Unpopular Gaming Opinions

C14N

M!Ck^ wrote: »

The yellow analogue was horrible tbh

Feck off, it was glorious, looked like a tasty boiled sweet :pac:

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Regarding my feelings about the GC controller.
This is the "Unpopular Opinions" thread isn't it?

We're all allowed to disagree though right? Thread would fierce boring otherwise, I'm sure you'd do it yourself if someone came along and claimed Sonic Adventure was the pinnacle of 3D platforming

miju wrote: »

Jesus your right PacMan this is a very menstrual thread today :P:P:P I wouldn't have even thought this would be contested in this day and age when you have games like GTA:V making over $900 million in 72 hours on release but how and ever.

Worldwide Film Industry 2013 - $35 billion Report Here

Worldwide Game Industry 2011 - $65 billion and growing since - Link Here - PC Games makes up about $20 billion of that figure while the rest is consoles, mobile games and social media games and so on

It still does seem hard to believe when you look at the revenues of film companies vs the revenues of the gaming companies. I mean most of the big studios report figures of $15-20bn while even gaming giants like Nintendo or Activision pull in around $5-8bn. the Evil EA Empire reported a fiscal year revenue of under $4bn in 2013. At the same time, clearly Reuters is a reliable source so there must be something else that I'm not seeing here.

Magill wrote: »

Does anything come close to world of warcraft ? Gotta be the highest grossing game/movie ever.

Probably not. Activision are the biggest 3rd party company despite having a very small number of successful games, really I think it's just CoD and then the Blizzard titles like Starcraft, Diablo and WOW. It's because the few games they make tend to pull in huge amounts of money.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Re: the conversation about amount of time played earlier. I'd honestly say 100 hours is pretty much the absolute maximum I'd put into a game, and that would have to be an exceptionally compelling title (I think Persona 4 was the last time I managed anything close). There's so many games out there and gaming time is so finite that I'm already pretty sure there'll always be more games than I'm able to play. There's such a dizzying spectrum of games out there that spending 100, let alone 1,000, hours on one means there's maybe a dozen others I'll miss out on. Even with online and 'competitive' games that are theoretically as long as a piece of string, I can't bring myself to commit so much time: I've racked up twelve hours or so in Titanfall, which to me is actually an incredible amount of time for an online shooter. I'm still playing too, so maybe I'll even hit the fabled 25 hour mark :P

I generally agree. I would normally rather play many games instead of focusing on one for very long. There are some caveats though and since everyone else is I'd might as well put my own figures down.

Between Smash Bros Melee and Brawl, their in-game counters definitely went to a few thousand each so I'd say it's safe to say I've played over 5000 hours of that franchise. I had 100 hours into Fallout 3 before I just decided to finish it. I had 78 hours on Twilight Princess and currently 80 hours in Civ 5 (bearing in mind that still doesn't make me particularly skilled at Civ 5). I wish Guitar Hero/Rock Band had counters, I'd say I've spent a few hundred between those too.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Isn't that the concept that Malcolm Gladwell talked about? I thought it was just a general rule of thumb rather than scientific fact.

Yeah it's more of a guide but it's still a good one. I think the 1000 hours for competency isn't true for games though. Games are generally designed to be easy to use so I'd say competency would be more than achieved after 20-50 hours in almost any game.

Stone Deaf 4evr

C14N wrote: »

Yeah it's more of a guide but it's still a good one. I think the 1000 hours for competency isn't true for games though. Games are generally designed to be easy to use so I'd say competency would be more than achieved after 20-50 hours in almost any game.

1000 hours is a lot of time! I've about 270 logged in black ops 2 , but to be honest I dont think another 730 are going to make me a better player. I suppose it depends on the depth of the game and the amount of potential tactics available. I can see how 1000 hours of playing as a team would be beneficial though, you'd have callouts and plays for most situations.

