Gaming Unpopular opinion

[Mothro]

We've already lost the lootbox war and there is nothing we can do about it.

The power is all in your hands, stop buying games with loot boxes. It's so simple it could just work, at the very least you won't have to worry about loot boxes if you don't play games that have them.

Maybe the 'take my money' meme was cute at one time but now it just shows how foolish some gamers are. Whine and moan but continue to buy while wondering why developers and publishers are becoming ever more anti-consumer.

Anyway, my unpopular opinion is that Zelda games being open world going forward is a mistake.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Video-games should be more like movies

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...


(In that movies don't include things unless they are absolutely necessary, and most games would be improved if they cared more about the players' time)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Thank you sir. This is fun

1. The point of my counter's to B-Cell's nonsense, isn't really to lock in stone how good a game is. B-Cell said Tomb Raider and the sequel are the worse games ever. Which is just not true. Even you yourself give them 6/10 which is a good game imo. You might not agree with me that they were stellar experiences (obviously) but you don't deny that they are decently good games one their own. So sure you don't enjoy them as much as me, but we agree that they are certainly not as bad as B-Cell suggests.

3. I disagree entirely. GTA games are good games. The open world genre might be a bit oversaturated at this point, but GTA and Rockstar put together incredible huge games that for the most part work. They make bigger games than anything Bethesda does, with far less bugs. The moment to moment gameplay might not be the best thing since sliced bread, but everything they include does work and that's really all that can be asked for. The original point made was they were the most overrated games of all time, which I just don't think is true.

5. Man everyone talking shit on my baby. Look I'm biased. I love everything the Witcher 3 did. I love the combat because I love being op as fuck. Having abilities like Quen and Axii are amazing. Look if you dig into the lore, Witchers are monsters than kill other monsters. A good Witcher properly prepares for every fight to give them as many advantages in battle as possible. They are not fair fighters. They have op potions and magics to go out and kill the monsters to get paid and they move on. They have no emotion, (though Geralt does because it's hard to write a character without any motivations, desires, or personal investment) they don't get a high from fighting fair, or facing challenges, their only go is to go out and kill what they get paid to kill and move on.

The movement was no nearly as big of a deal as people made it out to be, and was more a keyboard input problem than anything else. The combat is fine, it's mind-numbingly easy on easy mode, and can be quite challenging on Death March. One mistake or ill preparation can fuck you on Death March. The difficulties allow players to tailor their experience pretty well imo. Might not be your cup of tea anyway and that's fine. There is no way that the Witcher can be classified as a bad game though. By no means, I'm sorry.

9. Dark Souls invented a whole new way to experience dungeon crawling. Slow methodical combat around a vague and bleak setting. You cannot deny how many games have tried to follow Dark Soul's example. Just like Doom and Wolfenstien created the FPS genre, Dark Souls has created a unique thing. Sure it does have the basics of many other styles, but nothing does it quite like Dark Souls, they evolved it and made it their own thing. Now you have Lords of the Fallen, Nioh, The Surge, Salt and Sanctuary, Dead Cells, etc. When there is no denying that many developers are trying to directly follow suit with a style, means that a genre all it's own has formed from this game. You are free to not like the Souls games, but their impact is hard to ignore.

1) I could see someone finding basically any game to be the worst game ever because it does take a certain something for you to hate something. Sure, some garbage asset flip game on Steam is probably the worst game ever but you'd probably never play it and if you did, would it actually have enough of that "something" to ignite hate within you about it? And sure, B-Cell is probably exaggerating and using hyperbole along with the new TRs aligning with his "bias" that it's probably not his worst game ever. However, it might just be his worst game ever. The game that is my worst game ever is Max Payne 3 because I just hated so much about it, and Danganronpa is probably a close 2nd on that list now after just recently playing it.

