Whereas Rockstar's games are just almost always just go to Point-B and kill a bunch of spawned enemies with average at best shooting. What's the point of it even being open world if you could just do the vast majority of the game's missions with linear levels? At least the level design would most likely be better along with more care being taken with regards to enemy placements too making for better shootouts. Lastly, Dan Houser is probably the biggest hack writer in all of video gaming (which is saying a lot considering how bad writing in gaming is) and I just can't stand anything that he's written after Vice City.

5) Witcher 3 for me fails at being a GAME because there's literally nothing fun or enjoyable about PLAYING the game. Even just walking Geralt around town is horrible, CDPR even patched in an "alternate" movement option because of how bad character movement is. The combat is horrid and also pointless because CDPR gave Geralt game-breaking abilities that allow you to fight literally any creature no matter your level, no matter the difficulty and defeat them without taking a scratch. No GM in a pen and paper RPG would let a player have a skill like Quen or Axii. The combat is also a weird mesh of Arkham and Souls combat that just doesn't feel good at all. And the combat is also designed for humanoid combat when the monster fights should be the highlights of the game (witchers are MONSTER hunters after all) but they fall horribly flat due to the combat system not being designed for such fights. Sure the writing and the questing are good, sometimes very good, but that doesn't discount the gameplay being crap. The majority of my time spent playing Witcher 3 was not enjoyable so how can I rate the game as even being average. Witcher 3 would've been a far better game if it was just an adventure game like akin to a Telltale game or a David Cage game or Until Dawn/Life is Strange/etc. Basically any game should just give me the good stuff instead making me trudge through the shit to get to the good and if a dev can't do gameplay like CDPR or Telltale, then just give the story/characters/choices/etc parts then.

9) How did Dark Souls invent a genre when they are just dungeon crawlers with average combat? The whole death mechanic is just a twist on a rogue-like where you restart at the nearest checkpoint (that are spread decently apart) instead of starting the game over again. I will give the Souls games mad props for level design and atmosphere. However, the gameplay is based on average combat that has caused action combat games to devolve much like what happened to the FPS genre because of COD4. Action combat games used to require mastery of advanced mechanics along with requiring amazing timing to "git gud" at. But, now dodging slow ass enemies is considered hard just because the player has less health and dies in a few hits. All that you as a player have to be is careful, anyone can do that. I'd love for a Souls game to be basically a survival horror environmental puzzle game. Take out 90% of the enemies so an enemy around the next corner is actually surprising instead of just being par for the course, make getting through dungeons much much more about defeating the environment via traps and puzzles, and keep the boss battles of course.

And yes, the Metro games so far have been nothing special and I'm not holding my breath on this new one either because until a dev makes a great game, I really can't be excited about whatever upcoming game they are working on. It's pretty bad when you can find reviews that compare a game's "scripted-ness" to being like Disneyland.

Thank you sir. This is fun :)

1. The point of my counter's to B-Cell's nonsense, isn't really to lock in stone how good a game is. B-Cell said Tomb Raider and the sequel are the worse games ever. Which is just not true. Even you yourself give them 6/10 which is a good game imo. You might not agree with me that they were stellar experiences (obviously) but you don't deny that they are decently good games one their own. So sure you don't enjoy them as much as me, but we agree that they are certainly not as bad as B-Cell suggests.

3. I disagree entirely. GTA games are good games. The open world genre might be a bit oversaturated at this point, but GTA and Rockstar put together incredible huge games that for the most part work. They make bigger games than anything Bethesda does, with far less bugs. The moment to moment gameplay might not be the best thing since sliced bread, but everything they include does work and that's really all that can be asked for. The original point made was they were the most overrated games of all time, which I just don't think is true.

5. Man everyone talking shit on my baby. Look I'm biased. I love everything the Witcher 3 did. I love the combat because I love being op as fuck. Having abilities like Quen and Axii are amazing. Look if you dig into the lore, Witchers are monsters than kill other monsters. A good Witcher properly prepares for every fight to give them as many advantages in battle as possible. They are not fair fighters. They have op potions and magics to go out and kill the monsters to get paid and they move on. They have no emotion, (though Geralt does because it's hard to write a character without any motivations, desires, or personal investment) they don't get a high from fighting fair, or facing challenges, their only go is to go out and kill what they get paid to kill and move on.

The movement was no nearly as big of a deal as people made it out to be, and was more a keyboard input problem than anything else. The combat is fine, it's mind-numbingly easy on easy mode, and can be quite challenging on Death March. One mistake or ill preparation can fuck you on Death March. The difficulties allow players to tailor their experience pretty well imo. Might not be your cup of tea anyway and that's fine. There is no way that the Witcher can be classified as a bad game though. By no means, I'm sorry.

