Your unpopular opinions for general games/media (besides Fire Emblem)?

[The Geek]

Let's see.

-While I enjoy the lore of the Pokemon, I've always found the gameplay to be way too slow, luck based, and grind heavy.

-That being said, grinding is not inherently bad and can even be enjoyable to do depending on the game.

-Spyro 2 is better than Spyro 3 (by which I mean, while Spyro 3 is technically superior, I find that Spyro 2 has better levels, challenges, music, and gameplay progression)

-Crash Bandicoot 1, despite its flaws, is still an excellent game overall.

-Jak and Daxter the Precursor Legacy is the best Jak game

-Ratchet and Clank is the best of the PS2 mascot platformer series

-Sly 3 is better than Sly 2 (mostly because Sly 2 is just too long)

-On that subject, Thieves in Time was great. Probably the funniest game I'd played in years.

That's all I can think of for now.

[eclipse]

Hey, Zera/Spinal. Cut that out, that's exactly the kinds of behavior that'll get this thread locked.

[Tamanoir]

-You know, comming back to FFX : I stand by most of my points (though I think my main problem with Tidus was mostly comming from Tidus X Yuna.), and the voice acting is generally meh, and can go as far as sorta bad.

However, that Laugh Scene was actually perfectly fine. I'd even call it good.
​-More isn't always better. Sometimes adding things can make the game worse, sicne it detracts from the Fundamentals (Not exactly unpopular, when you see the consensus about Children in Fates, or Watch Dogs adding guns, but still Worth remembering.)

-About Character growth : Character growth can be negative. A character that went form good person to evil isn't worth any less or any more than someone going the opposite way.

Btw, I'd like to know the opinions of people about Valvatorez in Disgaea 4, a character that had all his growth before the main story.

-Bugs are the best part of video games, and if they compeletely disappeared, we'll lose a lot.

Let's face it, the best thing about Pokemon Gen 1 are the bugs (The rumours (PokéGods, etc..) are close second.). When I think back, my best memories are when I traveled to those forbidden countries, like Glitch City, when I encounter the legendary Missingno, or one of his cousins, when I captured a level 100+ Golduck...

Bugs are fascinating. Whether they're helpfull, harmfull, or useless, they're still... fascinating.

[blah the Prussian]

I would want to live in the world of Radiant Historia because

the fact that Monarchy is quite literally necessary for the continued existence of life itself makes a Republic rather unlikely.

Linearity in general is not necessarily a bad thing. It is perfectly possible for a game to be fun while being linear. It doesn't impede my enjoyment of a game.

Apollo Justice is a great game. Furthermore, if Farewell My Turnabout didn't exist, Justice For All would be the worst game Shu Takumi ever did. This is Franziska von Karma's fault.

Rise from the Ashes is a better case than Turnabout Goodbyes, and the retcon works better for Edgeworth's character arc.

[Caster]

- I don't think Dragon Quest is a well designed series.

It's based on old rpg tropes, grinding, and other things that I don't think work too well anymore.
Their stories are barebones and I can't get absorbed in them at all.

Although I do like some characters, some just flat out don't get much/good characterization.

The series barely changes or adds new things, making it boring to me everytime I try a new game in the series.

I think games in the series are "ok" at best and awful at worst.

- I like Spyro 1 better than 2.

-Etrian Odyssey doesn't seem like a very interesting or engaging series for my tastes.

-I don't think Tales of Xillia is really a good game.

-Turn based > action based, for the most part, in rpgs.

-I don't like Kingdom Hearts.

-Mega Man 2 is pretty mediocre.

-FFIV isn't really that amazing.

