Any weird/controversial opinions? I’ll start. Before the remake, the best version of Resident Evil 4 was the Wii version. The Wiimote controls old Resi’s tank controls better than any other controller at the time. The PC version had a bunch of little bugs and detractors that the Wii version just doesn’t have.
I’ll extend this by saying that the Wiimote is actually pretty damn good for shooters, and particularly good for accessibility. Not having to cramp up my hands to press buttons is awesome for having arthritis. Aiming with the Wiimote and moving with the nunchuck just feel really natural, you barely have to move your fingers for anything.
Graphics don’t fucking matter if only high end systems can run the game
Yeah, particularly when GPU prices have priced many out of the top tier games in the graphics department.
Breath of the Wild is merely okay.
It’s kind of tedious, the weapon durability system is annoying, and the visuals are held back by the Switch’s weak specs.
We don’t need bigger open worlds. I’d rather have a Far Harbor sized Fallout every other year than a FO4 sized game after 8.
I mean how else is Bethesda supposed to justify charging $60 for the same game reskinned?
The could always release Skyrim again. I think at this point if I buy another copy I get my next one for free.
Jokes aside, honestly as long as the asset flip is good I don’t mind. New Vegas was pretty much an asset flip and is widely accepted at the best Fallout.
Yeah, many games were actually made worse IMO by having them.
Nintendo games are great FIRST games.
If Zelda is the first action RPG you ever played, it will forever hold a warm spot in your heart.
Same for Smash Brothers and fighting games, Mario Kart and racing games, or Pokemon and turn based RPGs.
But if you aren’t 10 years old or have played literally any other games, they really aren’t very good.
Great hot take. I sort of agree for something like Pokemon. But I’m surprised you think this way for all Nintendo games. In the world of 3D platformers for example, I’d say it’s pretty hard to find something better than Mario Galaxy, or 3D World. Same goes for Mario Kart. It’s got crisp controls, and the last game in particular had great track design. I wouldn’t say Wipeout is a very apt comparison given it’s not a kart racer.
You need to back this opinion up with games you think are better.
No, I don’t. It’s a hot take… :)
But since you asked… pretty much every fighting game is better than Smash. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken. If you take power-up platform battlers as it’s own genre, then it’s also beaten by Powerstone.
Racing games better than Mario Kart? For pure racing, Gran Turismo, Project Gotham, Metropolis Street Racer. For racing with powerups, bombs and such? Wipeout.
Again, Nintendo games are great intros to a genre, and if it’s your first game you’ll look at all of them with warm fuzzy glasses on.
But as an adult, who has played hundreds of RPGs? Breath of the Wild was an empty world that bored the shit out of me.
I’m glad to finally see some folks who agree with me!
Yeah, my kid loves Mario Odyssey, like the way I loved Mario World.
Prime Nintendo target audience! Congrats!
I would disagree, as someone who didn’t grow up with Nintendo and very recently got a switch. The games have a very distinct feel and artstyle that isn’t very common. They also have great scores and are generally quality games.
Console support ruins games that otherwise could have been truly amazing games because they need to be watered down to support controller-based gameplay and weaker specs (see: Cyberpunk 2077).
To maybe take this a step further. I think console (or PC or Mac for that matter) exclusives are fine for sone of the reasons you outlined. I see a lot of hate for this primarily among redditors. I do not feel like a console company paying a game developer or buying a studio to develop a game exclusively for them is bad for the industry. Especially if they’re doing it well. I recognize that there are companies out there that are using this method and harming the industry.
Sony has been killing it in the exclusives department for years now and it’s honestly great to see. I have a buddy who works for one of their studios and it seems pretty good on their end too. They’re pretty hands off. The model seems to be to have talented developers put their vision on the Playstation and stay out of the way.
For context. I don’t need to play EVERY amazing game. Nor do have the time.
Console support had nothing to do with the LITERAL huge holes in the game.
On release, you could literally find unfinished areas the size of chunks in minecraft and drop through the map.
Some buildings were literally missing sides.
Not saying the original claim about console support kneecapping some games, but cyberpunk was just a bag of lies and hot shit on release.
People spend way to much time complaining about how games are not perfect in their eyes, instead of taking it at face value. They get literally outraged when a game doesn’t function exactly how they want, instead of finding a game they actually enjoy.
Back in the day we’d just pick whatever looked cool at the store and hoped it was decent. People have the right to complain, but its gotten out of hand and modern gamers are whiney as all hell.
Edit: just want to clarify, I’m mainly refer to post launch and established games. If a game promises somthing and is released half baked, 100% people are in the right to complain.
Tend to agree, except when it comes to most AAA games. There are some pretty valid criticisms there.