3) I pretty much feel the GTA games are the most overrated games ever too because I think they are below average games yet their average review score is in the high 90s. Any game rated with that high of an average score is overrated no matter if even I think it's the best game ever because no work in any medium should have an average rating in the mid to upper 90s. It's just not possible for anything to be so beloved that ~100 people (professional or otherwise) would agree something is so good that it would get an AVERAGE score so high. Sure maybe half the people loved it and thought it was amazing (even that is extremely high), but there's going to be at least of few that didn't like it, several that thought it was "meh", and several that thought it was just merely good. For example, last year's Best Picture winner Moonlight has an average score of 9.0/10 with 98% of critics liking it. Whereas GTA4's average score is a 98/100 with, of course, not a single critic disliking the game (there's so many games that would get a 100% fresh rating if games were on RT that it would be ridiculous). This is more to do with how horrible "professional" gaming criticism is than GTA itself as any game with mid to upper 90s average score is overrated, I just feel GTA is the worst of all the games with scores in that territory.

Back to actual GTA criticism, the moment-to-moment gameplay is what I play games for and GTA is well below average in that category. Ubisoft: The Game outdoes GTA in moment-to-moment gameplay because all of them have at least stealth mechanics so at worst you can mix and match between stealth and action whereas GTA is just a below par TPS, I'd have more fun with freaking Fuse (and at least it's shorter too). Who cares how big a game is if there's not much fun in it? Or the whole cliche "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle". As I said before about how GTA doesn't even merit its open world because missions just come down go to Point-B and kill a bunch of spawned enemies while wasting my time traveling to actual content (and that content isn't even good most of the time). Whereas a game like Dishonored merits its "mini-sandboxes" because you are given true freedom to complete objectives and dispatch enemies. And, the writing is just so bad that I hate it as I mentioned previously. I couldn't even stand RDR either, I got to Mexico and I heard that was the worst part of the game, I hadn't had any fun yet so I'm definitely not playing the worst part of the game so I quit the game.

5) Being OP as fuck doesn't make or break a game for me. For example, the Dishonored games are amazing and if you think Geralt is OP as fuck, then you don't know what OP as fuck is LOL (watch a Dishonored StealthGamerBR video). Dishonored isn't hard to just complete levels if that's all you want but it does take skill and more importantly creativity to get through areas in cool, slick, stylish ways. There's just so many different and amazingly fun ways to dispatch enemies. I could overlook Witcher 3's easiness (even on Death March btw) if the combat was a least fun or allowed for creativity, but it doesn't. I realized super early how joke easy the game is with abusing quen and axii that I house-ruled them out but then I realized combat just isn't fun even with some actual challenge so I just went back to abusing those signs because it just made combat waste less time basically. Even standard Arkham combat has more actual depth and difficulty than Witcher 3's combat. Now I haven't played the previous games or read the books, but from what I've heard, Geralt and witchers are supposed struggle against monsters and their preparation is what allows them to edge out victories in fights (sorta like a medieval fantasy Batman). I can win literally every fight in the game on any difficulty with zero preparation and walk away without a scratch, and there's nothing hard about doing that. I played Witcher 3 on PS4 with a controller obviously and movement was ass so it had nothing to do with keyboard issues. Geralt's turning radius is just plain ridiculous (has no one at CDPR seen one game of any sport to see humans can quickly change direction even when sprinting?). Not enjoying a majority of my playtime in any game equates to a game being below average and a bad game in my opinion, and sadly that is true of my Witcher 3 experience.

9) Just about every shooter followed COD4's lead last-gen, it doesn't make COD4 better because of that nor did COD4 invent a new genre either. Being copied means you're popular, not necessarily good. Mark Brown did a video about why games shouldn't be turned into a genre [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx7BWayWu08] using rogue-likes as a reason why it's a bad idea. Souls was merely a dungeon crawling RPG with an action combat system that was better than just "good for an RPG" combat that the vast majority of action RPG combat is. Of course, the main element that you can say the series invented is the death system doing something in-between rogue-likes die and start over and the checkpoint every 5-steps/save anywhere systems extreme prevalence today. But didn't Super Mario Brothers basically do that like 30 years ago with dying and having to restart the level again. And settings don't make genres either, RPGs with fantasy and sci-fi settings aren't different genres. I don't dislike the Souls games; great level design + atmosphere with average combat doesn't equate to below average (AKA bad). I find them "fine" (6-7/10) and I think trying to clone them is a waste of dev resources because I want games that have the potential to be amazing not just "fine".

