Unpopular Modern Opinions

[ketmar]

oh, yeah, Cuphead... it is simply boring. fighting a boss is a reward, not a normal gameplay. and if you made a game that has only rewards... then there is no reward in playing it.

 

but gfx is awesome.

[FractalBeast]

2 hours ago, Doomkid said:

I think Brutal Doom is to thank, which in turn means the Doom comic is to thank.

 

I find it funny how things play out sometimes.. What was for years just an obscure, dopey little piece of Doom memorabilia ended up playing a significant hand in shaping the perception of the Doom series overall. I always thought the comic was funny in a “wow, this is so UNlike how I imagined the Doomguy to be” kinda way. I pictured a cool-headed guy who’s tough but smart and doesn’t crack under pressure, but we ended up with the roided-out rage beast. Oh well, it could be worse, the power trip aspect is fun either way!

I dunno. I think it's just what would happen naturally now that Doom can be played on absurd resolutions at 500fps with mouselook.

 

When I was a kid, playing Doom was like playing Silent Hill 2, thanks to the abysmal resolution and having to do everything with the keyboard. Count your bullets. Move slow. Check your corners. Backpedal like hell if you see a pixel move. You know, Doom 3.

[whirledtsar]

8 hours ago, Murdoch said:

- The game design in the Dark Souls games is atrocious. I watched some footage on YouTube and thought I was watching a bad mod for another game.

I would recommend actually playing games before criticizing them.

[OliveTree]

so called "walking simulators" have gameplay, just not particularly difficult gameplay. They still have goals and winstates, and are interactive. The gameplay mechanics are solely centered around looking at stuff and walking around, and occasionally interacting with something. These things aren't difficult but they're still gameplay mechanics that inform what you'll be doing and how you'll be thinking about what you're doing. it's ridiculous to keep talking about games solely in terms of whats "fun" to you.

 

"Gone Home" isn't a walking simulator at all. It's a puzzle adventure game. Stop calling Gone Home a walking simulator.

[[McD] James]

12 minutes ago, EtherBot said:

so called "walking simulators" have gameplay, just not particularly difficult gameplay. They still have goals and winstates, and are interactive. The gameplay mechanics are solely centered around looking at stuff and walking around, and occasionally interacting with something. These things aren't difficult but they're still gameplay mechanics that inform what you'll be doing and how you'll be thinking about what you're doing. it's ridiculous to keep talking about games solely in terms of whats "fun" to you.

 

"Gone Home" isn't a walking simulator at all. It's a puzzle adventure game. Stop calling Gone Home a walking simulator.

 

I'll call Gone Home what I want to, thanks. Gone Home is the game where the term originated from. For many of us, it's the first game that springs to mind when we hear the term being used. I've played through Gone Home. I like Gone Home. The exploration elements outweigh the puzzle elements. Even if they didn't, 'walking simulator' is a perfectly apt way to describe the game. I get that the nomenclature was initially meant to be derogatory, and for many people, it still is, but many of us in the walking simulator community use the term affectionately and without irony. It's a much better label for a video game genre than 'SHMUP' or 'character action game'. 

[DuckReconMajor]

The Call of Duty series had enough fast-paced action to compete with shooters of the 90s.

[OliveTree]

1 minute ago, Ajora said:

I get that the nomenclature was initially meant to be derogatory, and for many people, it still is,

i quite like the descriptor "walking simulator."

 

the previous opinion was me explaining how "walking" legitimately is literally the central gameplay mechanic, and how thats fine

 

gone home isnt about walking, though. There's more to learn from its design in regards to organically weaving gameplay and story in regards to puzzles and worldbuilding. It's the next step from arcane point and click games the adventure genre desperately needed for its comeback, and instead of talking about that everyone calls it a "walking simulator." I don't think thats derogatory, its just inaccurate. It shares some aesthetic similarities but i wouldn't call Portal an FPS.

