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

Ooh, I've got another one. Let's see how many feathers this ruffles.

I've tried every pre-PS1 Final Fantasy, but none of them have captured my interest the way VII, VIII, and X (the only FFs I truly love) did.
 
That kind of difficulty infuriates me. I don't mind spending an hour trying to defeat some crazy hard boss, as long as when I die I'm able to immediately try again.

Doing that would absolutely kill games like Ninja Gaiden Black and Demon's/Dark Souls. I don't think it's any fun just spamming against bosses like that (or even the individual stages). Cautiousness and precision is no longer rewarded. Regen health does the exact same thing in FPS/TPS games.
 
This is what turned me off from the souls games. It's not fun going through the same repetitive areas for the 20th+ time, to only die and have to retread 20 mins of progress before you have to repeat the same thing over again. It's not that the game is hard, it's that the penalty for death is so fucking high. That kind of difficulty infuriates me. I don't mind spending an hour trying to defeat some crazy hard boss, as long as when I die I'm able to immediately try again. Spending an hour to defeat a semi challenging boss because it takes you 20-30 mins to get back is not fun.

Also, I don't see what's so great about the combat. I find it extremely dull and boring, and most of the enemies are complete pushovers devoid of any kind of intelligence.

Again, agree with all of this, and I'll add this:

The way death is handled in the Souls series would probably be bashed as "stupid", "unacceptable" and so in other games. I've seen people complain about autosaves that make you backtrack, yet in Souls it's "part of the old school challenge."
 
Doing that would absolutely kill games like Ninja Gaiden Black and Demon's/Dark Souls. I don't think it's any fun just spamming against bosses like that (or even the individual stages). Cautiousness and precision is no longer rewarded. Regen health does the exact same thing in FPS/TPS games.

The usually one hit deaths don't provide enough incentive to be cautious and precise?
 
Red Dead Redemption was utterly terrible, and was essentially 'Grand Theft Horse' in a dull and lifeless world, supported by a terrible story.

I'll always remember people recommending RDR to me even though they knew I hated GTA 4 to its core. "Honestly, it's such a better game on every level!" While I didn't hate RDR as much (exploring for treasures, plants, and animal ecosystem were great), it was still mechanically and design-wise too similar that I disliked the game. Uhh that linear mission design, where you fail a mission because your horse is not moving fast enough with other riders. Uhh the aiming system was still awful and only slightly slaved by Max Payne bullet time. Uhh can't get through a door because of tank controls + Euphoria. Story didn't do much for me because of the generic plot, unwilling errand boy behaviour, and lugoscabib discobiscuits.

Although I'll admit, having a bear chase you during thunder made for cool atmosphere. And lasso'ing assassination targets to catch them alive was appreciated.
 
Doing that would absolutely kill games like Ninja Gaiden Black and Demon's/Dark Souls. I don't think it's any fun just spamming against bosses like that (or even the individual stages). Cautiousness and precision is no longer rewarded. Regen health does the exact same thing in FPS/TPS games.

But I love Ninja Gaiden Black, it's my favorite action game of all time. I don't remember ever needing to retread entire levels to get back to a boss fight. They were pretty generous with giving you a save spot pretty close to the boss. Though to be honest, if the core gameplay of the soul's games wasn't so boring, I probably wouldn't care having to go through the level again to re-fight the boss. But because the combat is so bland, and the enemies are such pushovers, repeating those areas just becomes a tedious chore.
 
Final Fantasy VII is extremely overrated. Not saying it isn't a good game but I think it popped a lot of cherries to the genre and people give it more credit then it should deserve.

Also FFXI rise of zilart and chains of promathia is a better final fantasy story then most Final Fantasy's released
 
My post is just a specific form of a pet peeve I have regarding how people place a value on something and ignoring that somebody else might value different things. I can see why someone might value the PS4 or Xbox One more than a Wii U but that isn't controversial, many people agree that the PS4 and Xbox One are "worth more." I place more value on being able to play 1st party Nintendo games.

