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

Link to the Past is the second worst 2D Zelda game, and inferior to every console 3D entry save maybe Skyward Sword.

In fact, most of the SNES classics (Super Metroid, Final Fantasy VI and Super Castlevania IV) were badly beaten down by their immediate sequels (Metroid Prime, Final Fantasy VII, IX and Symphony of the Night).
 
The Walking Dead is a terrible game. The story is stupid. The writing is abysmal. The "acting" is hilariously awful. The game play is clunky and suffers from severe camera issues. Your choices have little-to-no-impact on the events of the game; there is an illusion of choice, but it ends there.
 
Nert said:
I don't object to this opinion because I think it's controversial (well, the game is polarizing, but a decent number of people seem to agree with you). Instead, I just think that arguments of this sort are fairly meaningless exercises in semantics that hinder more interesting discussion from taking place. Journey is a video game that requires both a video game console to run it and direct player input with a controller for anything to happen. Beyond that, you are also directly controlling a character on screen that can perform various functions based on your input (movement, jumping, chimes), which is arguably more interactive than heavily menu driven games. Journey, by definition, relies on player interaction, like any other game.

Ideally, the "Journey and The Walking Dead aren't really video games" crowd would put more energy to expressing why they found the games to not be satisfying. Do you think that those games would have benefited from having a greater degree of challenge? What kind of level obstacles and character abilities do you think Journey could have used? Would the game's storytelling suffer from the introduction of a fail state of some kind? And so on.

I feel similarly fatigued by "Game X isn't really an RPG" and "Game Y isn't really a fighting game" discussions.
Click to expand...

Whoa now, just because I think they're terrible games doesn't make them not enjoyable. They are most definitely video games, but the implementation of the unique feature of video games - interactivity - are barebones at best. Yes you can run and jump but the interactions of these very basic verbs with the systems presented by the game are too few. Let's compare it to Mario which also features running and jumping (and wall jumping, spin jumping and all the powers his suits give him but lets ignore those for simplicity's sake). Levels are designed to give the player lots of valid uses to apply those verbs, and even something like controllable jump height means a lot as dangers and obstacles come at a lot of different heights, some because the designer put those there, some because the player caused it themselves with, for example an errant shell. There is a constant need to apply these verbs as smartly and skillfully as possible to reach the end goal or satisfy some other challenge, self-imposed or not (speedrunning).

Taking this into another medium let's consider board games. Snakes and Ladders is a board game, a terrible one. Why? Think about it, all you do is roll dice. That's all the interaction you get. Snakes and Ladders might as well play itself. Monopoly is not much better but it does have some choice. A player's strength comes mostly from his/her rolls. Land on Boardwalk? Pretty much won, or at least gained an immense amount of power on the board. One would buy every property they land on if they had the choice to expand influence. Let's go to the other side of the spectrum, DnD board games, Arkham Horror, even Chess and Go. Player interactivity can be applied to a wide range of valid directions, one verb can result in a lot of things. One verb can result in a checkmate, but the very same verb applied differently could cost you a queen and cripple you to the point of no return.

The range of validity of a single action is what makes a game great.

edit: Shit I pressed submit accidentally. Oh well.
 
While on the subject of JPRGs....

- I like the art anime style of many JRPGs and sometimes better than WRPGs. However, story, characters and acting are oftentimes cliched or annoying or just plain bad. Plus, most don't have much continuity with some exceptions (Legend of Heroes being at least one of them and also having decent characters as well).

- Star Ocean 4 characters never seemed that creepy to me in appearance. However, annoying little "kay" girl is overall typical creepy.

- I actually like backtracking in games, especially if it's a Metroidvania or Zelda style of game. To me it's worse moving straight through a location only once. I like to move through a location, see a door I can't unlock yet and get back to it at some point. I love that feeling of thinking "what's behind that door?" knowing I will eventually come back to it as some point. I wish more games had backtracking.

- The best games this generation have all been sci-fi/space opera games. The Halo series, Mass Effect and most recently Dead Space. I've always loved space opera but there was never one that appealed to me since Star Control II.
 
