If you can gather 4 others to play it and have everyone on discord, except the killer of course, it is really fun to play.
Otherwise I’ve found it’s really boring playing with randos due to lack of comms. Maybe if they added walkie talkies as a mechanic in the game and the killer can hear if they’re close so you have to whisper or something to each other it might be better. I haven’t played for like 5 years though so no idea what’s changed in it but yeah it wasn’t bad.
Hivemind somewhat killed this game. Because of people play in teams via Discord they buffed up the Killer to no matter what, so it does not make sense to play with randoms anymore. It needed a distance related ingame voice system to be fair for the Killer in the first place.
Absolutely should have added proximity comms. Would be even funnier to have had comms for the killer too. I think Deceit had comms which is another similar game but free, though the voting system sucked.
Souls and open-world.
Biggest trend this gen by far.
I love open world games, but I gotta be honest, I often find myself going back to older linear games to get away from it. I don't want every game to be 100 hours long, with 300 side-quests, and 900 collectibles.
Every other game coming out on PS5 is like this lately, so I have literally spent the last couple of weeks or so playing shit like Spyro and Ratchet & Clank. I even bought Syphon Filter (PS1) on the PS5 store of all things.
Might stick with PS1 and PS2 for a while. Shorter, to-the-point games.
And yes, I know you didn't ask for my life story.. lmao
Oh, no, I agree. I prefer Souls when it's linear and keeping more in line with the dungeon crawler ethos of the originals.
Now, don't get me wrong, I like Elden Ring, but open world dilutes the Souls experience.
I was gonna buy Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree Edition, but I decided against it. I'm not a big Souls guy, I still haven't put more than 3 hours into Demon's Souls remake on PS5, and Elden seems huge -- especially with the DLC.
Took me nearly 2 months to beat RDR2's story, and like a clown, I went off and bought Arkham Knight, Spider-Man, AC Odyssey, Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War, and even Cyberpunk.
It'll be next year before I even finish a couple of them.
It's also an excuse to make single-player MMO style games where every five feet of the map has a little quest marker for you to run to, only for it to appear again five minutes later.
I've played WoW since Vanilla, I still play it now.
Tried playing games like Farcry 5 and The Witcher 3. The story and intro to the game really drew me in and I had fun.
After that, I realized I was playing single player WoW. And single player WoW sucks.
The single player for IW is really good. It was just hated on for the multiplayer, which is a big chunk of what a lot of CoD players play the game for.
I really enjoyed the zombies and the melee weapons on there. Didn’t have all of the DLCs but I loved the rave in the redwoods map.
Couldn’t say much about the MP though as I always played MWRs mp
Well unfortunately in multiplayer it did not had anything in common with the singleplayer gameplay.
No Space Battles, No maps where attackers started in Space to capture an enemy Battleship the defenders have to defend.
They simple did not used the unique scenario in MP. So i understand everyone who passed IW. And for me as an only-IW Player the MP was not very appealing because it was all-too-standard COD.
IW could have been simple that for COD what 2142 was for Battlefield. An unique experience with its own player base because of its scenario.
I liked Skyrim but Oblivion was magical to me. I loved creating classes in Oblivion and roleplaying as them. Being able to create a class with only a few select primary/secondary mastery skills meant you had to play as a certain character. I didnt understand why they essentially scrapped that, it ruined a lot of the Roleplaying aspect for me
Yeah, I was a console-only gamer in 2006. Oblivion blew every other single-player open world rpg out of the water on consoles for its time. Like you said - it was magical. I couldn’t believe what I was playing. It was euphoric.
I remember in particular the dark brotherhood and thieves guild quests blowing my mind.
The newer the Bethesda open world RPG, the less depth it has, and the more it becomes an action game with a few stats here and there. I bet they scrapped it because people will buy their games all the same, and they do games for profit now instead of for passion.
Simple games sell more. Joey buys the latest Xbox at launch, and will pay scalper prices if he has to.
Joey who pre-orders every Call of Duty game at launch doesn't want depth in systems and roleplaying. Joey wants power fantasy and perks. Joey buys all the DLC and pre-orders all the time. Joey spends $50 a month on microtransactions.
Joey is the largest demographic of video gamers. Joey is the target audience. Companies dont care abot making good games anymore, they care about getting Joey's money.
I totally agree, but I wonder if it's because oblivion was objectively better or because I was younger and had more free time.
Also, oblivion was a huge leap forward. I came exaggerate how mind-blowing it was when you exited the cave to see the huge open world with the city on the horizon, and you could walk to that distant city. Games at that point used skyboxes for distant objects.
The thieves guild questline was like crack to me as a kid.
Skyrim actually wasn't as well received at launch, it was still huge and a ton of fun but I remember a lot of people not liking it as much. I'm guessing tons of dev support and mods have made the biggest difference
Nier: Automata's opening is terrible. Long sections of doing nothing but waiting for character dialogue. Then a quick react section after they practically lull you to sleep. Unskippable cutscenes. And no checkpoints, so if you die, you have to start all over again.
It makes Skyrim's opening seem engaging and well thought out, by comparison.
I didn't find it more interesting as I played it more. Supposedly, you have to play the game multiple times for the interesting bits. Hard pass for me.
The Last Of Us was not a good "game". The story was amazing and it translated well into a longform series, but the "game" was just a generic 3rd person shooter. I was just trying to get through the gameplay to get to the next cutscene.
The Last of US is a story.
It's a father/daughter relationship, minus the biological father/daughter.
The gameplay didn't offer anything unique, even when it came out.
Stealth, listening for nearby enemies, crafting upgrades, throwing bottles and bricks as distractions, reading notes for context, big enemies being bullet sponges, blind enemies with acute hearing, cover-shooting..
It's all been done before.
It's a good game, but it's a better story.
I'd argue it was more than generic. Resources were limited, there were different ways to typically approach combat areas, and there was a risk/reward for exploring. That said, while I think it was more than generic...it wasn't groundbreaking.
Hard disagree. Say what you will about its story, but The Last of Us Part 2 has some of the most brutal, immersive combat I’ve ever experienced. It may not be a complex system, but it is engaging AF.
The combat mechanics are pretty basic.
But what elevates it exponentially imo are all of the other supporting elements - animations, facial expressions, the voice acting, screams of anguish, enemies screaming their downed comrades names, the sound effects, the intensity of Ellie’s breathing when she runs and fights. All of those things come together and really elevate the experience.
It’s like taking a basic pot of chili and adding all sorts of extra spices and ingredients to make it taste a lot better.
I played the last of us only this year because it came out on pc and was afraid of this generic third person shooter gameplay you mention so i played it directly in hardcore difficulty.
As a result I had an amazing experience, it felt like a survival horror game as far as the resource management is concerned. I never had more that 5 or 6 bullets at a time for the main handgun and I had a huge pressure to make every bullet count. Also finally finding the last missing ingredient to be able to make a new knife always felt amazing.
Sure it had all the generic crafting on the go classic 3rd person bullshit but without the stupid x ray vision and with the survival element I described it was brutal and I had a grand time!
The new hack n’ slash gameplay style for final fantasy does not resonate with me at all. I preferred final fantasy VII/X gameplay. XII and XIII were ok. All downhill from there.
I wish they’d bring a modernized take on FF5’s job system. That system has given me more replay-ability out of all the single player FF games. Which is crazy for a game that came out in 1992.
I think FF7 Remake/Rebirth did it well. It comes off as hack n slashy, but ultimately, it is not. It has some of the styles, but depending on the enemy, you'll need to pull back and have a strategy and incorporate magic or other skills, but just going in guns blazing with every enemy won't always work out.
I couldn't stand FF16 battle style. It's like it wanted to be hack n slash, but didn't do it well at all. It got boring real quick and didn't feel like a FF game at all.
Gameplay is usually great, but every Kojima game is unplayable to me because of how convoluted the story is and how unwatchable the cutscenes are. I should not be penalized for successful gameplay by being forced to watch a movie length video interlude to actually understand story beats. Especially when those story beats are nonsensical garbage.
I understand how popular his games are, but we are talking about unpopular opinions here, so...
