Options

Your unpopular opinion

1235762

Posts

  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Arguing over something as vague as the golden age of gaming will lead nowhere and is turning this thread from something fun into complete shit.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Tzen wrote: »
    Pancake wrote: »
    I like to share opinions because mine are always so correct.

    That's actually mostly true. It's too bad you're such a fucking dick-faced cunt, though.

    ahahahahaha I might sig this just because it's so mean

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Arguing over something as vague as the golden age of gaming will lead nowhere and is turning this thread from something fun into complete shit.

    I concur.

    Know what else?

    Civ games are overrated. Alpha Centauri was fun, the rest of them are mediocre strategy titles that try to hide a mediocre interface and game behind a bevy of choices that, in many cases, aren't all that important.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    But older games can surpass newer ones in quality.

    Truth. The original X-Com is sixteen years old. Yet I have to encounter a single game which truly rivals the experience of raiding a base when all you have is some rifles and laser pistols or the anxiety of not knowing if the next mission will have psychic enemies or not. I don't think we will ever see a truly comparable modern recreation of this still-awesome game.

    Right.


    Chrono Trigger also stands up well against modern games.

    How many games have we listed here? Let's see, let's have PS:T, CT, BGII, X-COM UFO, Sonic 3+K, SMB3, Monkey Island...

    So 7. Let's round up to 10 since people will say "WHAT ABOUT X"

    You really think that in the next 16 years there won't be at least 10 games that won't stand up to whatever's going on 16 years from now well?

    Actually, in a post just a few minutes before I quite explicitly stated that I've seen more top-notch games come out in the last couple of years than I ever have before in a similar time period. For once, my problem is that there are simply too many good games out at the same time and I don't have the time to play them all. I think there are a handful of games which, through the respective talents of the developers involved, will never be truly duplicated are surpassed in what they do or at least it will be extremely difficult to do so.

    It just so happens that modern technology now lets us look back and pick out the games that are truly great from the mediocre. Beethoven was one among thousands of composers in his day, but he's the one everybody remembers. It doesn't mean he's better because music was better back then, it means he was just better. Same with games. The games that suck fade into obscurity and the real gems are preserved.

    I find it absolutely astonishing that developers can still give me moments like my first time seeing Citadel Station or actually make me jumpy because I can hear a Bloodsucker roaming about in the dark. However, I try not to approach games with the cynicism of my experience. Certain things, like excellent controls, yes, I totally expect, but that's because devs have had plenty of time to get that stuff worked out by now. I don't go "oh, a giant space station, I've seen a bunch of those". I think "WOW, that giant space station looks incredible.

    And Vagrant story was bad. Terribad. I found the story dull and the combat was like trying to cut my way through steel plate with a rubber spoon.

    Right. Though I had a music history teacher who always talked about "Historical accidents". Tangent example: Did you know that Handel, so famous for his Messiah, was basically forgotten until the mid-1900s? His oratorios were somewhat known in the 19th century, but it wasn't until the 20th that he became so well known. Someone, I believe Mendelssohn, but I could be wrong, it's been 3 and a half years since that class, I don't remember all the details, discovered his manuscripts and liked them, so basically revitalized Handel entirely. Same story with Mahler and Bernstein. In games, things are a little different, since we have this whole instant, global communication network set up here, versus when things could just be forgotten due to lack of communication and time. But still. Things are remembered for a specific reason and everything else is forgotten basically when it comes to art. I'm not denying that there are gems in the history of games, I'm simply saying that the "Golden age" people talk about, when games didn't care about graphics and could fit fairy dust in the cartridges never happened. Games are getting better as a whole, not worse.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    S0upS0up Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    -Resident Evil 4 isn't fun, and is overrated.
    -Final Fantasy 8 is the best one.
    -The cut scene in the Metal Gear games should be longer.
    -EVE isn't as open ended as people make it out to be. And is, in fact, extremely boring.
    -Star Wars Galaxies, at release, was the best MMO on the market. Despite it's flaws.
    -The Grand Theft Auto games are amazing.
    -Deus Ex is incredibly boring as well.
    -The Wii only has three good games on it. The other ones are just mini-games or an excuse to wave the Wiimote around.

    ...please don't kill me.

