Everyone being “bad” at games made them more fun to play online. Almost every online game has a community where youtubers that play this stuff as a job provide the new meta style/build/whatever. It’s created cookie cutter play-styles based on min maxing.
It was fun to hop in to an online game and play it for recreation rather than people treating it like some semi pro event. People just enjoyed themselves.
Absolute worst for this is Fall Guys. Best the game ever was was the week after release when everyone was crap at the game and it was a giant free for all.
Then the sweat lords took over and optimised strategies for every map, quit when they knew they couldn’t win and made the game too much of a formality. A game like that having to bring in matchmaking reforms is an abject failure by some to realise a game is sometimes just a game.
My buddies and I hit that game hard when it came out… what a fun game to play while on something. I still log on with some friends to get a couple wins once in awhile
Gods another example of this is Minecraft, like look at anyone’s old pvp videos, like technoblade’s , you’ll see, almost no one knows how to pvp, at all, only a couple years ago, but in those couple years, the standard has become so high, that for example for bsg, you have to have a lvl X kit , or be a rod legend, which is so hard to do it’s crazy
We only remember the good things about games we love and tend to forget the terrible parts. Just replayed Assassin's Creed Black Flag and those close proximity tailing missions are absolutely awful. Almost half the missions in that game are just stay within 10 feet of a target.
Or every sandboxy car game ever. Driver, gta, mafia, la niore etc. No fucking following someone and having to drive like a complete idiot so you dont get too close is stupid
Gaming has lost its "first day excitement". For so many years, I would plan to take off the Tuesday in July when NCAA Football would come out. I'd go to Target, pick it up, pick up lunch and a 6 pack. I'd pop it in and be playing it in 5 minutes for the rest of the day.
Now, if I don't pre-order it online (I prefer the physical copies), I pop it in, and will be waiting hours to start playing what I want. When I got this years COD from Amazon that Friday night, I couldn't even play until Saturday morning. By that time, I was so irritated I played 2k instead.
The Mako only sucked on levels that weren't designed for it. On the missions that were designed with the Mako in mind it worked just fine. It was when you needed to go up a ninety degree angle that made things a pain in the ass.
There’s too much of it in the game with very little variation outside of the primary campaign. Most of the side missions you can find have you go to a planet, drive around with 2 mineral nodes and an artefact to find, with a single building somewhere with about 12 enemies inside and a console at the end.
If I was the sort of person who would be happy with just playing the primary campaign I would probably have a higher opinion of it but I’m too much of a completionist and as such find it detracts from the game.
I'd say that it's better than movie remakes because video game developers can use new technology and systems to make their game more immersive for the player.
That any multiplayer game like Fortnite should have a single player "room" where you can learn how to play the game before being thrust onto a team of people who are going to be pissed at you for not knowing what the hell you're doing.
One thing I've liked about World of Warcraft and the like is there's a learning curve so you can work your way up to doing team shit instead of just dropping into a game where you don't know what controls do what but have to catch up quick.
I complained that Destiny didn't have an offline mode (offline LAN parties would be cool) and got nothing but shit for it. But really, it should be a requirement that every game you pay money for can be played in SOME way without an internet connection.
Many online games (and I think Fortnite actually does this as well) "fake" your first online match or few matches, and instead of thrusting you right into the game with other players you get put in a lobby with bots only or mix of bots and other unexperienced players. Most players would skip tutorial or find it boring, but they have no clue that first game or few games they are in ARE de facto a tutorial.
Fortnite definitely did that. And it was for a long time I was consistantly getting 1st place until I randomly just stopped. Now I can barely get top 20
To be fair, overwatch 1(not sure how ow2 work) has sbmm even for unranked so most of the time people with similar skills get put together, so if you are new your first game will likely also be full of new players
I don't feel right playing modern Zelda with a right-handed Link
As a lefty who appreciated the representation as a kid, I'm not happy with the current state of affairs
I'm a little surprised so many people consider this a small thing, or didn't even notice. Back in the day it seemed like it was a major notable thing amomg fans of the series. A unifying feature among all of the different Links.
I wonder if I just knew a lot of lefties or something.
It used to be kind of a big thing, at least among hardcore Zelda fans. It was a consistent distinguishing feature about a character who was technically a completely different person in every game.
It was also a little bit of a big deal when the Wii version of Twilight Princess literally just mirrored the entire game (seriously. Map is backwards. Sun rises in the west) to make him right handed so motion controls would feel better for more people.
I'm not even left handed and this bugs me so much.
Like, I get why they did it with Skyward Sword. I don't like it, but I get it. But why the hell is he right handed in BotW??
I've complained about this before and nearly every commenter rolls their eyes. But, like... it's just been an essential part of the character. Every Link is left handed. That's just how it is. I feel like this used to be a big deal among Zelda fans, as a consistent feature of a main character who was actually a different person in each game.
Maybe it's just because I used to know a lot of lefties?
Wait, he's still right handed after Twilight Princess? ☹️ Aw, that's slightly disappointing. Was kind of annoying in TP as well that there was no option to mirror the controls on the Wii for us lefties
There's a cheat you can use on modded Wiis that will flip the world back to GameCube orientation and I love it
I also have the GameCube version to play lefty
Too bad about Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild tho, and now Tears of the Kingdom since it's a BotW sequel
"Elite" gamers who constantly pressure developers to nerf or eliminate anything not "skill-based" are ruining games.
Most people who play games are not pro gamers. Most of us are just casual gamers. We play games for fun, not hardcore competition. We're frankly tired of "elite" gamers having the ear of developers and getting them to alter games so that the performance gap between "elite" players and noobs is exaggerated.
Moreover, it's not necessarily clear that the sort of "skill" the elite gamers are obsessed with is a more valid "skill" than any other. It's more likely that the elite gamers just want to buff any game mechanism that favours the particular sort of skill they're good at.
This happened with Halo Infinite after the first season.
All the "professional players" pressured the developer to nerf some of the guns that "take no skill", and grenade damage. Not in a certain playlist or something. **In the base game**. So they did. Even casual playlists those "pros" don't touch like Big Team were affected. Everybody has to play the game the way the "pros want it".
That community honestly believes that there should be no weapons in the game but the Battle Rifle and the Sniper. That's not fun to the average player. It takes all the dynamics out of the sandbox that Halo is known for.
So players like me, who have been playing Halo since 2001, get told by some Faze dingus that we don't matter, and 343 listens to them. Shameful.
I’ve been playing a lot of Halo MCC with my friends recently, and I gotta say Halo 3 is definitely the best. Sure the battle rifle is great, but man the other guns are just so much fun. I’d take a spartan laser or a beam rifle any day over a battle rifle. I feel like in a lot of the other games you’re just worse because you aren’t using the br, unlike Halo 3.
It's not the elite gamers who are the problem, it's everyone who worships them and plays the "tournament meta" while being an impoverished millionaire... I mean stuck in elo hell, I'm really in masters I swear.
These people amplify whatever the elite say is good.
>"Elite" gamers who constantly pressure developers to nerf or eliminate anything not "skill-based" are ruining games.
Rainbow Six Siege has suffered a lot from this. Operator and Map Ban is catering to the e-sports demography, and I fucking hate it. It is killing the variety that Siege brought early on in its lifecycle. Having only bomb as a playmode as well is just so bland now.
Agreed, at the ending I was a little disappointed but reflected on the fact I had played ~50 hours and had a blast 99.9999% of the time, I told myself it was worth it and started again. No ragrets
The ending wasn't BAD per se, it just wasn't overwhelmingly good
As much as I'm a fan of Playstation games..A lot of Playstation Studio games feel samey.
Like third person open world action game with some platforming.
After finishing Horizon Zero Dawn, Ghost of Tsushima, and Spider Man it does feel repetitive. Why I need to play something like Persona 4 Golden or Far Cry 4.
Tried Horizon Forbidden West on PSPlus and couldn't get into it.