C14N

I don't think Valve have any obligation whatsoever to exercise curation or quality control over the Steam store. If you buy a game that you know nothing about and it turns out to be bad, that's on you. In no other shop in the world would you do that, why would you do it for Steam? Google don't have quality control on their app store, Apple don't use quality control on iTunes, Xtra Vision don't have quality control on their movies. Expecting the biggest PC gaming marketplace to hold your hand and ensure they only sell the finest the industry has to offer is completely ridiculous. The only exception being if the game simply does not work or is not what was advertised where they should give a refund, just like any other shop would.

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There was a scientific study carried out that I read. It said you need to put 1000 hours practice into something to become competent. 10,000 hours are needed to be come a top ranking expert. It probably applies to games as well.

But wouldn't that mean you had to be playing games in general to become good at them, regardless of the game you were playing.
You might not be an expert at a single one but you'd be adequate.
Rather that than be an expert at Starcraft 2 but not know how to play Tempest.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i dunno, if you were an expert at starcraft 2 you'd be pulling in 1-200k a year

Kirby

C14N wrote: »

I don't think Valve have any obligation whatsoever to exercise curation or quality control over the Steam store. If you buy a game that you know nothing about and it turns out to be bad, that's on you. In no other shop in the world would you do that, why would you do it for Steam? Google don't have quality control on their app store, Apple don't use quality control on iTunes, Xtra Vision don't have quality control on their movies. Expecting the biggest PC gaming marketplace to hold your hand and ensure they only sell the finest the industry has to offer is completely ridiculous. The only exception being if the game simply does not work or is not what was advertised where they should give a refund, just like any other shop would.

That's not really the issue.

People didn't get refunds because the game was "bad". That's subjective. They got refunds because the developers of the game claimed it had X,Y and Z when it didn't. That's not in any way subjective. That's fact.

If I create a game called "Pink-a-saurus" and I claim my game has mounted combat aboard a giant pink T-rex....and it doesn't.....that's false advertisement and people are entitled to get their money back.

Retr0gamer

Kirby wrote: »

If I create a game called "Pink-a-saurus" and I claim my game has mounted combat aboard a giant pink T-rex

Why has this game not been made?

C14N

Kirby wrote: »

That's not really the issue.

People didn't get refunds because the game was "bad". That's subjective. They got refunds because the developers of the game claimed it had X,Y and Z when it didn't. That's not in any way subjective. That's fact.

If I create a game called "Pink-a-saurus and I claim my game has mounted combat aboard a giant pink T-rex....and it doesn't.....that's false advertisement.

That's why I said

The only exception being if the game simply does not work or is not what was advertised where they should give a refund, just like any other shop would.

Saying it's something it isn't is false advertising and generally illegal under consumer law, of course you should get a refund in that case and the game should be removed or at least forced to change it's description.

My issue is with stuff like a recent Jim Sterling video where he just complained about the huge amount of crappy games on the service and the comments section had many people agreeing that "bad" games just shouldn't be allowed on there.

Magill

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

1000 hours is a lot of time! I've about 270 logged in black ops 2 , but to be honest I dont think another 730 are going to make me a better player. I suppose it depends on the depth of the game and the amount of potential tactics available. I can see how 1000 hours of playing as a team would be beneficial though, you'd have callouts and plays for most situations.

Yeah certainly depends on the game (And platform for that matter). 270 hours in CS:GO and you probably would have a very bad time vs even low skilled players, unless you have some sort of experience in other PC shooters. Some games just have much higher skillcaps, I'd be fairly confident I could have kept up with some of the pro cod players when i played on console, in terms of aim and gamesense with a few hundred hours played in whichever game was being played at the time (As in, i know i wouldn't go 0 kills - 15 deaths). Thats just not really possible in other games like your CS, Quakes or Starcrafts... imo.

pablomakaveli

Here's one that people don't like.

Thirty Flights of Loving is completely overrated and just isn't anything special at all. The circlejerk over that game is ridiculous.

Shiminay

C14N wrote: »

My issue is with stuff like a recent Jim Sterling video where he just complained about the huge amount of crappy games on the service and the comments section had many people agreeing that "bad" games just shouldn't be allowed on there.

I can see your side of this argument, but on the other hand, why should Valve poison its own water supply by allowing muck to build up in it?

