What is your unpopular video game opinion?

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

Games dont get better after 20 hours, you are just getting accustomed to the filth.

 

[Fabulously Olivier]

6 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Games dont get better after 20 hours, you are just getting accustomed to the filth.

 

Nah. Some games actually don't gain enough mechanics or stop tutorializing until so many hours in.

 

Xenoblade 2 legitimately does not get even decent until after a certain character death, because that's when they start rolling in the big elemental combos. The combat system is too shallow without them.

[Integrity]

it's weird to me that every time i see someone express that exact sentiment, always really smugly for some reason, they always pick some silly figure like 20 hours. actually, they seem to usually pick precisely 20 hours. peculiar.

 

i prefer to take the hardline stance of if a game isn't immediately good as soon as i gain control, it is actually just bad. nier automata's shit, and everyone who likes it is undergoing some mass hysteria. no i haven't played past the tutorial, why

 

e: i do agree with the guy but only precisely in the case of warframe, and for no other game

Edited January 3 by Integrity

[Fabulously Olivier]

1 hour ago, Integrity said:

it's weird to me that every time i see someone express that exact sentiment, always really smugly for some reason, they always pick some silly figure like 20 hours. actually, they seem to usually pick precisely 20 hours. peculiar.

 

i prefer to take the hardline stance of if a game isn't immediately good as soon as i gain control, it is actually just bad. nier automata's shit, and everyone who likes it is undergoing some mass hysteria. no i haven't played past the tutorial, why

 

e: i do agree with the guy but only precisely in the case of warframe, and for no other game

I question this.

 

NieR Automata doesn't actually take time to get good. It just is what it is from the start and you peal off more layers. If you don't love it at the end of 2B's story, you're not going to love it in 9S's story.

 

Now, NieR Replicant is actually just bad.

 

Where I agree with you is that generally, if a game takes many hours to get good, it isn't actually a good game. Pacing matters.

 

I don't agree that Warframe actually takes time to get good. It gets better, but it's ALWAYS good. The shooting is always good. The parkour is always good. The content is .... always good as long as you're sticking with the linear missions the game was actually designed for, and not say, Archwing or the open world guff.

[Integrity]

i was being deeply facetious my friend

 

except about warframe

 

e: to be a little less flippant about it: the thing is, even with games like nier automata (i genuinely do think the intro sequence pre-first save is a pretty trash opener but have enjoyed the game more since, i'm not talking the difference between routes here), one's experience of a game is going to change pretty hugely with experience even if nothing else about the game is actually being introduced.

it's obvious that if mechanics are being added (e.g. pick your third-person action poison) there's gonna be a sweet spot of complexity when the game hits a perfect balance, and that's typically not going to be how the combat kicks off. pretty much any yakuza game is like this, and i don't think it's that outlandish to say that not enjoying the xxxy combat in the tutorial fights is not necessarily a predictor of how you'll feel about the combat in an hour or three.

even if mechanics aren't being added though, like a monster hunter game (for the most part, natch) and you're mostly just mastering the systems that are there, distaste can easily turn to taste once you figure shit out. i brought up "20 hours" because it's a really stupid number to use, but i wouldn't base my enjoyment of lies of p off the first ~hour, even though the game hasn't gotten much more complex since then. i've enjoyed it a lot more, though, because i primarily didn't vibe with the first two or three weapons, and i adjusted my thought patterns from a most darksoulsian scheme of combat.

even "20 hours" is, itself, silly, because what about a paradox game? that's just a measure of complexity, and has nothing to do with how good or bad it is or isn't, eh? it's something that one cannot make a rule out of one way or the other.

Edited January 3 by Integrity

[Fire Emblem Fan]

If a game takes 20 hours before it gets good, it was never a good game to begin with and still isn't after those 20 hours.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I've made the same comment about long games plenty in the past, so how about some devil's advocatarianism now that it's no longer an unpopular opinion

I'm wary of people who comment that a game is "wasting their time" if they work in doing reviews/impressions of games. To those people, the playing of games IS their work. They don't even Press Start until they've locked down the kind of Content they can make out of it. Thumbnail's picked out, still working on the Segue into the Ad Read. So bad pacing isn't just something that goes against their personal tastes, it's hurting their bottom line and they're much more sensitive to it. But they obviously can't say Why, and that's its own frustration when writing.

Not saying that these sorts of people are making mountains of molehills on pacing issues 100% of the time. Just that...it's kind of like understanding the bias in your source for a research project.

Edited January 4 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

13 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Nah. Some games actually don't gain enough mechanics or stop tutorializing until so many hours in.

 

Xenoblade 2 legitimately does not get even decent until after a certain character death, because that's when they start rolling in the big elemental combos. The combat system is too shallow without them.

Xenoblade combat is bad in general, in 2 u could just roll credits after Mythra arrives and dropkicks all content down the stairwell. 