    S0up on
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Khavall just give it up already, we've all shared our opinions on the subject so let's move on

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Arguing over something as vague as the golden age of gaming will lead nowhere and is turning this thread from something fun into complete shit.

    I concur.

    Know what else?

    Civ games are overrated. Alpha Centauri was fun, the rest of them are mediocre strategy titles that try to hide a mediocre interface and game behind a bevy of choices that, in many cases, aren't all that important.

    I like Civ Games. But motherfuck I hate the tech tree advancements. It feels more like an adventure strategy game than a real 4x tech tree to me.

    Also all 4x games should steal GalCiv IIs diplomacy system.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    I'm simply saying that the "Golden age" people talk about, when games didn't care about graphics and could fit fairy dust in the cartridges never happened. Games are getting better as a whole, not worse.

    The problem is that you present it as a fact, while it is an opinion, yours, which I disagree with.
    I think that games aren't getting better. They're being technologically better, obviously (and in some cases, this brings new downsides), but for the rest, I think they're stagnating.

    Djiem on
  • Options
    BoneKinBoneKin Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Elika did not make Prince of Persia easier. She made it harder. Now when I fuck up a long platforming/magic platform sequence because I didn't see that little ring, I have to do the whole fucking thing over again instead of rewinding 2 seconds.

    I also think FF8 was the best. But certainly not for the gameplay. The only time I ever played through the game I used a trainer to max out my stats and not have to deal with the battles. And the story was only alright. I just really liked Squall and Rinoa, so the game automatically wins.

    BoneKin on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    BoneKin wrote: »
    Elika did not make Prince of Persia easier. She made it harder. Now when I fuck up a long platforming/magic platform sequence because I didn't see that little ring, I have to do the whole fucking thing over again instead of rewinding 2 seconds.

    Sands of Time was fun but overrated. It was a solid but forgettable platformer that had two good gimmicks (parkour and rewinding time). The rest of the series is shit.

    HATE ME! HAAAATE ME!

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    SoaLSoaL fantastic Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    i don't like uncharted

    it's such a chore

    SoaL on
    DKFA7.gif
  • Options
    Foolish ChaosFoolish Chaos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    What drove me through GTA4 was the plot (and maybe the motorcycles)

    Srysly.

    Foolish Chaos on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Every game Obsidian Entertainment has touched has turned to ash.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    CygnusZCygnusZ Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    This is probably an unpopular opinion, but speaking of developer vision and the independent game scene, I really like modern Text Adventure games. The game relies so much upon your imagination that it makes the whole gaming experience come alive in a way that graphics simply can't.

    Of particular note are Adam Cadre's work. If some of you are willing to give it a shot, I recommend trying out 9:05 and Photopia. Here are some links to the games:

    9:05
    http://adamcadre.ac/content/905exe.zip

    Photopia
    http://adamcadre.ac/content/photo201.zip

    CygnusZ on
  • Options
    BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Djiem wrote: »
    Oh! Oh!
    Foolish Chaos, you reminded me of an unpopular opinion I have.
    Very unpopular.
    Final. Fantasy. Tactics. Is. Pure.
    SHIT
    Yes! I agree. Advance is so much better.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    OremLK wrote: »
    Every game Obsidian Entertainment has touched has turned to ash.

    I so wish this wasn't true :(

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? the foot of mt fujiRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    CygnusZ wrote: »
    It's Bob's Game syndrome. A single game made by a single developer can be brilliant. Games are so expensive to produce nowadays that companies simply can't gamble on the vision of a single person and instead simply make games which are made explicitly to appeal to target age groups. Civilization was made because Sid Meier wished there was a game like Civilization.

    As a result there are few truly terrible games released. But yeah, truly brilliant ones are now very rare.

    This is a bad post for two reasons. One: Bob's game looks like it's shitty as all fuck and basically a long wank for one nutjob.

    Two: Really, try some 16-bit game people recommend that you never played and put it up against a new game you've had recommended and never played in the same genre.

    Brilliant games still exist, just with rose-colored glasses and comparing 4-5 games from 10 years versus 20 games from one year, it looks like they don't as much. 10 years down the line, people will be talking about how when HD games were still being experimented with and it was awesome unlike now when everything's just about the neural interface and VR link.