If GoG can make sure that everything they sell works before they sell it, why can't a gigantic provider like Valve do it too? Apple tests things before they're allowed on the Store, Google does not. Result: Android Malware accounts for 97% of all Mobile Malware (Forbe article).

We're seeing an ever increasing pile of rubbish building up in the Steam Store between Early Access things that won't get finished or BS Clone releases like the now infamous War Z (I can't even remember what they renamed it to).

Retr0gamer

Apples tests aren't that stringent. They seem to just test for memory leaks. The game I helped make past the apple tests first time. Student project that should have taken a year to build, built in 3 months and handed to the client who submitted it without any changes. Either their checks aren't that great or I'm an amazing coder :P

johnny_ultimate

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Here's one that people don't like.

Thirty Flights of Loving is completely overrated and just isn't anything special at all. The circlejerk over that game is ridiculous.

I'm going to be a bit contrary (and, let's be honest, pedantic) here and suggest that objectively it is actually something special. I'm working on the definition of special that's "different from what is normal or usual". Because the way Thirty Flights tells its story - through cinematic tools such as jump / smash cutting, time distillation and non-linear storytelling - is actually indisputably unique in video games. There is nothing at all like it, at least nothing I've come across.

If you don't like the game or what it does, of course, that's perfectly fine

pablomakaveli

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm going to be a bit contrary (and, let's be honest, pedantic) here and suggest that objectively it is actually something special. I'm working on the definition of special that's "different from what is normal or usual". Because the way Thirty Flights tells its story - through cinematic tools such as jump / smash cutting, time distillation and non-linear storytelling - is actually indisputably unique in video games. There is nothing at all like it, at least nothing I've come across.

If you don't like it, of course, that's perfectly fine

It might be slightly unique when it comes to games but not story telling in general and the story it does tell doesn't exactly seem very original and a little bit cliched.

I think the hype surrounding the game did colour my perception a bit when i did play it as i was left with a feeling of "Is that it?". I think the over-hyping of it is it's own worst enemy in a way.

Mal-Adjusted

This seemed to be an unpopular opinion among my friends... The Wii is a great console and has a fantastic library of games, and i don't just mean first party stuff (my sole nintendo games are Pokemon Gold and Wii Sport/Resort/Fit) It has a problem with shovelware but if you're willing to dig through the crap, you'll find great titles.

krudler

Going Strong wrote: »

I worked with someone who was addicted to MMPORGs. He'd be up all night level-grinding and resource-gathering. I'd rather have some semblance of a life than that.

I bloody hate grinding, it's what put me off getting Dark Souls for so long as I thought it'd be endless, there'd definitely grinding in it if you play it that way or want to farm enemies for souls or items but you can constantly move forward too and achieve the same.

krudler

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

This seemed to be an unpopular opinion among my friends... The Wii is a great console and has a fantastic library of games, and i don't just mean first party stuff (my sole nintendo games are Pokemon Gold and Wii Sport/Resort/Fit) It has a problem with shovelware but if you're willing to dig through the crap, you'll find great titles.

the Wii has Super Mario Galaxy 2 on it, that alone is worth picking up a cheap or 2nd hand one for.

Retr0gamer

krudler wrote: »

the Wii has Super Mario Galaxy 2 on it, that alone is worth picking up a cheap or 2nd hand one for.

Saying that is a disservice to the console. There's a load of great games on the machine and even more quirky and interesting titles.

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Saying that is a disservice to the console. There's a load of great games on the machine and even more quirky and interesting titles.

It may do but he was pointing out, to those who might have avoided the machine as a child's toy to invest due to it hosting one of the best 3D platformers on any system anywhere.
They can enjoy the rest of the games library later.
Get them in the door first!

C14N

Shiminay wrote: »

I can see your side of this argument, but on the other hand, why should Valve poison its own water supply by allowing muck to build up in it?

If GoG can make sure that everything they sell works before they sell it, why can't a gigantic provider like Valve do it too? Apple tests things before they're allowed on the Store, Google does not. Result: Android Malware accounts for 97% of all Mobile Malware (Forbe article).