[FrostyFireMage]

Xenoblade Chronicles is overrated and X beats it in almost every category

FFV is better than bother FFIV and FFVI and Kefka really isn't that great of a villain

Games that are overly hard for the sake of being hard aren't well designed games (Darkest Dungeon being a prime example)

Nostalgia pandering is bad and needs to stop being so prevalent

If you enjoy a villain that means the villain failed as a character

Edited October 14, 2016 by FrostyFireMage

[Jedi]

Rapier, on 13 Oct 2016 - 2:29 PM, said:

To be honest, I think some fans exaggerate when they claim[ed] that the Sonic series is/was on a "dark age". This becomes clear when we take into account how many good "recent" games they made compared to how many bad "recent" games they made. To each Sonic '06 and Sonic Boom (we can include Heroes, Episode 1 and Shadow, although I don't really dislike them) we had a Sonic Rush (and Rush Adventure), Sonic Unleashed, Sonic and the Black Knight (which was decent), Sonic and the Secret Rings (same), Sonic Colors, Sonic Generations, the Sonic CD port and the list goes on. They've scored more points than misses.

I'm too lazy to search for how many points those games scored on reviews to prove my point though.

Also, I actually like Episode 2. While EP1 was a nostalgic throwback to Sonic 1, with recycled bosses, similar stages, bad mechanics and an horrible instrument selection for the ost (which would be good if not for said instruments), EP2 improved that mechanic a lot, made brand new bosses, improved the level design and had less blatant similarities toward the older games.

Shadow the Hedgehog had potential, imo. I like the idea of 12 endings and stages based on the allegiance you choose during the game. However, it was done horribly and Shadow's actions through the game seem almost nonsensical. I think the only storyline that I like is the True Neutral one, on which Shadow doesn't care about Black Doom's promises and follows his path to learn who he is, only to be tricked by Eggman into thinking he is actually just a copy of the former Shadow.

I agree entirely and thats why I'm more tolerant on Shadow as a whole (Lost Impact however and a few other stages have no excuse, they are legitimately bad, however I feel like the Gunplay actually added to the Heroes bulkier enemies giving you ways to deal with them fast). The concepts are interesting, and its just over the top, in a stupidly edgy way but still amusing. Although I don't agree that Secret Rings was decent, I tend to put it below 06 in quality, however I do feel Black Knight is pretty good.

Sonic was never good. It's a franchise sold on "speed" that rarely delivers it. ANd when it does, it feels like it's on autopilot

Speed is a reward for being good at the games, there are some which don't really focus as much on speed, See Sonic CD which was based more on exploration (which happens to be a huge fan favorite I might add) and a few others like Sonic Battle which is a fun GBA fighter, but blasting through levels in say Sonic 2, Sonic 3 & K, Sonic Pocket Adventure for the Geo Geo Pocket, Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 (the action stages anyways), Heroes, Sonic Advanced 1 & 2, Sonic Rush, Unleashed, Generations, etc kinda nullifies the statement. Sure theres some autopilot segments, but people over-exaggerate this to the nth degree. The Adventure games for instance have one of the most broken spin-dashes in the entire franchise capable of giving you instant speed, allowing for skips of level segments if you know them, or just a good boost.

Advance 2, Sonic Rush, Unleashed and Generations give you a natural super high speed as well (This is in part thanks to the Boost gameplay), so you don't quite have to work as much for, but its generally something you have to work to obtain, by having good reflexes and reactions to the stage around you, and the feeling is just wonderful pulling off a really amazing run. Do note that the original concept of Sonic was based on the original creator Yuji Naka speed running Mario 1, so the old design mentality was likely rewards for replaying the games and getting better at them to obtain the speed.

Another thing people tend to overlook on Sonic stage design (More so in 2D until more recently in 3D games like Generations & Lost World) are alternate routes. Finding the most efficient route for stages (thus supporting my point of replaying stages), Sonic 3 & Knuckles stages are so vast that, I'm still finding new routes to run down even today, trying to get faster times or just enjoying the level design.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

-Spyro 2 is better than Spyro 3

-Crash Bandicoot 1, despite its flaws, is still an excellent game overall.

-Ratchet and Clank is the best of the PS2 mascot platformer series

I agree with these.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Fire Emblem Fan

[Moblin Major General]

If you enjoy a villain that means the villain failed as a character

That really depends on how they act. I'm not really inclined to legitimately hate Reaver because even though he's totally irredeemable and has sent countless innocents to their grave over the centuries, the way he carries himself makes me love to hate him because he's the perfect mix of suave, snobbish, brutal, sadistic, and hilarious.

[Magical Glace]

I thought Kid Icarus!Hades was hilarious while still being despicable.