    I bet if you put a game like Baldur's Gate II side-by-side with a game like Mass Effect, a lot of people would agree that Baldur's Gate II is a superior game. Time isn't friendly to all old games, and it won't be friendly to this generation in many years, either. But older games can surpass newer ones in quality.

    I know, hard to believe.

    Yes, because Baldur's Gate II was an astounding visionary game, and Mass Effect was a solid, great game. I'm not saying that games can be ranked in terms of release date, and the newer a game is the better it is, I'm saying that as a trend games are getting better. Baldur's Gate II beats mass Effect, sure. But does Icewind Dale beat Mass Effect? I don't think so.

    Baldur's Gate II has an interface that is, literally, a pile of ass

    A big steaming pile of ass

    Plus uninspired graphics with lame 3D effects, and some pretty lame dialogue options, at least in the first dungeon, which I never got past, because the interface is, as was previously established, a pile of ass

    Also I hated Final Fantasy VIII more than I thought was possible, I continue to find Twilight Princess boring and uninspired, and dislike Kingdom Hearts something fierce

    Just throwing that out there onto the pile of unpopular opinions

    Olivaw on
    signature-deffo.jpg
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MGS4 kind of sucked and was really, really boring.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Djiem wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    I'm simply saying that the "Golden age" people talk about, when games didn't care about graphics and could fit fairy dust in the cartridges never happened. Games are getting better as a whole, not worse.

    The problem is that you present it as a fact, while it is an opinion, yours, which I disagree with.
    I think that games aren't getting better. They're being technologically better, obviously (and in some cases, this brings new downsides), but for the rest, I think they're stagnating.

    It's not entirely subjective. The only subjective area is how much one person enjoys them. But things like advancements in controls, in dealing with mechanics, interfaces, what have you, are all just flat out getting better. You're trying to say that "Good" or "Bad" are only subjective which is wrong. You may enjoy older games more, but that doesn't mean that Good and Bad are meaningless words that are completely subjective.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Baldur's Gate 2 had good dialogue, a bad plot, and terrible broken combat that made fights either a walk in the park or a nightmare of instant-death-save-reload-bullshit.

    And its still better than Mass Effect!

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Mirror's Edge was this close to being awesome, but as it is now, it's pure shit. Make the game mostly (if not entirely) outdoor on roofs, and for fuck sake, take out at least 99.99% of enemies and guns in the game. Then you may salvage this great idea that had the worst execution ever.


    Khavall: Yes it does.

    Djiem on
  • Options
    NevaNeva Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    S0up wrote: »
    -Resident Evil 4 isn't fun, and is overrated.
    -Final Fantasy 8 is the best one.
    -The cut scene in the Metal Gear games should be longer.
    -EVE isn't as open ended as people make it out to be. And is, in fact, extremely boring.
    -Star Wars Galaxies, at release, was the best MMO on the market. Despite it's flaws.
    -The Grand Theft Auto games are amazing.
    -Deus Ex is incredibly boring as well.
    -The Wii only has three good games on it. The other ones are just mini-games or an excuse to wave the Wiimote around.

    ...please don't kill me.

    I don't know who you are but we can relate because we both think goodly on everything.

    My unpopular opinion would be that Sacred 2 is a good game. I'm sure the only other person that bought the game thought so too though.

    Neva on
    SC2 Beta: Neva.ling

    "Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
  • Options
    capable heartcapable heart Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is anyone else bothered by the sheer spreadsheet-like predictability of these threads?

    I mean, dissenting opinions about gameplay and design are good, because they help weed out bullshit and complacency. But that is not what this thread is about. This is a poll thread.

    Where are the unique insights or points being made that would justify this? It's not some sudden special insight of "I am the chosen one" to be able to see that even the best examples of each genre have some shortcomings.

    Does anyone really get anything out of another "I hate Halo/Zelda/FF/etc because other people enjoy them" thread? There's games out there that I can admit just aren't for me, or I simply don't have time to be interested in them, but without being negative towards them.

    capable heart on
  • Options
    HakuninHakunin Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    While i agree that the notion of the "golden age" is just mostly nostalgia, at the same time it hasn't gotten any better. You still have to wade through a sea of shit to find the pearls.