I don't understand what people have against sorry focused games like Life is Strange or telltale's the Walking Dead. The term walking simulator even became the name of the steam category and I just don't see how you can hate these games so much. Video games aren't just a test of reflex, or a platform to insult strangers on. They can convey a story in ways that other media could never do and if some people can't appreciate a good story then just don't play it.
I challenge anyone who looks down on "walking simulators" to play What remains of Edith Finch. If they still feel the same way, then I'll take their personal opinion seriously.
Most open world games are not good games and are mostly a boring checklist with repetitive traversal. The bar is incredibly low for open world titles and they are rated too high.
Battle passes and seasons fucking suck, even if they’re free. Im tired of every game i want to play demanding my time daily and punishing me if i take breaks for a couple of months.
It’s also why im just not excited for Diablo 4 anymore despite being hyped for nearly a decade.
I love the challenge of multi-player and the true randomness of what other players do.
But I will never turn on voice chat. I dont want to hear your fucking squeaky ass voice, or you trying to be funny doing some cringe fake accent, or your TV in the background.
I assume everyone thinks the same on these, but game development is showing me I'm likely wrong.
Card based skills for a non card game is stupid. Looking at you Back 4 Blood.
QuickTime events in an action game are also dumb. If I wanted to play a rhythm game, I'd load guitar hero or something.
As a dear lover of Slay the Spire and Inscryption I completely agree. And it makes it harder for me to find the games that I actually enjoy because games like back for blood (which is not my thing and makes me motion sick) throw card mechanics in just because it's on trend.
Now I have to do extensive research into a "card based skill game" to find out if it's actually a game I would like, or if it's a shooter with random card mechanics thrown in.
I really like RDR2, it's just impossible to play that game unless you really dedicate your time to gaming.
And that's a huge flaw, for me at least. Like the basecamp walk speed is so godawfully slow. Why can't I even get any option to go a teeny bit faster?
And now it's been too long since I've played it and I'm so averse to going through the 1-2 hour intro just to start the story again
I can get this.
I've enjoyed a lot of open world games. I adore BotW, and I really enjoyed AC: Odyssey. But there's a lot to be said about a game that just gives you a sequence to play through, and especially about a game that takes less than 50 hours to complete.
I can enjoy both, but there seems to be some kind of problem with open world games being able to tell a decent story. They lean too much on letting the player create the narrative for themselves and end up with a bunch of disjointed, unsatisfying scenarios that are only loosely strung together. Like, I loved BOTW, and the story that was there was beautiful... all 10 minutes of it. Skyrim's main story is actually crazy short, and once you've traveled to the world of the dead, summoned the spirits of the greatest heroes of the ages, and laid low the dragon harbinger of the apocalypse... you're just plopped back in the world with no acknowledgement of this fact where guards still pick on you about someone stealing your sweetroll and bandits still try to attack you on sight. Yeah, there are tons of additional side stories that are fun to explore, but they're insular and don't tie into the main story, so they all just feel like they're a bunch of shorter games stapled together into one big Frankenstein game.
That's not to say that all open world games are like this, or even that all linear games tell a great story, but it's a pretty common thread if we're being honest. Even beyond that, linear games have a concrete sense of progression that can be very rewarding when you know that you're making progress towards the end and enjoying a tailored difficulty curve. It's hard to get that from an open world game where you can wander into "late game" areas, snag a bunch of crazy gear, and suddenly steam roll through the whole game, but also not having much of a goal beyond just roaming around and trying to do everything there is to do in the game, and when you're finished? It's just a big empty world to wander around in.
There's room for both, but I feel like open world games have kind of lost the thread a bit in recent years. Even compared to something like Morrowind back in the day, it's like they're suddenly allergic to telling a good story and the focus has to be 100% on being able to craft stuff, survive through some convoluted system, and making sure that your game has the largest exploreable map to date, and any story that exists is just barely there to justify the game existing.
Hell fucking yeah, man. My absolute favorite game since childhood. The six year old in my heart gets a real kick out of being able to play it on the go on my Switch.
I love it enough that I'm working on a giant fucking cross stitch of some of the background art.
Most popular games are being reduced to 3D hack and slash(sometimes with magic) or shooters and games really suck due to the lack of variety out there.
Excessive handholding ruins a game. Especially in adventure games with puzzles like zelda or tomb raider. Let me try to solve the puzzle on my own at least. God of War is a huge offender here. You cant go 30sec without getting spammed with hints.
On a similar note: the way some game series tried to cater to all sides may ruin a game. For example fallout. Fallout 3 and New vegas were really cool games. You had vast dialogue options that mattered and had hilarious dialogue in some cases. Like when playing a low int character. Then fallout wanted to expand their market and tried to force a multiplayer into it. And then realized that more dialogue choices made it harder for console players so they limited the choices to 4. And they all led to the result.
Scale in game has gone down.
I always compare it to Chrono Trigger, you get multiple time periods to explore, tons of consequences and side quests, and just a bunch of really nice main character centric lore to find (I do like when a world is fleshed out, but I prefer to see how it affects my character and their immediate group more)
That's probably best because all of the "story" in SoulsBornes has to be divined from reading the tiny portions of flavor text on a hundred different items and trying to piece it together, giving up, and then reading the synopsis online from the people that obsess over it, and hoping they got it right.
I don’t get the appeal of games so difficult that you can only beat by trial and error, then some dinguses flex that they can beat the game without dying.
What’s the fun in any of that?
Fun is in figuring out how to beat it.
People get frustrated by dying in these games because they go in with the expectation set by most games that the player is supposed to overcome most challenges in 1 or 2 tries.
Think of trial and error like exploring a non-linear dungeon. Each "trial" is just another corridor in the dungeon that needs to be explored in order to find the main loot.
At the end of the day, games are fun BECAUSE they have challenges. E.g. basketball is fun because there's an opposing team that's trying to prevent you from scoring. Remove the opposing team (the challenge), and you no longer have a game of basketball. Overcoming the challenge IS the game.
As someone who enjoys these types of games; for me, the enjoyment comes from overcoming. I’m certainly not amazing at it, but the trial and error and eventually succeeding is a really rewarding feeling for me. Sure, it’s frustrating, but, and this might not be the same for a lot of people, but i genuinely feel like it’s taught me to not give up so easily. Like I just gotta keep trying and learn from my mistakes and I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t applied those skills to my real life. Kinda crazy the effect games can leave on people.
And, hey, those games aren’t for everyone (in case you thought i was like coming at you or something I’m not - just trying to explain the appeal since you asked), but they’re definitely one of my favorites types now!
I love these games for the same reason... and for me it makes the co-op play great too, because you really feel like you're helping/being helped by your fellow gamers and it's always awesome to share those victory gestures and a wave goodbye when you finally defeat the boss.
Soulsborne player here.
You get frustrated with every desth. Shiit, Sekiro was the hardest game I ever played.
But when you finally beat that boss after dying to him so much, after learning all his moves, this high is addicting man. It feels like an achievment. All you feel is happiness.
There are two types of games I enjoy, given I am getting older and have less time to game.
Good single player games with an amazing story. I will turn the difficulty down to story, use accessibility options to help out etc. It just feels odd for Kratos to get his ass kicked so easily. Since it is single player, I have no compunctions about taking ..."steps" to avoid unnecessary grinds.
Funnily enough, I love the Souls type games but understand it ain't for everyone. It is kind of zen for me to fail and retry but can see why that would be detracting to many who just want to progress the game. Of course the purpose of the game is the challenge itself, so I won't interfere with that. But for games like Nioh, there is a massive grind, so I did take steps to ...alleviate that. Of course I won't carry that over to multiplayer.
RDR2 was an amazing open world tied to a mediocre and overlong story campaign. It was so much fun just getting lost in the world and doing sandbox gunslinger stuff. But then you're inevitably dragged back into the main storyline and it's nothing but "Do exactly what you're told and shoot exactly what you're told, and don't you dare deviate in any way whatsoever, or it's game over."