[snapshot]

5 hours ago, sincity2100 said:

Doom 3 Was really Boring

I think that's a popular opinion.

Spoiler

Side note: wonder why some people here get offended by opinions.

 

1 hour ago, whirledtsar said:

I would recommend actually playing games before criticizing them.

Maybe he meant visually, you don't need to actually play it to decide whether or not you like the visuals

[ketmar]

automatically cell-shaded games are disgusting.

[Maser]

1 hour ago, whirledtsar said:

I would recommend actually playing games before criticizing them.

 

I admit I was one of those guys that didn't fall into the Dark Souls craze when it first became popular simply because of how the game looked.  Personally I have never been a fan of that medieval shit like knights and castles, etc.  It was like about 2 years after Dark Souls came out when I finally bit my pride and tried it.  Been a fan ever since.  So yeah, it's quite possible to hate a game simply by it's looks alone and hate it even more when you play it.  Fortnite is a good example for me because the graphics looked God awful and when I played it, I was bored in less than 5 minutes. 

[Gaia74]

The pay to win

[Juza]

Doom 3 is better than Doom 2016.

[Murdoch]

2 hours ago, whirledtsar said:

I would recommend actually playing games before criticizing them.

 

How can I take a game seriously if just listening to a moment of dialogue makes me want to laugh it's so terrible? I also think the footage of the gameplay I have seen looks horrifically tedious. Built around things being ridiculously overpowered rather than actually creatively or interestingly designed. I am horrifically lacking in patience. I do not want to have to waste time constantly replaying boss fights because I failed to deliver the needed 100 butt pokes in a row, falling short at number 95. I also think that while there are some spectacular vistas, the levels look bland and uninteresting and the graphics in general are dull.

 

If you enjoy it, great. Obviously you are not alone. And that's fine. But I have seen nothing in the released footage that makes me think me playing Dark Souls would be nothing but anger, frustration, boredom, interspersed with chuckles at the terrible dialogue. Why would I possibly waste money giving a chance to a game like this? I do not have time. I have plenty of other things to play and other things to do. You may well be right, if I played it I might actually enjoy it. But so far I have seen absolutely nothing that appeals to me personally. That's just my own, subjective opinion and I make no claims to it being objective reality.

[D88M3R]

12 hours ago, Loud Silence said:

I saw and it was enough.

Huh, okay

 

12 hours ago, seed said:

- GTA V is terribly overrated. It's prolly a popular opinion at this point but anyway, I've seen plenty of footage of it and cannot comprehend how so many people worship that game so hard. Even back when it was released and I read about how it sold millions of copies in just a few days I couldn't get what captured the attention of so many people. Yes, I've also played some of it and I don't feel like coming back for more.

- Casuals are not "a plague for gaming". Yeah I know, that's not about a specific game but I see this idea popping up an awful lot so to me it almost looks like casuals are an universally despised category these days, and how games and their mechanics allegedly suck because of them.

 

 

+1.

 

I can only speak for myself, but i what blows my mind is just how good everything is, specially considering that is 6 YEARS OLD (i just googled it and i am truly surprised) and i am playing it for the first time!!!!

They practically created a mini-world in virtual reality, it feels the same as you going out through the door of your house to the street, the atmosphere is great.
The story is very good, it keeps you engaged all the time and is a great satire of not only USA but the current state of the world at the time, ALL of the characters are great and so are their dialogues, there are LOTS of stuff to do and all of them are fun (except the flying vehicles, because this is a GTA game after all, and still is not as bad as before), seriously the amount of things and how detailed everything is insane, i dont know what else to say, just the overall quality of everything is really really high and there is nothing like it before or after, except maybe Read Dead Redemption 2, which i have not played.

Is not perfect, but without a doubt is a masterpiece and one of the top games ever, in fact i was not playing any video games in quite some time and this one brought me back and kept me hooked for hours, something that did not happened to my in years.