9. Dark Souls invented a whole new way to experience dungeon crawling. Slow methodical combat around a vague and bleak setting. You cannot deny how many games have tried to follow Dark Soul's example. Just like Doom and Wolfenstien created the FPS genre, Dark Souls has created a unique thing. Sure it does have the basics of many other styles, but nothing does it quite like Dark Souls, they evolved it and made it their own thing. Now you have Lords of the Fallen, Nioh, The Surge, Salt and Sanctuary, Dead Cells, etc. When there is no denying that many developers are trying to directly follow suit with a style, means that a genre all it's own has formed from this game. You are free to not like the Souls games, but their impact is hard to ignore.

IamGamer41:

Kerg3927:

B-Cell:
90% of open world games are trash

I agree.

Id like to hear the argument why they are consider trash.

In my experience and in my opinion, the bigger the world, the lower the overall quality of the game, especially its story. And unfortunately, because the technology now exists to efficiently make bigger and bigger worlds, developers seem to be locked in an arms race to see who can make the biggest world and brag about it in their marketing.

I liken it to a movie. Most movies are 1.5 to 3 hours long. During filming, they start out much longer than they end up being, before they get edited down significantly. What is cut is usually the lower quality content. What is kept is the higher quality content. The end result is a shorter, more compact, and overall higher quality movie.

But with the massive open world arms race going on, I think what happens is most content that emerged in development is left in, the good, the bad, and the mediocre. And even then it's often not enough, so they come up with even more filler content of typically very low quality... because their world is so big, and they have to fill all that empty space with something.

What you end up with is a massive game with varying levels of crap filling in the space, and it's a nightmare for a completionist like me to slug through. Admittedly, a lot of that is my fault, because, as an OCD completionist, I have to do all the quests and explore every area, or I'll worry about missing something. But even if you're not a completionist, I think it leads to an unnecessary amount of tedious crap to sift through to find the good parts.

Also, if a game has an urgent main story, more side content necessarily detracts from the urgency. It's simple math. Witcher 3 for example, Geralt is in a race against time to save Ciri, but meh, let's spend weeks playing gwent, participating in horse races, looting bandit camps, and helping every little shithole village on the map solve its little monster problem. Over time the main story gets forgotten about, and feels a lot less urgent and meaningful, because there are no consequences for simply putting it on hold for long stretches of time.

I would rather spend 50-100 hours each playing three high quality more confined and linear games to completion than spend 150-300 hours playing one massive open world game to completion, with all its lower quality side content and filler.

In my opinion, confinement and linearity in games is a good thing. It protects the gamer from wandering around and becoming bored with low quality content, because most of that low quality content never even makes it into the final game, and it keeps the gamer immersed in the highest quality content the game has to offer. And I think this has always been true in games, but somehow that core development concept has been thrown out the window with the massive open world arms race.

Bloodborne has more than enough content. The popular opinion is that it's Souls-lite, and is missing the depth of a proper Souls game. While that may be partially true, I also think Bloodborne excels by distilling the formula to its essence, which likely gave root to some of the highest quality maps, music, weapons, and overall design as a result.

There is still a great deal of content, and the vast majority of it is killer, not filler. There are no half-ass weapons being dropped by every other enemy, or trivial consumables hiding in vulnerable barrels. I've found a good use for probably around 80% of what I've uncovered, whether essential blood vials and bullets, combat assists, runes, etc. About the closest thing to filler has been the various blood gems, but they are never a burden, and can always be sold if you have no further use for them.

While the Chalice Dungeons are repetitive, I think of them mostly as a bonus to the main game. They are a great way to level, and play much like an elaborate training grounds of sorts for the proper game. While I do miss the shield usage occasionally and the added ranged options of Souls, they are simply not a part of how this game is designed; the intent of which is to encourage an aggressive risk/reward system of melee combat.

Deus Ex: Invisible War was a pretty good game.

The Tomb Raider reboot games are very good. No great, but very good.

Horizon: Zero Dawn was a good game, but not even remotely close to great, let alone the gaming nerdvana many made it out to be. The characters, especially Alloy, are cardboard at best, and story becomes increasingly tattered the further along things go. By the end there are plot holes even the largest robo-dino could comfortably traverse.

Neir Automata was depressingly boring.

Souls games are more tedious than difficult.

The ideas behind the Darksiders games were better than the games themselves. It seems unlikely that the next iteration will buck this trend.

The tendency of gamers to let devs off the hook and blame monolithic publishers for any and all problems is getting in the way of getting the source of some of those problems acknowledged, let alone addressed.

Myria:
The tendency of gamers to let devs off the hook and blame monolithic publishers for any and all problems is getting in the way of getting the source of some of those problems acknowledged, let alone addressed.

I'm not prejudiced, let's blame both.

Souls games are tryhard Monster Hunter.

AAA games should cost more than $60.

Kerg3927:

You could say that about most fantasy stories. Tolkien defined the genre, and pretty much everyone else who has written a fantasy story since was influenced by him in some way.

I thought the grey wardens vs. archdemon thing was a fairly original twist. As was the mages vs. demons in the tower thing. Yeah, there were dwarves and elves, but there were original twists there, too. Dwarves living underground fighting an endless war against darkspawn in the Deep Roads. Elves vs. werewolves.