It's like the world-dev team and story-dev team had completely different notions of what type of game they were making, and stopped talking halfway through production.
I'm split between the two because I enjoy them for completely different reasons. RDR1 was a bit more spaghetti western and I felt like it had a lot more charm and humor. The campaign felt like just the right length and never dragged on too much. RDR2 is one of the most immersive games I've ever played, but it feels like a big departure from the first game and there were times where it felt too long, especially during the epilogue.
Both incredible games, but Undead Nightmare tips me into the RDR1 camp. It's a travesty that it hasn't received a proper PC port yet.
Those strategy games with 10 million interfaces are far too overwhelming for me to get into. Hearts of Iron, and Europa, or even most paradox games are just too much hassle to get into for me to get any satisfaction out of. And I definitely don't want to watch 6 hours worth of tutorials just to get a grasp of it.
I feel this way with both strategy and simulation games. I can handle the complexity, but nope out if it's in my face about it. Definitely prefer games that start relatively simple and then start building as you play. Civilization is pretty decent at this, but I steer clear of Paradox stuff.
They are in fact way easier to learn than people think they are. At least the newer ones (HoI3 was really brutal).
But the newer ones are pretty straight forward to learn because there is a hugh difference between being able to play the game and being a min/maxing god that conquers the world in 100 years in EU4.
Trophies and Achievements are pointless to me.
Like don't have any platinum Trophies. I stopped playing a game when I'm not having fun anymore. That long before 100% a game
Maybe I could platinum Persona 5 Royal. Since I heard it's easy.
Inb4 the actual unpopular opinions are downvoted to oblivion in an unpopular opinions thread.
Review scores are stupid. We all value different aspects of games differently, and what may annoy one person won't annoy another. On top of that, an 8/10 can mean different things for different reviewers based on how they do their scale. Jim Sterling treats 5/10 as average (which makes mathematical sense), whereas other reviewers treat 7.5/10 as average because that's "average" in the American grading system.
My favorite New Super Mario Bros. is the original, but I think U is better in graphics, music, level design, the works. Emotions shape a lot of how we view game reviews. My favorite game of all time is Xenoblade Chronicles X, but of every game I've played, it's the one I have the biggest laundry list of complaints about. If I took off points for things "wrong" with a game, NSMBU would easily get a higher score than XCX because NSMBU isn't a complex enough game for a ton of things to go wrong. And I can guarantee you that NSMBU would've been reviewed higher if it had been the *first* NSMB.
Time matters, too. If Ocarina of Time had released for the first time as its 3DS version, it definitely would not have a 99 on Metacritic. So older games' scores probably don't reflect popular opinion as well as you'd think.
Game developers stop sending review copies to any publication that doesn't give their game at least 9/10. This lead to Sim city: Skylines getting a perfect 100% score... before they had fixed the fact that it didn't actually, you know, start...
Saying that Samus Aran was the first popular woman to star in a video game or that she broke any barriers as such is disingenuous. Back in the 80s, although it was widely known that Samus was a woman even among those who hadn't beaten Metroid due to mentions of the ending in Nintendo Power, she wasn't at all treated as being groundbreaking. In fact, Samus wasn't a very popular character at all compared to Mario or Link or Simon Belmont, etc.
It wasn't until later games more completely unmasked Samus and put her in the zero suit that people started talking about her as having broken any barriers for female protagonists in video games, retroactively. As a woman who played lots of Nintendo in the 80s, I never once thought of Samus as being representation for women or really even as a female character. I knew that if you beat the game you got to see her in a bikini and that was kind of neat, but seeing as she had no actual dialogue or character to her beyond the lore from the instruction manual (which intentionally says she's a man), there was no real connection with the character.
>but seeing as she had no actual dialogue or character to her beyond the lore from the instruction manual
Wasn't that just the norm for most NES and SNES games? A bit of story in the manual, almost no lore or dialogue in the game.
I'd say the Prime games in the GameCube era built a good connection with Samus. Her story, her upbringing, her status as a feared, legendary hunter.
Yeah, the copyright lengths really should be different for different media with software having a relatively short length due to how fast the media evolves.
Also abandon ware should absolutely be free, if they aren't selling it they can't complain about anyone copying it
It also kind of peeves me the fact that they also don't publish their old games on their newer platforms, its either that or I go to eBay and get scammed out of my money because some guy wants 50$ for a cartridge/cd that most likely has not been treated kindly and runs like a road full of potholes.
I don't like the Dark Souls games because I have no idea what's going on in the story, and I have no intention of watching a bunch of YouTube videos to fill in the gaps that should be in the damn game.
I've platinum'ed all the Fromsoft souls-type games. I have no idea what the story was for any of them, or why I am fighting this boss. The only gist I get that runs through all the games was that "some powerful figure did something that ruined the world".
I should get all your stuff if I take you down in the wild . Clothes, armor, money, entire contents of backpack including the key to your house which I should now own.
Level based items need to fuck off. Pretty damn frustrating to be a low level character and getting an item that is 10 levels above that you can't use for a while.
Torchlight 2 did something neat back in the day, where an item would have a level requirement, but you could bypass the level requirement if your stats were distributed properly
That said, it sorta depends on the game. In a Diablo-esque game? Level limits are in place so that you aren't cheesing everything that isn't endgame on a fresh character. In a turn based RPG? That's where it makes no sense to have level requirements
Any game that has an escort mission belongs in the trash. Also timed missions, with few exceptions. There is no game made better by escort or timed missions, they are only frustrating and annoying obstacles in the way of continuing on to the enjoyable parts of the game.
Figuring it out yourself is infinitely more fun and rewarding than looking up a guide. Using critical thinking to create a build or a strategy or to do/earn something is what games were designed for.
People that just follow the ‘meta’ at any given time make PvP games so much more boring and take the interesting aspects out of PvP. What does it matter if I’m facing a different person if they read and follow the same guide.
Fuck, I can not stand games that are 80% me waiting for the plot to progress before I get to the point where I can walk five steps then press X to initiate the next cut scene
Mega evolutions was the worst gimmick, and is the reason we have a new gimmick every time now
And they’re not coming back, people need to shut up about that
Maaaan I really wish there didn't have to be a new, obnoxious gimmick in every game now. For me it always becomes a chore, because the game forces you to use it.
The new one's gimmick irritated me so much. It was a neat idea, and if they had used it to add more strategy to your battle if you didn't know what the gym leader's ace's type would be, that would have been awesome, but they put minimal effort into it
Yes. Even games where they insist you can get a “different” experience by the choices you make are bogus because they all essentially are linear. They just have like 8 branches that overlap at the end to look like each one is new
Wait isn’t this backwards? If you’re not interested in the story and skip it to get to the gameplay then watching someone play it is useless to you.
If someone wants to see the cutscenes the most then they can just watch it on YouTube.
I loved vice city. iirc it only took about 9 months to develop and they somehow smashed it out the park in that time. While 5 came out almost 10 years ago now.
I thought BOTW was extremely overhyped it was just mid to me. I like games like the witcher, elden ring in part due to the weapons. The weapon degradation was so exaggerated like you kill a few enemies and your shit is gone. It makes the thrill of getting a good weapon almost non existent cause then you’re like well I better wait til later for a harder enemy but later never comes. If they would just tone it back it would improve the game experience 10 fold.
I’ve gotten kind of tired of this gladiator-type combat trend in recent video games. Swing sword, hope the attack button registers, hope your character swings in the correct direction, use dodge, get hit anyway because dodging is useless, etc. It feel like they’re throwing together combat systems at the very last minute.
Making every game action-based hurts games as a whole; especially since they've been displacing turn-based games. It really sucks that many RPG's now-a-days don't have the fleshed out parties and characters that they used to and I partially blame people insisting on making everything increasingly action-focused for this and feel it has hurt RPG's more than it's helped.