I think Hades is a really cool character for it.

[Flee Fleet!]

General opinion:

I prefer to see party members walking behind the main character in RPGs.

I prefer less party members than, like, 42 or something.

Game specific:

I consider Lufia: Ruins of Lore to be better than Lufia 3, but is obviously worse than Lufia 1 and 2.

I like the Sonic Adventure games even if they didn't age well.

DQ5 is my least favourite DQ.

I'll probably think about more later.

[Bandit]

I know this is unpopular, but I actually kind of like how much water there was in Hoenn. I can see why people might find it tedious since movement is rather slow and unless you use a repel there's a lot of encounters, but I loved exploring it, finding little patches of land or underwater routes were really exciting. Repels are an option to avoid encounters anyway, even if they are tedious to use in the older games. Though I will admit having the speed issue fixed in ORAS was nice, even if I didn't mind going slow on those routes.

I do have some bias towards gen 3 though, it was the first Pokemon game I vividly playing (I did play Gold as my first though I barely remember it, I know I chose Totodile and got 7 badges but that's it). But even playing through now the oceans don't really bother me, though they don't bother me in any game really. Like I said perfectly understand why some people find it tedious though, my friend started in gen 3 and really didn't like all the water routes.

[Knight Falchion]

I find a lot of the lore boring, and honestly I think it's kind of poorly-written. And they tried way, WAY too hard to make it "hidden," if that makes sense. I find the gameplay as a whole to be either too cheap, or too easy, with no good balance anywhere. The music is pretty freaking great, though.

I see and can understand why you feel that way, at least regarding the lore since that's something I don't care for myself. Thanks for answering!

e: I also agree with the above post about Hoenn and actually enjoying the vast expanses of water.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Ambling Falchion

[Thane]

Having an open world is more often than not a detriment to the game, and in most cases sacrifices quality for quantity. A prime example of this is Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Speaking of which: Bioware are not good writers. They know how to make appealing characters and create a world, but their plots are simply lacking. This has only become more apparent with time, and the fact that all of their talent seems to be leaving the company leads me to believe something's going on behind the scenes.

[Irony]

I dislike Chrono Trigger's Art Style. I love the rest of the game though.

[Augestein]

Having an open world is more often than not a detriment to the game, and in most cases sacrifices quality for quantity. A prime example of this is Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Speaking of which: Bioware are not good writers. They know how to make appealing characters and create a world, but their plots are simply lacking. This has only become more apparent with time, and the fact that all of their talent seems to be leaving the company leads me to believe something's going on behind the scenes.

I agree with this. As lackluster as Dragon Age 2 was for the reuse of environments and rather spotty quality in terms of graphic choice and animations at least I didn't feel like the game was just flat out wasting my time by having me trek across huge mountain passes. It's also the reason that I have a huge problem even really trying to play Skyrim. The game just feels like a chore to me, even with all of the bells an whistles to make traveling easier. And yeah, the only game's story that I actually truly like is KOTOR, and I'm not sure if it's my bias for Star Wars or it just actually is that much better than everything else they've written. Even stuff like The Banner Saga, as interesting as it is, it's kind of a mess and I'm not entirely sure what's going on -- granted the characters don't either, but still, if it's supposed to be a trilogy, the third one has a lot of work to do.

As for the mentioning of Undertale, I'm also in agreement with people on it. It especially frustrates me because in order to see all of the story, you have to check every single path, and the game basically calls you a dick for trying to do so. That's like calling someone a douche for finishing your book.

For the person that asked about Valvatorez, I thought he was a pretty solid character. He was a form of stability for everyone else in the party, and it was a nice change to have an actual adult as a party member rather than someone that acted a bit brattier like Mao or Laharl-- although to be fair, it almost feels like Almaz is the actually hero of the story for D3, (jokes aside), as he goes through more than Mao does and most of the things that happen are pretty strongly from Almaz's perspective. With the final boss having ties to both Mao and Almaz. Like more so than any other villain group.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Augestein

[Zera]

I believe Shovel Knight is not a 9-10 out of 10. It carries good design of NES games, but some bad design as well.