    Hakunin on
  • Options
    ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I firmly believe Oblivion is one of the best games ever made, and that there are dozens of fascinating and unique quests and characters, which is more than I can say for most games I've played. It may be set in a 'generic' fantasy world, but the content of that world is hardly generic. The only thing I didnt really like about it was the middle of the main campaign, and the enemy leveling system.

    I also think Bethesda, warts and all, is one of the greatest studios in the industry, and has exactly the right idea about where games should be heading.

    Prohass on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    OremLK wrote: »
    Every game Obsidian Entertainment has touched has turned to ash.

    I so wish this wasn't true :(

    I refuse to admit KOTOR II is ash just because the writing is so good to almost save it.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    On the subject of Crysis: It's got a really great physics engine but the weapons can't hit shit for shit. I remember a number of times I was lieing prone with a sniper rifle and I'd shoot a guy standing still and it'd fucking miss. What the fuck, really? Plus, fucking aliens? Fuck that. I wanted to shoot Koreans for the whole game. I stopped playing when the aliens showed up. Fuck that stupid shit.

    JustinSane07 on
  • Options
    admanbadmanb unionize your workplace Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    SRPGs are almost entirely repetitive and un-strategic. The majority of them are retardedly easy, and the rest fake being strategic by either having over-leveled enemies, or by forcing incredibly precise play.

    Morrowind/Oblivion/FO3/Fable/Fable II are all mediocre games, but they're "necessary." Open-world RPGs don't fucking work at the stage technology and game-design are at, but they have potential that shouldn't be ignored.

    FFX's grid system was retardedly bad. FFX-2's dress spheres were far superior.

    Deus Ex was a crappy version of System Shock 2. But that still makes it better than most other games.

    Bioshock was great, for about half of it. By that point the gameplay grew stale and unchallenging. The story twist was great, but everything after that was shit shit shit.

    admanb on
  • Options
    ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I also believe Prey and Quake 4 were pretty solid shooters, especially Quake 4.

    Prohass on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Djiem wrote: »
    Khavall: Yes it does.

    I apologize, I thought we were discussing something.

    I didn't realize we were just trying to see who could wade out into the sea of utter retardation faster. I concede that point to you, congratulations.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    SoaLSoaL fantastic Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    i can't get into far cry 2

    I don't know what the popular opinion is but I am playing it on PS3 and fuck the enemies so hard. I can never actually see them thanks to the dense foliage that they can see fine through. It's just bullets coming from shrubs the game.


    they also have binocular eyeballs

    SoaL on
    DKFA7.gif
  • Options
    TzenTzen Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Starcraft 2, Diablo 3 and SF4 look like boring-ass pieces of regurgitated 3D shit. (Those franchises rocked the '90s, but come on, evolve a little bit, please.)

    Tzen on
  • Options
    DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    Khavall: Yes it does.

    I apologize, I thought we were discussing something.

    I didn't realize we were just trying to see who could wade out into the sea of utter retardation faster. I concede that point to you, congratulations.

    Yeah, no. You kinda did that the first time you went: YOU GUYS' OPINIONS ARE WRONG.
    It IS subjective, I do believe firmly that there was a gaming Golden age, and just because you don't agree doesn't make me wrong.
    Or right. It's an opinion. The "fact" that games are getting better is not actually a fact. It's an opinion. Which I don't share.

    Also, we weren't discussing anything. You were just telling us how our opinion was wrong and yours was a fact.

    Djiem on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I have never liked any of the Zeldas. I have no idea what people see in them. Also, Half Life.

    Both games do nothing for me.

    Edit: Oh, Starcraft as well.

    Quid on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Prohass wrote: »
    I also believe Prey and Quake 4 were pretty solid shooters, especially Quake 4.

    Prey had maybe in the top 5 openings of all time.


    Too bad the rest of the game wasn't the same

    Khavall on
  • Options
    CygnusZCygnusZ Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is anyone else bothered by the sheer spreadsheet-like predictability of these threads?

    I mean, dissenting opinions about gameplay and design are good, because they help weed out bullshit and complacency. But that is not what this thread is about. This is a poll thread.