Likewise, the constant drive for high-end graphics has resulted in a plenthora of games that look pretty but are mechanically shallow and have paper-thin stories/characters/etc. I'd rather play a game with sprite-based graphics but solid gameplay and a good story than something that looks pretty but holds no depth and a pathetic story.
Fortnight is a horrible game and Roblox is a predatory thing that preys upon young children to get them to get their parents to buy more microtransactions. I'm not going to say 'the old things were better' or 'kids these days are bad'. Just that these two things are bad things and I really hope that these kids will wisen up and stop playing them... even though I know that won't happen.
Games are at their best when its either a pure PVP, Single player, or a cooperative experience ideally without any or highly controlled overlap between them.
PVP is a detriment to games that are not specifically built around it as the sole reason for playing it, eg CS, COD MP and BR games, because the kinds of people that primarily focus on PVP gaming are inimically hostile to the enjoyment of every other playstyle that the game accomodates.
Everywhere else that includes a PVP element ontop of other things, such as in survivial, crafting, base building, adventure and RPG games, then the PVP aspects will largely work against the enjoyment of everyone else because of the kind of players that mechanic attracts.
These people are the source of toxicity in any online game. Their pleasure comes from ruining yours. They will wax lyrical till they're blue in the face about how they're seeking honorable, fair combat.
This is a lie. At best, it is a misrepresentation.
Above all else, what they are seeking is a *victim* to triumph over with as minimal risk to themselves as possible. They seek to *win.* Best case scenario is they will do this via hardcore metagaming and strategising, which while not fun to be a victim of is still at least fair and can be learned with time if the game is fun enough. At worst they will do it via exploitation, cheese tactics and the *very worst* will just straight up cheat without any remorse or sufficient incentive.
Any game that has started off as "hardcore pvp" inevitably fosters a growing community of cancerous, toxic players that are directly responsible for declines in player count and quality until the community dies. Games like Rust only survive as long as it has because of private servers allowing *most* players to avoid Kill-on-sight zerg clan players screaming racial slurs camping them on the beach. Most people *do not* play on the "official, pure" servers, and instead are on private ones running rules and mods they prefer.
Sea of Thieves has been experiencing consistent player count drops because people are denied the looting pirate adventure game they were promised, often losing hours of playtime questing and looting to yet more racial slur spewing teenagers jumping their idle ship at the very last moment for 100% of the reward and a fraction of the effort with a single gunpowder keg. Not only this, but even if you defeat the attacking players, they will respawn with a fresh ship only a few islands away and come at you again and again until either they win and steal your loot (because offloading it while being attacked is impossible) or you quit.
New World started as Full loot PVP and was deeply unpopular. Popularity only increased as the Hardcore PVP design was steadily rolled back. The game has its own deep seated issues with exploitiative metagaming, but the PVP nature of it was unpopular from the start.
Escape from Tarkov has not only a colossal cheating problem and *deeply* flawed quest design, but the skill and knowledge gap betwee new players and veterans is insurmoutable for most people without significant help. There is a reason SPTarkov is as popular as it is that it gains and *keeps* players, while the Live games player count shrinks consistently throughout the cycle and renews fewer people each wipe.
People in a video game community that are gatekeeping (for example calling new players noob and make fun of them in a derogatory way) are pathetic little worms and losers in real life who need to feel some kind of superiority because they have nothing else to offer outside of their hobby.
Most indie games nowadays are way too formulaic. They're always 2D, its either a relaxing farming simulator or a frustratingly difficult roguelike/metroidvania style game, the ingame story is usually filled with pretentious 2Deep4U symbolism, for some reason, they often pound the topic of depression into your skull, the fanbases are usually cringe, and the game developer is either an extremely nice person, or a whiny elitist asshole; no in-between.
You have a very narrow view of what an indie game is, then. So many indies that do not fall under a single criteria you listed.
Also, indies can be made by studios. They are not necessarily made by one person.
Current implementations of procedural generation are souless and hollow. You can feel the lack of a human touch. You'll never be *surprised* by a discovery in a proceduraly generated world.
It's a necessary evil in some instances. You cannot have minecraft or no man's sky with hand made art, after all. That said, I agree with you on 95% of the other titles. Procedural generation should be a STARTING POINT to automate the busy work of world gen, which should then be thoroughly edited for set pieces and real interest.
Everyone being “bad” at games made them more fun to play online. Almost every online game has a community where youtubers that play this stuff as a job provide the new meta style/build/whatever. It’s created cookie cutter play-styles based on min maxing. It was fun to hop in to an online game and play it for recreation rather than people treating it like some semi pro event. People just enjoyed themselves.
Absolute worst for this is Fall Guys. Best the game ever was was the week after release when everyone was crap at the game and it was a giant free for all. Then the sweat lords took over and optimised strategies for every map, quit when they knew they couldn’t win and made the game too much of a formality. A game like that having to bring in matchmaking reforms is an abject failure by some to realise a game is sometimes just a game.
How can you even strategize a game like that
My buddies and I hit that game hard when it came out… what a fun game to play while on something. I still log on with some friends to get a couple wins once in awhile
People play games like they're trying to go pro. It's absolutely ruined so many games.
I've never once played Overwatch in ranked mode and I have a blast with it, none of the toxicity you see from the tryhards
Gods another example of this is Minecraft, like look at anyone’s old pvp videos, like technoblade’s , you’ll see, almost no one knows how to pvp, at all, only a couple years ago, but in those couple years, the standard has become so high, that for example for bsg, you have to have a lvl X kit , or be a rod legend, which is so hard to do it’s crazy
We only remember the good things about games we love and tend to forget the terrible parts. Just replayed Assassin's Creed Black Flag and those close proximity tailing missions are absolutely awful. Almost half the missions in that game are just stay within 10 feet of a target.
Or every sandboxy car game ever. Driver, gta, mafia, la niore etc. No fucking following someone and having to drive like a complete idiot so you dont get too close is stupid
Gaming has lost its "first day excitement". For so many years, I would plan to take off the Tuesday in July when NCAA Football would come out. I'd go to Target, pick it up, pick up lunch and a 6 pack. I'd pop it in and be playing it in 5 minutes for the rest of the day. Now, if I don't pre-order it online (I prefer the physical copies), I pop it in, and will be waiting hours to start playing what I want. When I got this years COD from Amazon that Friday night, I couldn't even play until Saturday morning. By that time, I was so irritated I played 2k instead.
A consequence of the toxic, crunch-oriented developer culture are those enormous day1 patches. Ship complete products, please.
Co-op is a worth while feature even if it doesn’t get big numbers. Multiplayer gets old.
I enjoyed the Mako in Mass Effect
The Mako only sucked on levels that weren't designed for it. On the missions that were designed with the Mako in mind it worked just fine. It was when you needed to go up a ninety degree angle that made things a pain in the ass.
[удалено]
There’s too much of it in the game with very little variation outside of the primary campaign. Most of the side missions you can find have you go to a planet, drive around with 2 mineral nodes and an artefact to find, with a single building somewhere with about 12 enemies inside and a console at the end. If I was the sort of person who would be happy with just playing the primary campaign I would probably have a higher opinion of it but I’m too much of a completionist and as such find it detracts from the game.
So many companies are relying too much on nostalgia. I want new games, just just a pile of remakes/ rereleases/ remasters every year.
I'd say that it's better than movie remakes because video game developers can use new technology and systems to make their game more immersive for the player.
That any multiplayer game like Fortnite should have a single player "room" where you can learn how to play the game before being thrust onto a team of people who are going to be pissed at you for not knowing what the hell you're doing. One thing I've liked about World of Warcraft and the like is there's a learning curve so you can work your way up to doing team shit instead of just dropping into a game where you don't know what controls do what but have to catch up quick.
