Some Nobody
Junior Member
What on Earth are you talking about? Only F2P games do that.
Raise the flame shield: Your "controversial" gaming opinion.
- Thread starter Laughing Banana
- Start date
What on Earth are you talking about? Only F2P games do that.
Mango The Magician
Banned
New opinion,
I honestly think people are going to be disappointed by what games Nintendo makes for mobile. Everyone is expecting entire large scale AAA iterations of games like AC, Pokemon, or Zelda, and well it's just not gonna happen, and if it does I will not support those games. At most we'll get companion games and what not, not a AC game thats exclusive to moblie or anything ridiculous, as not only does that severely cut into their revenue for their mobile games, but it's kinda disgraceful to the respective series.
As for why I wouldn't support it, well I hate f2p crap, and when it comes to AC or Zelda,, well I've played all those games in their respective series, and I'll continue to play them unless there's one that's locked behind owning a smart phone, as I'm not going to buy a smart phone for games that rightly deserve to stay on their handhelds.
I honestly think people are going to be disappointed by what games Nintendo makes for mobile. Everyone is expecting entire large scale AAA iterations of games like AC, Pokemon, or Zelda, and well it's just not gonna happen, and if it does I will not support those games. At most we'll get companion games and what not, not a AC game thats exclusive to moblie or anything ridiculous, as not only does that severely cut into their revenue for their mobile games, but it's kinda disgraceful to the respective series.
As for why I wouldn't support it, well I hate f2p crap, and when it comes to AC or Zelda,, well I've played all those games in their respective series, and I'll continue to play them unless there's one that's locked behind owning a smart phone, as I'm not going to buy a smart phone for games that rightly deserve to stay on their handhelds.
Corronchilejano
Member
Games are a consumer product, and sometimes the value of a certain game can only be thought of as "art" and consumed as such.
Mobile Suit Gooch
Grundle: The Awakening
If you ignore all the awkward moments, Final Fantasy X-2 is a good game.
Grand Strategy games like Crusader Kings II are more exciting than virtually any 'AAA Summer Blockbuster' action game on the market. They may look like unsexy spreadsheet simulators, but they offer more intrigue than Game of Thrones, more depth than the Grand Canyon, and limitless replay value. And yes, they are far more visceral than your average CoD: Modern Warface 27.
Curry-Hakase
Member
Port beggars, that are condescending towards a platform that they don't own and has a game they want to play, are cancer.
I would agree to a certain extent, but games are something that consumers pay a lot of money for, and if they don't enjoy the product, they have a right to criticise the product. I don't condone the violence and threats, but I still don't think art is immune to criticism. The anticipated ending to a huge series sucking and throwing everything people liked the series for out of the window isn't something paying customers should have to just accept.
Well the DS and the PSP were released in the same generation so this is technically accurate
I agree with this. It's why I didn't make it halfway through GTAIV before I sold it. The shooting parts were awful and the driving was just average. The mission structure really hurt it as well, since failure made you do all the boring parts again like driving a few minutes to get to the mission in the first place.
RoyalLaFlame
Banned
The gaming community simply sucks. Always so negative, too vocal for their own good and those fanboy wars are so annoying. I hate when people go to a thread to post a freaking "exclusive games list" just for the sake of it.
It works like this: if you like a product, you buy it. If you don't, then don't go around telling how developers should do it. Just stop it.
Good thing I don't spend my day around NeoGaf's gaming side. Off topic is way way better.
It works like this: if you like a product, you buy it. If you don't, then don't go around telling how developers should do it. Just stop it.
Good thing I don't spend my day around NeoGaf's gaming side. Off topic is way way better.
Red Arremer
Member
I haven't enjoyed a GTA game since GTA 2.
It sure does.
Terareflection
Member
Gameplay-wise it is the second best FF game after 12, fast and furious, they way I like it.
reminiscingLemon
Neo Member
Agree, although I wouldnt stop at just 1 for either series
These games feel like the kind of fake games you see people describe to play on a bad TV show
krameriffic
Member
The RPG genre suffers when games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2 come out and dilute their RPG elements in the name of giving a better "experience". Games like Torment: Tides of Numenora and Pillars of Eternity represent a return to a time when fancy graphics, mocap animations, expensive voice acting and teaspoon shallow dialog trees, character development and party interaction were not hallmarks of the genre. Bioware has done more to hurt RPGs by mainstreamifying a genre that thrived and appealed to people because it had such niche qualities to it.