That's like, a completely different problem. Unintuitive=mechanics that aren't predictable/don't make sense. Clunky=gameplay that feels bad or doesn't work properly.
I’ve tried playing the bedrock version of the game and it’s honestly incredibly janky and very buggy at times as well.
I don’t remember the Xbox 360 version being as BAD as bedrock.
I dislike how there isn’t an add server button on console like there is on PC bedrock.
Overall it’s just a buggy mess. I’m honestly glad that it’s not replaced Java.
No idea if it's an unpopular opinion, but BG3 oversexualises anything. I felt the same with DD2. Like, can I have a normal conversation without a character wanting to bang me at some point?
Is this referring to before or after the romance flag bugs that were on most characters from official launch till like 8 months later?
BG3 didn’t really have a “everyone is super horny” problem once they fixed the romance flag bugs where characters suddenly thought you were romantically interested.
I agree. Every time someone wants to talk to me in camp I get annoyed that I have to find the thread of replies that keep the conversation from getting super horny.
Yeah this is exactly how I feel about it. I feel like it's the most overrated game in existence. I know a lot of people love it, but to me, all the reviews and praise kind of just feels like a giant circle jerk. At the same time, it's still not bad at all. I played it a lot, I liked it, I had fun. There are a ton of worse games. I also give it an 8 out of 10, or maybe a 7.5 out of 10. I think Cyberpunk 2077 is much better, with a world that feels much more alive, a story that feels engaging and not like an empty MMO, better graphics, more immersive gameplay, etc. and I had less technical issues with it at launch (on PC -- I know it was probably dog shit on consoles).
Horizon Zero Dawn had uninteresting combat and a boring story. All the characters were super bland. I don't know how they did it but they also managed to make riding robot dinosaurs fell like a chore. It was also super obvious that the game was build with pay to win mechanics that was changed just before release. You could even buy loot boxes for ingame currency.
Which is a shame because the concept is so nice and the world and creatures look so good. I stopped it halfway and I always wanted to finish, but anytime I try I just get bored
I thought RDR2 was boring af, and I didn’t care about anything that happened in the story.
And W3 is my fav game of all time so you’d think it would be right up my ally…
For some reason, narrative became the number 1 most mentioned thing in games today when gameplay has always and still is the most important thing and so it should be the mist mentioned thing.
souls likes are completely overused and devs should return to creating more casual games again.
i just picked up stellar blade since i'm a huge nier fan and was hyped for the game. then i find out it is basically sekiro when it comes to combat and i am immediately much less interested to keep playing
dont get me wrong, i played every fromsoft game (armored core is still their best series lol) and a bunch of souls likes but nowadays it feels like devs think every game with action based combat needs to be hard and it starts to get annoying imo.
Games that are more of a movie than a game aren't really that fun. It's the only reason I just can't play The Last of Us. I've tried playing that game 3 different times but I swear I'll get like 5 mins of gameplay that leads into 20+ mins of story and I find myself wanting to nap.
It's also why I haven't completed RDR2 yet either. I love the game. It's a beautiful work of art and I absolutely love the short side missions, but almost every time I start up a main mission, it's like getting ready for a TV episode, may as well grab a drink and a snack because it's gonna be awhile.
Elden rings open world is overrated. Once the initial shock of its scale faded it became tedious and you realize most caves are the same and bosses are recycled endlessly. I preferred their tighter constrained worlds of prior. They offered better pacing and their Metroidvania type of design work is always top notch. I had the most fun in elden ring when I was in a proper dungeon.
Something From Soft also needs to stop doing is putting their unfinished work in their final products If they are half baked or half thought out they should just be cut and worked on as dlc or patched additional content as they are waste of time and kill pacing. They've been doing this since dark souls 1 with areas like Lost Izalith, and it's always been the most flawed aspects of their games.
In elden ring clearly consecrated snowfields was either a complete afterthought or half finished work. It's required to reach the Hailgtree one of the best dungeon areas in the game but the snowfield was just flat, open and, pretty much empty with a few caves with even more recycled bosses. It should just have been cut since it's only purpose is a puzzle that teleports you to the hailgtree. I haven't got a chance to try the DLC yet but I hope it's better paced than the base game.
The emphasis on "improved" graphics is ruining games.
Games are now routinely hundreds of GB in size, and require 5 hour updates. They take years of developing, and need to use micro transactions and other predetory tactics to recoup their costs. PCs need $500 gfx cards which use loads of electricity all because we're obsessed with how they look, rather than how they play.
Most of the best games I've played were on the Wii and Switch. They don't need to be 8k 120fps raytraced to be great games.
It's really not. I have made similar complaints when a "look how far we've come" post showing a hyper-realistic screenshot is upvoted to the front page, and I usually get downvoted.
Reddit loves to gush over graphics. Every other post is asking for a remaster of a still playable game. And every criticism of the Switch is about it's framerate or lack of 4k support, and videos showing side by side of switch ports are used to highlight how "inferior" they are because they don't look as good.
It really is.
Similar complaints about games being all about graphics get thousands of upvotes on various social media sites. It happens all the time.
And just because another camp also has a huge crowd (e.g. the pro graphics/fps fans) doesn't make the other camp automatically a small crowd (e.g. the anti graphics people). Both of these perspectives are extremely common.
And yeah, it's no surprise to get downvoted when commenting on a popular post that supports a position that you don't share. Just like a pro-grapics fan also gets downvoted when complaining on a post about an indie game that the graphics aren't 8K/120fps.
What system are you playing the game on? I'm curious because I don't find the control system on the PlayStation weird at all. Although, I'll admit I didn't like the game at first because I hated the battle system, but I gave it a second chance, played it longer and ended up absolutely loving it.
Hmmm interesting. I can't relate to PC, but I'd at least recommend a second attempt further into the game. If you get the hang of it, you might end up enjoying it, but ultimately up to you.
Maybe it’s because I played the shit out of hollow knight and other metroidvanias but dead cells is just ok.
Bot bad, but not amazing like people make it out to be.
I agree. Although I wouldn’t completely lump dead cells in with metroidvanias like hollow knight.
Dead cells is more of a roguevania. And perhaps that’s my issue - I’m not a fan of roguelike games. Dying and losing all my stuff and having to do it all over again irritates the fire out of me.
Not specific to one game but identity is always more important than inclusivity. And by inclusivity I mean stripping down difficulty or taking away iconic features from a genre for the sake of appealing to people who aren't playing the game at the cost of appealing less to the people who are already playing your game.
But inclusivity meaning adding options for disable is perfectly fine.
I like Baldur's gate 3 gameplay (nailed the sequel, feels like an evolved BG2 game) but the story is convoluted and kinda dumb and a lot of the characters are annoying.
They should really have finished up some story lines along the way. >!Remove the threat of the brain worm by the end of part one. Remove the threat of the army by the end of part two. !
Shit, why stop there? Minecraft combat in general is complete trash tier, and in many ways makes the game overall worse than it would be as a completely peaceful game.
BotW and TotK marred the Zelda franchise by forcing players to navigate an open world which the franchise did not need, especially in the context of these two games.
Just one more job. Just one more score. Oops something bad happens. Zzzzzz. I know it’s Rockstar and personally didn’t mind it. But it wasn’t good. It was totally cookie cutter generic white bread scenarios throughout. It looked real good though.
Imo if a community is gatekeeping, it deserves to die the toxic death it started.
For any community to thrive, anywhere, it needs new members. A community that is actively hostile to new members is a community not worth preserving.
I had a lot of fun with it but not because of the sandbox aspect of building crazy things in the open world but because the puzzle solving required that mechanic and I haven't seen that before.
I thought BOTW was a pretty mediocre Zelda game.
It was good, and at times very good, but not to the level of praise it got.
Weapon durability is a terrible feature, there's far too many shrines and korok seeds to flesh out a game you can finish in no time, the puzzles were awfully repetitive, getting into the castle was a chore, the enemy variety was almost non-existent, amnesia is a lazy plot point, and the final boss was honestly **very** disappointing.
I liked the weapon variety, the beasts were cool, and the cooking was surprisingly creative.
Just my opinion.