11 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

NieR Automata doesn't actually take time to get good. It just is what it is from the start and you peal off more layers. If you don't love it at the end of 2B's story, you're not going to love it in 9S's story.

A whinefest about existence with a touch of all according to keikaku, wrapped in 2 button combat is what it is and they knew that wasnt enough.

[Fabulously Olivier]

7 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Xenoblade combat is bad in general, in 2 u could just roll credits after Mythra arrives and dropkicks all content down the stairwell. 

A whinefest about existence with a touch of all according to keikaku, wrapped in 2 button combat is what it is and they knew that wasnt enough.

I guess that's subjective and I can see why one would reasonably think that.

 

Personally, I think NieR Automata is overrated. It's fine. It's not one of the best games ever like people say it is. It's Platinum's best game by a significant margin, but (hot take) that isn't saying much.

 

NieR Replicant is, again, a sleep aid. It literally put me to sleep.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

3 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

NieR Replicant is, again, a sleep aid. It literally put me to sleep.

thats not the worst thing to take away lol, if theres ever an apocalypse and ur out of meds and the electricity is still working...

yeah nah, a metalpipe would work better

[Fabulously Olivier]

So, I don't know how or why number progression came to be the defining factor in people's minds for whether a game is an RPG. Because it absolutely isn't. Levels and gear are tangential.

 

The one and only thing that makes a game an RPG is choice. Narrative/personality choice, character build customization, or party customization. Without at least one of these things, a game is not an RPG, period.

 

Unpopular video game fact.

Edited February 9 by Fabulously Olivier

[Zapp Branniglenn]

1 hour ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

So, I don't know how or why number progression came to be the defining factor in people's minds for whether a game is an RPG. Because it absolutely isn't. Levels and gear are tangential.

The one and only thing that makes a game an RPG is choice. Narrative/personality choice, character build customization, or party customization. Without at least one of these things, a game is not an RPG, period.

The Why is a generational thing. The first video game RPGs, Western and Japanese, were just attempts at game-ifying Dungeons and Dragons. But later generations of game developers have video games as their reference point for making video games. And capturing that element of player choice was always a difficult and costly process compared to that direct translation of mechanics. We were content to just be able to name our characters and maybe choose their class at the start. Video games overtook tabletop games worldwide in popularity, but especially so and much earlier in Japan. Past the first edition of DnD, later releases failed to capture the same level of interest. Some just didn't come out, like Pathfinder.

Here's some fun trivia about that. Ever wonder why orcs are portrayed as pigs in Japanese media? The first edition DnD (the one that gained the most traction in Japan) described them with some pig-like features. Probably to cover their ass on potential copyright infringement suits. There's also some debate about their localization accentuating that characterization - illustrations exclusive to their version. Later editions of DnD kept orcs closer to the Tolkien version. But a Japanese player probably hadn't seen or heard of those later releases. There's a similar mixup regarding kobolds as Dog People rather than Lizardmen. But the only Japanese thing I can name that demonstrates Dog Kobolds is Suikoden. Not a popular creature type.

[Integrity]

On 2/9/2024 at 11:57 AM, Fabulously Olivier said:

So, I don't know how or why number progression came to be the defining factor in people's minds for whether a game is an RPG. Because it absolutely isn't. Levels and gear are tangential.

 

The one and only thing that makes a game an RPG is choice. Narrative/personality choice, character build customization, or party customization. Without at least one of these things, a game is not an RPG, period.

 

Unpopular video game fact.

this isn't even an unpopular video game opinion, it's been bothering me for a whole day now

you're just mad that the definition of a word has escaped what you think is the "proper" definition

'rpg elements' mean 'number progression' to most of everyone, and you think that's wrong, and the opinion is that you think everyone else is using the term incorrectly, but the problem of language is that they aren't, because that's what it means to most of everyone else. if you're in the deep minority, as you clearly are, you're wrong here. it's not an 'unpopular opinion', it's just raging against the dying of the light. feel free to think that 'rpg elements' shouldn't mean 'numeric skill-buying progression', sure, but 'rpg elements' have literally never been majorly equated with narrative choice in games in the whole time i've been around.

condolences.

e: i'm not even disagreeing with you here as to what 'rpg elements' Should mean, i'm just saying this isn't an 'unpopular opinion' nearly as much as it's a 'i don't like how the kids use words now'

Edited February 11 by Integrity

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

I think I belong in the minority with this, but I don't think it's unpopular at all to say that I enjoyed Ys VIII more than any Xenoblade Chronicles game manly for being factpaced and less romantic than like Xenoblade Chronicles 2. The battle system was more fun too despite being simple. And Ys VIII's soundtrack is my favourite soundtrack of all videogames I've played yet.

[Hrothgar777]

This probably isn't an unpopular take for the public at large, but it seems that it would be here on Serenes Forest.