    Where are the unique insights or points being made that would justify this? It's not some sudden special insight of "I am the chosen one" to be able to see that even the best examples of each genre have some shortcomings.

    Does anyone really get anything out of another "I hate Halo/Zelda/FF/etc because other people enjoy them" thread? There's games out there that I can admit just aren't for me, or I simply don't have time to be interested in them, but without being negative towards them.

    Honestly, game fans should not be required to bottle in their negative opinions. They shouldn't feel like they should just keep quiet if they don't like something either. This game is about "unpopular opinions" which doesn't mean "hate" either.

    For example, I like Interactive Fiction games. That's a pretty unpopular opinion. I also like Castlevania 2. OMFG, unpopular opinion!

    CygnusZ on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Djiem wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    Khavall: Yes it does.

    I apologize, I thought we were discussing something.

    I didn't realize we were just trying to see who could wade out into the sea of utter retardation faster. I concede that point to you, congratulations.

    Yeah, no. You kinda did that the first time you went: YOU GUYS' OPINIONS ARE WRONG.

    Why are you trying to turn this into a shitty poll thread?

    "Opinion" doesn't mean "Automatically right". Opinions can have misinformed roots, or be flawed conclusions.

    You're arguing on the level of a child, so from now on, I'm done arguing with you. I won't waste my time on someone as simple as you.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    OhtsamOhtsam Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    RE4 sucked until it was given decent controls on the Wii
    Oblivion is better than Morrowind
    Fallout 3 is more fun than Fallout 2 and 1
    Counter-Strike is the stupidest shit ever made
    People who think its impossible for the gaming industry to surpass the accomplishments of the Late 80s to mid-90s are closeminded fucks drowning in nostalgia

    Ohtsam on
  • Options
    DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    Khavall: Yes it does.

    I apologize, I thought we were discussing something.

    I didn't realize we were just trying to see who could wade out into the sea of utter retardation faster. I concede that point to you, congratulations.

    Yeah, no. You kinda did that the first time you went: YOU GUYS' OPINIONS ARE WRONG.

    Why are you trying to turn this into a shitty poll thread?

    "Opinion" doesn't mean "Automatically right". Opinions can have misinformed roots, or be flawed conclusions.

    You're arguing on the level of a child, so from now on, I'm done arguing with you. I won't waste my time on someone as simple as you.

    If you want to drop a subject, don't do it while calling the other guy names. That's not very mature or graceful. Also, you missed my edit.

    Djiem on
  • Options
    Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    I'm not denying that there are gems in the history of games, I'm simply saying that the "Golden age" people talk about, when games didn't care about graphics and could fit fairy dust in the cartridges never happened. Games are getting better as a whole, not worse.

    I would ask why are we arguing if we're saying the exact same thing, but I like arguing and I hate people.

    Oh! Just thought of this one even though it's been nagging at me forever. The Wii? It's a piece of crap. The controls are a gimmick and terribly imprecise. The online system sucks. I've seen nothing done on it that couldn't have been done on the Gamecube. It's the king of shovelware. Even the games that aren't shovelware are so simplistic and easy that it's just insulting. If Sony or Microsoft decides they're going to emulate the Wii with their next system, I swear I will bulldoze every person responsible for the promotion and creation of the Wii. It's like the entire system was built to absorb suckiness.

    And people who participate in pay-to-play MMO's should have their heads examined. Even if you didn't have to buy the game itself, you're still playing a genre which is explicitly designed to keep you playing as long as possible with as little payout as they can get away with. There is no such thing as "winning" because winning would mean ending some profitable aspect of the game. I actually consider pen-and-paper RPG play to be several levels of respectability higher than paying to play an MMO because at least you're hanging out with real people and having to think about things besides which mob drops what loot and damage per second. Plus, I resent the fact that tedious things like World of Warcraft have hordes of players when we could have a fully digital representation of the Shadowrun RPG. I would gladly pay a monthly fee for an MMO which allows people to do their own running and individuals run a full-fleshed game for others and tells conventional MMO level grinding to go suck on an arsenic lollipop. We could all have grand adventures with dragons and technology and magic and instead we get... World of Warcraft, where all your matching armor sets dreams can come true.

    Ninja Snarl P on
This discussion has been closed.