I guess I just don't see humans, elves, and dwarves fighting an ancient big bad and immediately think Tolkien ripoff. I think, oh cool, it's a fantasy story.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Fantasy defaults to LOTR because its all that has ever been popular. Even George R.R. Martin's Wars of the Roses fanfic has a slight aftertaste of Tolkien. There is more to fantasy than Tolkien, just as there is more to Sci-Fi than Lucas or Roddenberry. The curse of popularity, I suppose.

As for the twists you mention, I found they only exasperated the feeling that the story was trying to prove to me that it's not just a lesser quality rehash of Tolkien.

But I don't want it to seem like I hate DA:O, I wouldn't have put 300 hours into it if I did. However, I feel that DA2 told a better story filled with better characters in a better setting, with better mechanics to back it all up.

Gordon_4:

Sebastian is a DLC character who only becomes a party member in chapter 2 onwards. If you have the DLC you should see him post a notice on the Chantry noticeboard about finding the mercenaries that murdered his family and retainers.

He's not a deep character since he was DLC, but he provides an interesting pro-Chantry voice, and can be romanced by Fem!Hawke but their relationship is chaste because he's umming and ahhing about taking his vows again to the Chantry as what I presume would be a ley-brother.

Dragon Age 2 has DLC? I'm only half serious. I haven't played any of it, I think. Is it worth buying?

-Dragon Age: Origins isn't particularly compelling. I've tried to play through it three times and have never actually beaten it. I'm starting to accept the fact I may never actually do so, because every time I contemplate going back to it, I can immediately think of at least 5 other games in the same genre I'd rather play first.

-The first Metal Gear Solid has some of the worst gameplay in the series. It does a lot of other things well but damn if the controls haven't aged poorly. The inability to see what you want to shoot half the time because the camera is zoomed in so far and there's no way to look in the direction you are pointing your weapon is frustrating. It's a step back gameplay-wise from Metal Gear 2, which is bizarre considering it's particularly a remake of that game (which was made 7 years earlier).

-For that matter, Metal Gear Solid 2 is a good game for the most part, but it's pacing is shot all to hell and it's story becomes more and more of a mess the farther in you get. Raiden was actually a better character in this game then he was in MGS4, when he becomes a walking death machine Deus ex Machina and little else.

-Painkiller is an interesting idea that feels more like a series of random maps jammed together with randomish weapons, and occasionally some cutscenes that have very little to do with the game portions. I ended up getting it because Yahtzee gushed over it and it's one of the few times I significantly disagree with him on a game.

The irony is that I really liked Serious Sam and Serious Same:BFE, probably because of just how they didn't take themselves seriously in the least.

-There's nothing inherently wrong with "walking simulators" if they pull off the story, atmosphere and/or characters well. I'd honestly rather have almost no gameplay instead of forced gameplay/puzzles. I can think of numerous adventure games from back in the day where it felt like the puzzles were only there because someone told them they had to be there, so ended up being annoying/tedious and subtracting from the experience.

I recently replayed To The Moon and realized that the only thing I'd change about it would be to remove the tile puzzles, which don't actually add anything to the game and almost feel like they exist solely to argue that the game isn't a "Walking simulator" because it has puzzles.

Hell, Bioshock:Infinite might have been better without the shooty bits if the extra resources had been used to develop Columbia and the characters more.

Character creation is terrible. It's shameful that it's expected now. Custom faces will always look worse than presets.

image

The entire Call of Duty franchise, without exception, is garbage. Same for Battlefield and Medal of Honor. The only good military shooter was Socom 2.
Overwatch is an overall inferior product in comparison to Battleborn and lacks adequate content to justify being priced as a full game.
GTA hasn't been good since San Andreas.
Red Dead Redemption was an okay game, same for Bully.
Minecraft is more of a building utility than a game.
Dark Souls 2 was the best dark souls
Oblivion was better than Skyrim in the majority of ways (still an rpg without the unpleasant streamlining)
World of Warcraft (including all the expansions) is hideous to me on an aesthetic level.
The story of starcraft 1&2 is utter garbage, though I love the gameplay, that I cannot diss.
Halo is garbage, from gameplay, to lore. Utter, unrefined, garbage. 343 literally just stuck an air freshener on it.
Destiny is (ludicrously broken) garbage, Destiny 2 is shiny garbage. Bungie's writing department hasn't been even remotely passable since the Myth franchise.
There's no such thing as a good sonic game, just a bunch of passable (at best) ones
Any game with zombies as a major component is a bad game
Anything produced by Telltale is trash and barely qualifies as a game so much as a multiple ending visual novel
The Xbox One is just bad. From menu layout to sluggish speeds, to it's insistence on being a home entertainment suite.
Black and White 2 was one of the most enjoyable games I've ever played.