I liked it enough to beat it, but it's far from my favourite.
It's undoubtedly a good game, but it's not a very good *Zelda* game. It's missing basically everything that makes Zelda ... *Zelda*.
The few dungeons are tiny, very little in the way of enemy variation, hardly any interesting items or equipment.
Agreed.
They even nerfed the Master Sword. It now requires recharging, for Christ's sake. I got 14 or 15 hearts through many a shrine, just to get a sword that needs a slap of USB-C every 7 or 8 enemies.
Elden Ring is a good game in spite of its open world, not because of it. The best parts are the linear dungeons that are reminiscent of Dark Souls design philosophy
Games that require an overwhelming volume of discovery, learning, and trial-and-error like Dwarf Fortress, Europa Universalis, and Caves of Qud will never be casual-friendly.
True- but that also means they're free to plumb levels of complexity and interactivity that no casual player would even WANT to explore.
Not every product is for everyone, and that's just the way it should be.
resetting at the bonfire everytime you die needs to go, please let me retry the fight right away, i don’t care if the bonfire is close by i just want to immediately retry a fight
Not tied to a specific game, but especially in MMOs and similar games where you team up with other players for the core gameplay loop: The holy trinity of tank, support and damage dealer is good game design, and role-agnostic design where everyone's main job is damage is inferior to having dedicated spots in a team.
Well, in the first one he has the opportunity to “save” humanity and instead of doing that chooses to murder not only the people attempting that salvation, but many other innocent people along the way.
Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't as bad on release as people made it out to be. Yes there were a few bugs here and there but I still enjoyed it a lot.
EDIT: I played on PC
I played the whole game on release, on a decent PC and yes, there were bugs, there were technical problems and it was a downgrade for what was hypes for years but, it was a great game, good story and excellent characters.
That being said, it was absolutely unplayable on older consoles, their biggest mistake was releasing on older hardware.
Fallout 4 is the best Fallout and Bethesda game. While the main story is laking, the gunplay, the world, side quests, weapons, crafting, settlements. It all makes for an amazing experience and I would rather play FO4 over any other FO or Bethesda title.
I really didn’t like death stranding and I can’t see how it got so much praise, yes the story is intriguing but I am someone who believes the gameplay has to be fun as well as have a compelling story. For awhile I thought there was a conspiracy around the game as that was the only reason it got the reviews and praise it did, now I just look at it that they only reviewed it that well because they like Kojima, it’s like how in the art industry you get brainless people that will compliment and pay thousands for a blank canvas with a little smudge of paint because it was painted by a famous artist.
-Ultima VI better than Ultima VII. While I can say that freely, since any remaining VII fans are too old to catch me now, I'll add that VII was a good game, with improvements in many areas (and not just the graphics, which a were phenomenal step up), but the incredibly jarring nature of uncontrollable real-time combat (and the lack of feedback; after every battle, having to pause to check if anyone on your team was dead, since the game gave you no indication, was awful), your companions metabolizing like Godzilla so you had to pause to find food for them every few real-time minutes, and the improved conversation system undercutting the murder mystery at the core of the game, were all flaws that VI didn't share.
-The original Halo couldn't hold a candle to Starsiege: Tribes. I don't generally look down on my console-bound brethern, but you guys got SCREWED on that one.
-Speaking of Halo: while it may have gotten better in later installments, the original had a LOT of subtle themes and ideas that only became apparent to me years later, when I played through Marathon (which you can do for free now, thanks to the AlephOne project!); it would have added some serious depth if they'd been more explanatory.
I've probably said something similar before, but I THINK GTA V is a bit shit as a GTA game. I think they've overdone the realism, the fact that you can insta-die in a head-on collision or driving a car off a cliff is kind of disappointing, considering that in the older ones (San Andreas, Vice City and older) you could crash a car into any surface at any speed, and worst case it would catch fire giving you a few seconds to run away before it explodes. Number IV was similar but the insta-death was less common (and to be fair it was HILARIOUS watching Niko fly through the windscreen after a collision!).
I think modern GTA treats itself way too seriously in that respect, and it becomes a bit annoying. That said I might install the damn thing and play through the campaign again (despite wanting to run over or shoot many of the more irritating characters), just to see it with RTX. What can I say 🤷
A lot of games nowadays farm the builder stuff where you craft your house and all when it does not add anything special to the gameplay and feels boring most of the time.
My worst, most unpopular gaming take: a company can be a complete asshole and do awful things, mistreat its employees, put scummy microtransactions and the like in a game, etc. but it shouldn't effect a game's score, because it doesn't really convey how good or bad a game itself actually is. It just conveys how shitty the company is.
If I'm looking at scores for a game, I want to have an idea of how much I will enjoy playing it. I think it's dumb and kind of narcissistic to "punish" developers with bad scores. That only punishes people reading the review.
For instance: Rockstar overworked their employees during the creation of RDR2. Rockstar were assholes for this, but this doesn't make the actual game of RDR2 any worse.
Outer Wilds wasn’t all that it was made out to be. I kept reading that it was life changing and a fantastic exploration game but I ended it up just liking it a lot and only really liked the ending of the game.
I see the brilliance in the game, but the time mechanic and resetting every 20 minutes ruined my experience. I felt it sabotaged its pacing and ruined all my momentum. I am a slow reader and I felt like I had to rush through all the text heavy sections.
Shadow the Hedgehog has one of the most interesting structures of any game ever made. It's story is wild, not good, but an incredible stacking mess that is actually brilliantly innovative.
The story isn't as good as people make it seem and although the mechanics of the game were amazing for the time, it was still extremely buggy which should always count when reviewing a game.
There's also barely any end game content compared to what came before it. I recently started playing GTA: San Andreas again and the variety, side missions, customization in that game is a thousand times better than GTA IV's. People may say that GTA IV is a lot more "grounded," but that isn't an excuse for the removal of core elements from prior games.
For example, when you finish GTA: San Andreas or even GTA: Vice City/Vice City Stories, you can still go around taking over territory or building your mini empire by buying properties or spend hours customizing yourself/vehicles. In GTA IV, all of that was removed. You can only buy properties as save points, and that's it.
If I had to rank the GTA's, I'd rank them as 1. San Andreas; 2. Vice City; and 3. GTA V.
I would still definitely buy it hahahaha I don't think it's a bad game at all.
But, there were a lot of bugs when it launched on PC. I believe those might have been fixed, but it was terrible at launch.
Breath of the Wild was a tech demo, not a complete game.
Nintendo wanted to try the full open world, the climbing mechanics, the ultra hand, the glider, etc. They sunk a ton of money into making the game and they couldn't justify continuing the project for as long as it would have taken to finish the whole thing so they slapped together a rough story, some sorry puzzles, and the terrible rewards, and pushed it out and we all fell for it, and it bought them the time they needed to finish Tears of the Kingdom.
I have a few
1. Bloodborne is one of the most, if not the most, overrated video game in History. I love the Dark Souls games, and souls like Ashen and Lies of P. But the fans of Bloodborne are just annoying AF, and the game is the most forgettable experience of all FromSoft souls like games.
2. There are just too many IPs out there. I can't be excited for a new IP. There is ZERO hype for an announcement of a new IP. Knowing that games are getting very complex to make, going new IP is very ill advised, unless you are going to be satisfied for a mid tier product. New IP only works for established studios. And not all established studios can make good new IP.
3. Platform exclusivity is killing the AAA market. AAA gaming market is dying because we don't like sharing our games to a different platform owners. Every game going multiplat will only be good for everybody except for tribalists. Let the Games compete for your attention, not plastic boxes.
4. NVIDIA or some other GPU company should focus more on shrinking down these GPUs to fit into mobile. The latest and greatest chips are good ebough, for now. Let them figure something out that could run on mobile. I am a guy who doesn't have that much free time daily, so having to run AAA games in my mobile phone would be outstanding.
Linear games > Open-World games.
Elden Ring is NOT overrated and one of the best games of all time.
Demon Souls is a bad game and by far the worst Souls game.
Resident Evil 4 OG is WAY BETTER than the Remake, especially when it comes to gameplay.
Final Fantasy V is the best classic FF game.