Out of the 3D Souls clones (as 2D is very different obviously), Nioh is the only one I'm interested in because I saw potential in the Souls games obviously but I wanted a combat system that had depth and required skill and I think Nioh is the only one that could accomplish that. From what I know about the Nioh, the game actually requires stamina management unlike Souls where it just acts as a DPS limiter, hack away until out of stamina and dodge away, whereas in Nioh you're legit vulnerable when you run out of stamina. Then Nioh has the Ki-pulse mechanic which adds depth allowing for skill-based mastery to occur along with a stance system. I wanted a dev that really knows combat like Team Ninja to infuse a great combat system into a game while utilizing some of the Souls ideas/mechanics because FromSoft doesn't really know how to make a combat system with depth and mastery. Souls combat is really just dodge/block then hit with stick, it doesn't go beyond that and there's nothing to really master or get better at besides really your timing and enemies are too slow to improve your timing if you're used to the much faster enemies of most other action games. Like I said before, I think FromSoft's strengths (level design and atmosphere) are catered to basically making a dark themed Team ICO game with boss battles and Souls death mechanic (basically survival horror environmental puzzler). Funny enough, Miyazaki was influenced by ICO when coming up with the Souls games, he should've took a bit more inspiration from ICO IMO.

What you end up with is a massive game with varying levels of crap filling in the space, and it's a nightmare for a completionist like me to slug through. Admittedly, a lot of that is my fault, because, as an OCD completionist, I have to do all the quests and explore every area, or I'll worry about missing something. But even if you're not a completionist, I think it leads to an unnecessary amount of tedious crap to sift through to find the good parts.

In my opinion, confinement and linearity in games is a good thing. It protects the gamer from wandering around and becoming bored with low quality content, because most of that low quality content never even makes it into the final game, and it keeps the gamer immersed in the highest quality content the game has to offer. And I think this has always been true in games, but somehow that core development concept has been thrown out the window with the massive open world arms race.

I find Arkane's games like Dishonored to be the "perfect" size. Each level is a very small open world that is packed with interesting things within mere steps away. I feel like exploring and finding everything in the levels, even reading notes left by NPCs are usually interesting reads while possibly holding the combination to a safe or a hint about a secret in the level. My playthrough of Dishonored 2 clocked in at 40 hours while I spent 30 hours on my playthrough of the standalone DLC Death of the Outsider. Whereas in basically every open world game there's not enough interesting areas to merit exploring and the missions will probably take you everywhere actually interesting anyway. Horizon is the only open world game I actually recall that I enjoyed exploring because of stumbling across new machines and literally just enjoying the actual scenery as everywhere you go is beautiful. Oh, and I really liked Arkham City too, you could get across the city (one end to the other end) in probably 2 mins of just gliding.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Video-games should be more like movies

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...


(In that movies don't include things unless they are absolutely necessary, and most games would be improved if they cared more about the players' time)

Totally, I rarely play RPGs anymore because they are more focused on wasting your time than probably any other genre.

 

[FoolKiller]

The Last of Us is a mediocre FORCED stealth game that had a sloppy save system and didn't make sense in its own universe. The design is meant to force the player to play a certain way. I love stealth games but this just shit the bed. The game's design options were chosen and so there is a disconnect between the story and the gameplay.

But unlike some people here who I suspect are just trolling, I have defended this position since I got the game when it came out.

1. Joel's skills are really weak considering he has been surviving in the zombie apocalypse for 20 years. Why does he need to learn the most basic of survival skills?

2. Breakable weapons... I get it but make it realistic. Rotted wood will break when you beat a zombie with it. A steel pipe has less chance of breaking while you swing it than your shoulders being dislocated from the repeated action.

3. Lack of bullets
Forcing stealth is sloppy. Especially through this method. Odd though that people can shoot hundreds of rounds at me for ten minutes straight and then when I kill them and search a half dozen enemies I find three bullets. Does that mean if I waited 10 more seconds they would have run out?

4. Lack of bullets part 2
Why, when I have a backpack, can I only carry a handful of bullets until I upgrade that "skill"?

5. Save system
Why can I "manually" save but then it just reverts to the most recent auto save location?

 

[BaronVonVaderHam]

Playstation All Stars Battle Royale was better then the last Smash Bros game and deserves a sequel.

 

[sXeth]

Bioshock infinite is worst AAA FPS game ever ever made. its really that bad

Why so? I loved that game. I found it very challenging and exciting. Hell, its the only game I've 100%.
What didn't you like about it? Granted the ending is bugger nuts, and Elizabeth can get kinda annoying.