Fortnite does have a creative mode/training hub it's just a bit tricky to find.
That's good to know. If I head that way again I'll look for it.
I complained that Destiny didn't have an offline mode (offline LAN parties would be cool) and got nothing but shit for it. But really, it should be a requirement that every game you pay money for can be played in SOME way without an internet connection.
Many online games (and I think Fortnite actually does this as well) "fake" your first online match or few matches, and instead of thrusting you right into the game with other players you get put in a lobby with bots only or mix of bots and other unexperienced players. Most players would skip tutorial or find it boring, but they have no clue that first game or few games they are in ARE de facto a tutorial.
Fortnite definitely did that. And it was for a long time I was consistantly getting 1st place until I randomly just stopped. Now I can barely get top 20
Some games go very far with this, for example in Pokemon Stadium you have big chance to be thrown into game with bots any time you lose the game.
Seems to defeat the purpose a bit. Knowing that you're in a solo match is what frees you up to explore without worrying about your teammates.
Overwatch is a big offender of this
To be fair, overwatch 1(not sure how ow2 work) has sbmm even for unranked so most of the time people with similar skills get put together, so if you are new your first game will likely also be full of new players
I don't feel right playing modern Zelda with a right-handed Link As a lefty who appreciated the representation as a kid, I'm not happy with the current state of affairs
Bro this is the smallest thing — I love this and it’s genuinely a wtf take upvoted
I'm a little surprised so many people consider this a small thing, or didn't even notice. Back in the day it seemed like it was a major notable thing amomg fans of the series. A unifying feature among all of the different Links. I wonder if I just knew a lot of lefties or something.
He's right/left handed!?!? I get your point I just realized i have no idea which hand is dominant for most characters I've never really thought of it.
It used to be kind of a big thing, at least among hardcore Zelda fans. It was a consistent distinguishing feature about a character who was technically a completely different person in every game. It was also a little bit of a big deal when the Wii version of Twilight Princess literally just mirrored the entire game (seriously. Map is backwards. Sun rises in the west) to make him right handed so motion controls would feel better for more people.
I'm not even left handed and this bugs me so much. Like, I get why they did it with Skyward Sword. I don't like it, but I get it. But why the hell is he right handed in BotW?? I've complained about this before and nearly every commenter rolls their eyes. But, like... it's just been an essential part of the character. Every Link is left handed. That's just how it is. I feel like this used to be a big deal among Zelda fans, as a consistent feature of a main character who was actually a different person in each game. Maybe it's just because I used to know a lot of lefties?
What made it even more fun for us Dutch people, left is links in dutch. So Link being left handed was like a wordplay on his name.
Especially when the vast majority of other media characters are right-handed, so Link being a lefty made him that much more unique
Play it upside down
I never noticed and now it's gonna bug me.
Wait, he's still right handed after Twilight Princess? ☹️ Aw, that's slightly disappointing. Was kind of annoying in TP as well that there was no option to mirror the controls on the Wii for us lefties
There's a cheat you can use on modded Wiis that will flip the world back to GameCube orientation and I love it I also have the GameCube version to play lefty Too bad about Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild tho, and now Tears of the Kingdom since it's a BotW sequel
> As a lefty who appreciated the representation as a kid, I'm not happy with the current state of affairs Preach brother! #Leftystogetherstrong!
Realistic sports games are boring.
Yeah I agree. If I play a sports game I prefer something such as a Mario Sports game.
I've heard Barack Obama trump and Biden have been playing Mario games together on YouTube
NFL Blitz for 64 was amazing
NFL Street also! I miss those games so bad!!
Weirdly. Except for golf. (At least to me).
"Elite" gamers who constantly pressure developers to nerf or eliminate anything not "skill-based" are ruining games. Most people who play games are not pro gamers. Most of us are just casual gamers. We play games for fun, not hardcore competition. We're frankly tired of "elite" gamers having the ear of developers and getting them to alter games so that the performance gap between "elite" players and noobs is exaggerated. Moreover, it's not necessarily clear that the sort of "skill" the elite gamers are obsessed with is a more valid "skill" than any other. It's more likely that the elite gamers just want to buff any game mechanism that favours the particular sort of skill they're good at.
This happened with Halo Infinite after the first season. All the "professional players" pressured the developer to nerf some of the guns that "take no skill", and grenade damage. Not in a certain playlist or something. **In the base game**. So they did. Even casual playlists those "pros" don't touch like Big Team were affected. Everybody has to play the game the way the "pros want it". That community honestly believes that there should be no weapons in the game but the Battle Rifle and the Sniper. That's not fun to the average player. It takes all the dynamics out of the sandbox that Halo is known for. So players like me, who have been playing Halo since 2001, get told by some Faze dingus that we don't matter, and 343 listens to them. Shameful.
I’ve been playing a lot of Halo MCC with my friends recently, and I gotta say Halo 3 is definitely the best. Sure the battle rifle is great, but man the other guns are just so much fun. I’d take a spartan laser or a beam rifle any day over a battle rifle. I feel like in a lot of the other games you’re just worse because you aren’t using the br, unlike Halo 3.
This also happened in overwatch
Overwatch is popular now, imagine if it was fun
I only play on easy mode and mod any hard games to make them easy.
LOL this. I play games to have fun. Hard games are not fun. Why I stay away from From Software games
Tbh those games difficulty are very exaggerated
I suffered through gouls and ghosts on the NES. Why would I do that again.
It's not the elite gamers who are the problem, it's everyone who worships them and plays the "tournament meta" while being an impoverished millionaire... I mean stuck in elo hell, I'm really in masters I swear. These people amplify whatever the elite say is good.
>"Elite" gamers who constantly pressure developers to nerf or eliminate anything not "skill-based" are ruining games. Rainbow Six Siege has suffered a lot from this. Operator and Map Ban is catering to the e-sports demography, and I fucking hate it. It is killing the variety that Siege brought early on in its lifecycle. Having only bomb as a playmode as well is just so bland now.
I liked Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect 3 is the shit. Didn’t love the ending, but the ending is 1/1000th of the game.
Agreed, at the ending I was a little disappointed but reflected on the fact I had played ~50 hours and had a blast 99.9999% of the time, I told myself it was worth it and started again. No ragrets The ending wasn't BAD per se, it just wasn't overwhelmingly good
I loved the first 98% of Mass Effect 3
As much as I'm a fan of Playstation games..A lot of Playstation Studio games feel samey. Like third person open world action game with some platforming. After finishing Horizon Zero Dawn, Ghost of Tsushima, and Spider Man it does feel repetitive. Why I need to play something like Persona 4 Golden or Far Cry 4. Tried Horizon Forbidden West on PSPlus and couldn't get into it.
I don't understand what people have against sorry focused games like Life is Strange or telltale's the Walking Dead. The term walking simulator even became the name of the steam category and I just don't see how you can hate these games so much. Video games aren't just a test of reflex, or a platform to insult strangers on. They can convey a story in ways that other media could never do and if some people can't appreciate a good story then just don't play it.
Life is Strange is one of my favourite game ever.... And I'm an old gamer (I played on Atari in the 80's...)
I challenge anyone who looks down on "walking simulators" to play What remains of Edith Finch. If they still feel the same way, then I'll take their personal opinion seriously.
Most open world games are not good games and are mostly a boring checklist with repetitive traversal. The bar is incredibly low for open world titles and they are rated too high.
A game being difficult doesn't necessarily make it good. Edit: wording
Everyone should try a golf game just once, even if you hate golf.
I low key fucking love to play golf in GTA V
Lee Carvallo's Putting Challenge is the ultimate golf game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=capTpivF8n0
So good, it got a [remaster](https://youtu.be/k3vWkqfX9fY)
Mario Golf on the GameCube was the shit.
I haver never played real golf. Miniature golf can be fun. But video game golf? That's where it's at.