We're seeing an ever increasing pile of rubbish building up in the Steam Store between Early Access things that won't get finished or BS Clone releases like the now infamous War Z (I can't even remember what they renamed it to).

Like I said, I do think the games should be functional (like Apple apparently do to make sure apps are functional) and that they do what they advertise, my issue is just with the quality control, which Apple clearly don't do (which is why there are a million fart apps and a vuvuzela app for over €100).

All that said, I do think they should stop the whole alpha thing, which is inherently exploitive.

nesf

C14N wrote: »

Like I said, I do think the games should be functional (like Apple apparently do to make sure apps are functional) and that they do what they advertise, my issue is just with the quality control, which Apple clearly don't do (which is why there are a million fart apps and a vuvuzela app for over €100).

All that said, I do think they should stop the whole alpha thing, which is inherently exploitive.

The issue I think is the shock from going from a heavily curated store to an essentially completely open one. There was a time when you could trust what was up on Steam usually, now it's become very much buyer beware if you don't recognise the publisher/developer.

I don't really care that this stuff is on there, it does bug me that 5 year old games are clogging up the New Releases list though. That does actually affect me. Similar to how a list of "apps released this week" on iOS or Android wouldn't be hugely useful to anyone because of the sheer volume of crap being pushed out on both platforms.

kunst nugget

Spec Ops: The Line is on sale for €7.49 on the PS Store for anyone tempted after all the talk about it on here. I know I am…

ShadowHearth

kunst nugget wrote: »

Spec Ops: The Line is on sale for €7.49 on the PS Store for anyone tempted after all the talk about it on here. I know I am…

Spec ops: the line being a good game should not be an unpopular opinion!

DarkJager

I hate this current trend of "retro" style games. Coasting on nostalgia and designing games for hipsters is not going to advance the medium at all.

Edit: Also this trend of **** fawning over completely **** looking minimalist games. I've seen one recently called sportsfriends? that was just shockingly bad yet it got a 9 on the eurogamer review. That game would have been embarrassing to show people in 1992 let alone 2014 but they get away with putting out such **** because they're "indie" and indie is the flavor of the month at the moment.

Grimebox

DarkJager wrote: »

I hate this current trend of "retro" style games. Coasting on nostalgia and designing games for hipsters is not going to advance the medium at all.

Edit: Also this trend of **** fawning over completely **** looking minimalist games. I've seen one recently called sportsfriends? that was just shockingly bad yet it got a 9 on the eurogamer review. That game would have been embarrassing to show people in 1992 let alone 2014 but they get away with putting out such **** because they're "indie" and indie is the flavor of the month at the moment.

Any examples?

DarkJager

Grimebox wrote: »

Any examples?

Mercenary Kings

Retr0gamer

When you have a limited budget as a developer making a game you have two options for art, pixel art or vector graphics. Cheap vector graphics look like absolute pants and are really flat looking so most developers go for pixel art. Unfortunately a lot of pixel artists are crap do the games don't look great.

It's more a choice made out of necessity to go with pixel art. I'm more annoyed with games saying they have an 8 bit aesthetic yet use 32 bit colour, scaling and rotation.

Mercenary kings really is dog ugly though.

ShadowHearth

DarkJager wrote: »

Mercenary Kings

I love how it looks like ass from 8bit era, but still manages to have loading times bigger then any modern game out there...

Mercenary kings is not as bad when you give it more time and it gets better of you got friend to play local Co op. Then again, you have to be monster hunter fan to like it and monster hunter games are not for everyone.

Retr0gamer

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I love how it looks like ass from 8bit era, but still manages to have loading times bigger then any modern game out there..

Grr! I was just moaning about that. It looks nothing like an 8 bit game. Hell, it doesn't even look like a 16 bit game.

Grimebox

DarkJager wrote: »

Mercenary Kings

NEver played it but it looks like a Metal Slug clone which leads to....

I don't think Metal Slug is a good game. There are so many better side scrolling shooters out there.