Kup said:
- I don't get why people customise Shepard in Mass Effect... his face is on the box people! Going female - even weirder.
Click to expand...

Default Shepard is ugly as fuck and actually turned me off the game from the get-go. To be fair, the horrid art direction contributed more towards my apathy towards it. It took an immense amount of pressure from my son and a heap of willpower to actually stick with it long enough to finish the game. The fact I could customize the look away from that generic bald space-marine looking douche helped a little.
 
CaptNink said:
JRPGS are not true "RPGs".
Click to expand...
RPGs aren't even the correct term for what most people consider to be RPGs. Videogames can't really be RPGs anyway, since there's no creative structure that can be put in place. They're at best well-laid out architecture, at worst boring, linear tunnels. It's also why most people hate newer versions of D&D. No thought or creativity by DMs necessary! Just follow the instruction book! Boring.
 
GTA IV is good. Not excellent but good. Don't care for rest of GTAs.

Half Life 2 sucks. One of the worst FPSes i've ever played.

Crysis games look ugly. No art. Sure, they have high quality assets, textures and neat tech stuff but doesn't make them look good, just artificial. Games need style.

Halo 1 is not by any means best game of the franchise.
 
Mario is actually a very shit design for a character, a fat plumber that headbutts bricks and actually does no plumbing and likes to wear a raccoon onesie and eats mushrooms and has a mushroom friend.
I mean WTF?
tumblr_m0dl7ybVIH1qfnf40o1_500.jpg
 
demidar said:
Whoa now, just because I think they're terrible games doesn't make them not enjoyable. They are most definitely video games, but the implementation of the unique feature of video games - interactivity - are barebones at best. Yes you can run and jump but the interactions of these very basic verbs with the systems presented by the game are too few. Let's compare it to Mario which also features running and jumping (and wall jumping, spin jumping and all the powers his suits give him but lets ignore those for simplicity's sake). Levels are designed to give the player lots of valid uses to apply those verbs, and even something like controllable jump height means a lot as dangers and obstacles come at a lot of different heights, some because the designer put those there, some because the player caused it themselves with, for example an errant shell. There is a constant need to apply these verbs as smartly and skillfully as possible to reach the end goal or satisfy some other challenge, self-imposed or not (speedrunning).

Taking this into another medium let's consider board games. Snakes and Ladders is a board game, a terrible one. Why? Think about it, all you do is roll dice. That's all the interaction you get. Snakes and Ladders might as well play itself. Monopoly is not much better but it does have some choice. A player's strength comes mostly from his/her rolls. Land on Boardwalk? Pretty much won, or at least gained an immense amount of power on the board. One would buy every property they land on if they had the choice to expand influence. Let's go to the other side of the spectrum, DnD board games, Arkham Horror, even Chess and Go. Player interactivity can be applied to a wide range of valid directions, one verb can result in a lot of things. One verb can result in a checkmate, but the very same verb applied differently could cost you a queen and cripple you to the point of no return.

The range of validity of a single action is what makes a game great.

edit: Shit I pressed submit accidentally. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the interesting reply! I apologize if your reading of my post was that I was saying that you found no enjoyment from Journey, as that wasn't my intention. The distinction you made that puzzled me was the "good game" vs. "good interactive experience" one.

I'm going to press you on the bolded segment just a bit because I think that gets to the heart of my post from earlier. When you say that Journey has "too few" applications of its verbs (or too few possible outcomes), you're implying that having more of something would make the game better.

I think we could both agree that Journey and, say, Super Mario World are setting out to do different things. The type of responses that Journey is trying to invoke from the player are different than the types of responses that Super Mario world is trying to invoke from the player. Do you think it's valid for Journey to have a different goal (in the sense that a game going for an emotional response above anything else can be a "good" game)? If so, what additional mechanics or potential uses of the mechanics that are already there would you like a game like Journey to have? Should the world in Journey be harder to navigate? Should there be something akin to hidden collectibles that reward players that explore the environment more thoroughly?
 