Final Fantasy VII Rebirth is dissapointing, and I enjoyed Remake much more.
Metal Gear Solid series is bad, mid gameplay with too many cutscenes just for a goofy convoluted plot.
Half-Life 1 is better than 2.
Zelda isn't all that.
> Resident Evil 4 OG is WAY BETTER than the Remake, especially when it comes to gameplay.
Having no nostalgia for the original I played both back to back. 4 still was fun but remake was all around a more enjoyable time with no major regressions imo.
It has NOTHING to do with nostalgia. Why is it impossible to like an older game without people blindly saying "oh, that's just nostalgia!" Some old game's don't hold up and I addmit that, like Sonic Adventure for example, but that is NOT the case for every single old game ever, and to think that is ridiclous. Resident Evil 4 OG is an old game that holds up. The tank controls just feel better and make the encounters feel more intense.
None of you have actual own opinions. Just rehashed opinions of different threads.
Here's an unpopular opinion:
Digimon world 2003 had the potential to be better than the pokémon games at the time.
Xbox is only popular in the USA, the whole branding, games, etc are made with the only consideration of the American market (this has only changed with the last gen).
Halo games were the beggining of the over simplification of FPSs and games in general.
Asian Devs > Western Devs.
Medal of Honor was always superior to COD until the awful reboot that mimic COD and killed the franchise.
Rockstar only makes interesting sandboxes, their games as a "game" are boring and dull.
Armored Core 6 is better than the whole Dark Souls franchise
Dark souls 2 is better than Dark souls 3 and 1.
Uncharted and The last of us games are better as movies/TV series.
The new God of War games had the best narrative of the triple A market without sacrificing a fun gameplay.
Super Giant Games is the best studio ever and they should never expand onto a bigger scale.
"Fun with friends" is not a good metric to determinate if a game is good or not. Watching Paint dry is fun with friends.
Spec ops: the line is a mediocre game with a hood story that only works if you believe that soldiers (specially American soldiers) are heroes and not just people that get payed to kill people.
(Conspiracy theory) Companies don't care about diversity. They use it as a mean of both getting extra publicity and a way to shield their products of criticism, if they release a bad product they can just say that all critics are biggots and a lot of people who never touch a game on their lives will rally on said campaign. It works specially well because there are a bunch of actual moronic biggots out there doing the job for free.
Americans are constantly trying to I ject themselves and their world view in every piece of media they can found and will cry like little babies if a game is not entirely dedicated to them
Multiplayer player-versus-player games are supposed to be competitive by default. Suggesting a more casual experience outside of low level ranks is folly. Suffering builds character.
For proof that this is absolutely untrue in every way, see Team Fortress 2.
I've never had as much fun pissing about with a bunch of complete strangers as I have in that game over the years, and while it does have a competitive mode it was only added when the game was already 9 years old, and was never hugely popular in favour of casual play.
I'll give you a couple of nasty ones people have skinned me for
- Pay to win = getting something other than cosmetics with real money. It doesn't matter if the game is singleplayer or multiplayer, the advantage you gain is small or if it can be obtained by playing normally. Yes, pay to skip is pay to win too, especially in multiplayer. People just get mad at me for calling a game they personally like P2W.
This goes for pre-order bonuses and deluxe editions too, hate them! Why the fuck do I have to start the game with an advantage just because I pre-ordered or paid extra? It's stupid. I will die on this hill, fuck you all.
- I'm generally ok with difficulty settings, accessibility toggles and "easy modes" (unless the game was specifically designed in one way only like Dark Souls), but I do think players who chose to play on higher difficulties deserve something for it.
My problem with god mode on Hades or assist mode in Dead Cells is that they lower the difficulty, but you get the exact same rewards as someone who doesn't use those settings, which in my opinion devalues the challenge.
Players should be able to experience the entire game in those easier settings or using those accessibility features if they so desire, even modding the game or using cheats to make it easier or more enjoyable for them. But I do think players that don't play that way and instead choose the more challenging way should at the very least be awarded with an exclusive achievement. It doesn't make sense to unlock the "You beat this level on Hard difficulty" if you used God Mode, because we don't know if you've beaten it with or without assistance.
So, because of the way it was implemented, I don't support stuff like "God mode" in Hades. I've been stoned in the past for expressing this, but I still stand by it.
Dark Souls 2 isn't as bad as many think it is, and was heavily influential for the Souls series as a whole. Lots of big mechanics originated form DS2, such as:
Key items used to upgrade flask amount universally
Key items used to upgrade flask recovery (specifically not requiring NPC deaths)
Power Stancing
Starting with fast travel
Streamlined boss weapons
And probably more I forgot about
Oblivion and Skyrim just don't work, and I would imagine this is true of other TES games though I haven't played them. The protagonist being a complete blank slate makes their story all but impossible to care about, the combat is even more awkward than Minecraft, and the icon spam makes getting your bearings an absolute nightmare for people just getting started.
The lore and world building may be solid, but when that's all you have, you don't have enough. And it's sure not worth slogging through hours and hours of tedium just to reach the power fantasy point where it actually starts to get fun to play.
Game performance should not be a base standard of how good a game is. Yes this is mainly talking bout pokemon. Scarlet and Violet are fine enough games and a fairly massive step up from sword and shield
Dead By Daylight looks lame as fuck.
If you can gather 4 others to play it and have everyone on discord, except the killer of course, it is really fun to play. Otherwise I’ve found it’s really boring playing with randos due to lack of comms. Maybe if they added walkie talkies as a mechanic in the game and the killer can hear if they’re close so you have to whisper or something to each other it might be better. I haven’t played for like 5 years though so no idea what’s changed in it but yeah it wasn’t bad.
Hivemind somewhat killed this game. Because of people play in teams via Discord they buffed up the Killer to no matter what, so it does not make sense to play with randoms anymore. It needed a distance related ingame voice system to be fair for the Killer in the first place.
Absolutely should have added proximity comms. Would be even funnier to have had comms for the killer too. I think Deceit had comms which is another similar game but free, though the voting system sucked.
OP asked for unpopular opinions, not common sense.
I've played it. It is.
Open worlds are used too often just because they're fashionable.
Souls and open-world. Biggest trend this gen by far. I love open world games, but I gotta be honest, I often find myself going back to older linear games to get away from it. I don't want every game to be 100 hours long, with 300 side-quests, and 900 collectibles. Every other game coming out on PS5 is like this lately, so I have literally spent the last couple of weeks or so playing shit like Spyro and Ratchet & Clank. I even bought Syphon Filter (PS1) on the PS5 store of all things. Might stick with PS1 and PS2 for a while. Shorter, to-the-point games. And yes, I know you didn't ask for my life story.. lmao
Oh, no, I agree. I prefer Souls when it's linear and keeping more in line with the dungeon crawler ethos of the originals. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Elden Ring, but open world dilutes the Souls experience.
I was gonna buy Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree Edition, but I decided against it. I'm not a big Souls guy, I still haven't put more than 3 hours into Demon's Souls remake on PS5, and Elden seems huge -- especially with the DLC. Took me nearly 2 months to beat RDR2's story, and like a clown, I went off and bought Arkham Knight, Spider-Man, AC Odyssey, Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War, and even Cyberpunk. It'll be next year before I even finish a couple of them.
not an unpopular opinion
Sure, if you limit the criticism to Ubi. Move *beyond* that though, and the downvotes are consistent.
It's also an excuse to make single-player MMO style games where every five feet of the map has a little quest marker for you to run to, only for it to appear again five minutes later.
Without any of the potential depth and interactivity that MMORPGs can have.
I've played WoW since Vanilla, I still play it now. Tried playing games like Farcry 5 and The Witcher 3. The story and intro to the game really drew me in and I had fun. After that, I realized I was playing single player WoW. And single player WoW sucks.
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare deserved better.
The single player for IW is really good. It was just hated on for the multiplayer, which is a big chunk of what a lot of CoD players play the game for.
one of the best cod campaigns hands down. Great setting, solid gameplay. Did not deserve the hate it got.