Another, perhaps better, example is Apple vs PC. Personally I'd rather buy an Apple computer (especially laptops) for all the qualities a lot of other people gloss over. The trackpad, battery life and reliability, OS X, display quality, build quality and numerous other small features. I know I'm giving up raw performance, gaming abilities and paying more. But I value the things Apple machines have far more than what I'm missing out on. Plus I really dislike Windows.

Now I can appreciate that someone might not feel the same way about an Apple computer but what bugs me is that so few people will accept that someone might choose otherwise.

I agree. If I could get Adobe running on a Linux build I wouldn't touch Microsoft's or Apple's operating systems. Hopefully the Steambox being Linux based will increase the number of Linux compatible games coming down in the future and increase support overall.
 
Well, Super Meat Boy trivialized most of its challenges with checkpoints every 20 seconds, so it hasn't got much in common with Dark Souls.

Super Meat Boy has checkpoints? WTH? Just out of curiosity - how do I enable these?
I always did every level from the beginning till the end when i died?!

By that same token, making the punishment for being killed by ridiculously powerful enemies a 15 - 20 minute back track, depending on how much resistance there is between you and the place you died is not good design.

There are great games that are challenging without being over the top. Dark Souls is over the top.

Which brings me to my controversial opinion: Beating Dark Souls doesn't necessarily mean you're a hardcore gamer. It just means you're more patient than the rest of us.

Yes exactly. I might have beaten the game if it had a save system. I would still fail 30 times at the Capra Demon, but at least I could have saved right in front of it instead of having to waste my time getting there over and over and over again.

And when I finally beat the boss I was so frustrated over this game design that I quit for good this time. I felt like the game took way too much time from me and made me way too depressed to further go on to find out why it is supposedly the best RPG of our times. I liked the combat, I liked the combat challenges, but this game mechanic is not for someone like me.
 
By that same token, making the punishment for being killed by ridiculously powerful enemies a 15 - 20 minute back track, depending on how much resistance there is between you and the place you died is not good design.

There are great games that are challenging without being over the top. Dark Souls is over the top.

Which brings me to my controversial opinion: Beating Dark Souls doesn't necessarily mean you're a hardcore gamer. It just means you're more patient than the rest of us.
Exactly how I feel.

I'll always remember people recommending RDR to me even though they knew I hated GTA 4 to its core. "Honestly, it's such a better game on every level!" While I didn't hate RDR as much (exploring for treasures, plants, and animal ecosystem were great), it was still mechanically and design-wise too similar that I disliked the game. Uhh that linear mission design, where you fail a mission because your horse is not moving fast enough with other riders. Uhh the aiming system was still awful and only slightly slaved by Max Payne bullet time. Uhh can't get through a door because of tank controls + Euphoria. Story didn't do much for me because of the generic plot, unwilling errand boy behaviour, and lugoscabib discobiscuits.

Although I'll admit, having a bear chase you during thunder made for cool atmosphere. And lasso'ing assassination targets to catch them alive was appreciated.
Interesting, I hated gta 4 but loved red dead.
 
Every person who thinks that the DualShock 4 is an awesome controller/best controller ever is because probably they have used the same crap for more than 15 years.

It's simply a good controller.
 
As for controversial opinions, I can't get into 3D Zeldas. I love aLttP and the Game Boy versions but I've still never beaten a 3D Zelda.

I don't really know if I'd say that's controversial, I've heard it quite a bit. Personally I have a difficult time getting into 2D Zeldas (not to say I haven't beaten some). I think it really comes down to whatever your first exposure to the series was. On the surface 2D Zeldas are pretty similar to 3D Zeldas (dungeons, bosses, etc...), but I find they feel quite a bit different once you actually play them.
 
Every person who thinks that the DualShock 4 is an awesome controller/best controller ever is because probably they have used the same crap for more than 15 years.

It's simply a good controller.