Regards the "casuals" and gaming, i would not call them a plague, that seems a little harsh, but the thing that when something becomes massive they dumb it down for mainstream audiences, to get appeal for as many people possible, a perfect example of this is Call of Duty Modern Warfare and how it affected fps games to this day.
 

11 hours ago, Tangerine said:

Not sure if anyone else has said this, but I'm conflicted the portrayal of the Doom series today. Doom 2016 feels like how people who never played any Doom game imagine what Doom is like. I understand why the "rip and tear" testosterone fueled power fantasy would make for a fun game, but on the same token; You're in fucking hell. You should feel like the entirety of the underworld can crush you faster than you can say "John Romero is about to make you his bitch". Despite the flaws, It's still one of the best fps games we've gotten in the past 5 years.

 

I did actually, practically said the exact same things word by word in this forum several months ago: They turned Doom into a power fantasy, which is not what the franchise was about, and i think a really good example of that is the concept art of the Doomslayer from Doom Eternal, it looked like a 15 year old drawing of what the Doomguy "should" be.

It feels like the devs have never actually played Doom 1 and 2, but instead played Doom 3 when they were younger, played a lot of Brutal Doom, loved the comic book but took it seriously, and maybe watched some gameplay of the originals, but never actually sit down, played through them and thought "okay this is what the game is about" as to make a modern version of it with D16, there are way too many differences in the philosophy of the game design for me to believe that they have ever actually played more than 5 minutes of the original Dooms.

Still, not a bad game, but they could have made something really special. Nowadays however we do have modern fps made in the old school style made by indie teams luckily.

[D88M3R]

6 hours ago, Ajora said:

 

I'll call Gone Home what I want to, thanks. Gone Home is the game where the term originated from. For many of us, it's the first game that springs to mind when we hear the term being used. I've played through Gone Home. I like Gone Home. The exploration elements outweigh the puzzle elements. Even if they didn't, 'walking simulator' is a perfectly apt way to describe the game. I get that the nomenclature was initially meant to be derogatory, and for many people, it still is, but many of us in the walking simulator community use the term affectionately and without irony. It's a much better label for a video game genre than 'SHMUP' or 'character action game'. 

 

I thought it was Dear Esther? That was the first one that i played, now THAT is a true "walking simulator" if i have ever seen one, if i am remembering right Gone Home came when the party already started and the genre(?) was already well known, but i just dont feel like doing the research right now, maybe it did coined the term first.

[[McD] James]

According to Wikipedia, Gone Home is where the term originated.

[Chezza]

Microtransactions can be ethical and enjoyable if done right.

 

I don't know if it ever has been done well but the potential is there. If I really enjoy a game and want more then I'll happily look into their store. However often you can just buy content you would / should get from the get go such as unlockable skins and "cheats" / booster packs. Most of the time the value isn't there and big companies do predatory tactics.

[Doomkid]

I'll go one further, I would actually LIKE microtransactions if they were purely for cosmetic stuff like a new player skin, weapon skin, even menu music/menu skin and stuff like that. When you can pay to get further in the game or be stronger in the game, that's when it all goes to shit - That kind of stuff should only be unlockable by playing the game the legit way.

 

I remember when they introduced "cash only" items in an old favorite of mine called Gunbound, where you used to have to sink time in to get stronger. The literal instant they did that the game turned into unplayable shit because you could just throw $100 at it and have the most decked-out stats imaginable. At least it didn't cost much to circumvent the entire point of the game, unlike these days where 100 bucks gets you like 2 "meh-tier" items and you only cheat yourself out of a few hours, rather than the entire experience. The whole thing is just yucky, why the hell would I pay to circumvent gameplay?! Wouldn't just skipping the game altogether be smarter at that point? Oh well.

 

Totally unrelated but another thing that annoys me about a lot of modern programming is that fucking EVERYTHING has to end on a cliffhanger to try and convince you to click "next episode" on Netflix or whatever streaming site. The shows themselves are generally pretty good but you get basically 0 resolve at the end of the episodes. Having a few things wrap up and come together to give you a feeling of satisfaction is nice, I really miss that - it's rare as hen's teeth these days.

