Raise the flame shield: Your "controversial" gaming opinion.

I think nostalgia-pandering faux/isometric RPGs are bad for the genre. Not that they can't be good, but the idea that they are all the genre ever could or should be is a toxic one.

This may be because I want better looking versions of the action RPGs from the PS2/early PS3 era, but I agree.
 
It seems to me that many of the 'dedicated' [read: hardcore] "gamers" care more about poly counts and shiny new engines than well designed games. I hate it. I hate it so fucking much. These people seem to care more about how something looks than how it plays. They shouldn't be able to talk about games, imho.

I think anyone who uses 'graphics' as a catch-all phrase to comment on aesthetics, design, poly counts, and post-processing effects, instead of properly using it simply to describe the engine output and calculations going into rendering the models, simply shouldn't talk about visuals. It's infuriating to a never ending degree, and it makes me think they don't know what they're talking about (even if they do).

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is the best 3D Zelda game to be release to date. Link's Awakening is the best in the series.

Assassin's Creed Revelations was a good game, and the last good AssCreed game in the series. Black Flag should have been a new franchise/IP all together. Fun pirate-y game, bad assassin game.

And many, many more.
 
Don't know where to start, really.

Xbox controllers are the worst thing ever created. How are you supposed play with this fucking left stick?

GTA is just bullshit. I get why people like it, but the gangster attitude is just so over the top and not funny/great at all.

Thus said, what is it with this "Open World" Boom lately? It's not fun running/driving/flying 347 trillion kilometers before you are able to continue the story. Plus those games have some pretty repetitive and boring side quests.

At the same time great single player experiences like The Order are criticized for not having a MP. But if it would have had a MP the same people would complain that it is redundant and only serving to get some extra sales (-> cash grab).
 
These feel like great sins so I'm spoilering them.
I dont like any Final Fantasy game, I dont like Starfox 64, I dont like Banjo Kazooie, ans Skyward Sword wasn't that bad.
 
TLOU was alright the first time, and boring as hell the next - I wish ND would fuck off releasing a new version every fifteen minutes.

They released a version that contained all the DLC on PS3 and a Remaster which was the same idea, but with better graphics on PS4.... what are you talking about?
 
These feel like great sins so I'm spoilering them.
I dont like any Final Fantasy game, I dont like Starfox 64, I dont like Banjo Kazooie, ans Skyward Sword wasn't that bad.

Stand strong my friend. I don't like
Starfox 64
either, and
Skyward Sword
is a fantastic game with some questionable design choices. However... I'll pray for you about
Banjo-Kazooie
, although I understand.
 

Well, the design of tWW feels incredibly adventerous, and I feel as though the Earth and Wind temples are some of the best in the series. I loved the sailing aspect, with the feeling of true discovery, and the pitch perfect soundtrack to back it up.

But it's cool. Opinions and what-not :)
 
Here it goes, Wind Waker is the most overrated game yet.

It's incredible that a game with some of the worst dungeons in the series, so much pointless sea navigating, useless fetch quests, and so many glaring faults (that even devs admited) got such universal praise.

It's the single thing in the gaming world I can't even begin to understand (I loved its art style btw, I even defended that). I'm talking about the Gamecube version, I've no idea if the Wii U version corrected its faults (unlikely though)

I might elaborate in a proper thread if I have the time.
 
I think Witcher 3 is going to be mediocre just like the previous Witcher games. People hype it a lot but to me it seems like a minor iteration on W2. I want to like the Witcher for it's mature European RPG values (whatever that means), but I just don't feel it.
 
Here it goes, Wind Waker is the most overrated game yet.

It's incredible that a game with some of the worst dungeons in the series, so much pointless sea navigating, useless fetch quests, and so many glaring faults (that even devs admited) got such universal praise.

It's the single thing in the gaming world I can't even begin to understand (I loved its art style btw, I even defended that). I'm talking about the Gamecube version, I've no idea if the Wii U version corrected its faults (unlikely though)

I might elaborate in a proper thread if I have the time.

Critics did generally give it higher scores than it deserved due to the weak dungeon designs and tediously repetitive sailing and that dull fetch quest, but plenty of fans bashed the game for its cell-shaded visuals. Fans have also become more accepting of Wind Waker's weak dungeon designs over the years and visuals for that matter.
 
Agreed with this, but I would also go so far as to say that there is no tightly designed open world game. Unless you count games like Zelda which aren't really that open world.