After playing with the X360 controller for the past couple of years, I feel the DS4 may turn out to be my favorite controller ever, even better than the 360 pad. We'll see though.
 
On the topic of controllers, I actually hate Analog L2/R2. "Triggers" or whatever terminology you want to use. I just prefer them to be buttons like everything else.

But of these "trigger" style buttons, PS3's are my favourite because they curve downward.

The 360 ones hurt my fingers. I really can't use them. I bought one for my PC and had to basically throw it out.
I admittedly have not spent much time with PS4 but initial impressions of the DS4 are negative for me -- Which probably makes sense since all the 360 controller people love it and I hate that controller.

By that same token, making the punishment for being killed by ridiculously powerful enemies a 15 - 20 minute back track, depending on how much resistance there is between you and the place you died is not good design.

There are great games that are challenging without being over the top. Dark Souls is over the top.

Which brings me to my controversial opinion: Beating Dark Souls doesn't necessarily mean you're a hardcore gamer. It just means you're more patient than the rest of us.

I agree with this.
I like Dark Souls a lot (though Demon's Souls is better -- is that an unpopular opinion?) but I am probably one of the worst players on this entire forum in terms of actual skill. For example, the first boss in NSMB2 took me like 8 tries. That's how bad I am at games. But I beat Dark Souls anyway because I am patient and I can endure it.

Final Fantasy XIII is good.
I like FFXIII a lot. The negativity around it has pushed me away from "JRPG GAF". They like to take every opportunity they can to scream loudly how much they hate that game. You can't talk about Final Fantasy anymore here because any thread will inevitably contain whining about FFXIII. I had to unsubscribe from the Final Fantasy community thread for this reason. If you hate the game so much, talk about all the other games in the series in that community thread instead of spending all your time talking about how much you hate FFXIII.

I've never seen anyone spend so much time focused on something they hate than "Final Fantasy fans".

I haven't even seen such negativity from Star Wars fans after the prequel trilogy.
 
Demon's Souls is infinitely better than Dark Souls. Aside from graphics, the series took 10 steps back. Too bad Demon's Souls 2 will never happen.
 
Killzone 2 was paced so poorly and game play was so terrible I couldn't force myself to finish the game. The campaign is that bad. The multiplayer was actually decent.
 
I have a few.

- I find GTA games tedious and repetitive. I do not see the appeal.

- I dislike forced cutscenes to a point where if a game has them, I will not play it. Uncharted, Tomb Raider and the like fit into this. I buy a game to play it, not to be sat there to watch it.

- I'm unimpressed by the graphics of both the PS4 and the Bone (been playing in 1080p via my PC for two years now).

- I think Majora's Mask is the best Zelda.

- Killzone: Shadow Fall is a boring game.

- Half Life 2 is nowhere near as impressive now as it once was. In fact, I dread playing through the canals ever again.

- Demons Souls is nowhere near as good as Dark Souls.
 
A lot of people who don't get Dark Souls in this thread. Dark Souls has never been a nail-bitingly difficult game like, say, Winnie the Pooh's Home Run Derby. Most of its challenge comes through punishing your mistakes, but if you don't make mistakes, you don't get punished. The journey from Bonfire to Fog Gate should not be tedious, it should be a learning experience. If you're spending 15-20 minutes running to the Fog Gate, try experimenting with killing the enemies faster and finding shortcuts. Even one of the longest Fog Gate treks in the game (the journey from Firelink Shrine to the Four Kings) can be cut down in time to five minutes by learning the enemy aggro radii and finding the correct shortcut.

By that same token, making the punishment for being killed by ridiculously powerful enemies a 15 - 20 minute back track, depending on how much resistance there is between you and the place you died is not good design.

There are great games that are challenging without being over the top. Dark Souls is over the top.