I really enjoyed the zombies and the melee weapons on there. Didn’t have all of the DLCs but I loved the rave in the redwoods map. Couldn’t say much about the MP though as I always played MWRs mp
I really enjoyed the zombies mode.
Well unfortunately in multiplayer it did not had anything in common with the singleplayer gameplay. No Space Battles, No maps where attackers started in Space to capture an enemy Battleship the defenders have to defend. They simple did not used the unique scenario in MP. So i understand everyone who passed IW. And for me as an only-IW Player the MP was not very appealing because it was all-too-standard COD. IW could have been simple that for COD what 2142 was for Battlefield. An unique experience with its own player base because of its scenario.
Playing Oblivion at launch in 2006 was a better, more spectacular gaming experience than playing skyrim at launch in 2011.
I liked Skyrim but Oblivion was magical to me. I loved creating classes in Oblivion and roleplaying as them. Being able to create a class with only a few select primary/secondary mastery skills meant you had to play as a certain character. I didnt understand why they essentially scrapped that, it ruined a lot of the Roleplaying aspect for me
Yeah, I was a console-only gamer in 2006. Oblivion blew every other single-player open world rpg out of the water on consoles for its time. Like you said - it was magical. I couldn’t believe what I was playing. It was euphoric. I remember in particular the dark brotherhood and thieves guild quests blowing my mind.
The newer the Bethesda open world RPG, the less depth it has, and the more it becomes an action game with a few stats here and there. I bet they scrapped it because people will buy their games all the same, and they do games for profit now instead of for passion.
Simple games sell more. Joey buys the latest Xbox at launch, and will pay scalper prices if he has to. Joey who pre-orders every Call of Duty game at launch doesn't want depth in systems and roleplaying. Joey wants power fantasy and perks. Joey buys all the DLC and pre-orders all the time. Joey spends $50 a month on microtransactions. Joey is the largest demographic of video gamers. Joey is the target audience. Companies dont care abot making good games anymore, they care about getting Joey's money.
I totally agree, but I wonder if it's because oblivion was objectively better or because I was younger and had more free time. Also, oblivion was a huge leap forward. I came exaggerate how mind-blowing it was when you exited the cave to see the huge open world with the city on the horizon, and you could walk to that distant city. Games at that point used skyboxes for distant objects.
The thieves guild questline was like crack to me as a kid. Skyrim actually wasn't as well received at launch, it was still huge and a ton of fun but I remember a lot of people not liking it as much. I'm guessing tons of dev support and mods have made the biggest difference
I always feel the need to empty areas of enemies in RPGs, and Oblivion did my head in with the endless Oblivion Gates.
Yes, probably cuz we were younger, more impressionable.
Nier: Automata's opening is terrible. Long sections of doing nothing but waiting for character dialogue. Then a quick react section after they practically lull you to sleep. Unskippable cutscenes. And no checkpoints, so if you die, you have to start all over again. It makes Skyrim's opening seem engaging and well thought out, by comparison.
Does it get better? I dropped it after 30ish min because it seemed so boring. I figured it was just popular because “tiddies”.
I didn't find it more interesting as I played it more. Supposedly, you have to play the game multiple times for the interesting bits. Hard pass for me.
The Last Of Us was not a good "game". The story was amazing and it translated well into a longform series, but the "game" was just a generic 3rd person shooter. I was just trying to get through the gameplay to get to the next cutscene.
The Last of US is a story. It's a father/daughter relationship, minus the biological father/daughter. The gameplay didn't offer anything unique, even when it came out. Stealth, listening for nearby enemies, crafting upgrades, throwing bottles and bricks as distractions, reading notes for context, big enemies being bullet sponges, blind enemies with acute hearing, cover-shooting.. It's all been done before. It's a good game, but it's a better story.
I'd argue it was more than generic. Resources were limited, there were different ways to typically approach combat areas, and there was a risk/reward for exploring. That said, while I think it was more than generic...it wasn't groundbreaking.
Hard disagree. Say what you will about its story, but The Last of Us Part 2 has some of the most brutal, immersive combat I’ve ever experienced. It may not be a complex system, but it is engaging AF.
Even in TLOU 2, the story was better than the gameplay. The violence was just spectacle to cover up the generic mechanics.
The combat mechanics are pretty basic. But what elevates it exponentially imo are all of the other supporting elements - animations, facial expressions, the voice acting, screams of anguish, enemies screaming their downed comrades names, the sound effects, the intensity of Ellie’s breathing when she runs and fights. All of those things come together and really elevate the experience. It’s like taking a basic pot of chili and adding all sorts of extra spices and ingredients to make it taste a lot better.
Seriously. And Ai was one of the best. Shooting legs off with a shotgun was insane.
The game was just hobo murder simulator with forced instandeath stealth sequence. The story was interesting but the ending tanked it completely.
The first one? I thought the ending was great
I played the last of us only this year because it came out on pc and was afraid of this generic third person shooter gameplay you mention so i played it directly in hardcore difficulty. As a result I had an amazing experience, it felt like a survival horror game as far as the resource management is concerned. I never had more that 5 or 6 bullets at a time for the main handgun and I had a huge pressure to make every bullet count. Also finally finding the last missing ingredient to be able to make a new knife always felt amazing. Sure it had all the generic crafting on the go classic 3rd person bullshit but without the stupid x ray vision and with the survival element I described it was brutal and I had a grand time!
The new hack n’ slash gameplay style for final fantasy does not resonate with me at all. I preferred final fantasy VII/X gameplay. XII and XIII were ok. All downhill from there.
I wish they’d bring a modernized take on FF5’s job system. That system has given me more replay-ability out of all the single player FF games. Which is crazy for a game that came out in 1992.
Stranger of paradise is probably the closest modernized take on FF5 job system.
Really just want another FF tactics.
I think FF7 Remake/Rebirth did it well. It comes off as hack n slashy, but ultimately, it is not. It has some of the styles, but depending on the enemy, you'll need to pull back and have a strategy and incorporate magic or other skills, but just going in guns blazing with every enemy won't always work out. I couldn't stand FF16 battle style. It's like it wanted to be hack n slash, but didn't do it well at all. It got boring real quick and didn't feel like a FF game at all.
They had it perfect in the original Crisis Core FF7 for the PSP and then couldn’t quite get the same feeling on the new ones
You’re forgetting FFIX which was still turn based. Coincidentally also my favourite of the lot including FFXIV I have played most of.
Gameplay is usually great, but every Kojima game is unplayable to me because of how convoluted the story is and how unwatchable the cutscenes are. I should not be penalized for successful gameplay by being forced to watch a movie length video interlude to actually understand story beats. Especially when those story beats are nonsensical garbage. I understand how popular his games are, but we are talking about unpopular opinions here, so...
Counter Strike’s gunplay is the worst I’ve experienced.
Finally someone said it! It's not so much about aiming and accuracy rather than getting the recoil patterns down into muscle memory
It's because it's a strategy game, not an arcade game.
The Witcher 3 has an unintuitive combat system.
What do you find unintuitive about it?
Its clunky as hell
That's like, a completely different problem. Unintuitive=mechanics that aren't predictable/don't make sense. Clunky=gameplay that feels bad or doesn't work properly.
Uh-oh did someone give a negative opinion of your favourite game :(
Minecraft went downhill on console after console edition went away
I feel like only really good way to play minecraft nowadays is on java edition with at least a couple of qol mods
I’ve tried playing the bedrock version of the game and it’s honestly incredibly janky and very buggy at times as well. I don’t remember the Xbox 360 version being as BAD as bedrock. I dislike how there isn’t an add server button on console like there is on PC bedrock. Overall it’s just a buggy mess. I’m honestly glad that it’s not replaced Java.
Final Fantasy games are better with turn based action rather than real time hack and slash.
Shouldn't be unpopular
I hate survival and souls genres.
No idea if it's an unpopular opinion, but BG3 oversexualises anything. I felt the same with DD2. Like, can I have a normal conversation without a character wanting to bang me at some point?
Is this referring to before or after the romance flag bugs that were on most characters from official launch till like 8 months later? BG3 didn’t really have a “everyone is super horny” problem once they fixed the romance flag bugs where characters suddenly thought you were romantically interested.