[seed]

Now this is truly unpopular me thinks, people actually enjoying MTX. For me personally, all MTX are inherently predatory, greedy, and destructive for the game and the industry as a whole by affecting the quality of the products in very visible ways. They ought to vanish. A second crash would be nice.

 

2 hours ago, D88M3R said:

Regards the "casuals" and gaming, i would not call them a plague, that seems a little harsh, but the thing that when something becomes massive they dumb it down for mainstream audiences, to get appeal for as many people possible, a perfect example of this is Call of Duty Modern Warfare and how it affected fps games to this day.

 

Thing is, there's only so much you can do with an annual/semi-annual game series, eventually all life gets sucked out from it. The same happened to NFS after Undercover and the eventual demise of Black Box, the series being stuck with developers who have no vision and don't know where to take it now. That being said, I believe the problem lies elsewhere, if the devs/publishers get greedy and start carrying only about sale numbers the experience will obviously get watered or dumbed down, and that's on them. I wouldn't blame the casuals for this like other people seem to love to do.

[-TDRR-]

The Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series is the absolute pinnacle of the whole CoD franchise, with extremely good consistency on all it's games. Even Modern Warfare 3, with worse multiplayer level design than MW1 and MW2, and more linear campaign, still lands among the very best CoD games ever made. And it has that beautiful G36C in it which makes it even better.

 

Bots in games are always underestimated. Many modern games have dropped, worsened or just never have recieved bot support, and when there is bot support, there's zero love put into it. A good example of a game like this is CS:GO, where the bots in CS:S were already considered very good, the devs came and just remade them but way worse. Now they aim only at your crotch no matter the difficulty, their navigation leaves a lot to be desired, they have almost no communication (Just like real casual players!) and are overall just dumb. The max difficutly relies on having superhuman senses, which is total garbage because the bots in CS:S won because they had good aim, and good strategy (Most of the time at least).

 

...And that's basically it, my PC isn't good enough to play many modern games :P

[Jaxxoon R]

Most indie games are derivative and samey, rarely expressing any interesting plot/setting/tonal concepts that weren't taken from a popular game the developers played either recently or when they were children. Any of the ones with high production values are either extremely limited mechanically or a bige metaphor for depression/anxiety/quirky teenage emotion.

 

Any exception is either a one-in-a-million fluke or had publisher backing.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Jaxxoon R

[yakfak]

street fighter five is good

 

im gonna block everyone in this thread who can't do proper iconoclastic posts

[Loud Silence]

17 hours ago, Juza said:

Doom 3 is better than Doom 2016.

I'm with you. Doom 3 is much much much better.

[zen4040]

school sucks

[Sergeek]

Dark Souls series are mediocre at best. I can't say they are overrated, since they sold ok for a project from such a small studio, but that's about it. Overhyped probably will be a better term.

 

Series feel nice because of the context - when majority of modern games hold your hand through those six hours of gameplay, you will crave for something more challenging, even if it is flawed. But the thing is - DS isn't that challenging, it simply pushes you to your limits through incredible repetitiveness. There is not much variety to it. No matter if you are STR, DEX or even INT melee fighter, everyone does the same set of actions. Granted, there are some weapons with unique mechanics, but most of them use the same set of animations (even weapon arts are often reused). Heck, even in numerical values majority of weapons are quite close to each other. I understand that it is intentional, so you could play whatever weapon you fancy, but it removes the "oomph" from treasure hunting altogether. Ranged combat is only a supplement for melee, and so is casting. And magic is also limited - you just blast things with damage. No control, no summons, no mobility, handful of buffs, debuffs and utility spells. Four status effects even in the latter installment. There is no proper crafting or stealth, and no social interactions with NPCs. Also so little of puzzles and platformer elements are horrible.