Which brings me to my controversial opinion: Beating Dark Souls doesn't necessarily mean you're a hardcore gamer. It just means you're more patient than the rest of us.
That's kind of the point. Dark Souls punishes you heavily if you fail, but being patient and aware means you don't fail. It's not over-the-top difficulty with monsters that can survive 40 minutes of you continuously wailing on them, it's just keeping you on your toes so that you don't get hit. Once you get good at learning enemy behavior, you can go faster and breeze through areas that once took you a long time. The Undead Burg that once seemed to take forever can be less than five minutes. The entire game can be speedrun with no glitches in an hour.
Dark Souls is basically trial and error. You can develop strategies for fighting the bosses but you WILL fail often, which may or may not discourage you about the reliability of your strategy and forces you to start over, again and again, not even accounting human errors that will happen and will lead to your death.

And that in turn inevitably leads back to my original statement, with the long, monotonous grind back to where you were to have one more opportunity to get it right by accident. I'm sorry, but that is not fun, and if your game isn't at least fun while also being challenging, you're doing it wrong.
I don't find Dark Souls a monotonous grind; I find it relaxing. If you find it tiring you, take a break.

There also are very few true trial and error bits in Dark Souls. The boss battle with Seathe is terrible and the first
chest mimic
can seem unfair, but everything else gives you obvious hints of what is to come.
The usually one hit deaths don't provide enough incentive to be cautious and precise?
Dark Souls has almost no one-hit kills. Even on an unleveled character, most boss attacks will still leave you with a sliver of health.

Demon's Souls is even more forgiving with all the healing items it gives you, although it does infamously have a boss who can one-hit-kill you no matter your health.
 
While I do like hard-ass and sometimes unfair games like Battletoads and Spelunky, Demon's Souls's Soul Tendency is kind of BS. It just makes backtracking to where you died more tedious. I'm normally okay with death setting me back a while, because usually I can breeze through that part and it reminds me how I've improved, which encourages me to keep trying. In Demon's Souls I want to kill stuff for the experience and so that nothing stabs me in the back later, but it ends up taking longer than the first time around since everything takes more hits.
 
While I do like hard-ass and sometimes unfair games like Battletoads and Spelunky, Demon's Souls's Soul Tendency is kind of BS. It just makes backtracking to where you died more tedious. I'm normally okay with death setting me back a while, because usually I can breeze through that part and it reminds me how I've improved, which encourages me to keep trying. In Demon's Souls I want to kill stuff for the experience and so that nothing stabs me in the back later, but it ends up taking longer than the first time around since everything takes more hits.
I agree world tendency is BS. I honestly think it should have worked in reverse; you should get more healing items and weaker enemies as you fail, but you should get harder enemies and more valuable items as you succeed.

I also feel it should not count only human deaths; instead, it should count any deaths, so that encountering Black Phantoms is something only the good players have to do.
 
Moe makes every video game better.

Every video game needs more moe.

I feel the exact opposite
Avatar quotes

Well, it is the controversial gaming opinion thread!
This might only be slightly more controversial, but... catering to the audience that buys body pillows of their waifus and drools over hot springs scenes is turning people away from games like it does anime and reducing the potential audience it would otherwise reach.
 
Child's Play is a nice charity and all, but I'm getting tired of it being so prominently featured in most of the indie bundles. Spread the donations around to more causes.
 
Most of its challenge comes through punishing your mistakes, but if you don't make mistakes, you don't get punished.

That's like saying "if you don't play, you don't get punished".
20 minutes to go back to a boss while repeating the motions is an obvious design flaw. It's just that a design flaw on a masterpiece tends to be ignored.
 
That's like saying "if you don't play, you don't get punished".
20 minutes to go back to a boss while repeating the motions is an obvious design flaw. It's just that a design flaw on a masterpiece tends to be ignored.

Loving that I'm not the only one who struggles with Dark Souls on principle - "prepare to die" is its motto, and yet the price for death as previously mentioned is incredibly high. It's a flawed concept that for me is punishing, not enjoyable.

I applaud those who have the patience for these games....I just...can't...do it.
 