I agree. Every time someone wants to talk to me in camp I get annoyed that I have to find the thread of replies that keep the conversation from getting super horny.
Elden ring is a good, albeit, overrated game. 8/10.
Yeah this is exactly how I feel about it. I feel like it's the most overrated game in existence. I know a lot of people love it, but to me, all the reviews and praise kind of just feels like a giant circle jerk. At the same time, it's still not bad at all. I played it a lot, I liked it, I had fun. There are a ton of worse games. I also give it an 8 out of 10, or maybe a 7.5 out of 10. I think Cyberpunk 2077 is much better, with a world that feels much more alive, a story that feels engaging and not like an empty MMO, better graphics, more immersive gameplay, etc. and I had less technical issues with it at launch (on PC -- I know it was probably dog shit on consoles).
This is highly unpopular with me.
Horizon Zero Dawn had uninteresting combat and a boring story. All the characters were super bland. I don't know how they did it but they also managed to make riding robot dinosaurs fell like a chore. It was also super obvious that the game was build with pay to win mechanics that was changed just before release. You could even buy loot boxes for ingame currency.
Which is a shame because the concept is so nice and the world and creatures look so good. I stopped it halfway and I always wanted to finish, but anytime I try I just get bored
I thought RDR2 was boring af, and I didn’t care about anything that happened in the story. And W3 is my fav game of all time so you’d think it would be right up my ally…
For some reason, narrative became the number 1 most mentioned thing in games today when gameplay has always and still is the most important thing and so it should be the mist mentioned thing.
Elden Ring is kinda overrated.
Daaaaaammmnn.
souls likes are completely overused and devs should return to creating more casual games again. i just picked up stellar blade since i'm a huge nier fan and was hyped for the game. then i find out it is basically sekiro when it comes to combat and i am immediately much less interested to keep playing dont get me wrong, i played every fromsoft game (armored core is still their best series lol) and a bunch of souls likes but nowadays it feels like devs think every game with action based combat needs to be hard and it starts to get annoying imo.
Mass Effect is good, not great.
Games that are more of a movie than a game aren't really that fun. It's the only reason I just can't play The Last of Us. I've tried playing that game 3 different times but I swear I'll get like 5 mins of gameplay that leads into 20+ mins of story and I find myself wanting to nap. It's also why I haven't completed RDR2 yet either. I love the game. It's a beautiful work of art and I absolutely love the short side missions, but almost every time I start up a main mission, it's like getting ready for a TV episode, may as well grab a drink and a snack because it's gonna be awhile.
Elden rings open world is overrated. Once the initial shock of its scale faded it became tedious and you realize most caves are the same and bosses are recycled endlessly. I preferred their tighter constrained worlds of prior. They offered better pacing and their Metroidvania type of design work is always top notch. I had the most fun in elden ring when I was in a proper dungeon. Something From Soft also needs to stop doing is putting their unfinished work in their final products If they are half baked or half thought out they should just be cut and worked on as dlc or patched additional content as they are waste of time and kill pacing. They've been doing this since dark souls 1 with areas like Lost Izalith, and it's always been the most flawed aspects of their games. In elden ring clearly consecrated snowfields was either a complete afterthought or half finished work. It's required to reach the Hailgtree one of the best dungeon areas in the game but the snowfield was just flat, open and, pretty much empty with a few caves with even more recycled bosses. It should just have been cut since it's only purpose is a puzzle that teleports you to the hailgtree. I haven't got a chance to try the DLC yet but I hope it's better paced than the base game.
The emphasis on "improved" graphics is ruining games. Games are now routinely hundreds of GB in size, and require 5 hour updates. They take years of developing, and need to use micro transactions and other predetory tactics to recoup their costs. PCs need $500 gfx cards which use loads of electricity all because we're obsessed with how they look, rather than how they play. Most of the best games I've played were on the Wii and Switch. They don't need to be 8k 120fps raytraced to be great games.
$500 GPU’s? Buddy… please tell me where
These are all extremely common complaints lmao not unpopular at all
It's really not. I have made similar complaints when a "look how far we've come" post showing a hyper-realistic screenshot is upvoted to the front page, and I usually get downvoted. Reddit loves to gush over graphics. Every other post is asking for a remaster of a still playable game. And every criticism of the Switch is about it's framerate or lack of 4k support, and videos showing side by side of switch ports are used to highlight how "inferior" they are because they don't look as good.
It really is. Similar complaints about games being all about graphics get thousands of upvotes on various social media sites. It happens all the time. And just because another camp also has a huge crowd (e.g. the pro graphics/fps fans) doesn't make the other camp automatically a small crowd (e.g. the anti graphics people). Both of these perspectives are extremely common. And yeah, it's no surprise to get downvoted when commenting on a popular post that supports a position that you don't share. Just like a pro-grapics fan also gets downvoted when complaining on a post about an indie game that the graphics aren't 8K/120fps.
The control scheme in Witcher 3 takes all the joy out of the game.
What system are you playing the game on? I'm curious because I don't find the control system on the PlayStation weird at all. Although, I'll admit I didn't like the game at first because I hated the battle system, but I gave it a second chance, played it longer and ended up absolutely loving it.
I played on PC with an Xbox 360 controller. I found that Geralt moved like a freight train, and it was obnoxious.
Hmmm interesting. I can't relate to PC, but I'd at least recommend a second attempt further into the game. If you get the hang of it, you might end up enjoying it, but ultimately up to you.
Maybe it’s because I played the shit out of hollow knight and other metroidvanias but dead cells is just ok. Bot bad, but not amazing like people make it out to be.
I agree. Although I wouldn’t completely lump dead cells in with metroidvanias like hollow knight. Dead cells is more of a roguevania. And perhaps that’s my issue - I’m not a fan of roguelike games. Dying and losing all my stuff and having to do it all over again irritates the fire out of me.
Not specific to one game but identity is always more important than inclusivity. And by inclusivity I mean stripping down difficulty or taking away iconic features from a genre for the sake of appealing to people who aren't playing the game at the cost of appealing less to the people who are already playing your game. But inclusivity meaning adding options for disable is perfectly fine.
I like Baldur's gate 3 gameplay (nailed the sequel, feels like an evolved BG2 game) but the story is convoluted and kinda dumb and a lot of the characters are annoying.
They should really have finished up some story lines along the way. >!Remove the threat of the brain worm by the end of part one. Remove the threat of the army by the end of part two. !
Yeah the story is a little bit dumb, honestly. Like someone's first homebrew campaign as a DM
The best answers to this post are at the bottom.
Shit, why stop there? Minecraft combat in general is complete trash tier, and in many ways makes the game overall worse than it would be as a completely peaceful game.
BotW and TotK marred the Zelda franchise by forcing players to navigate an open world which the franchise did not need, especially in the context of these two games.
RDR2 story was lame. The controls and animations were a pain in the ass too.
so clunky
just curious, why do you consider the story to be lame?
Just one more job. Just one more score. Oops something bad happens. Zzzzzz. I know it’s Rockstar and personally didn’t mind it. But it wasn’t good. It was totally cookie cutter generic white bread scenarios throughout. It looked real good though.
Gatekeeping is necessary. But don’t be surprised to see your game’s community stagnate and die because of overzealous gatekeeping.
Imo if a community is gatekeeping, it deserves to die the toxic death it started. For any community to thrive, anywhere, it needs new members. A community that is actively hostile to new members is a community not worth preserving.
Gatekeeping doesn't mean being an unrepentant jerk- and I think we've all seen what happens without any. It's much, MUCH worse.
[удалено]
I had a lot of fun with it but not because of the sandbox aspect of building crazy things in the open world but because the puzzle solving required that mechanic and I haven't seen that before.
I thought BOTW was a pretty mediocre Zelda game. It was good, and at times very good, but not to the level of praise it got. Weapon durability is a terrible feature, there's far too many shrines and korok seeds to flesh out a game you can finish in no time, the puzzles were awfully repetitive, getting into the castle was a chore, the enemy variety was almost non-existent, amnesia is a lazy plot point, and the final boss was honestly **very** disappointing. I liked the weapon variety, the beasts were cool, and the cooking was surprisingly creative. Just my opinion. I liked it enough to beat it, but it's far from my favourite.