I'm struggling to think of examples, but I also don't play that many open world games. The few I have played through (GTA, AC, Asylum) seemed pretty disconnected from one area to the next. Which makes them more realistic, I guess. In a real life big city, there's probably not much overlap from one "area" to the next.

So it's more the concept of a "tightly designed" open world game that sounds appealing. Going back 30 years, I'd argue the original Zelda for NES is an open world game that is tightly designed. It has a huge world (for the time) that's almost fully explorable from the beginning, with a good variety of dungeons/secrets/enemies/items and there's no indication of which way to go or what to do. But despite the variety and freedom, it's all tightly connected. An NPC you meet in one corner helps with a problem you saw far away. Going for an item early will help you meet objectives in a new way, but it's so well designed that doing that doesn't break the game.

I think that kind of game in a modern open world setting could be truly special, but it also sounds really difficult to design and program. Not getting my hopes up, but the concept of Zelda Wii U, as described by Aonuma, sounds like they are going for this concept. Big open world in the modern sense, but with that satisfying tight Zelda design.

One can hope.
 
  • Shadowrun on Xbox 360 was a fantastic FPS.
  • Chrono Trigger isn't very good.
  • The N64's controller was the worst controller ever made.
  • The N64's graphics were worse than SNES.
  • The N64's library was pathetic and gimmicky.
  • Z-Targetting isn't that amazing of a thing.
  • Dreamcast wasn't "underrated." It had an OK library of OK games that catered to a Japanese audience.
  • Every. Single. Sonic. Game. Sucks.
  • Board games are better than video games.

That last one is a recent realization. I've been getting more and more into modern board gaming and my GOD is it better than video games. Sitting around a table with friends with something as passive as a board game just does it for me way more than video games do now. I still play some video games, but I think that it's waning more and more every month. I think I'm exiting a video game era and entering a more social one. That's not to say that you can't be social with video games, but I prefer the times I've had with social board games lately than those with video games. I'd much rather sit down and play Gears of War: The Board Game (a surprisingly great dungeon crawler!) than Gears of War the video game.
 
I'll take a pretty good open world game (saints row 4, sleeping dogs, assassins creed 4 far cry 3, yakuza 3) over apparently great linear based games (bayo, Mario galaxy, vanquish).


I just find them more enjoyable.
 
I've been wanting to get this off my chest for a while.

Xenoblade wasn't a very good game. The exploration and world were fantastic, but outside of that the game is mediocre and bland.

The plot isn't very good. For a lot of the game you're chasing around bad guys who occasionally fight you, and just before they beat the crap out of you, just fly away saying "Oh, look, I have more important things to do." And then when you finally catch up and beat them up, a bigger bad guy comes along and Shulk and co. chase him and the cycle repeats. I haven't beaten the game yet (
Sword Valley
), but all of the villians so far have followed this pattern, and it's aggravating. I can understand a villian having to spare the party once because of higher circumstances, but it's just lazy when it happens multiple times.

The characters are bland as hell. Their dialogue is horribly-written and cheesy. None of the supporting characters really have any depth at all. Maybe
Melia
, a little. But characters like Reyn and Sharla and Dunban, after they're recruited, have no development. I could understand this, since a lot of other RPG's suffer from this, but the fact that they included the affinity system makes it seem like the developers wanted to have a theme of friendship between the characters. And they tried, by putting cookie-cutter lines and responses to quest acceptances and completions, by having mini-games during battle to develop bonds between characters. But I never really felt like the characters were actually growing close to one another, just that I was playing a numbers game.

Compare this to a game like Persona 3/4, where the characters were actually written so that you can feel that they're getting closer to you/each other. Sure, managing Social Links is a pretty apparent numbers game: get to level 10 and be lovers/best friends forever. But the writing made it seem like there was more to it than just raising a number over and over. Social Links gave the characters depth, made you realize that there's more to them than meets the eye.

Xenoblade's characters, though, haven't developed at all from their recruitment to where I am now. The affinity system seems like a half-hearted attempt to force the theme of friendship down the player's throat. Maybe I haven't seen enough of the game yet, maybe the characterization will change, but I'm not that hopeful.

Also, the Noppon are not anywhere near as charming as Moogles or any other cute fluffy mascot character. They're just annoying. Riki's annoying.

The combat is decent enough, but not outstanding as others have found it. You don't have any control over the AI's actions at all besides choosing what skills and perks they have. You can make builds that the AI will do well with, but I don't want that. I want to make builds that I know the AI will execute well, like with FF12's gambit system. The AI can't even play some of the characters even remotely competently no matter what you do. Like
Melia
. If the AI is going to control a character, at least make it competent. At least FF13's AI could be competent at the game. Xenoblade's AI can't even control Shulk or
Melia
.