I'd say it pulls in an almost entirely downwards direction from Bioshock. Way more generic mook enemies, culminating in the janky final battle. While it has a similar set of the vigors, they're introduced in an order that begins with the utterly generic ones, which comboed with the games upgrade system disincentivizes you from using the interesting ones when you do finally get them. (Bioshock starts out with the bullet catching, in contrast). Which to a degree covers the guns as well (though they're pretty stock in general).

There's fewer characters overall, and not much options in your interactions with them (Part of that is the timey-wimey nonsense would make actions irrelevant anyways). The plot as a whole makes your own actions more or less irrelevant. Booker, Daisy, or anyone else is basically an irrelevance wiped away by time-god Elizabeth.

The couple of unique mechanics the game did try and hype up were the Skylines, which didn't really operate well, you were much better off staying on the ground and shooting accurately. The other was the Tears, but that just boiled down to conjuring advantages into the battlefield (some of which, like ammo and health, were pointless, because Elizabeth will just toss you them anyways. And others like the ally Lincolns were never explained why Comstock's robot from a different timeline would be at all on your side).


I didn't particularly Elizabeth annoying, although she did have a tendency to make the game look silly if you caught sight of her running through the battlefield. Last of Us was way worse for that though.

 

[Mothro]

2. Breakable weapons... I get it but make it realistic. Rotted wood will break when you beat a zombie with it. A steel pipe has less chance of breaking while you swing it than your shoulders being dislocated from the repeated action.

Realism is a funny complaint. I have seen people complain that they can carry 6 swords, 12 helmets and so on because that's not realistic but being able to cast a fire spell apparently passes the realism test.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

My problem with Silent Hill 2, and this may be my fault, is I played if after several other Silent Hill games. After Silent Hill 1, Silent Hill 3, Silent Hill 4, Silent Hill Homecoming, Downpour, Shattered Memories, and Origins. I had heard it, Silent Hill 2, was the scariest, deepest, more disturbing, shocking and cerebral game of the series.

And I played it. And its really really boring. Not only is the majority of the game spent running around, doing nothing in the town, the enemies couldn't care less. With a few exceptions, you can go through huge sections of the game without having to fight anything. You can just walk right passed the nurses and weird leg monsters, and sometimes they'll attack, sometimes not, and always too slow to catch up to you.
The notable exception are the bosses, all of whom except Pyramid Head, are way too dirty brown amorphous shapes to know what they are, let alone be scary.
Pyramid Head himself is...barely in it. You see him a few times, he chases you a few times, you fight him, and then you kill him. Granted when he's chasing you its kinda scary, but its over way too soon and happens twice.

The plot is all over the place, fluctuating from mindlessly dull to mindbogglingly stupid. James as a protagonist is lame. He's unlikable, the voice acting is terrible, his dialogue is terrible, and his character arc is predictable, although it may be my fault as I played plenty of SH games, I was easily able to guess what was going on pretty early on, right around the time you meet Maria.
All the other characters are just annoying. I know within the town itself, reality is weird and different for everyone, but the NPCs are so non sequitur I feel like they should have taken dialogue from different games entirely.

"My name is James. What's going on in this town?"
"Every time I look into a monitor, Prime, my circuits sizzle! When are we going to start busting Deceptichops?!"

"We should go to that hotel, the one on the lake"
"Your treasury is too small. Make it larger"

The combat I will give them is supposed to be bad. James is not a Space Marine, and I can't expect to swing a bat or anything, but that doesn't make it any more fun. And its not scary or intense, like Bloodborne or Bioshock. Its dull and hard to control and frustrating, like Blast Corps 64.

More than anything though, its not scary. The atmosphere isn't great or oppressive. Homecoming and Silent Hill 3 both did a much better job of keeping the town threatening and creepy. Silent Hill 2 just has an empty town for most of the game.

I'm curious in what you're remembering.

I'll agree James is an acquired taste. If you were a fan, you would know that the development team actually sought out Guy Cihi due to his natural stilted mannerisms, behavior and tone of voice. The team modeled James to look Cihi [https://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/square_medium/1/13641/1983270-president.jpg] specifically because they wanted James to be dull, uninteresting, and not like your typical game protagonist. If he's not your cup of tea, I get that. But he's like that for a reason. In that respect, I think Cihi did a tremendous job as someone who always seemed uneasy in his own skin. And that made the ending that much better.