Because modern games are expensive. And the hardware you need to run them are also expensive.
So if you buy a game, you expect it to work as advertised. When you’re then presented with a buggy and glitchy mess, obviously you’ll get angry.
Gamers didn’t just become whiny, publishers became greedy and sloppy.
Imagine a trailer for a new movie. It looks cool. All the famous reviewers said it looked cool. So you pay to go see it at launch. And you’re presented with one short action scene, followed by 2 hours of watching paint dry.
That’s exactly what so many new modern, marketed games are like.
Games were more expensive in the 90s, when you take inflation into consideration.
Games now cost 3x as much. My pay hasn’t increased 3x. So even with inflation. Games are more expensive now.
Games during the NES/SNES era were $50+. Are you saying games now cost $150+ dollars? Or are you just in a region where inflation/currency has made prices shift more than in the US?
Paradox Interactive is eventually going to release so many DLC that they eventually collapse inward from their own gravity and implode, taking the company’s future with them.
They’re basically in an arms race against The Sims
And now they’ll have their own Sims game, so they’ll be going into overdrive.
That isn’t a hot take though, everyone and their mother makes jokes about how many DLC there is for Paradox Interactive games.
Here’s the real hot take -> I don’t mind the amount of DLC on Paradox Interactive games. Every game of their I’ve played was really good on its own, and I only buy any DLC after I’ve poured tens of hours into the main game, usually not because I feel like anything was lacking from the main game, but just because I want an excuse to keep playing it. So for all I care, they can keep making all the DLC they want if the base games keep being this good.
That is hotter than mine. You must not mind paying a lot of money.
It’s a game I like and it gets more and more stuff. The only times games keep adding more things to itself is either a very infrequent constant subscription fee, or more frequent DLCs. There’s only so much you can do off the sales of the base game.
How’s it any different than buying a new game though?
In the end, is paying $30 for DLC and getting another 50 hours of gameplay really that much worse than paying $60 for a new game?
As long as I actually use the DLC, to me it’s equivalent. I’m paying money to extend the hours of entertainment I’m getting.
Games where there’s no way to tell how to beat a level without encountering each of the surprise traps and then trying again are not “difficult”. They are an entirely different category much closer to “tedious”.
I do think the difficulty aspect of games like Dark Souls is played up too much, to the detriment of how good those games actually are.
Tedious is probably a fair assessment, tedious things can be fun though
@LeylaaLovee When you play a long game (i.e. 60+ hours) all the way through, it’s hard to tell how much of it was genuine enjoyment over some kind of weird sunk cost situation.
Kind of like watching a show that goes on for a ton of seasons. You get into a habit and despite inconsistent quality, you keep going back and you’re not sure why, especially after the really bad parts.
It’s why I understand *some* of the 100+ hour playtime negative reviews, & am skeptical of positive ones.
I’m currently playing through Breath of the Wild for the first time and I don’t think it’s an amazing game. I think it’s decent and fun enough, but it has a lot of grindy BS and aimless wandering, plus a story that is a rehash of literally every Zelda game every made, but now with 100% more open world.
Seriously how many times are we going to beat Ganon? And good God the voice acting is cringe.
Also, I just freed the second divine beast and I still have no idea how to dodge or flurry rush.
Zelda games straight up have a very mediocre story. And often nothing about their world building makes much sense either. They’re definitely a series built only for fun gameplay. Everything else is just glue to hold the gameplay together.
Personally, I love the gameplay and exploration, but you’re definitely right about the story and voice acting.
PS: dodging should be the same as jump (x). Lock on with ZL and point the movement stick to the side you wanna dodge to, the jump. If you pull the stick back, you’ll do a backflip. Whether you want to jump back or to the side depends on the enemy attack (eg, do they swing horizonal or vertical?). If you dodge juuuust before the enemy attacks, you’ll get a slow motion during which you’re prompted to spam y to rapidly attack. Especially useful for tough foes like lynels.
I got bored after like 8 hours of looking for things to do before I just said “fuck it, I guess I’m killing Ganon.” I don’t know when I am meant to go find the Master Sword but I was able to get it without having a quest and just using my knowledge of Hyrule from past games (“sword in forest!”) and I activated the 4 ancient machines; but then I couldn’t find many side quests that weren’t just fetch quests for things I already had in my posession.
TOTK actually has shit to do. I thought BOTW was a bit bare bones before, but given it was Nintendo’s first go at it I just thought it was that. But TOTK makes BOTW look like an alpha build of a tech demo for TOTK.
Turn on japanese audio.
So I can’t understand anything without subtitles?
Yes. Way better voice acting.