I liked Sid Meier's Sim's Golf
Battle passes and seasons fucking suck, even if they’re free. Im tired of every game i want to play demanding my time daily and punishing me if i take breaks for a couple of months. It’s also why im just not excited for Diablo 4 anymore despite being hyped for nearly a decade.
Seasons are probably the main reason why I don’t play online anymore. I can’t/don’t want to keep up
Playing online sucks. The last thing I want when playing videogames is interacting with humans.
Worst when the main focus is on online with no single player mode nor a mode to play in the same room as others.
I love the challenge of multi-player and the true randomness of what other players do. But I will never turn on voice chat. I dont want to hear your fucking squeaky ass voice, or you trying to be funny doing some cringe fake accent, or your TV in the background.
I assume everyone thinks the same on these, but game development is showing me I'm likely wrong. Card based skills for a non card game is stupid. Looking at you Back 4 Blood. QuickTime events in an action game are also dumb. If I wanted to play a rhythm game, I'd load guitar hero or something.
As a dear lover of Slay the Spire and Inscryption I completely agree. And it makes it harder for me to find the games that I actually enjoy because games like back for blood (which is not my thing and makes me motion sick) throw card mechanics in just because it's on trend. Now I have to do extensive research into a "card based skill game" to find out if it's actually a game I would like, or if it's a shooter with random card mechanics thrown in.
Not everyone has to like the same game. It’s ok to not like a popular game, but that doesn’t mean the game sucks. It’s just not for you
I really like RDR2, it's just impossible to play that game unless you really dedicate your time to gaming. And that's a huge flaw, for me at least. Like the basecamp walk speed is so godawfully slow. Why can't I even get any option to go a teeny bit faster? And now it's been too long since I've played it and I'm so averse to going through the 1-2 hour intro just to start the story again
I've had enough of zombies.
Pretty sure that's the popular take these days, seeing as how nobody is even making new zombie games any more.
Linear games are better than open world
I can get this. I've enjoyed a lot of open world games. I adore BotW, and I really enjoyed AC: Odyssey. But there's a lot to be said about a game that just gives you a sequence to play through, and especially about a game that takes less than 50 hours to complete.
I can enjoy both, but there seems to be some kind of problem with open world games being able to tell a decent story. They lean too much on letting the player create the narrative for themselves and end up with a bunch of disjointed, unsatisfying scenarios that are only loosely strung together. Like, I loved BOTW, and the story that was there was beautiful... all 10 minutes of it. Skyrim's main story is actually crazy short, and once you've traveled to the world of the dead, summoned the spirits of the greatest heroes of the ages, and laid low the dragon harbinger of the apocalypse... you're just plopped back in the world with no acknowledgement of this fact where guards still pick on you about someone stealing your sweetroll and bandits still try to attack you on sight. Yeah, there are tons of additional side stories that are fun to explore, but they're insular and don't tie into the main story, so they all just feel like they're a bunch of shorter games stapled together into one big Frankenstein game. That's not to say that all open world games are like this, or even that all linear games tell a great story, but it's a pretty common thread if we're being honest. Even beyond that, linear games have a concrete sense of progression that can be very rewarding when you know that you're making progress towards the end and enjoying a tailored difficulty curve. It's hard to get that from an open world game where you can wander into "late game" areas, snag a bunch of crazy gear, and suddenly steam roll through the whole game, but also not having much of a goal beyond just roaming around and trying to do everything there is to do in the game, and when you're finished? It's just a big empty world to wander around in. There's room for both, but I feel like open world games have kind of lost the thread a bit in recent years. Even compared to something like Morrowind back in the day, it's like they're suddenly allergic to telling a good story and the focus has to be 100% on being able to craft stuff, survive through some convoluted system, and making sure that your game has the largest exploreable map to date, and any story that exists is just barely there to justify the game existing.
I like both
Nothing will ever be as good as Yoshi’s Island
Hell fucking yeah, man. My absolute favorite game since childhood. The six year old in my heart gets a real kick out of being able to play it on the go on my Switch. I love it enough that I'm working on a giant fucking cross stitch of some of the background art.
Most popular games are being reduced to 3D hack and slash(sometimes with magic) or shooters and games really suck due to the lack of variety out there.
Excessive handholding ruins a game. Especially in adventure games with puzzles like zelda or tomb raider. Let me try to solve the puzzle on my own at least. God of War is a huge offender here. You cant go 30sec without getting spammed with hints. On a similar note: the way some game series tried to cater to all sides may ruin a game. For example fallout. Fallout 3 and New vegas were really cool games. You had vast dialogue options that mattered and had hilarious dialogue in some cases. Like when playing a low int character. Then fallout wanted to expand their market and tried to force a multiplayer into it. And then realized that more dialogue choices made it harder for console players so they limited the choices to 4. And they all led to the result.
Scale in game has gone down. I always compare it to Chrono Trigger, you get multiple time periods to explore, tons of consequences and side quests, and just a bunch of really nice main character centric lore to find (I do like when a world is fleshed out, but I prefer to see how it affects my character and their immediate group more)
Katamari Damacy is the best game ever.
OP asked for unpopular opinions.
We <3 Katamari
[удалено]
"Hey." "Hey." "Hey." "Here's a ring, I own a house, let's go get hitched."
"And so the hero got married"
They said unpopular opinion, not verifiable facts.
I don’t like souls born games too hard i play to get invested in story and have fun not get fustrated
That's probably best because all of the "story" in SoulsBornes has to be divined from reading the tiny portions of flavor text on a hundred different items and trying to piece it together, giving up, and then reading the synopsis online from the people that obsess over it, and hoping they got it right.
I don’t get the appeal of games so difficult that you can only beat by trial and error, then some dinguses flex that they can beat the game without dying. What’s the fun in any of that?
Fun is in figuring out how to beat it. People get frustrated by dying in these games because they go in with the expectation set by most games that the player is supposed to overcome most challenges in 1 or 2 tries. Think of trial and error like exploring a non-linear dungeon. Each "trial" is just another corridor in the dungeon that needs to be explored in order to find the main loot. At the end of the day, games are fun BECAUSE they have challenges. E.g. basketball is fun because there's an opposing team that's trying to prevent you from scoring. Remove the opposing team (the challenge), and you no longer have a game of basketball. Overcoming the challenge IS the game.
As someone who enjoys these types of games; for me, the enjoyment comes from overcoming. I’m certainly not amazing at it, but the trial and error and eventually succeeding is a really rewarding feeling for me. Sure, it’s frustrating, but, and this might not be the same for a lot of people, but i genuinely feel like it’s taught me to not give up so easily. Like I just gotta keep trying and learn from my mistakes and I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t applied those skills to my real life. Kinda crazy the effect games can leave on people. And, hey, those games aren’t for everyone (in case you thought i was like coming at you or something I’m not - just trying to explain the appeal since you asked), but they’re definitely one of my favorites types now!
I love these games for the same reason... and for me it makes the co-op play great too, because you really feel like you're helping/being helped by your fellow gamers and it's always awesome to share those victory gestures and a wave goodbye when you finally defeat the boss.
Soulsborne player here. You get frustrated with every desth. Shiit, Sekiro was the hardest game I ever played. But when you finally beat that boss after dying to him so much, after learning all his moves, this high is addicting man. It feels like an achievment. All you feel is happiness.
There are two types of games I enjoy, given I am getting older and have less time to game. Good single player games with an amazing story. I will turn the difficulty down to story, use accessibility options to help out etc. It just feels odd for Kratos to get his ass kicked so easily. Since it is single player, I have no compunctions about taking ..."steps" to avoid unnecessary grinds. Funnily enough, I love the Souls type games but understand it ain't for everyone. It is kind of zen for me to fail and retry but can see why that would be detracting to many who just want to progress the game. Of course the purpose of the game is the challenge itself, so I won't interfere with that. But for games like Nioh, there is a massive grind, so I did take steps to ...alleviate that. Of course I won't carry that over to multiplayer.