Most of the time you're in Silent Hill, you're in the Lake View Apartments, The Hospital, the Silent Hill Historical Society/"Holy Shit, we're stories underground, why is there a prison here", and the final destination.

Throughout that, you're peppered with characters who make you doubt your every step, cryptic writings ("There was a hole here, it's gone now"), and in my opinion some of the creepiest environments around. They created things like [Spoilers for anyone who hasn't beaten the game] the Prisoner [http://silenthill.wikia.com/wiki/Prisoners] just to literally fuck with you.

And more importantly, they left mysteries that we are still arguing to this day. About Character interactions. Did they truly happen in the manner of how we think? About Events and happpenings, rule breaking and the like. Or did Silent Hill follow every rule it set about and we assumed everything wrong.

... can we PLEASE set up a Silent Hill discussion thread? Please?! I need to talk about this stuff with someone!

 

[xeedguilmon]

I think I have one of the most unpopular opinion of modern gaming;

I love anime style graphics.

Hell I would love it if they had more stylized, cartoon like graphics like many Dreamcast and a few Playstation 2 games instead of this constant glut of Liefeldian ideas of "realism".

Hell I don't know why gamers think it's an "unpopular" opinion as nearly everyone had stated it over and over on every board on the net. Maybe you guys are really out of touch, it's not 1997 any more.

So please shut up about it.

JRPGs are superior to WRPGs.

Crafting is worse than griding in every shape and form.

Tank controls are not bad, they are just old school FPS shooter controls. System Shock on the other hand had horrible controls but that always seems to get a pass.

Gamers caused the lootboxes, nickle and dimeing by big companies due to demands without restraint. You demand Hollywood quality actors, many writers, programmers, artists who work for several years to produce a 1:1 scale of a real world location in many details and demand more. You can take one on the chin and go back to Playstation 2, or pay two to three hundred dollars per game.

Games don't need full mocapped, voice acted movie quality.

Online play is stupid because of the amount of cheating, the demand for it was because they want "a challenge" but turn right around and load up on cheats and cheap tricks. Why not just stick to computers for kicks?

Games don't need a leveling system, just let everyone have the same power-ups and weapons and design a game around that.... Oh yeah, can't do an "open world" that way...

The idea of "90 percent" is killing games as a whole. Think about it, ten percent of a million is a thousand, ten percent of a thousand is a hundred, ten percent of a million is a thousand, ten percent of a thousand is a hundred, ten percent of a hundred is ten, and if you go below that is one, beyond that it becomes fractions of a single entry.

That's not factoring personal taste into the equation.

Games should stop with "gray" morality, hell get rid of the morality system all together and focus on a hero game or a villain game.

Stop blaming kids for all of your faults, they are not the ones stealing the credit cards to feed the lootbox monster, it's thirty year olds who have a addiction problem.

60 frames per second is unnatural, there has to be a blur for natural movement and that stops at 30 frames per second. Plus you might not have a monitor that has that kind of refresh rate so you are actually mentally tricking yourself you "see" smother frames.

14 to 24 is superior, deal with it.

Video games are not art, they are not the "ultimate" medium that tells the best story ever.

Games had gotten extremely violent, gory and sickening, and I've seen many gamers become violent in real life over the stupidest things. So maybe those old farts were onto something.

Immersion is stupid, you are just a person holding a controller in your hands, you did not slay the dragon, shoot the enemy or such.

Video games are just toys, a cartoon that a program slots reactions of a controller in the hands of a user.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

I'm always here to talk about Silent Hill!

But my read on it was slightly different. Its established Silent Hill is haunted, so weird things happening or disappearing never felt like James was going crazy, just the town trolling him. I assume we're going to see ghost people or chairs will move or things will disappear if we're already in a ghost town. Once you have walking manikins and acid spitting rape monsters, things disappearing is pretty on-par.

Silent Hill 3 did it so much better. You don't even make it to Silent Hill until about the half way point. And things that are actually strange happen in the real world, like how Heather is suddenly pregnant, or when Vincent goes "They look like monsters to you?!"
It worked because you already fought monsters outside of Silent Hill, thus leading us to believe Heather could be crazy. Once you're in Silent Hill itself, all bets are off on reality vs creepy world.
But outside of Silent Hill, knowing the town is haunted only in the surrounding area, and yet you're still seeing monsters. Way better.