[ping]

Having an open world is more often than not a detriment to the game, and in most cases sacrifices quality for quantity. A prime example of this is Dragon Age: Inquisition.

I'd even say that a certain degree of railroading is a good thing in itself. With rather few exceptions, I want to move towards a specific goal in my games. Some distractions to get a look around the world are fine, but I find it very tiring when the acutal plot just stagnates over hours of gameplay.

This is a general complaint about Final Fantasy, by the way. I never really look forward to the airship-riding just before the very final boss. When there is a meteor floting in the sky about to erase all life from the planet, I want to see how the game fucking ends, not how the mechanics of chocobo breeding work. And at the same time, I hate just ignoring all the content and I tend to lose my motivation at that point until I force myself to just go for the final boss and call it a day.

[Azure Sen]

No.

That's something that has only been applied in modern literacy as the definition-- which is some of the reason we have such shoddy writing at moments and writers, especially video game ones struggle so much with writing characters.

Ignoring that the phrase "character development" itself is a fairly recent addition to the lexicon, the fact that "character development = character growth" is a modern definition doesn't make it any less valid an interpretation. Also, "modern literacy" does not mean what you think it means, and I assume you meant something along the lines of "modern literary study."

Bolded: That's a pretty bold claim (pun not intended). Elaborate please.

These are the same types of people that will also insist that your protagonist *must* change over the course of the plot.

I am honestly confused about what you're trying to argue here. While there are some exceptions, generally speaking a protagonist should change in some way over the course of the plot, even in non-character driven stories. The idea that this is somehow a detriment or responsible for bad writing is baffling to me.

Character development is not simply "how much your character changes over the course of a story." Character development is establishing relations with other characters, core values of the character, physical characteristics, vernacular, backgrounds... It's a myriad of things. Simply having a character change from the start of a story doesn't count as character having development, most noticeably when the change is nonsensical, causes the character to be less able to be related to, and has the character almost completely transform into another person. A character that receives all of the prior noted established is a more developed character than one that does not, dynamic or static. It's why you'll see frustrating sentences such as "X character didn't receive character development because he stayed the same." Unless you're saying that we didn't learn anything about the character, and we know very little about them-- ie, the character is a flat character, it's really silly to say the character didn't develop. The fact that the character didn't change can be seen that the character is stubborn or steadfast in their beliefs.

Semantics of "character development as characterization vs. character development as character growth" aside, and semantics is what your whole argument here boils down to, this whole section reads like it's talking about a specific character. Especially the bolded part.

[Augestein]

Ignoring that the phrase "character development" itself is a fairly recent addition to the lexicon, the fact that "character development = character growth" is a modern definition doesn't make it any less valid an interpretation. Also, "modern literacy" does not mean what you think it means, and I assume you meant something along the lines of "modern literary study."

Bolded: That's a pretty bold claim (pun not intended). Elaborate please.

Because Character development =/= "change." I've only really started seeing this become a thing Online to be completely honest. The foundation of whether a character being developed has nothing do with whether a character is dynamic or static even. Development is simply put, the amount of actual development a character is given. Of course a modern interpretation doesn't somehow make things less valid, as some terms such as "the bomb" for instance have altered in meaning over time, but in this case, it's one of those misuses of the phrase when they mean an entirely different meaning. Sort of how "irregardless" isn't a word at all but you'll still see people use it as a word when the reality is that a word like irregardless is kind of nonsensical. "Irr" as in "not," which would mean honestly mean that you're telling the person to regard what you're talking about. "Modern literacy" does work here, because people often interpret the phrase to literally mean something that it doesn't necessarily mean which leads to alterations OF literary study. It's not just a matter of literary study itself, but actual usage of the word. So no, not quite. What's funny, is that in video games, often character development is often used to refer to being able to create a custom character with a variable background that is established by the player, so I'm even more confused as to how this disconnect even happened in the first place. Because it only seems to apply to certain people. I really wish I could fin a book that I read on the changes of modern writing, and one was that it was recommended that you actually intentionally write all of your characters to be dynamic to prevent criticism for having characters that don't develop.

I am honestly confused about what you're trying to argue here. While there are some exceptions, generally speaking a protagonist should change in some way over the course of the plot, even in non-character driven stories. The idea that this is somehow a detriment or responsible for bad writing is baffling to me.