I'll actually agree with the mass effect opinion above from Kerg3927, for the same reasons too.
Though, as a detracting point, I hated both Jack and Miranda from ME 2, I found them both to be insufferable cardboard cutouts whose purpose in the story line is shallow and whose usefulness in squad is easily overlooked.

Cold Shiny:
We've already lost the lootbox war and there is nothing we can do about it.

I am kinda rooting for that Rep from Hawaii to bring some legislation down on publisher's heads.

Dragon's Dogma was a better experience in the Souls-like experience than Dark Souls, save for sense of discovery.

If you could have the Nioh weapon Crafting and Stances, the Boss Scale and Class system (with a lot more skills and classes) of Dragon's Dogma, and the sense of discovery and enemy variety of the Dark Souls series, you would have made the perfect game in the classification.

If you somehow want to cram into a Cyberpunk landscape, like really Shadowrun it, I will have your children. Or at least steal them as I am a dude with dude parts.

Tomb Raider 2013 is incredibly bland and boring af.

Bedinsis:
Gaming is mostly a waste of time and money.

Only if you buy cosmetics, loot boxes, micro transactions, and season passes.

Captain Chemosh:

GTA hasn't been good since San Andreas.

GTA hasn't been good since two. Going 3D sucked all the fun out

Ironman126:
Dragon Age 2 has DLC? I'm only half serious. I haven't played any of it, I think. Is it worth buying?

There were two story packs and one DLC character. I didn't care for the character. Both story packs were pretty good. The thieving one was probably the best

I cannot for the life of me fathom why everyone went nuts over Divinity: Original Sin. It crams way too many ideas in a small space, tries to do everything and does nothing well. There's some cool combat, but the novelty of it wears off not long after the game FINALLY frikkin' lets you fight a bit, because it'll try to stop you dead in your tracks with awful, AWFUL writing every step of the way. The guys at Larian Studios seem to be very passionate in what they do, and they're my countrymen, so it hurts even more to distance myself from this embarrassing product. And now everyone is going nuts over the sequel. I'm not gonna bother.

I love me some Borderlands - that's not an unpopular opinion - and I don't understand why everyone is so negative about The Pre-Sequel. It's great, I love it! Beaten it twice and probably again! Yeah, it's shorter, but that doesn't mean anything. Borderlands 2 was huge and felt padded at times. TPS is still very meaty and feels more focused. And the humour's certainly still there. Gamers are very hard to please, damn.

Ironman126:
Dragon Age 2 has DLC? I'm only half serious. I haven't played any of it, I think. Is it worth buying?

The DA2 DLC was solid, IMO. Of note, if you play on Nightmare difficulty and like a challenge, Legacy and Mark of the Assassin have probably the most difficult boss fights ever implemented into a Bioware game. I know, that's not saying much, but I found them to be an actual challenge.

Cold Shiny:
We've already lost the lootbox war and there is nothing we can do about it.

Yep. Lootboxes, DLC season passes, microtransactions.... all here to stay. So I don't get too worked up about it.

You can't fight economic forces. The practices exist because they are profitable (supply). And they are profitable because consumers are obviously willing and eager to pay for them (demand).

Potjeslatinist:
I love me some Borderlands - that's not an unpopular opinion - and I don't understand why everyone is so negative about The Pre-Sequel. It's great, I love it! Beaten it twice and probably again! Yeah, it's shorter, but that doesn't mean anything. Borderlands 2 was huge and felt padded at times. TPS is still very meaty and feels more focused. And the humour's certainly still there. Gamers are very hard to please, damn.

My unpopular Gaming Opinion will build off of this question.

I hate Handsome Jack.

I hate him so much that I don't touch the series any more. We've had four real game releases of borderlands, and three of these revolved or starred Handsome Jack. He's a whiny, self absorbed little prick who was funny at first but just became grating at the end of 2. And then, the next releases of the series decided we needed more of him?

I got the argument for him. He was the Joker for the series. Great. But then you need a Batman. The Player Controlled Characters don't fit that role because we simply don't even get enough backstory to come close to matching what we get for Handsome Jack. Hell, their fates aren't even intertwined like Joker and Batman. We were just some Mercs who asked a call and he tried to off us. Ok. So? It's Borderlands. EVERYONE tries to off us.

I'm out. I might be back for three if we can find a way to exist without him.

Assassins Creed is an awful franchise that needs to die.

Duke Nukem Forever is highly underrated.

Alien Colonial Marines I enjoyed more then Alien Isolation.

Steel Battalion Heavy Armor was a good game that was not "broken" in the least.

Elder Scrolls is an immensely overrated franchise.

That both PC and consoles have their virtues and it is perfectly fine to like one over the other or both.