That's why Silent Hill 4 was so good. And Homecoming. I'll admit it, my heart was pounding in my chest during Homecoming! Scared the crap out of me!

 

[Poetic Nova]

Alright, I'll bite.

Rockstar games never really have been able to top GTA3 with future games in my eyes. 2 and 3, and occasionally Vice City are the only GTA's I stil play. Though I do have a few nitpicks with VC.

Speaking of GTA, it really should go back to the same aesthetics as 2, the retro-sci-fi.

DOOM 2016 has too many flaws to be considered good in my eyes. It is bland at best in every department, even the soundtrack.

Duke Nukem Forever is a very flawed game, but nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

I love Borderlands 2, but Handsome Jack is just an utterly terrible, and annoying villain. It made me run into a burnout on the story I'm stil not over a few years later.

Might be more, but these I recall from the top of my head.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

SNIP

I'm always here to talk about Silent Hill!

But my read on it was slightly different. Its established Silent Hill is haunted, so weird things happening or disappearing never felt like James was going crazy, just the town trolling him. I assume we're going to see ghost people or chairs will move or things will disappear if we're already in a ghost town. Once you have walking manikins and acid spitting rape monsters, things disappearing is pretty on-par.

Silent Hill 3 did it so much better. You don't even make it to Silent Hill until about the half way point. And things that are actually strange happen in the real world, like how Heather is suddenly pregnant, or when Vincent goes "They look like monsters to you?!"
It worked because you already fought monsters outside of Silent Hill, thus leading us to believe Heather could be crazy. Once you're in Silent Hill itself, all bets are off on reality vs creepy world.
But outside of Silent Hill, knowing the town is haunted only in the surrounding area, and yet you're still seeing monsters. Way better.

That's why Silent Hill 4 was so good. And Homecoming. I'll admit it, my heart was pounding in my chest during Homecoming! Scared the crap out of me!

I got you, Fam [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.1036049-The-Silent-Hill-Series-Discussion-SPOILERS#24191917]

 

[infohippie]

Shooters in general are a shit genre and their dominance of the gaming world for the last fifteen years has been a major contributor to the blandness of the gaming landscape.

"Multiplayer only" is a cheap cop-out for devs who have an idea for mechanics and a setting but have no clue how to write a single player campaign. Nearly all games should have a single player campaign of decent length.

"Controller support" is no excuse for not putting any thought into a decent mouse & keyboard control system, some of us don't use controllers at all.

Also OP is as wrong as a very wrong person about a hell of a lot of things but never has he been wronger than he is about The Witcher 3.

 

[sXeth]

2. Breakable weapons... I get it but make it realistic. Rotted wood will break when you beat a zombie with it. A steel pipe has less chance of breaking while you swing it than your shoulders being dislocated from the repeated action.

Realism is a funny complaint. I have seen people complain that they can carry 6 swords, 12 helmets and so on because that's not realistic but being able to cast a fire spell apparently passes the realism test.

Its whats established within the context of the setting. People can will fire into existence and direct it from their hands. But we're literally shown that a greatsword is a 6 foot piece of metal that occupies physical space (and in most cases, is assigned physical weight), so a 6 foot 5 warrior dude can't fit too many of those on his person as a result.

Going back to Last of Us, everything in the surrounding environment is probably unrealistically sturdy for 20-30 years without any maintenance and exposed to the elements. Thats to facilitate the nearly on rails level design, of course, but if stair railings and drywall and window frames are all unreakable, even the planks Joel uses, nevermind the metal pipes should work fine. A similar disconnect happens with the enemies having infinite ammo (and then not even dropping any half the time)

 

[Trunkage]

Also OP is as wrong as a very wrong person about a hell of a lot of things but never has he been wronger than he is about The Witcher 3.

Ah, that reminds me. Another unpopular opinion.

Witcher 3 is just a bunch of fetch/ kills just like Skyrim. The only two things making them better are detectovision and sometimes better characters. Unfortunately, Witcher has some really bad characters from the annoying Dandelion to the utterly villainous, must be put down for the sake of humanity Yennefer. I don't care if she's your girlfriend, Geralt, don't let them do experiments on others that are designed to kill the subject.