Some Nobody
Junior Member
Lol. Torment got made. Pillars got made. You're still getting the kind of games you want. You good. By the way, you listed ONE thing that's objectively bad for the genre. Everything else you dislike is because "it's not like how it was".
silvermember
Banned
The only GTA game I like was Chinatown.
KaoteK
Member
Ok... I'm not going to mention popular games I think suck but...
The plot of most games is completely unimportant, and most game stories and characterisations are absolutely terrible.
I mean I get that a lot of people need motivation for whatever the game is about, but frankly it's so badly written most of the time it just doesn't matter to me. As long as the game has fun mechanics I'm good, and the story just pisses me off by getting in the way. I'm a cut scene skipper 90 percent of the time.
This attitude probably comes from being a massive book worm, and starting gaming in the late 70s/early 80s when there was no plot to most games.
Games have got a really long way to go to get me invested in the plot or characters the way a good book can, and I honestly doubt they will ever get there because of the interactive nature of them. It's no surprise that the games with the best stories tend to be the ones with the least interactivity.
All this isn't to say there aren't games with good stories, just that they are few and far between.
Even something like Bioshock infinite, which is lauded as a great story despite it's gameplay issues, to me is just terribly written Sci-fi, and I love Sci-fi!
Sorry for the wall of text, but it really is an issue that bemuses me.
The plot of most games is completely unimportant, and most game stories and characterisations are absolutely terrible.
I mean I get that a lot of people need motivation for whatever the game is about, but frankly it's so badly written most of the time it just doesn't matter to me. As long as the game has fun mechanics I'm good, and the story just pisses me off by getting in the way. I'm a cut scene skipper 90 percent of the time.
This attitude probably comes from being a massive book worm, and starting gaming in the late 70s/early 80s when there was no plot to most games.
Games have got a really long way to go to get me invested in the plot or characters the way a good book can, and I honestly doubt they will ever get there because of the interactive nature of them. It's no surprise that the games with the best stories tend to be the ones with the least interactivity.
All this isn't to say there aren't games with good stories, just that they are few and far between.
Even something like Bioshock infinite, which is lauded as a great story despite it's gameplay issues, to me is just terribly written Sci-fi, and I love Sci-fi!
Sorry for the wall of text, but it really is an issue that bemuses me.
I see my work here is done.
EDIT: And to add more controversial
opinions that I pass off as
1) When I tried SotC for the first time, I was like "Is this what they say is the best looking PS2 game? Wow." Its art direction is that bad. Didnt even bother finishing it. Couldnt stand it. Terrible design. That is a fact.
2) The last of Us. OHHH dont get me started.
TOO LATE.
I tried it on PSnow (trial), could barely make it through the opening (heavily scripted) sequence, and just put it down. I cannot believe this game is held in such high regard. The presentation is top notch though. Facts.
3) If I could trade one current game for another I would want, I would trade FFXV for a new Dark Cloud. Final Fantasy is having a bit of an identity crisis right now. Fact.
FYi. It is controversial because I pass these opinions off as facts. It is the easiest way to get a reaction out of people when you claim to know it all. People dont like that. Thus, controversy. I dont actually mean these are facts.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
You're allowed to be critical of any form of entertainment medium. Games are no different.
If a movie sucks, you say it sucks. If an album is bad, you say it's bad. If a painting looks like shit, you say it looks like shit.
Why would games get a special pass?
bobawesome
Member
Good thing I don't spend my day around NeoGaf's gaming side. Off topic is way way better.
This is the most controversial thing I've seen posted yet. Absolutely disgusting.
Played a few hours of the first two souls game, range combat feels like an afterthought.
Spehornoob
Member
Hmmm. Never posted in this thread but here's one that's been on my mind lately.
Games, especially JRPGs, were better when there was less focus on how cinematic they were (or at least saved cinematic moments for certain events and attacks a la FFVII). Part of this is because things like sprite art and a limited animation set cause you to fill in the blanks of the story in your head, and it becomes your vision of the story. Sort of like reading a book vs watching a movie. I don't know if I'm crazy or if that actually makes any sense, but I've been playing more older JRPGs lately and getting engrossed in them, despite not really being able to get into a lot of modern RPGs in the same way.
Games, especially JRPGs, were better when there was less focus on how cinematic they were (or at least saved cinematic moments for certain events and attacks a la FFVII). Part of this is because things like sprite art and a limited animation set cause you to fill in the blanks of the story in your head, and it becomes your vision of the story. Sort of like reading a book vs watching a movie. I don't know if I'm crazy or if that actually makes any sense, but I've been playing more older JRPGs lately and getting engrossed in them, despite not really being able to get into a lot of modern RPGs in the same way.