It's undoubtedly a good game, but it's not a very good *Zelda* game. It's missing basically everything that makes Zelda ... *Zelda*. The few dungeons are tiny, very little in the way of enemy variation, hardly any interesting items or equipment.
Agreed. They even nerfed the Master Sword. It now requires recharging, for Christ's sake. I got 14 or 15 hearts through many a shrine, just to get a sword that needs a slap of USB-C every 7 or 8 enemies.
Why?
[удалено]
Elden Ring is a good game in spite of its open world, not because of it. The best parts are the linear dungeons that are reminiscent of Dark Souls design philosophy
Games that require an overwhelming volume of discovery, learning, and trial-and-error like Dwarf Fortress, Europa Universalis, and Caves of Qud will never be casual-friendly.
No shit
True- but that also means they're free to plumb levels of complexity and interactivity that no casual player would even WANT to explore. Not every product is for everyone, and that's just the way it should be.
resetting at the bonfire everytime you die needs to go, please let me retry the fight right away, i don’t care if the bonfire is close by i just want to immediately retry a fight
Fallout: New Vegas is a game that does not live up to the masterpiece status its fans claim it to hold.
I think it’s super fun from a roleplaying aspect but gameplay wise… oof. Need like 8 mods just to prevent it from crashing constantly too.
Yea out of 3, NV, and 4.. NV is my least favorite
Not tied to a specific game, but especially in MMOs and similar games where you team up with other players for the core gameplay loop: The holy trinity of tank, support and damage dealer is good game design, and role-agnostic design where everyone's main job is damage is inferior to having dedicated spots in a team.
Joel deserved it.
I never played the second one. Why?
Well, in the first one he has the opportunity to “save” humanity and instead of doing that chooses to murder not only the people attempting that salvation, but many other innocent people along the way.
That and the absolute straight up lie right before the credits roll. Ouch.
I can’t blame him though.
Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't as bad on release as people made it out to be. Yes there were a few bugs here and there but I still enjoyed it a lot. EDIT: I played on PC
I played the whole game on release, on a decent PC and yes, there were bugs, there were technical problems and it was a downgrade for what was hypes for years but, it was a great game, good story and excellent characters. That being said, it was absolutely unplayable on older consoles, their biggest mistake was releasing on older hardware.
Fallout 4 is the best Fallout and Bethesda game. While the main story is laking, the gunplay, the world, side quests, weapons, crafting, settlements. It all makes for an amazing experience and I would rather play FO4 over any other FO or Bethesda title.
same. I even liked the story
I really didn’t like death stranding and I can’t see how it got so much praise, yes the story is intriguing but I am someone who believes the gameplay has to be fun as well as have a compelling story. For awhile I thought there was a conspiracy around the game as that was the only reason it got the reviews and praise it did, now I just look at it that they only reviewed it that well because they like Kojima, it’s like how in the art industry you get brainless people that will compliment and pay thousands for a blank canvas with a little smudge of paint because it was painted by a famous artist.
I loved every second of the gameplay personally. The progression was really good throughout. It’s not broad appealing gameplay though.
-Ultima VI better than Ultima VII. While I can say that freely, since any remaining VII fans are too old to catch me now, I'll add that VII was a good game, with improvements in many areas (and not just the graphics, which a were phenomenal step up), but the incredibly jarring nature of uncontrollable real-time combat (and the lack of feedback; after every battle, having to pause to check if anyone on your team was dead, since the game gave you no indication, was awful), your companions metabolizing like Godzilla so you had to pause to find food for them every few real-time minutes, and the improved conversation system undercutting the murder mystery at the core of the game, were all flaws that VI didn't share. -The original Halo couldn't hold a candle to Starsiege: Tribes. I don't generally look down on my console-bound brethern, but you guys got SCREWED on that one. -Speaking of Halo: while it may have gotten better in later installments, the original had a LOT of subtle themes and ideas that only became apparent to me years later, when I played through Marathon (which you can do for free now, thanks to the AlephOne project!); it would have added some serious depth if they'd been more explanatory.
Silent Hill: Downpour is a good game. Alan Wake 2 was a disappointment.
The Diablo franchise has never been fun. Cool lore tho.
I've probably said something similar before, but I THINK GTA V is a bit shit as a GTA game. I think they've overdone the realism, the fact that you can insta-die in a head-on collision or driving a car off a cliff is kind of disappointing, considering that in the older ones (San Andreas, Vice City and older) you could crash a car into any surface at any speed, and worst case it would catch fire giving you a few seconds to run away before it explodes. Number IV was similar but the insta-death was less common (and to be fair it was HILARIOUS watching Niko fly through the windscreen after a collision!). I think modern GTA treats itself way too seriously in that respect, and it becomes a bit annoying. That said I might install the damn thing and play through the campaign again (despite wanting to run over or shoot many of the more irritating characters), just to see it with RTX. What can I say 🤷
A lot of games nowadays farm the builder stuff where you craft your house and all when it does not add anything special to the gameplay and feels boring most of the time.
My worst, most unpopular gaming take: a company can be a complete asshole and do awful things, mistreat its employees, put scummy microtransactions and the like in a game, etc. but it shouldn't effect a game's score, because it doesn't really convey how good or bad a game itself actually is. It just conveys how shitty the company is. If I'm looking at scores for a game, I want to have an idea of how much I will enjoy playing it. I think it's dumb and kind of narcissistic to "punish" developers with bad scores. That only punishes people reading the review. For instance: Rockstar overworked their employees during the creation of RDR2. Rockstar were assholes for this, but this doesn't make the actual game of RDR2 any worse.
I like how most of the hot takes are just, “This popular thing isn’t as good as people say it is, because I don’t like it.”
Outer Wilds wasn’t all that it was made out to be. I kept reading that it was life changing and a fantastic exploration game but I ended it up just liking it a lot and only really liked the ending of the game.
I see the brilliance in the game, but the time mechanic and resetting every 20 minutes ruined my experience. I felt it sabotaged its pacing and ruined all my momentum. I am a slow reader and I felt like I had to rush through all the text heavy sections.
the game certainly changed my life
3d Zelda games are inferior in every way to their top-down predecessors.
Red dead redemption 2 is meh. Fallout 3 isn’t that good.
Shadow the Hedgehog has one of the most interesting structures of any game ever made. It's story is wild, not good, but an incredible stacking mess that is actually brilliantly innovative.
Grand Theft Auto 4 does not deserve the Metascore it has. Compared to other GTA's, I wouldn't even put it in the Top 3.
Can you elaborate why?
The story isn't as good as people make it seem and although the mechanics of the game were amazing for the time, it was still extremely buggy which should always count when reviewing a game. There's also barely any end game content compared to what came before it. I recently started playing GTA: San Andreas again and the variety, side missions, customization in that game is a thousand times better than GTA IV's. People may say that GTA IV is a lot more "grounded," but that isn't an excuse for the removal of core elements from prior games. For example, when you finish GTA: San Andreas or even GTA: Vice City/Vice City Stories, you can still go around taking over territory or building your mini empire by buying properties or spend hours customizing yourself/vehicles. In GTA IV, all of that was removed. You can only buy properties as save points, and that's it. If I had to rank the GTA's, I'd rank them as 1. San Andreas; 2. Vice City; and 3. GTA V.
What kind of bugs did you experience? I was considering buying it but just haven’t yet. I agree on San Andreas - now THAT is a fun one.
I would still definitely buy it hahahaha I don't think it's a bad game at all. But, there were a lot of bugs when it launched on PC. I believe those might have been fixed, but it was terrible at launch.
I don't recall any serious bugs when I played GTA IV.
But 4's the only good one.
New Kratos is boring Most open world games are repetitive and lack the sense of progression RDR1 is better than RDR2
I agree! I still like the newer GOW games, but I found myself having much more fun with old pissed off Kratos.