 

Explaining the turnwheel mechanic via the lore isn't dumb. It plays into "the hero prevailed because divine providence was on his side because he was good", and gives a practical explanation to how the MC conveniently won 20 consecutive battles despite being a kid with questionable combat experience fighting 60 year old master tacticians when losing one such battle would've doomed him.

If anything, the degree of gameplay-story integration is too low in this regard. I mean, think of the potential: imagine if, in the next installment, a small country of death god worshippers suddenly conquered half the world in like a year, because their king was given a turnwheel to try an unlimited number of times to win his wars against long odds, and he and his army have been at it for half a century or more. Then you, the hero, are awarded a turnwheel of your own from the good goddess to fight back. When you fight him or his lieutenants, you're not the only one who can rewind one or several turns.

 

Someone may respond: "if there was a turnwheel, then why would the protagonist accept any disfavorable outcome like the death of a friend or family member?". Which doesn't have to apply if the big death happened before they got their hands on it (see Alear and his mom), but for the sake of argument let's consider when that's not the case.

Many sci-fi stories about time travel have depicted a person trying to "fix" something which went terribly wrong, only for their do-overs to break the situation further. At some point, they have to say "This outcome is good enough", because it's unclear if one that good will ever materialize again if they reject it now. This is what the average Fire Emblem player his or her self does: on Classic Mode, if one day they catch a lucky break on a chapter they've been stuck on for weeks, they may well accept permanently losing one unit as the price of moving on with the game instead of rebooting and trying again.

While it's true that those lives matter in-game to the MC a heck of a lot more than an avatar on an OLED screen does to the real-life player, the stakes of winning or losing a battle are also a million times higher for them as well, and the process of actually fighting is a million times more painful and exhausting than mere frustration at a video game. Plus, there are unanswered questions like: can they reset if they're instantly killed by an arrow lodging itself in their skulls? If not, then trying for a perfectly executed battle may be too hazardous to try when they've managed to pull off some kind of victory anyhow.

Edited February 11 by Hrothgar777

[Fabulously Olivier]

4 hours ago, JulieFalcom said:

I think I belong in the minority with this, but I don't think it's unpopular at all to say that I enjoyed Ys VIII more than any Xenoblade Chronicles game manly for being factpaced and less romantic than like Xenoblade Chronicles 2. The battle system was more fun too despite being simple. And Ys VIII's soundtrack is my favourite soundtrack of all videogames I've played yet.

I think Ys VIII is more comparable to Tales than it is to Xenoblade. And to that end, it's the best Tales game ever made, and it isn't close.

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

I mean technically it's comparable to none, at least its gameplay, since Ys VIII's gameplay is field action which makes it fastpaced.

In terms of game's length it's definitely not as long as a Xenoblade game would be.

When I say that Ys VIII's better than any Tales of game, then I'd be very conflicted since I adore Tales of Berseria, and Arise was, at least, not weaker than Ys VIII.

[vanguard333]

12 hours ago, JulieFalcom said:

I think I belong in the minority with this, but I don't think it's unpopular at all to say that I enjoyed Ys VIII more than any Xenoblade Chronicles game manly for being factpaced and less romantic than like Xenoblade Chronicles 2. The battle system was more fun too despite being simple. And Ys VIII's soundtrack is my favourite soundtrack of all videogames I've played yet.

I definitely enjoyed Ys VIII a lot more than Xenoblade 1 or X, mainly because of the combat. I really don't like the MMORPG-like combat in Xenoblade games, whereas the combat in Ys felt a lot more involving and a lot more fun. The combat wasn't anything spectacular, but it was a lot better than that in Xenoblade games.

Another reason was how sidequests were handled; Xenoblade 1 was stuffed full of fetch quests and seemed to almost deliberately make the more interesting side quests harder to find. That, plus other factors, made it feel like I was being punished whenever I went back to old places to side quests, and yet also felt like I was being punished whenever I decided to stick to the main story. With YS VIII, none of the sidequests felt too out-of-the-way or unrewarding, and I felt encouraged to explore the island, where I often felt discouraged from exploring the world of Xenoblade 1.

One thing both Ys VIII and Xenoblade 1 have in common is that they had good stories with some good twists, but they didn't know when to stop having plot twists and threw in twists right after the final boss fights.

[Perkilator]

I unironically think working with fans who are genuinely passionate about their franchises is the best thing SEGA has done with Sonic and more video game companies should follow that example, especially Nintendo

[Fire Emblem Fan]

3 minutes ago, Perkilator said:

I unironically think working with fans who are genuinely passionate about their franchises is the best thing SEGA has done with Sonic and more video game companies should follow that example, especially Nintendo

I think there could be big pros, but also big cons to this. You'd have to find out a way to weed out the more...questionable fans, if that makes sense. Sega seems to have, for the most part, so it could be done.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 2/9/2024 at 5:57 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

So, I don't know how or why number progression came to be the defining factor in people's minds for whether a game is an RPG. Because it absolutely isn't. Levels and gear are tangential.