It's confusing you, because I think you misread what I said. It's not a detriment to have a protagonist change over the course of the story. Conversely, just because a protagonist does NOT change doesn't make the story bad. What causes bad writing, in regards to this specific instance, is when people have a perfectly fine protagonist and force the protagonist to somehow change because it's what you need for a character. There's a difference between a character overcoming an ordeal and coming out stronger for it-- that in and of itself is character growth, but it's not a change in the actual character. Let's use an example of what I mean. The Dog and the Reflection in the story, the dog is our only character in the story, it barely develops and the story ends with the dog losing the bone/meat/whatever it was carrying in the translation you read the story. The purpose of the story is to illustrate the pratfalls of greed as well as inform the audience that they should be happy with what they already have. The story is not bad because it's short, and more pressingly delivers a message. The dog does not need to be developed for the story to serve its purpose.

Or we could use something such as The Great Gatsby as another example. Nick is a character that is considerably more flat than other characters in the story despite being the protagonist of the tale. However, Nick's main purpose, outside of being a foil to Gatsby, and even a parallel to Fitzgerald's actual life, is to provide perspective for the audience. He provides the audience with a character that other characters can interact with. His role in the story is strange, but it still works. Yet, we don't really learn much about Nick over the course of the plot despite spending much time with him. Yet, the story isn't bad because Nick doesn't develop much as a character.

This is what I mean.

Semantics of "character development as characterization vs. character development as character growth" aside, and semantics is what your whole argument here boils down to, this whole section reads like it's talking about a specific character. Especially the bolded part.

Now it's my turn to be confused here. I don't know what you mean on "this sounds like a specific character," it's literally something I hear all the time in various places. most notably on the Internet. I wasn't speaking about any specific character, that's why I stated it in a generalized fashion. If I was talking about a specific character, I would have specified.

[Dark Holy Elf]

-FFIV isn't really that amazing.

I don't think this one is that unpopular? FF6, FF7, and FFX are all dramatically more popular games, FF8-9 probably are too despite the detractors each has, and I feel like FF4 is even falling behind FF5 these days as Four Job Fiesta keeps the latter more relevant. I dunno.

Some of mine:

-There is absolutely nothing wrong with linearity. I can't stand how it became some sort of byword for bad game design sometime in the late 2000's.

-Zelda games aren't really for me. I've really enjoyed two of them: Zelda 2 and Hyrule Warriors, i.e. the ones which aren't "true' Zelda games. I find the fetchquesty nature of the rest of the series very dull.

-Final Fantasy XIII is one of the best Final Fantasy games, having outstanding gameplay and some really original, compelling characters, in a genre which badly needs them.

-Justice for All is the best game in the original Ace Attorney trilogy by quite a lot.

-The platforming and stage design in Super Mario 64 was awful. The Bowser stages are the only part of that game I liked, and in general it's far worse than the 2D games (Lost Levels and Game Boy games excluded), the 2.5D games, and the Galaxy games.

-Super Mario Bros. 2 (US) is one of the best games in the series.

-Peach being kidnapped game after game quickly moved from disappointing to just plain sad and it's unbelievable we still have to deal with it in the 2010's. (This one may not be that unpopular, but Nintendo is clearly having trouble getting the hint if so!)

-Dark Souls isn't that great, and I say that as someone who loves challenging action games like Devil May Cry. I just don't see what the fuss is.

-The "Metroidvania" Castlevanias basically got better with each entry, with Symphony of the Night having clunky controls and terribly unbalanced, too-easy gameplay while Order of Ecclesia was oustanding. (I've only played about half the ones in the middle, but the trendline sure seems to be there.)

-If you look past its goofy voice acting (and you should because all Mega Man plot deserves to be skipped and/or mocked), Mega Man 8 is one of the best games in the series.

-Persona 3 is one of the absolute worst JRPGs.

-Xenoblade is a mediocre one.

[Jedi]

I dislike Chrono Trigger's Art Style. I love the rest of the game though.