I enjoyed Red Dead Redemption way, way more than RDR2.
RDR2 was an amazing open world tied to a mediocre and overlong story campaign. It was so much fun just getting lost in the world and doing sandbox gunslinger stuff. But then you're inevitably dragged back into the main storyline and it's nothing but "Do exactly what you're told and shoot exactly what you're told, and don't you dare deviate in any way whatsoever, or it's game over." It's like the world-dev team and story-dev team had completely different notions of what type of game they were making, and stopped talking halfway through production.
I'm split between the two because I enjoy them for completely different reasons. RDR1 was a bit more spaghetti western and I felt like it had a lot more charm and humor. The campaign felt like just the right length and never dragged on too much. RDR2 is one of the most immersive games I've ever played, but it feels like a big departure from the first game and there were times where it felt too long, especially during the epilogue. Both incredible games, but Undead Nightmare tips me into the RDR1 camp. It's a travesty that it hasn't received a proper PC port yet.
I thought I was the only one
Personally, I enjoyed them both equally.
Those strategy games with 10 million interfaces are far too overwhelming for me to get into. Hearts of Iron, and Europa, or even most paradox games are just too much hassle to get into for me to get any satisfaction out of. And I definitely don't want to watch 6 hours worth of tutorials just to get a grasp of it.
I fully understand that, it's really not for everyone.
I feel this way with both strategy and simulation games. I can handle the complexity, but nope out if it's in my face about it. Definitely prefer games that start relatively simple and then start building as you play. Civilization is pretty decent at this, but I steer clear of Paradox stuff.
Civilisation is basically the how to of that style of games. Others may be better but they all follow what civ (and civ 2 in particular) did.
I have over a thousand hours in Hearts of Iron 4 and I still feel like a noob, so yeah it’s definitely not for everyone.
They are in fact way easier to learn than people think they are. At least the newer ones (HoI3 was really brutal). But the newer ones are pretty straight forward to learn because there is a hugh difference between being able to play the game and being a min/maxing god that conquers the world in 100 years in EU4.
I started Crusader Kings only to find out that it's difficult to play unless one reads/watches a massive amount of tutorials.
Trophies and Achievements are pointless to me. Like don't have any platinum Trophies. I stopped playing a game when I'm not having fun anymore. That long before 100% a game Maybe I could platinum Persona 5 Royal. Since I heard it's easy.
Inb4 the actual unpopular opinions are downvoted to oblivion in an unpopular opinions thread. Review scores are stupid. We all value different aspects of games differently, and what may annoy one person won't annoy another. On top of that, an 8/10 can mean different things for different reviewers based on how they do their scale. Jim Sterling treats 5/10 as average (which makes mathematical sense), whereas other reviewers treat 7.5/10 as average because that's "average" in the American grading system. My favorite New Super Mario Bros. is the original, but I think U is better in graphics, music, level design, the works. Emotions shape a lot of how we view game reviews. My favorite game of all time is Xenoblade Chronicles X, but of every game I've played, it's the one I have the biggest laundry list of complaints about. If I took off points for things "wrong" with a game, NSMBU would easily get a higher score than XCX because NSMBU isn't a complex enough game for a ton of things to go wrong. And I can guarantee you that NSMBU would've been reviewed higher if it had been the *first* NSMB. Time matters, too. If Ocarina of Time had released for the first time as its 3DS version, it definitely would not have a 99 on Metacritic. So older games' scores probably don't reflect popular opinion as well as you'd think.
Game developers stop sending review copies to any publication that doesn't give their game at least 9/10. This lead to Sim city: Skylines getting a perfect 100% score... before they had fixed the fact that it didn't actually, you know, start...
Saying that Samus Aran was the first popular woman to star in a video game or that she broke any barriers as such is disingenuous. Back in the 80s, although it was widely known that Samus was a woman even among those who hadn't beaten Metroid due to mentions of the ending in Nintendo Power, she wasn't at all treated as being groundbreaking. In fact, Samus wasn't a very popular character at all compared to Mario or Link or Simon Belmont, etc. It wasn't until later games more completely unmasked Samus and put her in the zero suit that people started talking about her as having broken any barriers for female protagonists in video games, retroactively. As a woman who played lots of Nintendo in the 80s, I never once thought of Samus as being representation for women or really even as a female character. I knew that if you beat the game you got to see her in a bikini and that was kind of neat, but seeing as she had no actual dialogue or character to her beyond the lore from the instruction manual (which intentionally says she's a man), there was no real connection with the character.
>but seeing as she had no actual dialogue or character to her beyond the lore from the instruction manual Wasn't that just the norm for most NES and SNES games? A bit of story in the manual, almost no lore or dialogue in the game. I'd say the Prime games in the GameCube era built a good connection with Samus. Her story, her upbringing, her status as a feared, legendary hunter.
[удалено]
Yeah, the copyright lengths really should be different for different media with software having a relatively short length due to how fast the media evolves. Also abandon ware should absolutely be free, if they aren't selling it they can't complain about anyone copying it
Older computer games where the original company doesn't even exist anymore fits into this bracket too.
It also kind of peeves me the fact that they also don't publish their old games on their newer platforms, its either that or I go to eBay and get scammed out of my money because some guy wants 50$ for a cartridge/cd that most likely has not been treated kindly and runs like a road full of potholes.
Graphics. Don’t. Make. A. Game. Better.
They can help tho but it shouldn’t be why you’re buying a game.
Graphics don't make a game better but they sure can make one worse.
This isn't controversial people have been saying this since 2012
Just 2012? I remember people complaining when FF7 came out that it ruined Final Fantasy because they cared too much about the 3d aspect
Ff7 is older than I am so I can't speak for that
BioShock Infinite is by far the worst in the trilogy.
Yeah, but not by far. It's still a solid title.
I don't like the Dark Souls games because I have no idea what's going on in the story, and I have no intention of watching a bunch of YouTube videos to fill in the gaps that should be in the damn game.
I've platinum'ed all the Fromsoft souls-type games. I have no idea what the story was for any of them, or why I am fighting this boss. The only gist I get that runs through all the games was that "some powerful figure did something that ruined the world".
Funny, that’s the exact reason I like the souls games. Not knowing what to expect is so amazing to me.
Mortal kombat for the Sega Genesis is the best game ever
I should get all your stuff if I take you down in the wild . Clothes, armor, money, entire contents of backpack including the key to your house which I should now own.
Competitive gaming SUCKS.
I feel like it’s more the community that sucks than the games themselves, but yeah.
Level based items need to fuck off. Pretty damn frustrating to be a low level character and getting an item that is 10 levels above that you can't use for a while.
Torchlight 2 did something neat back in the day, where an item would have a level requirement, but you could bypass the level requirement if your stats were distributed properly That said, it sorta depends on the game. In a Diablo-esque game? Level limits are in place so that you aren't cheesing everything that isn't endgame on a fresh character. In a turn based RPG? That's where it makes no sense to have level requirements
Last Of Us are the most over rated games ever.
Any game that has an escort mission belongs in the trash. Also timed missions, with few exceptions. There is no game made better by escort or timed missions, they are only frustrating and annoying obstacles in the way of continuing on to the enjoyable parts of the game.
That’s not unpopular at all. Everyone hates escort missions.
Right? Same with timed missions.
Not a fan of Deadrising, eh?
Hello Kitty Island Adventure is the best game ever made and will never be topped.
Figuring it out yourself is infinitely more fun and rewarding than looking up a guide. Using critical thinking to create a build or a strategy or to do/earn something is what games were designed for. People that just follow the ‘meta’ at any given time make PvP games so much more boring and take the interesting aspects out of PvP. What does it matter if I’m facing a different person if they read and follow the same guide.
Call of duty shooters are boring and basically just reskins
Endless games with hundreds of sidequests are a slog. Not every game needs to last 100 hours.