So, Witcher = Skyrim + detectovision

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Most triple A games are utter trash.
Most indie games are forgettable and not worth over $20.
The best western games are made by independant studios who lie somewhere inbetween.
Japan still makes the best games in the world. This isn't even limited to RPGs. Whenever a Japanese dev tries a western format, it's usually better.
MGS4 has a decent story amd was a great "ending" to the series. Including the post-credits stuff.
MGSV is a great game.
Persona 5's social links were worse than 4's. It got bogged down in waifu-tier shittery. Persona 4 also had a better story but I liked the cast of 5 more. 5s final boss was FUCKING SHIT.
Horizon: Zero Dawn was only good for the first hour. After that it's world is empty, though the drive to find out what Zero Dawn is kept me chugging along.
Bloodborne > the Souls games. I'm just sick of dark fantasy. I tried playing Dark Souls and was tired of the aesthetic before I was an hour in.
Modern stealth games are almost universally shit. The best stealth games were/are the Tenchu series.
I want all the funds from the Souls series to go into a new Armored Core core game.
STALKER is the greatest FPS series ever made but only due to the mod community.
Skyrim is worthless shit unless you download 100+ mods and spend days getting them to play together then you realise the act of actually modding Skyrim is still more fun than actually playing Skyrim.
Fallout 4 is unredeemable trash. Not even mods can save it.
Space Marines are the worst part of Warhammer 40k.
Imperial Guard and the Ecclesiarchy are the best part.
40k was inferior as a setting to Fantasy because the stakes mean nothing and the scale was too huge. Planet get destroyed on a routine basis, billions die day to day and it means nothing to anyone. All it has going for it was its aesthetic and satire.
Magnus did nothing wrong.
Star Wars is the most overrated franchise of all time. It has 9 films and 4 are terrible, 3 are mediocre and 2 are good.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Halo?s soundtrack is incredibly bland. Its ?incredible? main theme for example is mostly a bunch of aaaaah?ing and ooooh?ing with music that reminds me of something from a high school edu-tainment video.

Actually, the whole series (at least what I?ve played, 1-Reach) is bland. It?s a competent console fps with great multiplayer features and above average enemy AI, but from a technical and artistic perspective it?s pretty vapid, and full of aim assist. Comparing Halo 3 to Killzone 2 for example is to me like comparing an elevator ride to a roller coaster ride.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Halo?s soundtrack is incredibly bland. Its ?incredible? main theme for example is mostly a bunch of aaaaah?ing and ooooh?ing with music that reminds me of something from a high school edu-tainment video.

Actually, the whole series (at least what I?ve played, 1-Reach) is bland. It?s a competent console fps with great multiplayer features and above average enemy AI, but from a technical and artistic perspective it?s pretty vapid, and full of aim assist. Comparing Halo 3 to Killzone 2 for example is to me like comparing an elevator ride to a roller coaster ride.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Final Fantasy 6 isn't so good, 7 and 10 are the best in the series.

Come on my man, 9 is clearly the best!

Metal Gear Solid V is the second best game in the series after MGS3

I don't think anything has ever disappointed me so much in my life as MGSV did. It still hurts to watch the trailers.

Anyway, here's mine:

-Dark Souls needs a pause button, but only for offline mode. I don't care if the hardcore nerds would complain because of 'MUH DIFFICULTY', a button to pause the action would alleviate so much stress and trim down so many deaths. No pausing for inventory though, just a total game pause.

-MGS4 is dumb, gloriously dumb. It's fanservice to the max. Metal Gear games are at their best when mixing seriousness with complete absurdity.

-Metal Gear Rising is the most FUN game in the series and has the BEST final boss. Seriously, everything about the Armstrong fight is just perfect from an action game standpoint.

-The original Pokemon games aren't the best. Sorry, genwunners!

-Star Wars Battlefront 1 was better than Battlefront 2. More squad commands, ability to go prone, and ground-to-air combat was a blast. I'm not sure why they got rid of them for the second one.

-I find KOTOR clunky and boring.

-Metal Gear Solid V is non-canon garbage full of boring flat characters and tedious missions.

-The Mako in Mass Effect 1 is fun as hell to drive.