I’ve never understood this idea. Usually I see it in reference to anime. How can you even appreciate the voice acting when its in a language you don’t understand while you are trying to read something in English?
You don’t need to be able to know the words to understand the emotions. It’s asking why watch any movies in the original language.
When I went to go see Star Wars Episode 3 when I was overseas, the English version with subtitles was packed while the local language dubbed version had a moderate crowd. People want to see the original because the delivery is usually just better, even if they can’t understand the words.
How can you know if the delivery is better if you don’t even know which words are being inflected upon, if they are being said awkwardly, so on and so forth.
That you use Star Wars kinda cements the point. The prequels were infamous for their odd dialogue and stilted deliveries.
It’s not that the voice acting or delivery is better; it’s that you can’t tell the difference because you don’t know what it should sound like.
You can still tell when someone sounds stiff and awkward vs when someone sounds genuine.
If someone gives an emotional monologue in tears, their acting ability should be clear. Even if you don’t speak the language.
Third-person shooters suck. The character model gets in the way of seeing and I don’t need to see the super tacticool costumes. And the more decent third-person shooters switch to first-person for aiming down the sights anyway.
Cards in video games suck. Unless it’s simulating a real card game. Otherwise we don’t need powerup cards and such, use some other mechanic. My level 89 death knight doesn’t need to be pulling cards out of his pockets.
Motion blur, vignetting, depth of field, lens flare, none of these should be the default. Show me the game world clearly.
I find Zelda BOTW to be extremely boring. The dungeons are carbon copies and tedious. The art design is boring and kinda ugly.
The vast empty fields of nothing, the repeated enemy types. A story the jumps of a cliff after the Zora area. Crafting/cooking either needed a rework or just not exists since it’s current state or garbage. The poop joke on players, is just insulting to the players time for those who didn’t know what it was before it was posted everywhere.
lol I never made it to the poop joke
People who get video game burnout or say gaming is dead or whatever are victims of AAA marketing.
Most of the time I see posts like this they complain that they bought all the newest games with great reviews and aren’t having any fun. Normally it’s Sony games and other cinematic experience kind of games. Or they are games that they put 100’s of hours into. They are doing the same stuff over and over and getting bored.
Unfortunately critics care more about production values and polish than novel game mechanics. Plenty of interesting games get overlooked due to being a little weird or not fitting in modern game conventions. If you only play the big budget AAA stuff you are going to get burnt out because they all copy each other trying to be the next “big game”. If you play games that get bad reviews, have weird mechanics, or do something different you won’t get burnt out. I like to recommend the Gravity Rush games to people who have a playstation and are burnt out on the “cinematic” games. They typically have never heard of it and end up having a blast with them. Makes me sad when I see people still buying games based on metacrtic scores. They miss out on so much.
I know this post is about games specifically, but this is so true about all media. It’s wild how many people bemoan how “bad” movies/tv/music/etc is, when it’s super obvious their only frame of reference is mainstream media that’s mostly doing the same thing all the time. If they took a look just once at indie content creation, they’d see there’s so much cool stuff out there. But their so locked into the “right” media that they don’t consider anything else.
Getting back to games, I rarely ever buy AAA games anymore. There’s so much cool indie stuff being released all the time, it’s simply not worth it to me to deal with all the downsides that come along with AAA games.
Ugh you’re not joking. Many of my friends that game complain about the same thing, yet getting them to try any new game that isn’t League of Legends, Apex, Dead by Daylight or Destiny is like pulling teeth.
The worst part is that most of those games have an endless grind or some sort of FOMO mechanics that encourage people to keep playing even though they’re having an awful time.
Handheld gaming is on average more fun than console or PC gaming.
Steam Deck crew!
If I had a controller for my phone, it would be my primary gaming device. The DS thing of pretty much being able to pause and walk away from the game at any time is awesome.
The DS thing of pretty much being able to pause and walk away from the game at any time is awesome.
One of the main reasons the Switch ends up with most of my gaming time.
Making eSports teams be a thing was not a sustainable idea. Standard sports have stable rules, steady attendance revenue. Electronic sports are at the mercy of each game’s developer and can’t attract as many attendants
It’s not like sports rules have never changed (they do often but it’s usually small things because of how long they’ve been around) and they didn’t always have steady attendance/revenue, it took decades for many pro sports to “catch on” in a similar way to how they are now.
Not saying I disagree fully but your provided reasons don’t really stand up.
eSports are based on specific properties from given companies. At any given time, said company can decide to pull support for the game and disallow tournaments (e.g. Nintendo) or stop sponsoring the competitive circuit (e.g. Blizzard).
True, but that doesn’t mean esports would have to die, there was esports tournaments before game companies ever got involved with more specifically controlling them.