Gaming, in its entirety, has become completely dull to me over the past few years due to how monotonous the style of play has become. Until the industry has perfected new means of enhancing your experience and deepening your immersion while playing (virtual reality, motion controls, touchscreen), I'll hesitate calling myself a gamer. Relying solely on better graphics to sell your 400 dollar machines won't cut it for me this upcoming generation, nor will the standard controller or KB/M.
 
-I love FF XIII and XIII-2 (both are at the top of my favorites list the years they came out) and am extremely happy we are getting another Lightning game (she rocks!)
-I see default male Shephard as the only true Shephard, and ME3 is my favorite Mass Effect and the ending is fine
-of the big 3 Microsoft brings nothing of value to the gaming industry and if they left I couldn't care less
-I loathe PC gaming
-I think many games have stories as good as books and movies, despite what detractors say
 
Nert said:
Thank you for the interesting reply! I apologize if your reading of my post was that I was saying that you found no enjoyment from Journey, as that wasn't my intention. The distinction you made that puzzled me was the "good game" vs. "good interactive experience" one.

I'm going to press you on the bolded segment just a bit because I think that gets to the heart of my post from earlier. When you say that Journey has "too few" applications of its verbs (or too few possible outcomes), you're implying that having more of something would make the game better.

I think we could both agree that Journey and, say, Super Mario World are setting out to do different things. The type of responses that Journey is trying to invoke from the player are different than the types of responses that Super Mario world is trying to invoke from the player. Do you think it's valid for Journey to have a different goal (in the sense that a game going for an emotional response above anything else can be a "good" game)? If so, what additional mechanics or potential uses of the mechanics that are already there would you like a game like Journey to have? Should the world in Journey be harder to navigate? Should there be something akin to hidden collectibles that reward players that explore the environment more thoroughly?
Click to expand...

Perhaps "terrible" might have been too strong a word, but yes I completely agree that Mario platformers and games like Journey set out to do completely different things. It's why I advocate the splitting of GotY or "Best of" lists into gameplay and interactive experience because the intent behind them and the emotions evoked are so wildly different as to be incomparable.

Journey (and please excuse my overly aggressive terms, I use hyperbole to create a more distinct contrast to further my point) is absolutely fine as it is. Yes, its gameplay is lacking but for what it sets out to do, low impact gameplay is perfectly fine. Games like Journey and The Walking Dead (interactive experiences) and more gameplay-heavy games like Mario Platformers, arena shooters like Quake and games like Devil May Cry, Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden can coexist peacefully. Some people enjoy both, some prefers one or the other but they can both exist quite easily and people who argue that one is better than the other are stupid because neither are inherently superior/inferior, they are just simply different. It's okay to have preference, I myself greatly favour gameplay-heavy games but it's cool the other side exists too because it shows the maturation and diversity of video game.
 
- Super Mario World is the greatest game ever made.
- Twisted Metal 3 is one of my favorites in the series.
- 007 Legends isn't as bad as people say.
- I love GTA IV.
- The GTA series is the greatest third person action/shooter series of all time.
- Houser writing is excellent. All the hate on here gets on my fucking nerves.
- Survival horror games suck.
- Competitive multiplayer is out of control and should be removed from all games until they can get the single player and replayability down correctly.
- PC is not the "master race".
- I don't like most Japanese games and hate the "anime" art style.
- Nintendo is the greatest video game company of all time followed by Rockstar.
- Doom 3 is a great game but it's not worthy of the Doom name.
- Mafia 2 was excellent.
- I love Oblivion. It had a better theme than Skyrim.
MotionBlue said:
The FPS genre suffered as a whole, due to Halo and CoD success.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with this. But some of them are still pretty good.
StreetsAhead said:
The GTA franchise is not fun to play at all and anyone who derives pleasure from its story is probably aged 10.
Click to expand...
I'm 23 and have been playing since I was 14. Some of the greatest video game writing ever.
 