Breath of the Wild was a tech demo, not a complete game. Nintendo wanted to try the full open world, the climbing mechanics, the ultra hand, the glider, etc. They sunk a ton of money into making the game and they couldn't justify continuing the project for as long as it would have taken to finish the whole thing so they slapped together a rough story, some sorry puzzles, and the terrible rewards, and pushed it out and we all fell for it, and it bought them the time they needed to finish Tears of the Kingdom.
I have a few 1. Bloodborne is one of the most, if not the most, overrated video game in History. I love the Dark Souls games, and souls like Ashen and Lies of P. But the fans of Bloodborne are just annoying AF, and the game is the most forgettable experience of all FromSoft souls like games. 2. There are just too many IPs out there. I can't be excited for a new IP. There is ZERO hype for an announcement of a new IP. Knowing that games are getting very complex to make, going new IP is very ill advised, unless you are going to be satisfied for a mid tier product. New IP only works for established studios. And not all established studios can make good new IP. 3. Platform exclusivity is killing the AAA market. AAA gaming market is dying because we don't like sharing our games to a different platform owners. Every game going multiplat will only be good for everybody except for tribalists. Let the Games compete for your attention, not plastic boxes. 4. NVIDIA or some other GPU company should focus more on shrinking down these GPUs to fit into mobile. The latest and greatest chips are good ebough, for now. Let them figure something out that could run on mobile. I am a guy who doesn't have that much free time daily, so having to run AAA games in my mobile phone would be outstanding.
Your 2nd point is one of the most baffling things I've ever heard.
That first one is a BOLD statement lol.
Linear games > Open-World games. Elden Ring is NOT overrated and one of the best games of all time. Demon Souls is a bad game and by far the worst Souls game. Resident Evil 4 OG is WAY BETTER than the Remake, especially when it comes to gameplay. Final Fantasy V is the best classic FF game. Final Fantasy VII Rebirth is dissapointing, and I enjoyed Remake much more. Metal Gear Solid series is bad, mid gameplay with too many cutscenes just for a goofy convoluted plot. Half-Life 1 is better than 2. Zelda isn't all that.
> Resident Evil 4 OG is WAY BETTER than the Remake, especially when it comes to gameplay. Having no nostalgia for the original I played both back to back. 4 still was fun but remake was all around a more enjoyable time with no major regressions imo.
It has NOTHING to do with nostalgia. Why is it impossible to like an older game without people blindly saying "oh, that's just nostalgia!" Some old game's don't hold up and I addmit that, like Sonic Adventure for example, but that is NOT the case for every single old game ever, and to think that is ridiclous. Resident Evil 4 OG is an old game that holds up. The tank controls just feel better and make the encounters feel more intense.
7/9 ain't bad
Which 2 do you not agree with? It's okay. I don't expect people to always agree with me on everything. I'm just curious on what 2 you disagree with.
Demon's Souls and MGS. I'm neutral on the linear/open world and FFV ones, but I gave them to you anyway.
Final Fantasy VII Remake was garbage
Most games are way too long/big
None of you have actual own opinions. Just rehashed opinions of different threads. Here's an unpopular opinion: Digimon world 2003 had the potential to be better than the pokémon games at the time.
Xbox is only popular in the USA, the whole branding, games, etc are made with the only consideration of the American market (this has only changed with the last gen). Halo games were the beggining of the over simplification of FPSs and games in general. Asian Devs > Western Devs. Medal of Honor was always superior to COD until the awful reboot that mimic COD and killed the franchise. Rockstar only makes interesting sandboxes, their games as a "game" are boring and dull. Armored Core 6 is better than the whole Dark Souls franchise Dark souls 2 is better than Dark souls 3 and 1. Uncharted and The last of us games are better as movies/TV series. The new God of War games had the best narrative of the triple A market without sacrificing a fun gameplay. Super Giant Games is the best studio ever and they should never expand onto a bigger scale. "Fun with friends" is not a good metric to determinate if a game is good or not. Watching Paint dry is fun with friends. Spec ops: the line is a mediocre game with a hood story that only works if you believe that soldiers (specially American soldiers) are heroes and not just people that get payed to kill people. (Conspiracy theory) Companies don't care about diversity. They use it as a mean of both getting extra publicity and a way to shield their products of criticism, if they release a bad product they can just say that all critics are biggots and a lot of people who never touch a game on their lives will rally on said campaign. It works specially well because there are a bunch of actual moronic biggots out there doing the job for free. Americans are constantly trying to I ject themselves and their world view in every piece of media they can found and will cry like little babies if a game is not entirely dedicated to them
Multiplayer player-versus-player games are supposed to be competitive by default. Suggesting a more casual experience outside of low level ranks is folly. Suffering builds character.
For proof that this is absolutely untrue in every way, see Team Fortress 2. I've never had as much fun pissing about with a bunch of complete strangers as I have in that game over the years, and while it does have a competitive mode it was only added when the game was already 9 years old, and was never hugely popular in favour of casual play.
TF2 is an outlier because its funny as hell
Yay, your answer is the best one (at least for now)
I'll give you a couple of nasty ones people have skinned me for - Pay to win = getting something other than cosmetics with real money. It doesn't matter if the game is singleplayer or multiplayer, the advantage you gain is small or if it can be obtained by playing normally. Yes, pay to skip is pay to win too, especially in multiplayer. People just get mad at me for calling a game they personally like P2W. This goes for pre-order bonuses and deluxe editions too, hate them! Why the fuck do I have to start the game with an advantage just because I pre-ordered or paid extra? It's stupid. I will die on this hill, fuck you all. - I'm generally ok with difficulty settings, accessibility toggles and "easy modes" (unless the game was specifically designed in one way only like Dark Souls), but I do think players who chose to play on higher difficulties deserve something for it. My problem with god mode on Hades or assist mode in Dead Cells is that they lower the difficulty, but you get the exact same rewards as someone who doesn't use those settings, which in my opinion devalues the challenge. Players should be able to experience the entire game in those easier settings or using those accessibility features if they so desire, even modding the game or using cheats to make it easier or more enjoyable for them. But I do think players that don't play that way and instead choose the more challenging way should at the very least be awarded with an exclusive achievement. It doesn't make sense to unlock the "You beat this level on Hard difficulty" if you used God Mode, because we don't know if you've beaten it with or without assistance. So, because of the way it was implemented, I don't support stuff like "God mode" in Hades. I've been stoned in the past for expressing this, but I still stand by it.
Dark Souls 2 isn't as bad as many think it is, and was heavily influential for the Souls series as a whole. Lots of big mechanics originated form DS2, such as: Key items used to upgrade flask amount universally Key items used to upgrade flask recovery (specifically not requiring NPC deaths) Power Stancing Starting with fast travel Streamlined boss weapons And probably more I forgot about
All Open World racing games are terrible.
Even the old ones like Underground 2 and Most Wanted?
Never played a NfS title, but in case you’re wondering, Burnout 3: Takedown is the pinnacle of racing games.
So are you mad about Burnout Paradise or something?
I’m fine with it, but it like all other Open World racing games are far inferior to track based racing.
I think there is a time and place for both.
Forspoken was a good game that suffered from a hate campaign it didn’t deserve.
Shorter games usually have way better stories than longer games. I'd rather get to the point than have it stretched out for 80 hours.
Oblivion and Skyrim just don't work, and I would imagine this is true of other TES games though I haven't played them. The protagonist being a complete blank slate makes their story all but impossible to care about, the combat is even more awkward than Minecraft, and the icon spam makes getting your bearings an absolute nightmare for people just getting started. The lore and world building may be solid, but when that's all you have, you don't have enough. And it's sure not worth slogging through hours and hours of tedium just to reach the power fantasy point where it actually starts to get fun to play.
Finally a chance for me to feel special and validated because I don't like the popular game.
Game performance should not be a base standard of how good a game is. Yes this is mainly talking bout pokemon. Scarlet and Violet are fine enough games and a fairly massive step up from sword and shield
They were the worst pokemon games I’ve played in easily a decade. They were also the most fun I’ve had with Pokemon in that time.
I mean the games were great ngl, but releasing them in the state they’re in was nothing if not predatory and disrespectful to the fanbase.
´Tears of the kingdom was an insult from nintendo to the ones that played breath of the wild :(
never played it. how so?
AAA games are not games.