I love mobile gaming so I'm happy Nintendo is entering it as well.
Also, Only good Halo is the 1st. It progressively become worse, though I have not tried 4 yet.
Edit: I also don't get SotC and ICO. I really want to like them but it just does not click. Same with Zelda and other similar games.
Also, Only good Halo is the 1st. It progressively become worse, though I have not tried 4 yet.
Edit: I also don't get SotC and ICO. I really want to like them but it just does not click. Same with Zelda and other similar games.
RoyalLaFlame
Banned
Noooooooo it's not. They have sunshine and rainbows there. Here all we have is shitstorms.
Some Nobody
Junior Member
Doesn't work in my head. Never feels comfortable. Even when I've emulated slow-paced games like tactical RPGs, I don't enjoy it and need a controller.
If you added "for me" at the end of your sentence, it wouldn't be controversial at all. The indie/mobile revolution you want would mean the end of my gaming career. And probably a fuckton of other people's too. We've seen indie gaming proliferate over the past year and a half or so, and the only game I've wanted is The Banner Saga. The rest? Dull, dull, and more dull. It's weird that you even want this, since so much of what they do is nostalgic re-creations of shit we had 15-25 years ago.
I dunno. For me J-RPGs have become lacking not due to the cinematics, but because:
1.) Most aren't being made anymore (This is the biggest, I guess.)
2.) They aren't putting in the required work for impressive visuals due to the cost, so everything ends up looking like mildly cleaner looking PS2 games. Seriously, can none of you make convincing looking grass?
3.) They won't adopt some of the advances in gameplay that have come about since their PS1/PS2 heydays.
You're right. Halo 4 multiplayer was fun at first but then they mucked up the weapon balance and added level packs and it was all downhill from there.
BrianRoyale
Member
Don't like Mass Effect 1. Granted I played it after Mass Effect 2, but with all the people who complained about Dragon Age 2, well that's how it felt to play 1. Maybe not combat wise (although stiff) but man if every single planet you went to having the same facility to go into. So many reused areas it was painful.
Wait a minute. You're blaming BioWare for the decline of iso cRPGs? As if cRPGs would never have needed a Kickstarter rebirth if they had stayed in the genre? What makes you think that they wouldn't have gone the way of Black Isle and Troika?
Crayon
Member
I fell asleep playing uncharted 2. And then had a boring dream.
Ghost Trick is a terrible game with barely anything worth calling gameplay. Watching a 3 second animation loop of a guy having a heart attack for 3 minutes before you can even attempt your 10th try of trial and error is not amazing animation, story, or gameplay.
Rip brave Pomeranian
I had to force myself through the last 3 or 4 hours, I was just so goddamn bored. I was hoping for a big plot twist at the end so there would be at least something I'd remember about the game, but no.
Oddly enough, I kind of want to buy the remaster. I feel that if I replay the game with a different mindset, I might enjoy it more.
While I enjoyed the game a lot, I've heard Grounded mode changes the gameplay significantly, in a good way, and I'd like to try it one day. Might be worth a look if you ever get the Remaster.
Some Nobody
Junior Member
Lol, this isn't controversial. It's divisive. People usually fall into one of three categories with this: Strongly agree, strongly disagree, and don't care at all.
Well, if you expected the game to switch locations and characters every 5 minutes, you probably should try it with a different mindset.
Try to appreciate
- the encounters that make sense in context of the story (not just endless waves like other games)
- the character development
- the beautiful level of detail in the environment
TLOU is like a fine wine. Not a box of mixed sodas like Uncharted and Calladutay.
SunBroDave
Member
Ocarina of Time isn't the best game of all time, or even the best 3D Zelda. Not even close.
Also Titanfall rulez
Also Titanfall rulez
IronLich
Member
I've never been particularly fond of "Hard for the sake of hard" games in the modern era. I just wish they would all go away.
I can buy titles of old on the NES/16-bit systems needed to push back because otherwise they would be completed in between lunch breaks, but as I grow older, my game time becomes far more valuable and less frequent.
I can appreciate that we are in an era where these well oiled machines like From Software's Souls games exist, but I find the punishment of death in them to be excessive in this day. Proper checkpoints exists so that there are previous chunks of gameplay you don't have to repeat since you already did them. This is what all other games do to alleviate repetition. But instead of planting you in a safe spot before the boss so that you can learn from each possible death, they push you back to a segment of climbing your way back up that you just thoroughly cleared before, and you have to do this every time you die to that boss. Oh, and we're gonna cut your maximum health in half until you reach the point where you died for no reason other than to make the trek back potentially harder than the giant boss that took your life.