I think the gameplay in MGS1 and 2 has aged horribly. Worst controls and camera I've ever seen. Fun story and characters, awful core gameplay.
 
Loving that I'm not the only one who struggles with Dark Souls on principle - "prepare to die" is its motto, and yet the price for death as previously mentioned is incredibly high. It's a flawed concept that for me is punishing, not enjoyable.

I applaud those who have the patience for these games....I just...can't...do it.

There is nothing wrong with dying in any game, in fact i can't enjoy games where i don't die often enough, but "punish" is a concept antithetic to gaming by principle, gaming is about learning and finding patterns, punishing is about dissuading from learning. Deaths in Dark Souls are great because you can always pinpoint to the fatal flaw in your tactics that led to it, walks too have an importance in giving rhythm and giving players time to think (i would consider instant-replays as in Meat Boy another flawed concept, but that game is based on pure twitch) but the long walks have no other purpose than fucking with the player.

But keep in mind "Shared pain is half happiness" players who endure punishment will enjoy knowing other players suffered too, if Dark Souls patched out the pointless walks, most players who endured them would utterly rage. I guess DS2 will fix this silently.
 
God of war series - bad game design, boring, one of the worst designed main characters in an AAA game ever(but that's what I expect from america anyway)

Deus Ex HR - awful generic visual design. watching any art from that game reminds me of deviantart.

Dunno if it's controversial but I think Civ 4 >>>>>>>>> Civ 5. I've owned, loved and fanatically played every single Civ game since the first came out but I absolutely can't stand Civ 5.

This is what turned me off from the souls games. It's not fun going through the same repetitive areas for the 20th+ time, to only die and have to retread 20 mins of progress before you have to repeat the same thing over again. It's not that the game is hard, it's that the penalty for death is so fucking high. That kind of difficulty infuriates me. I don't mind spending an hour trying to defeat some crazy hard boss, as long as when I die I'm able to immediately try again. Spending an hour to defeat a semi challenging boss because it takes you 20-30 mins to get back is not fun.

Also, I don't see what's so great about the combat. I find it extremely dull and boring, and most of the enemies are complete pushovers devoid of any kind of intelligence.

I've finished Dark Souls two times and I can't think of a single place in the game where it takes you 20-30 min to get back if you die unless you forgot to rest at a bonfire while going to the other side of the map(even then it's debatable).
It only takes time when you first explore, you could spend an hour in the same area but once you die you'd be back in less than five minutes. Progress in the game is learning about your surroundings and enemy placements, since you don't lose that when you die I find it hard to agree that progress is lost.

I also can't understand how people think Dark Souls is extremely punishing. I expected far worse when I first picked up the game but the penalty of death is almost non-existent it's just that you'll die a lot more than usual if you keep playing like this is some aaa shooter game. It really saddens me people can't enjoy games unless they have instant retry option on death, regen health and easymode gameplay.
 
Dunno if it's controversial but I think Civ 4 >>>>>>>>> Civ 5. I've owned, loved and fanatically played every single Civ game since the first came out and I absolutely can't stand Civ 5.

Not at all controversial. I didn't hate Civ 5, but it definitely isn't the best civ.

Civilization II Gold is the best civilization. By far.
 
You are in the right to dislike whatever you want

but what you've said is freaking ridiculous. You basically want a company to die because they don't cater to your taste. Isn't that selfish?

Also what the hell is up with that analogy?

His analogy doesn't make any sense, it implies that gameplay to games is equal to what musical instrument proficiency is to music.

In reality -> musical content(melody, arrangement, composition) is to music what gameplay is to games.

Gameplay is not secondary, it's primary. It can be dragged down by horrendous graphics, just as beautiful music can be butchered by tone deaf performers. But without solid gameplay or a good music score it's going to be shit no matter how you try and wrap it.
 
Red Dead Redemption is R*'s best game this last gen. GTAV is cool and all, but RDR is superior in every way.

Undead Nightmare alone is enough to put this game in the upper echelons of games period
 
Top Bottom