I guess the music was good at least.
 
The Final Fantasy XIII trilogy is really, really good.

The Witcher 2 is mediocre at best

The Wind Waker HD looks waaaaaay better than the original

The Wonderful 101 is a pretty easy and forgiving game

Same for Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze

Persona 3 is terrible

The Mass Effect 3 ending wasn't that bad at all

Dragon Age 2 was good

Tales of Xillia 2 is the best tales game

Tales of Graces is a close second

Final Fantasy X is pretty dull

Pokémon games are also really dull
 
The Open World circle jerk is getting ridiculous. "Linear" and "Cinematic" are becoming dirty words and it bothers me a lot.

I can't believe publishers have the gall to take turds like repetitive fetch quests and doll them up as "content." Only thing worse are the people who lap this shit up and ask for more.

giphy.gif
 
Well, the design of tWW feels incredibly adventerous, and I feel as though the Earth and Wind temples are some of the best in the series. I loved the sailing aspect, with the feeling of true discovery, and the pitch perfect soundtrack to back it up.

But it's cool. Opinions and what-not :)

You just said that people with certain opinions on games shouldn't be able to talk...

It seems to me that many of the 'dedicated' [read: hardcore] "gamers" care more about poly counts and shiny new engines than well designed games. I hate it. I hate it so fucking much. These people seem to care more about how something looks than how it plays. They shouldn't be able to talk about games, imho.

I think anyone who uses 'graphics' as a catch-all phrase to comment on aesthetics, design, poly counts, and post-processing effects, instead of properly using it simply to describe the engine output and calculations going into rendering the models, simply shouldn't talk about visuals. It's infuriating to a never ending degree, and it makes me think they don't know what they're talking about (even if they do).
 
Oh, yeah :

Every (no exception) main FF game after IX suck major balls. Like they're absolute trash.
FFVII was over-overrated (not that controversial I think plenty of people will agree)

I agree that WW is overrated. Good games but too many flaws, not enough dungeons.

Also think the witcher is overrated. Combat is horrible, writing is ok at best. Couldn't finish it.
 
There hasn't been a good Resident Evil game since RE5 and even that one wasn't all that good.

On second thought this might not actually be all that controversial...
 
1) No game should ever have quicktime events. If I wanted to play a rhythm game, I would play one.
I never want to play one.
It isn't needed. A good game can tell a story through gameplay. A bad game can't. Fact.

2) If your game only has single player, it better be open world. Nine times out of ten, if it is linear, it isn't good enough for the $60. It better be sanboxing like a motherfucker. If your game has multiplayer, it's alright. Fact.

3) Isometric view games are always inferior to a full 3d environments. Picture Civilization with a camera that can actually touch the ground and follow each and every troop on the field. Picture Fire Emblem with that same camera. This would also mean FE would have no transitions between battle scenes and field strategy because it would not be needed. Seamless, immersive gameplay. ALWAYS better. Fact.
 
From Software should stop making these crappy "souls" games and go back to making mecha games, ACE in particular.
How about a Souls game with mechas
Nintendo games are boring.
They make so many games though, surely you don't find ALL of Nintendo's games boring?
I've been wanting to get this off my chest for a while.
This might sound weird, but it is nice to read negative opinions on Xenoblade once in a while. I absolutely love the game, but the endless praise it gets is... tiring.

Also, Shulk's AI is actually pretty good.
 
1) No game should ever have quicktime events. If I wanted to play a rhythm game, I would play one.
I never want to play one.
It isn't needed. A good game can tell a story through gameplay. A bad game can't. Fact.

2) If your game only has single player, it better be open world. Nine times out of ten, if it is linear, it isn't good enough for the $60. It better be sanboxing like a motherfucker. If your game has multiplayer, it's alright. Fact.

3) Isometric view games are always inferior to a full 3d environments. Picture Civilization with a camera that can actually touch the ground and follow each and every troop on the field. Picture Fire Emblem with that same camera. This would also mean FE would have no transitions between battle scenes and field strategy because it would not be needed. Seamless, immersive gameplay. ALWAYS better. Fact.

Wow those are sure controversial:

1) Heavy Rain, God of War - nuff said.
2) I don't actually remember any other game apart from the Order and Wofenstein being linear without MP. First Uncharted? I think that a good linear game is better than any sandbox.
3) Come on. Diablo 3 with rotating camera would be a mess. It's not about isometric is whether you can make camera work well for the game. I don't know why would you want to zoom in on units in Civ, it's like zooming in on chess figurines. Total War on the other hand...
 