Not the first time I've seen this, Toriyama's art style is quite hit & miss with a number of people, I'm so used to Dragon Ball that its just like "Oh sameish faces" and I move past it myself though, I think his monster designs are really rad though, as seen in Trigger & Dragon Quest.

Can fully get, "not liking it" though.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Jedi

[saisymbolic]

- Dead or Alive is one of the best fighting games (after Rival Schools and Power Stones, of course).

- Dark Cloud (and Dark Cloud 2) are underrated games. Rouge Galaxy is also an underrated game. Speaking of which, Level-5 is a pretty good game developing/publishing company. Dark Cloud 2, Dragon Quest 8 and Rouge Galaxy form my holy trinity of video games (and are published by this company).

- I thought the voice acting in the U.S. version of Ape Escape 3 was superior. I listened to the European version that many people hyped up and was not impressed.

- Fatal Frame is one of the better horror games out there. I would actually put it above Silent Hill and Resident Evil (the older ones).

- Silent Hill 4 is not that bad. Silent Hill 3 was not that great.

- Legend of Dragoon had a really interesting battle system and I wish a video game would adapt it.

- Shadow Hearts is underrated, though I hated that third game.

[Magical Glace]

Have some Touhou ones

-EoSD is the most boring Windows game in the series by far.

-It also has the worst soundtrack of the Windows games, again by far.

-Maiden's Illusionary Funeral ~ Necro-Fantasy > Necrofantasia

-Kanako > Suwako

-Futo's theme is quite possibly the best stage five boss theme.

-On the flipside, Sakuya's EoSD theme is by far the worst stage 5 boss theme.

-Mamizou should have been saved for FS or HM, Seiga should have been the Ex boss and Tojiko the Stage 4 boss.

-Tojiko had potential to be a really cool character. She's based on one of Shoutoku (Miko)'s consorts!

-Futo should be playable in a mainline shooter sometime, because she's adorable and hilarious.

-I don't like most EoSD characters, especially Sakuya.

-Alice solo isn't the worst shot the series. That false honor is Sakuya Solo's, because her spread does really crummy damage, she can't even pierce familiars, and her bomb slows her down far more than necessary. Her entire existence is basically an extremely inferior Yuyuko solo.

[Azure Sen]

-SMT III: Nocturne isn't that great, and a lot of its difficulty comes from BS rather than being legitimately challenging.
-Persona Q's writing, outside of Zen and Rei's stuff, was awful, and I don't think it should be considered part of canon regardless.
-Persona 1 is fairly good, and basically suffers from Shadow Dragon syndrome where fans of later Persona games didn't like it because it lacked the more modern mechanics in the series.
-Silent Hill 3 was better than Silent Hill 2 but only by a slim margin, and 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all really good games.
-Speaking of Silent Hill, Origins was okay and far better than Homecoming, which is probably the worst in the series outside of in-name only stuff like The Arcade and Book of Memories. Shattered Memories was dumb and goofy and overall pretty bad, but is still better than Homecoming. Downpour was just disappointing and inconsistent, but was a good start for getting the series back on track.
-I don't mind that some elements of the Silent Hill movies started getting integrated into the games, since the visual design was about the only legit good thing to come out of those.
-Final Fantasy VI, while still a good game, is the weakest of the SNES Final Fantasies, both mechanically and story-wise.
-I alluded to it in my previous post, but I think most non-MMO/mobile FF games are at least decent (the only ones I've never played are Dissidia Duodecim, Type-0, and Revenant Wings), and the only bad Final Fantasy games are XIII-2, Lightning Returns, and Dirge of Cerberus. X-2 and FFTA both tried to do more than people give them credit for, XII was underrated (though I'm still not a huge fan of Vaan and Penelo), XIII has good character writing and a fine original ending that didn't need to be retconned, and The After Years had a ton of potential even if it squandered it.
-Gen VI is the best Pokemon gen since Gen III, and made a ton of great improvements.

- Dead or Alive is one of the best fighting games (after Rival Schools and Power Stones, of course).

I love Rival Schools, but that's at least 60% because Bahn is amazing.

-Persona 3 is one of the absolute worst JRPGs.

Do you mind if I ask why you think so?

Edited October 15, 2016 by AzureSen