-Sony first party games weren't that great this gen with Naughty Dog in particular has fallen each gen since the PS1. Even their graphical performance wasn't anything to write home about.
-Platformers are the greatest genre of video games followed by RPGs
-Xenoblade is a good game but overrated
-Fallout 3 is not a bad game. If I'm feeling nice I might even concede that its not a bad Fallout game
-Dragon Quest 8 and to a lesser extent 9 were terrible.
 
Nert said:
I'm a vocal critic of the terrible music in the NSMB series, but there are a lot of Nintendo games that are still pushing the envelope with their soundtracks. Last year's soundtrack of the year voting thread did a good job of highlighting the excellent music in both Kid Icarus: Uprising and Paper Mario: Sticker Star.
Click to expand...

I actually haven't picked either of those games up yet, which I've been meaning to do, so I can't comment on the soundtracks. But the music in NSMB is indeed terrible, I don't think I'd mind so much if they weren't being recycled so damn much for each yearly update. Which is a shame, the 3D Mario games are still the amazing milestone games with crazily different ideas and soundtracks.
 
Hot Coldman said:
Sands of Time is ruined by its combat, Two Thrones is superior
Click to expand...

but those boss fights

those trial-and-error chariot races

dat failed attempt to re-capture the chemistry between The Prince/Farah

both great games with some of the best 3d platforming ever, but SoT stands alone in my mind, repetitive clumsy combat or not
 
Sheroking said:
I'll never understand why people care so much about the label. JRPGS don't need to be "true RPGS" to be better games than "true RPGS", they just need to be... you know, better games.
Click to expand...

Yup, I personally have more fun playing them than most western RPGs or tabletop RPGs. Why not accept the games for what they are, not for what they are not? I don't complain that Wipeout series isn't a "true racing game" or NFL Blitz isn't a "true football sim".

Then again if someone hates shmups, Demons/Dark Souls, and Japanese RPGs, their taste is probably as farrrrrr away from mine as humanly possible.

And here's another controversial opinion - 50 Cent: Blood On The Sand is a surprisingly decent game!
 
ViewtifulJC said:
but those boss fights

those trial-and-error chariot races

dat failed attempt to re-capture the chemistry between The Prince/Farah

both great games with some of the best 3d platforming ever, but SoT stands alone in my mind, repetitive clumsy combat or not
Click to expand...

Oh man, those fucking Chariot races... I may need to rethink this.

Nah, the speed kills in Two Thrones were just too welcome to me. Also, for how terrible the plot and writing is in Two Thrones, Sands of Time wasn't that much better, it was just less stupid but just as boring.
 
The Uncharted games are janky, sluggish and unresponsive. There's too much attention to making the game pretty and the animations convincing instead on making it fun. It's all eye candy, really, just like Crysis. Naughty Dog should stop making games altogether and become an animation/ tech house.

Sully is the only character I like. Everyone else is obnoxious
 
People like to dismiss/bash the Tales series because secretly they're butthurt that so few entries have made it out of Japan. It's basically striking back in anger.
 
enigmatic_alex44 said:
-I love FF XIII and XIII-2 (both are at the top of my favorites list the years they came out) and am extremely happy we are getting another Lightning game (she rocks!)
-I see default male Shephard as the only true Shephard, and ME3 is my favorite Mass Effect and the ending is fine
-of the big 3 Microsoft brings nothing of value to the gaming industry and if they left I couldn't care less
-I loathe PC gaming
-I think many games have stories as good as books and movies, despite what detractors say
Click to expand...

yeah, I also liked FF13 and FF13-2. Looks forward to Lightning returns. Not really my favorites but definitely does not hate the series.

This is coming from someone who didn't play FFXI, FFXII, and FFX-2.
 
EurAsianGirl said:
People like to dismiss/bash the Tales series because secretly they're butthurt that so few entries have made it out of Japan. It's basically striking back in anger.
Click to expand...

But I've bought every 3D translated Tales game since Symphonia!