Wow those are sure controversial:

1) Heavy Rain, God of War - nuff said.
2) I don't actually remember any other game apart from the Order and Wofenstein being linear without MP. First Uncharted? I think that a good linear game is better than any sandbox.
3) Come on. Diablo 3 with rotating camera would be a mess. It's not about isometric is whether you can make camera work well for the game. I don't know why would you want to zoom in on units in Civ, it's like zooming in on chess figurines. Total War on the other hand...

1) Uh, no ? Not nuff said ? Look at bayonetta for reference. They took the QTEs away for the sequel and it's much better that way. QTEs are garbage.

Kind of agree on 2 and 3. Not every SP should be open world. Some games do "linear" well. And fixed camera is necessary for some games, much more comfortable.
 
ok

Halo's single player has never risen out of the mediocrity that Killzone has forever been stuck in.


I loved the previous two rocksteady Batman games but the Arkham Knight footage I've seen so far does nothing for me, There's far too much focus on vehicle combat and I have little to no interest in that being anything other than a extra side thing in a Batman game.

Having played both AC: Unity and Dragon Age: Inquisition a few weeks after launch I found Dragon Age to be far more of a buggy mess (although a better game).
 
1) No game should ever have quicktime events. If I wanted to play a rhythm game, I would play one.
I never want to play one.
It isn't needed. A good game can tell a story through gameplay. A bad game can't. Fact.

2) If your game only has single player, it better be open world. Nine times out of ten, if it is linear, it isn't good enough for the $60. It better be sanboxing like a motherfucker. If your game has multiplayer, it's alright. Fact.

3) Isometric view games are always inferior to a full 3d environments. Picture Civilization with a camera that can actually touch the ground and follow each and every troop on the field. Picture Fire Emblem with that same camera. This would also mean FE would have no transitions between battle scenes and field strategy because it would not be needed. Seamless, immersive gameplay. ALWAYS better. Fact.

I hate isometric view, but in tactical RPGs like Fire Emblem I actually don't mind it. Feels like I'm getting a full view of everything on the map.
 
FPS genre has no place in console market. Playing fps with a pad is sacrilege and should be punished.

Here's my counter controversial opinion: No matter how long people sing its praises, I will never look at a keyboard as an input format for video games.

Yes, I'm fully aware there are some games that flat out cannot be played with a controller. I will never play those games.
 
Metal Gear Rising is GAF's most overrated game ever. The combat is great but:

It's more linear than FFXIII, it's just running down a corridor 90% of the time.
The graphics are poor.
The story and characters are absolutely awful, seriously what is everyone's obsession with that stupid senator character?
Horrible stealth that doesn't fit with the rest of the game.
Having to repeat boss battles (which were only ok to begin with). Japanese games are repeat offenders for this
It's about 5 hours long.

I didn't mention QTE's in this list because I don't mind them in general (and I can't remember how much the game uses them) but it's yet another example of MGR getting a pass for something another game would be derided for.
 
FPS genre has no place in console market. Playing fps with a pad is sacrilege and should be punished.
Playing single player FPS like BioShock is kinda awful. It is controller or burst.

On the subject of BioShock, BioShock 2 is easily the best in the series. In every aspect.
 
Let's be friends. Sofia Lamb was more compelling than Andrew Ryan (specifically because she played off of Andrew Ryan).
You can say that again. She is a lot more interesting than Andrew Ryan and
Frank Fontaine
. But that is just one little aspect where BioShock 2 tops the original
and Infinite
.
 
The Sega Master System has more gems than the NES in almost every major genre. I genuinely think that there is no game in the NES in these genres that can compite with the Master System example given:

- Shoot'em Up: R-type
- Adventure-Action RPG: Golvellius
- Adventure-Platformer: Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap
- Strategy: Populous
- Sport: Super Kick Off
- Hack'n'slash: Rastan
- Racing: Super Off Road
- Beat'em up: Streets of Rage II
- Puzzle game: Pacmania
 
I didn't like the last of us...

I came here to post this. Started TLoU this weekend and enjoyed the intro (though that was more like watching a film than playing a game). Then the first "action" sequence is immediate cover-based third person shooting and a mandatory stealth section (pretty much)... I couldn't believe it. This is supposed to be some people's GotG?

I haven't been that underwhelmed in a game since the Deux Ex remake.

Oh yeah... another one... The Deux Ex remake/boot was an underwhelming joke.
 
Top Bottom