Dark Souls games are massive waste of times, artificially padding their gameplay out with bullshit combat and controls

Walking simulators are games, they're just terrible

GTAs are all the same and are boring as shit

Blizzard hasn't had a good game since Diablo 2

Minecraft is boring

Streaming and Game-play channels are all terrible

Handsome Jack is the lamest, dumbest and least interesting villain of all time

Portal was okay, and has no replay value

Non-local Mulitplayer was one of the worst things to happen to video games

Romance, and dialogue trees in general, are never done well in video games

The Witcher series is slow and uninteresting

I was 9 when Daikatana came out, and I thought it was pretty good

Bayonetta is not an empowering, sex-positive female icon, she's a shallow sex symbol given fake agency and empowerment by writers who tricked gamers into thinking she's progressive

Silent Hill 2 is one of the worst Silent Hill games

Silentpony:
Silent Hill 2 is one of the worst Silent Hill games

Alright. You got me interested. Can we have some reasons for this one?

darkrage6:
Assassins Creed is an awful franchise that needs to die.

I think that's pretty much the POPULAR consensus. I don't personally know of anyone who wasn't drunk, high or both who said "y'know what gaming needs? More Assassins Creed." That being said, I don't know the Ubisoft execs personally, but I'm sure they're all drunk, high or both.

Duke Nukem Forever is highly underrated.

For all the shit it got after finally getting pissed out like a 9 pound kidney stone after 37 years of development and delays, I know I got pretty much what I expected: a crude-humored, over-the-top FPS that was mostly functional and also managed to pull of some interesting level design from time to time. I picked it up for $5 expecting $1.50 worth of fun ($1 of that being laughs at how bad it was,) but was pleasantly surprised when I actually managed to enjoy it; it's far from the worst thing ever like so many claim; "not being what one expects" is not the same as "being bad."

Silentpony:
Handsome Jack is the lamest, dumbest and least interesting villain of all time

Non-local Mulitplayer was one of the worst things to happen to video games

We are now friends.

Silentpony:
Dark Souls games are massive waste of times, artificially padding their gameplay out with bullshit combat and controls

Bayonetta is not an empowering, sex-positive female icon, she's a shallow sex symbol given fake agency and empowerment by writers who tricked gamers into thinking she's progressive

... We can still be friends, I guess...

Silentpony:
Silent Hill 2 is one of the worst Silent Hill games

I always wanted to try Krav Maga against Kali. Weapons or no, friend?

Seriously, is it because it deivates from the Silent Hill mythos in a way that game designers have been messing up since then?

trunkage:

Silentpony:
Silent Hill 2 is one of the worst Silent Hill games

Alright. You got me interested. Can we have some reasons for this one?

ObsidianJones:

Silentpony:
Handsome Jack is the lamest, dumbest and least interesting villain of all time

Non-local Mulitplayer was one of the worst things to happen to video games

We are now friends.

Silentpony:
Dark Souls games are massive waste of times, artificially padding their gameplay out with bullshit combat and controls

Bayonetta is not an empowering, sex-positive female icon, she's a shallow sex symbol given fake agency and empowerment by writers who tricked gamers into thinking she's progressive

... We can still be friends, I guess...

Silentpony:
Silent Hill 2 is one of the worst Silent Hill games

I always wanted to try Krav Maga against Kali. Weapons or no, friend?

Seriously, is it because it deivates from the Silent Hill mythos in a way that game designers have been messing up since then?

My problem with Silent Hill 2, and this may be my fault, is I played if after several other Silent Hill games. After Silent Hill 1, Silent Hill 3, Silent Hill 4, Silent Hill Homecoming, Downpour, Shattered Memories, and Origins. I had heard it, Silent Hill 2, was the scariest, deepest, more disturbing, shocking and cerebral game of the series.

And I played it. And its really really boring. Not only is the majority of the game spent running around, doing nothing in the town, the enemies couldn't care less. With a few exceptions, you can go through huge sections of the game without having to fight anything. You can just walk right passed the nurses and weird leg monsters, and sometimes they'll attack, sometimes not, and always too slow to catch up to you.
The notable exception are the bosses, all of whom except Pyramid Head, are way too dirty brown amorphous shapes to know what they are, let alone be scary.
Pyramid Head himself is...barely in it. You see him a few times, he chases you a few times, you fight him, and then you kill him. Granted when he's chasing you its kinda scary, but its over way too soon and happens twice.

The plot is all over the place, fluctuating from mindlessly dull to mindbogglingly stupid. James as a protagonist is lame. He's unlikable, the voice acting is terrible, his dialogue is terrible, and his character arc is predictable, although it may be my fault as I played plenty of SH games, I was easily able to guess what was going on pretty early on, right around the time you meet Maria.
All the other characters are just annoying. I know within the town itself, reality is weird and different for everyone, but the NPCs are so non sequitur I feel like they should have taken dialogue from different games entirely.

"My name is James. What's going on in this town?"
"Every time I look into a monitor, Prime, my circuits sizzle! When are we going to start busting Deceptichops?!"

"We should go to that hotel, the one on the lake"
"Your treasury is too small. Make it larger"

The combat I will give them is supposed to be bad. James is not a Space Marine, and I can't expect to swing a bat or anything, but that doesn't make it any more fun. And its not scary or intense, like Bloodborne or Bioshock. Its dull and hard to control and frustrating, like Blast Corps 64.