But ToV PS3 might be the butt cream I need :P

Also I don't think people would bash a game for having many untranslated entries if they don't care about the games anyway.
 
I'm not a big proponent of the Bigger is Better camp. You tell me this game is open world, takes a minimum of 40 hours to complete, non-linear, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING /molyneux...it tends to have the opposite intended effect. Especially because the combat tends to get so boring. Maybe because I grew up playing Star Fox 64 and Metal Slug 3, concise, sharp, brilliant action games you can beat in a hour or so. When you go the other end of the scale, like a FO3 or Skyrim, I'll play it for a few hours, get bored of the giant world, and go back to Team Fortress 2 or Street Figther 4 or whatever.

Like, everybody seems to adore Persona 4, but apparently the average play through is about SEVENTY HOURS, and I hear the game doesn't REALLY start for a good 3-4 hours. Not only would I never finish this game, I'd probably get too bored by the loooooooooooooong intro/tutorial section to even get halfway through it. I played KH2, I played TP. Never again, video games. Do you hear me!? Never again will I suffer through your tedious, pondering openings! Forgive me, Lord Kamiya for your creation Okami bores me.
 
ViewtifulJC said:
I'm not a big proponent of the Bigger is Better camp. You tell me this game is open world, takes a minimum of 40 hours to complete, non-linear, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING /molyneux...it tends to have the opposite intended effect. Especially because the combat tends to get so boring. Maybe because I grew up playing Star Fox 64 and Metal Slug 3, concise, sharp, brilliant action games you can beat in a hour or so. When you go the other end of the scale, like a FO3 or Skyrim, I'll play it for a few hours, get bored of the giant world, and go back to Team Fortress 2 or Street Figther 4 or whatever.

Like, everybody seems to adore Persona 4, but apparently the average play through is about SEVENTY HOURS, and I hear the game doesn't REALLY start for a good 3-4 hours. Not only would I never finish this game, I'd probably get too bored by the loooooooooooooong intro/tutorial section to even get halfway through it. I played KH2, I played TP. Never again, video games. Do you hear me!? Never again will I suffer through your tedious, pondering openings! Forgive me, Lord Kamiya for your creation Okami bores me.
Click to expand...

That's a shame, because past the tutorial the quality is both high AND consistent right until the very end. 70 hours is great if the actual game is great. 70 hours sucks if the game sucks. I finished P4 last month and it easily beats the everloving shit out of 95% of games released in this entire generation.

Also, Okami, while great, runs out of tricks half-way through and because of that drags on way too long.
 
demidar said:
But I've bought every 3D translated Tales game since Symphonia!

But ToV PS3 might be the butt cream I need :P

Also I don't think people would bash a game for having many untranslated entries if they don't care about the games anyway.
Click to expand...

lol I just most GAFFers are tsundere about the Tales series in general. (God I hate using that word but it seems to be the only appropriate one for this situation...)

Especially when they praise to the high gods how much better the Japan-only ones are yet bash the English-localized ones. :P
 
Oh, also except for Dragon Quest V

Final Fantasy >>>>> Dragon Quest (...Well, until the shit-stains known as XII and XIII came into existence anyways...))
 
EurAsianGirl said:
lol I just most GAFFers are tsundere about the Tales series in general. (God I hate using that word but it seems to be the only appropriate one for this situation...)

Especially when they praise to the high gods how much better the Japan-only ones are yet bash the English-localized ones. :P
Click to expand...

Huh, I don't think I've seen that sentiment on Gaf. Elsewhere probably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Generational attitudes towards gaming - your experience?
Social Opinion 
15
34
No BBC=Anger replied
Lies of P King's Flame and Gamepass
Opinion LTTP Analysis 
30
2K
ClosBSAS replied
  • Poll
The Best Year in Gaming?
Opinion  2
81
902
PurePlatinum replied
Your controversial gaming opinions in regards to the state of the gaming industry
Community  3 4 5 6 7
337
17K
Woggleman replied
In your opinion, what is different in this present gaming age?
2
85
3K
Generic replied
Top Bottom