 

The one and only thing that makes a game an RPG is choice. Narrative/personality choice, character build customization, or party customization. Without at least one of these things, a game is not an RPG, period.

 

Unpopular video game fact.

i´d think a choice being possibly a failure - rolling a 1 - is more essential to roleplaying. Are you really playing a role, if everythings goes your way? The fuck do i know tho, my F5 key looking hella ragged after BG3.

And if making a decision is the only qualifying factor, then tetris is a RPG. Which hey, I always wanted to be 1 wide and 4 tall, but unfortunately...

On 2/11/2024 at 6:38 AM, JulieFalcom said:

I think I belong in the minority with this, but I don't think it's unpopular at all to say that I enjoyed Ys VIII more than any Xenoblade Chronicles game manly for being factpaced and less romantic than like Xenoblade Chronicles 2.

I assume this is a typo, but the idea of a podcast "Jin DESTROYS Rex with FACTS and LOGIC" is modestly amusing. 

On 2/11/2024 at 9:12 AM, Hrothgar777 said:

Explaining the turnwheel mechanic via the lore isn't dumb. It plays into "the hero prevailed because divine providence was on his side because he was good", and gives a practical explanation to how the MC conveniently won 20 consecutive battles despite being a kid with questionable combat experience fighting 60 year old master tacticians when losing one such battle would've doomed him.

we have 60 year old strategy farts of our own. And I do think established strategy begins to fail against someone who just doesn´t play by the same rule. Like some youngin, throwing around and seeing what sticks, as opposed to the old guy, adhering to his proven rulebook.

[Hrothgar777]

2 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

we have 60 year old strategy farts of our own. And I do think established strategy begins to fail against someone who just doesn´t play by the same rule. Like some youngin, throwing around and seeing what sticks, as opposed to the old guy, adhering to his proven rulebook

I think there are cases where (especially in authoritarian societies) a 60 year old man could advance to the top position in an army for reasons other than merit, and a talented kid could best him in battle; for example, Alexander of Macedon against his enemies. But generally speaking, an army led by a 60 year old who's had 40 years of experience fighting wars will steamroll that led by someone 40 years his junior who doesn't know his left hand from his right.

Consider, for example, that Robin and Alear are literal amnesiacs, and that Corrin spent his life cooped up in a castle up until his first taste of combat. It's hard to justify these characters waging successful campaigns, but them being gifted with a turnwheel would do just that.

Edited February 12 by Hrothgar777

[Etrurian emperor]

3 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

Consider, for example, that Robin and Alear are literal amnesiacs, and that Corrin spent his life cooped up in a castle up until his first taste of combat. It's hard to justify these characters waging successful campaigns, but them being gifted with a turnwheel would do just that.

In Alear's case its somewhat mitigated in that he doesn't seem to command actual armies. The scale in Engage seems kinda small. More akin to Blazing Sword than to Radiant Dawn. 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

In Alear's case its somewhat mitigated in that he doesn't seem to command actual armies. The scale in Engage seems kinda small. More akin to Blazing Sword than to Radiant Dawn. 

Isn't everyone a royal/retainer in that universe, Or at least to a comparable degree to Fates? And every nation gets wrapped up in this world war? FE7 has about 25% of its cast as playable nobles + their personal knights, and their low rank gets handily juxtaposed against capital r Royalty during the Pent & Louise/Bern arc. Even Pent pulls the player aside to assuage concerns about his Title when he finally becomes playable. And he's not a prince either! He's just the Uther equivalent to Etruria's offscreen Lycian League situation. Biggest House, but not a leading house.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 2/12/2024 at 7:54 PM, Hrothgar777 said:

Consider, for example, that Robin and Alear are literal amnesiacs, and that Corrin spent his life cooped up in a castle up until his first taste of combat. It's hard to justify these characters waging successful campaigns, but them being gifted with a turnwheel would do just that.

?

I think it´s easier to believe someone to be a good leader/strategist than god saying "Here´s a wheel, turn back time as you need." Like, maybe it´s the impression that there is an unusual density of smart strategists in FE, but I don´t thinks that´s the case considering the amount of remakes, and individual, but loosely and through significant amounts of time, connected continents.

Don´t know about Alear, but they waged war in the prologue, no?

And Corrin is receiving education (i´d presume, fuck know what Garon is doing) in the one nation on the known planet that likes going to war. Their big sister being a whole host of insanities waiting to wreck havoc (which is... probably a detriment, ngl), Leo being a strategist and our big bro Xander being...... I guess the General of the Armies while Garon is sitting on his throne doing El Presidente Garon things?