More than anything though, its not scary. The atmosphere isn't great or oppressive. Homecoming and Silent Hill 3 both did a much better job of keeping the town threatening and creepy. Silent Hill 2 just has an empty town for most of the game.

Silentpony:

Bayonetta is not an empowering, sex-positive female icon, she's a shallow sex symbol given fake agency and empowerment by writers who tricked gamers into thinking she's progressive

Silent Hill 2 is one of the worst Silent Hill games

HAHAHAHAHHAHA....NO! I don't know what led you to believe Platinum, Sega, or Hideki Kamiya made those claims. The only people to claim that were some other Platinum fans, and game journalist or reviewers that liked her. I like Bayonetta, but I don't see her as the all empowering sex icon you claim her to be. If anything, she is just a female version of Dante (not many those running around [1])

Speaking of Platinum, they have made only one bad game: TMNT. Everything else is excellent to greats, and one is just average. Some people in the gaming media lately have been making some bizarre statements lately.

Shadows of the Damned is better than RE5 or RE6 or most shooters that followed in the footsteps of RE4.

SNK made some decent brawlers, but people assume they're the worst things ever. This has changed with YouTube,but before it existed, lots of review sites would have you believe they made complete trash. If anything, SNk made too many tournament fighters.

Other than storytelling, walking sims don't add much to the experience once a player is done with it.

Everything went downhill after PoP: Sands of Time with only a few minor step ups here and there.

Far Cry Instincts is the best in the entire series. 2 was tedious, 3 was good, 4 was more of the same, and Primal was just $60.00 DLC put on disc. 5 looks be like 3 & 4; only set in rural America. Though it is the first game in the series to be set in the states, so I will give it that.

[1] Kagura from Onechanbara is the only other female version

ObsidianJones:

Potjeslatinist:
I love me some Borderlands - that's not an unpopular opinion - and I don't understand why everyone is so negative about The Pre-Sequel. It's great, I love it! Beaten it twice and probably again! Yeah, it's shorter, but that doesn't mean anything. Borderlands 2 was huge and felt padded at times. TPS is still very meaty and feels more focused. And the humour's certainly still there. Gamers are very hard to please, damn.

My unpopular Gaming Opinion will build off of this question.

I hate Handsome Jack.

I hate him so much that I don't touch the series any more. We've had four real game releases of borderlands, and three of these revolved or starred Handsome Jack. He's a whiny, self absorbed little prick who was funny at first but just became grating at the end of 2. And then, the next releases of the series decided we needed more of him?

I got the argument for him. He was the Joker for the series. Great. But then you need a Batman. The Player Controlled Characters don't fit that role because we simply don't even get enough backstory to come close to matching what we get for Handsome Jack. Hell, their fates aren't even intertwined like Joker and Batman. We were just some Mercs who asked a call and he tried to off us. Ok. So? It's Borderlands. EVERYONE tries to off us.

I'm out. I might be back for three if we can find a way to exist without him.

Handsome Jack was just terrible. I'll admit he was kinda amusing the first hour, when he was just a troll, but he gets so old so fast. And his "evil" attitude is just comically stupid, its amazing anyone thinks he's a good boss. He's just so bad and drags the game down so much!

B-Cell:

Bioshock infinite is worst AAA FPS game ever ever made. its really that bad

Why so? I loved that game. I found it very challenging and exciting. Hell, its the only game I've 100%.
What didn't you like about it? Granted the ending is bugger nuts, and Elizabeth can get kinda annoying.

Cold Shiny:
We've already lost the lootbox war and there is nothing we can do about it.

The power is all in your hands, stop buying games with loot boxes. It's so simple it could just work, at the very least you won't have to worry about loot boxes if you don't play games that have them.

Maybe the 'take my money' meme was cute at one time but now it just shows how foolish some gamers are. Whine and moan but continue to buy while wondering why developers and publishers are becoming ever more anti-consumer.

Anyway, my unpopular opinion is that Zelda games being open world going forward is a mistake.

Video-games should be more like movies

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

(In that movies don't include things unless they are absolutely necessary, and most games would be improved if they cared more about the players' time)

Commanderfantasy:
Thank you sir. This is fun :)

1. The point of my counter's to B-Cell's nonsense, isn't really to lock in stone how good a game is. B-Cell said Tomb Raider and the sequel are the worse games ever. Which is just not true. Even you yourself give them 6/10 which is a good game imo. You might not agree with me that they were stellar experiences (obviously) but you don't deny that they are decently good games one their own. So sure you don't enjoy them as much as me, but we agree that they are certainly not as bad as B-Cell suggests.

3. I disagree entirely. GTA games are good games. The open world genre might be a bit oversaturated at this point, but GTA and Rockstar put together incredible huge games that for the most part work. They make bigger games than anything Bethesda does, with far less bugs. The moment to moment gameplay might not be the best thing since sliced bread, but everything they include does work and that's really all that can be asked for. The original point made was they were the most overrated games of all time, which I just don't think is true.