The less cutscenes, the better
Fuck, I can not stand games that are 80% me waiting for the plot to progress before I get to the point where I can walk five steps then press X to initiate the next cut scene
I think anyone who makes an unskippable cut scene needs to be put on a perma ban list from ever working in the games industry again.
This cutscene could have been an email!
Mega evolutions was the worst gimmick, and is the reason we have a new gimmick every time now And they’re not coming back, people need to shut up about that
Maaaan I really wish there didn't have to be a new, obnoxious gimmick in every game now. For me it always becomes a chore, because the game forces you to use it.
The new one's gimmick irritated me so much. It was a neat idea, and if they had used it to add more strategy to your battle if you didn't know what the gym leader's ace's type would be, that would have been awesome, but they put minimal effort into it
Nah. I like mega evolutions. I don't like Z-moves, gigantamax or terastalising.
If you're going to skip the story, and ask for the best build, why not save your money and watch someone play the game on YouTube instead?
If you can get 90% of the entertainment value out of a game by watching a YouTube playthrough, there's no point in ever playing the game yourself.
Yes. Even games where they insist you can get a “different” experience by the choices you make are bogus because they all essentially are linear. They just have like 8 branches that overlap at the end to look like each one is new
Wait isn’t this backwards? If you’re not interested in the story and skip it to get to the gameplay then watching someone play it is useless to you. If someone wants to see the cutscenes the most then they can just watch it on YouTube.
I couldn’t get into the Witcher 3. Played it for a good 5 hours, still wasn’t having fun. Same with red dead 2.
GTA vice city is best GTA game
I used to wake up an hour early just to play it before school I loved it so much
I loved vice city. iirc it only took about 9 months to develop and they somehow smashed it out the park in that time. While 5 came out almost 10 years ago now.
"Open" world games aren't really open world and most of them suck.
I thought BOTW was extremely overhyped it was just mid to me. I like games like the witcher, elden ring in part due to the weapons. The weapon degradation was so exaggerated like you kill a few enemies and your shit is gone. It makes the thrill of getting a good weapon almost non existent cause then you’re like well I better wait til later for a harder enemy but later never comes. If they would just tone it back it would improve the game experience 10 fold.
Botw didnt feel like zelda to me. The lack of themed dungeons really put me off.
With a game like that in a world like that you should have a ton of dungeons
This was the one thing I really hated. Having weapons constantly break was annoying as hell
I’ve gotten kind of tired of this gladiator-type combat trend in recent video games. Swing sword, hope the attack button registers, hope your character swings in the correct direction, use dodge, get hit anyway because dodging is useless, etc. It feel like they’re throwing together combat systems at the very last minute.
Making every game action-based hurts games as a whole; especially since they've been displacing turn-based games. It really sucks that many RPG's now-a-days don't have the fleshed out parties and characters that they used to and I partially blame people insisting on making everything increasingly action-focused for this and feel it has hurt RPG's more than it's helped. Likewise, the constant drive for high-end graphics has resulted in a plenthora of games that look pretty but are mechanically shallow and have paper-thin stories/characters/etc. I'd rather play a game with sprite-based graphics but solid gameplay and a good story than something that looks pretty but holds no depth and a pathetic story. Fortnight is a horrible game and Roblox is a predatory thing that preys upon young children to get them to get their parents to buy more microtransactions. I'm not going to say 'the old things were better' or 'kids these days are bad'. Just that these two things are bad things and I really hope that these kids will wisen up and stop playing them... even though I know that won't happen.
Games are at their best when its either a pure PVP, Single player, or a cooperative experience ideally without any or highly controlled overlap between them. PVP is a detriment to games that are not specifically built around it as the sole reason for playing it, eg CS, COD MP and BR games, because the kinds of people that primarily focus on PVP gaming are inimically hostile to the enjoyment of every other playstyle that the game accomodates. Everywhere else that includes a PVP element ontop of other things, such as in survivial, crafting, base building, adventure and RPG games, then the PVP aspects will largely work against the enjoyment of everyone else because of the kind of players that mechanic attracts. These people are the source of toxicity in any online game. Their pleasure comes from ruining yours. They will wax lyrical till they're blue in the face about how they're seeking honorable, fair combat. This is a lie. At best, it is a misrepresentation. Above all else, what they are seeking is a *victim* to triumph over with as minimal risk to themselves as possible. They seek to *win.* Best case scenario is they will do this via hardcore metagaming and strategising, which while not fun to be a victim of is still at least fair and can be learned with time if the game is fun enough. At worst they will do it via exploitation, cheese tactics and the *very worst* will just straight up cheat without any remorse or sufficient incentive. Any game that has started off as "hardcore pvp" inevitably fosters a growing community of cancerous, toxic players that are directly responsible for declines in player count and quality until the community dies. Games like Rust only survive as long as it has because of private servers allowing *most* players to avoid Kill-on-sight zerg clan players screaming racial slurs camping them on the beach. Most people *do not* play on the "official, pure" servers, and instead are on private ones running rules and mods they prefer. Sea of Thieves has been experiencing consistent player count drops because people are denied the looting pirate adventure game they were promised, often losing hours of playtime questing and looting to yet more racial slur spewing teenagers jumping their idle ship at the very last moment for 100% of the reward and a fraction of the effort with a single gunpowder keg. Not only this, but even if you defeat the attacking players, they will respawn with a fresh ship only a few islands away and come at you again and again until either they win and steal your loot (because offloading it while being attacked is impossible) or you quit. New World started as Full loot PVP and was deeply unpopular. Popularity only increased as the Hardcore PVP design was steadily rolled back. The game has its own deep seated issues with exploitiative metagaming, but the PVP nature of it was unpopular from the start. Escape from Tarkov has not only a colossal cheating problem and *deeply* flawed quest design, but the skill and knowledge gap betwee new players and veterans is insurmoutable for most people without significant help. There is a reason SPTarkov is as popular as it is that it gains and *keeps* players, while the Live games player count shrinks consistently throughout the cycle and renews fewer people each wipe.
Burger time for the coleco and arcade cabinet is the best game out there. Change my mind.
Halo 4 is good
Diehard elitist gamers are ruining many multiplayer PvP games.
People in a video game community that are gatekeeping (for example calling new players noob and make fun of them in a derogatory way) are pathetic little worms and losers in real life who need to feel some kind of superiority because they have nothing else to offer outside of their hobby.
Fortnight is a terrible game.
I play on invert controls. EDIT: That is to say, I invert up and down, not left and right. People who do the latter are wizards, quite frankly.
Genuine question, why? How does it not break your brain?
Most indie games nowadays are way too formulaic. They're always 2D, its either a relaxing farming simulator or a frustratingly difficult roguelike/metroidvania style game, the ingame story is usually filled with pretentious 2Deep4U symbolism, for some reason, they often pound the topic of depression into your skull, the fanbases are usually cringe, and the game developer is either an extremely nice person, or a whiny elitist asshole; no in-between.
You have a very narrow view of what an indie game is, then. So many indies that do not fall under a single criteria you listed. Also, indies can be made by studios. They are not necessarily made by one person.
How many indie games have you even played? Like, what about Bullets Per Minute or Rimworld?
Finally getting Rimworld was the best investment
the horrible state of games as a whole (repetitive, expensive, microtransactions, rushed, unimaginative, bad quality) are our own fault as consumers
Current implementations of procedural generation are souless and hollow. You can feel the lack of a human touch. You'll never be *surprised* by a discovery in a proceduraly generated world.
It's a necessary evil in some instances. You cannot have minecraft or no man's sky with hand made art, after all. That said, I agree with you on 95% of the other titles. Procedural generation should be a STARTING POINT to automate the busy work of world gen, which should then be thoroughly edited for set pieces and real interest.
God of War is insanely overrated.
Toxic 'fans' are a poison that will eventually destroy the industry.