What is the point of learning from each death against a tough enemy if there's a chance I could die on the way TO said tough enemy, and waste even more of my time and life? Just put me next to the boss so that I can adapt, and win from the struggle against the foe and not struggling on the path to challenge him.
This isn't even just a call for hand holding to be the norm, and I do wish to 'get gud' on my own terms, but I feel that the toughest game we should ever play as a human is life itself, and our luxuries and recreation should not be beating us down any harder than our experiences outside of them potentially could.
I can buy titles of old on the NES/16-bit systems needed to push back because otherwise they would be completed in between lunch breaks, but as I grow older, my game time becomes far more valuable and less frequent.
I can appreciate that we are in an era where these well oiled machines like From Software's Souls games exist, but I find the punishment of death in them to be excessive in this day. Proper checkpoints exists so that there are previous chunks of gameplay you don't have to repeat since you already did them. This is what all other games do to alleviate repetition. But instead of planting you in a safe spot before the boss so that you can learn from each possible death, they push you back to a segment of climbing your way back up that you just thoroughly cleared before, and you have to do this every time you die to that boss. Oh, and we're gonna cut your maximum health in half until you reach the point where you died for no reason other than to make the trek back potentially harder than the giant boss that took your life.
What is the point of learning from each death against a tough enemy if there's a chance I could die on the way TO said tough enemy, and waste even more of my time and life? Just put me next to the boss so that I can adapt, and win from the struggle against the foe and not struggling on the path to challenge him.
This isn't even just a call for hand holding to be the norm, and I do wish to 'get gud' on my own terms, but I feel that the toughest game we should ever play as a human is life itself, and our luxuries and recreation should not be beating us down any harder than our experiences outside of them potentially could.
I have no idea where you got those lol, I never expected either. Hell, playing as the girl was surprising, I thought I'd be, uh, the guy all the way through. I've forgotten their names.
I'll get the Remaster when it's 20e or under on PSN
Ultimate_Trainer
Member
Saturn/PSX era ATLUS games are better than PS2 era ATLUS games.
The mechanics felt both innovative in the PSX persona games and really polished up in Soul Hackers.
The mechanics felt both innovative in the PSX persona games and really polished up in Soul Hackers.
I prefer games with a strong central narrative in which your choices only somewhat impact the result of the game. In games that feature choice too heavily, I find the story isn't very engaging since it needs to accomodate too many variables, and that the notion of freedom as story doesn't resonate as heavily with me as it does with others. On the other hand, stories that feature no interactivity or variability are just watered-down versions of stories that other mediums can do better. Somewhere in the middle is the sweetspot.
yes I'm BioWare's lapdog, but this applies to things like Tactics Ogre/Walking Dead as well!
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
No quality game is "hard for the sake of being hard". The only games that aim for that kind of design just end up being trash. Difficulty is just a way a game can get the player engaged and immersed (and honestly, it's one of the most critical ways. Easy games have to then hook the player through sheer aesthetic quality (which tends to result in games that are cool novelties, but have little lasting power) or complexity (see something like Deus Ex, the likes of which only come around once in a blue moon since it's so difficult to make something that is simultaneously highly complex, (relatively) undemanding of the player, and satisfying).
You get sent back in those games because it increases the quality of the challenge. Don't think of the boss or the level as distinct challenges of their own; the developers are just asking you to be consistent enough to be able to beat them both in one go. Breaking that up would only dilute the tension and challenge.
Imagine applying that kind of thought to Super Mario Bros. Why bother trying to learn how to get past the first koopa in 1-1 when there's a chance you could just die on the first goomba and get sent back to the start of the level? It's because the game designers felt it would be make for an unsatisfying experience if they broke the level into little chunks and lessened the penalty for failure (thus lessening your desire to win).
Also I have to say it's extremely bizarre to say that a Souls game is more painful than experiences outside of video games.
Spuck-uk
Banned
Well, here's mine:
While Smash Bros as a series is a fun party game, it's not a fighting gam,e. Furthermore, as a spectator Melee especially is unwatchable trash, looks every single one of its years.
I dread it showing up in Evo yet again to bore me to tears, and so do most of the FG players I know.
While Smash Bros as a series is a fun party game, it's not a fighting gam,e. Furthermore, as a spectator Melee especially is unwatchable trash, looks every single one of its years.
I dread it showing up in Evo yet again to bore me to tears, and so do most of the FG players I know.