5. Man everyone talking shit on my baby. Look I'm biased. I love everything the Witcher 3 did. I love the combat because I love being op as fuck. Having abilities like Quen and Axii are amazing. Look if you dig into the lore, Witchers are monsters than kill other monsters. A good Witcher properly prepares for every fight to give them as many advantages in battle as possible. They are not fair fighters. They have op potions and magics to go out and kill the monsters to get paid and they move on. They have no emotion, (though Geralt does because it's hard to write a character without any motivations, desires, or personal investment) they don't get a high from fighting fair, or facing challenges, their only go is to go out and kill what they get paid to kill and move on.

The movement was no nearly as big of a deal as people made it out to be, and was more a keyboard input problem than anything else. The combat is fine, it's mind-numbingly easy on easy mode, and can be quite challenging on Death March. One mistake or ill preparation can fuck you on Death March. The difficulties allow players to tailor their experience pretty well imo. Might not be your cup of tea anyway and that's fine. There is no way that the Witcher can be classified as a bad game though. By no means, I'm sorry.

9. Dark Souls invented a whole new way to experience dungeon crawling. Slow methodical combat around a vague and bleak setting. You cannot deny how many games have tried to follow Dark Soul's example. Just like Doom and Wolfenstien created the FPS genre, Dark Souls has created a unique thing. Sure it does have the basics of many other styles, but nothing does it quite like Dark Souls, they evolved it and made it their own thing. Now you have Lords of the Fallen, Nioh, The Surge, Salt and Sanctuary, Dead Cells, etc. When there is no denying that many developers are trying to directly follow suit with a style, means that a genre all it's own has formed from this game. You are free to not like the Souls games, but their impact is hard to ignore.

1) I could see someone finding basically any game to be the worst game ever because it does take a certain something for you to hate something. Sure, some garbage asset flip game on Steam is probably the worst game ever but you'd probably never play it and if you did, would it actually have enough of that "something" to ignite hate within you about it? And sure, B-Cell is probably exaggerating and using hyperbole along with the new TRs aligning with his "bias" that it's probably not his worst game ever. However, it might just be his worst game ever. The game that is my worst game ever is Max Payne 3 because I just hated so much about it, and Danganronpa is probably a close 2nd on that list now after just recently playing it.

3) I pretty much feel the GTA games are the most overrated games ever too because I think they are below average games yet their average review score is in the high 90s. Any game rated with that high of an average score is overrated no matter if even I think it's the best game ever because no work in any medium should have an average rating in the mid to upper 90s. It's just not possible for anything to be so beloved that ~100 people (professional or otherwise) would agree something is so good that it would get an AVERAGE score so high. Sure maybe half the people loved it and thought it was amazing (even that is extremely high), but there's going to be at least of few that didn't like it, several that thought it was "meh", and several that thought it was just merely good. For example, last year's Best Picture winner Moonlight has an average score of 9.0/10 with 98% of critics liking it. Whereas GTA4's average score is a 98/100 with, of course, not a single critic disliking the game (there's so many games that would get a 100% fresh rating if games were on RT that it would be ridiculous). This is more to do with how horrible "professional" gaming criticism is than GTA itself as any game with mid to upper 90s average score is overrated, I just feel GTA is the worst of all the games with scores in that territory.

Back to actual GTA criticism, the moment-to-moment gameplay is what I play games for and GTA is well below average in that category. Ubisoft: The Game outdoes GTA in moment-to-moment gameplay because all of them have at least stealth mechanics so at worst you can mix and match between stealth and action whereas GTA is just a below par TPS, I'd have more fun with freaking Fuse (and at least it's shorter too). Who cares how big a game is if there's not much fun in it? Or the whole cliche "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle". As I said before about how GTA doesn't even merit its open world because missions just come down go to Point-B and kill a bunch of spawned enemies while wasting my time traveling to actual content (and that content isn't even good most of the time). Whereas a game like Dishonored merits its "mini-sandboxes" because you are given true freedom to complete objectives and dispatch enemies. And, the writing is just so bad that I hate it as I mentioned previously. I couldn't even stand RDR either, I got to Mexico and I heard that was the worst part of the game, I hadn't had any fun yet so I'm definitely not playing the worst part of the game so I quit the game.