 

Add to that the overall "rawness" of these games. Framerate was always an issue throughout the series. Checkpoints are either too sparse, or too numerous. Some bosses are incredibly easy, some are hard, completely unrelated to the order of appearance. Ai is incredibly dumb and easily exploitable. Soul Level progression has the double buffer of diminishing returns (stats both give you less and cost more the more you level them), there are random spikes with stat increase effectiveness, and you build your character around your equipment, with attributes/spells being an afterthought. And even though I like the phantom system, it is implemented badly. I'm not even talking about easily exploited matchmaking, some types of multiplayer are simply unplayable, namely location-based phantoms, or blue guardian phantoms in latter installments.

 

But my biggest gripe is the lack of tactical insight. The core philosophy of DS game design is trial and error. Miyazaki said it himself - you have to die in order to progress. There are a lot of instances when you can't predict some outcomes and encounters without metagaming, simply by your perception and analysis alone. The fact that the games sometimes straight up lie to you isn't helping either. It reminds me of those old platformers, when you had to preform leaps of faith here and there, just to get it right after dozens of deaths. Combined with overall sameness of the gameplay, it becomes tedious really quick.

 

Dark Souls series are still one of the best games I played in a while, it is probably one of my favourite series ever, but I was into it because of art direction and indirect type of narration, not because of its gameplay. But even in this regard, visual designs are just a bunch of dark fantasy cliches and general plot is just that same old "destiny is unchangeable, but cyclic" shtick you have in majority of fantasy themed Japanese settings. And there are a lot of games that do environmental storytelling far better anyway.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Sergeek

[ReaperAA]

Some modern opinions of mine:

1) Call of Duty was actually very good pre-MW3. MW3 onwards is when the franchise started moving towards a slow and gradual downfall.

2) Doom 3 and Quake 4 are the weakest games of their respective franchises. Doom 2016 might not be exactly like classic doom either but atleast it got the fast-pased action part right.

3) Mass Effect 2 is somewhat overrated IMHO. It took away many of the RPG features that were present in ME1 and turned it into a cover shooter. ME3 is better than ME2 (despite having a rushed ending) because it brought back some of the ME1 stuff.

4) UT3 is probably the best UT once it is patched and modded with mods like Foxmod and Mapmixer. Vanilla UT3 was not that good though.

5) I am indifferent towards microtransactions in games that are cosmetics-only. Though I absolutely hate such MTX which provide perks to progress further.

6) Most indie games are very derivative and not good enough. Very few are actually interesting for me.

[zen4040]

If you're into games even just a little more than the average person get a fucking gaming pc.

you don't even have to build one yourself, while it is cheaper there are some pretty good retail prices out there.

[ketmar]

oh, Mass Effect. Mako is great, i really love driving it.

[seed]

31 minutes ago, ([zen3001]) said:

If you're into games even just a little more than the average person get a fucking gaming pc.

you don't even have to build one yourself, while it is cheaper there are some pretty good retail prices out there.

 

$$$, need to spell that again it seems.

 

Not all of us have that kind of budget to allow us to enjoy high end PC gaming. I don't, so the chances of me sticking to PC gaming in the future are gradually decreasing, unless Stadia or GeForce Now turn out to be a decent alternative. If not, consoles here I come.

 

If you want PC gaming, you'd better have the money. And yes powerful PCs are very expensive (they definitely are here, <1000$ is not going to get you far and that is NOT an exaggeration, and I'm not adding anything else to the price apart from the PC itself, good luck gaming on budget hardware, unless you're playing few games, or older titles, in which case a high end rig is probably going to be overkill...).

 

tl;dr keep in mind not all can afford the luxury.

[ketmar]

actually, i can wait for several years, and then do a cheap upgrade, and run current "next-next-next-gen-AAA^3" games on an average-to-lower PC of that time. i am in no hurry to try the game immediately after release.

 

p.s.: besides, by that time current hot games will prolly be on a bargain sale.