5) Being OP as fuck doesn't make or break a game for me. For example, the Dishonored games are amazing and if you think Geralt is OP as fuck, then you don't know what OP as fuck is LOL (watch a Dishonored StealthGamerBR video). Dishonored isn't hard to just complete levels if that's all you want but it does take skill and more importantly creativity to get through areas in cool, slick, stylish ways. There's just so many different and amazingly fun ways to dispatch enemies. I could overlook Witcher 3's easiness (even on Death March btw) if the combat was a least fun or allowed for creativity, but it doesn't. I realized super early how joke easy the game is with abusing quen and axii that I house-ruled them out but then I realized combat just isn't fun even with some actual challenge so I just went back to abusing those signs because it just made combat waste less time basically. Even standard Arkham combat has more actual depth and difficulty than Witcher 3's combat. Now I haven't played the previous games or read the books, but from what I've heard, Geralt and witchers are supposed struggle against monsters and their preparation is what allows them to edge out victories in fights (sorta like a medieval fantasy Batman). I can win literally every fight in the game on any difficulty with zero preparation and walk away without a scratch, and there's nothing hard about doing that. I played Witcher 3 on PS4 with a controller obviously and movement was ass so it had nothing to do with keyboard issues. Geralt's turning radius is just plain ridiculous (has no one at CDPR seen one game of any sport to see humans can quickly change direction even when sprinting?). Not enjoying a majority of my playtime in any game equates to a game being below average and a bad game in my opinion, and sadly that is true of my Witcher 3 experience.

9) Just about every shooter followed COD4's lead last-gen, it doesn't make COD4 better because of that nor did COD4 invent a new genre either. Being copied means you're popular, not necessarily good. Mark Brown did a video about why games shouldn't be turned into a genre using rogue-likes as a reason why it's a bad idea. Souls was merely a dungeon crawling RPG with an action combat system that was better than just "good for an RPG" combat that the vast majority of action RPG combat is. Of course, the main element that you can say the series invented is the death system doing something in-between rogue-likes die and start over and the checkpoint every 5-steps/save anywhere systems extreme prevalence today. But didn't Super Mario Brothers basically do that like 30 years ago with dying and having to restart the level again. And settings don't make genres either, RPGs with fantasy and sci-fi settings aren't different genres. I don't dislike the Souls games; great level design + atmosphere with average combat doesn't equate to below average (AKA bad). I find them "fine" (6-7/10) and I think trying to clone them is a waste of dev resources because I want games that have the potential to be amazing not just "fine".

Out of the 3D Souls clones (as 2D is very different obviously), Nioh is the only one I'm interested in because I saw potential in the Souls games obviously but I wanted a combat system that had depth and required skill and I think Nioh is the only one that could accomplish that. From what I know about the Nioh, the game actually requires stamina management unlike Souls where it just acts as a DPS limiter, hack away until out of stamina and dodge away, whereas in Nioh you're legit vulnerable when you run out of stamina. Then Nioh has the Ki-pulse mechanic which adds depth allowing for skill-based mastery to occur along with a stance system. I wanted a dev that really knows combat like Team Ninja to infuse a great combat system into a game while utilizing some of the Souls ideas/mechanics because FromSoft doesn't really know how to make a combat system with depth and mastery. Souls combat is really just dodge/block then hit with stick, it doesn't go beyond that and there's nothing to really master or get better at besides really your timing and enemies are too slow to improve your timing if you're used to the much faster enemies of most other action games. Like I said before, I think FromSoft's strengths (level design and atmosphere) are catered to basically making a dark themed Team ICO game with boss battles and Souls death mechanic (basically survival horror environmental puzzler). Funny enough, Miyazaki was influenced by ICO when coming up with the Souls games, he should've took a bit more inspiration from ICO IMO.

Kerg3927:
What you end up with is a massive game with varying levels of crap filling in the space, and it's a nightmare for a completionist like me to slug through. Admittedly, a lot of that is my fault, because, as an OCD completionist, I have to do all the quests and explore every area, or I'll worry about missing something. But even if you're not a completionist, I think it leads to an unnecessary amount of tedious crap to sift through to find the good parts.

In my opinion, confinement and linearity in games is a good thing. It protects the gamer from wandering around and becoming bored with low quality content, because most of that low quality content never even makes it into the final game, and it keeps the gamer immersed in the highest quality content the game has to offer. And I think this has always been true in games, but somehow that core development concept has been thrown out the window with the massive open world arms race.

I find Arkane's games like Dishonored to be the "perfect" size. Each level is a very small open world that is packed with interesting things within mere steps away. I feel like exploring and finding everything in the levels, even reading notes left by NPCs are usually interesting reads while possibly holding the combination to a safe or a hint about a secret in the level. My playthrough of Dishonored 2 clocked in at 40 hours while I spent 30 hours on my playthrough of the standalone DLC Death of the Outsider. Whereas in basically every open world game there's not enough interesting areas to merit exploring and the missions will probably take you everywhere actually interesting anyway. Horizon is the only open world game I actually recall that I enjoyed exploring because of stumbling across new machines and literally just enjoying the actual scenery as everywhere you go is beautiful. Oh, and I really liked Arkham City too, you could get across the city (one end to the other end) in probably 2 mins of just gliding.

DrownedAmmet:
Video-games should be more like movies

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

(In that movies don't include things unless they are absolutely necessary, and most games would be improved if they cared more about the players' time)

Totally, I rarely play RPGs anymore because they are more focused on wasting your time than probably any other genre.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here