Unpopular Gaming Opinions

miju · 12-05-2014 10:31pm

Grimebox wrote: »

Oh I thought it was purely referring to the e-sports scene. That makes much more sense.

Oh right LOL. I've actually no idea what the eSports scene in worth annualy. I suspect a good bit thought considering its a valid career choice in the likes of Korea and China and so on and they have eSport colleges there too (think its a 2-3 year degree in League of Legends :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: )

johnny_ultimate · 12-05-2014 11:08pm

Important to note that film and games aren't really directly comparable - not least because a new game costs anywhere between three and ten times times what it costs to go to see a new film in the cinema. I paid €7.50 to see Frank today, but won't get a copy of Watch_Dogs at retail or even a PC keys site for anything less than several times that. Box office receipts also don't tell the whole story, as DVD, VOD, TV rights etc... add a significant tail to any given film's takings that aren't accounted for in a global BO analysis.

No doubt gaming has exploded in market prevalence in recent years to become a genuine commercial force, but I always think the news that a game like GTA or COD is 'the biggest entertainment release of all time' isn't exactly comparing like with like

12-05-2014 11:09pm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

More the obvious sarcasm and you'd have to be blind not to spot it.
Assuming you are aware of the actual attitude towards new players online and the reception Jericho got.
Well, maybe they are expressing a real opinion, and one that's not popular.
You'd have to have come down with the last drop of rain to believe it though.

If you say so

miju · 12-05-2014 11:21pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Important to note that film and games aren't really directly comparable.

No doubt gaming has exploded in market prevalence in recent years to become a genuine commercial force, but I always think the news that a game like GTA or COD is 'the biggest entertainment release of all time' isn't exactly comparing like with like

I never said it was the biggest entertainment release but on that note there is an interesting comparison to be made between the biggest releases of movies / games.

GTA:V cost $266 million to make while Avatar cost $237 million to make.

Avatar grossed nearly $3.5 billion and I dont know how much GTA:V grossed but it was near $1 billion in 72 hours and has sold 29 million copies worldwide at end of 2013.

Magill · 12-05-2014 11:31pm

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

miju · 13-05-2014 1:15am

Magill wrote: »

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

Definitely highest grossing game at $10 billion. Next closest is COD at $1.5 billion

Riesen_Meal · 13-05-2014 1:34am

miju wrote: »

Definitely highest grossing game at $10 billion. Next closest is COD at $1.5 billion

I'd say WoW and CoD are easily the most valuable long term but I wouldn't be surprised if real casual games (the likes of Zynga etc) were at one point (I doubt now) and in some form making mad money - luring casuals in via FB and the like....

Gonna sit down and watch that Valve E-Sports film on YouTube now Miju in a bit and edu-macate myself.... :-)

The Surround Gamer · 13-05-2014 4:41am

I think that Minecraft is one of the most overhyped games in video gaming history. Just how the heck did that awful "game" get so popular, anyway?

CiDeRmAn · 13-05-2014 6:56am

It's a wonderful creative toy box really.
It's light on game but is heavy on adaptability.
Plus it is perfect for modding and has had any number of conversions into different types of games.
Is getting great support as well, still being updated.
I don't like it make mind you, but my 10 year old son thinks it's his reason to get up in the mornings.

13-05-2014 8:38am

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

It's a wonderful creative toy box really.
It's light on game but is heavy on adaptability.
Plus it is perfect for modding and has had any number of conversions into different types of games.
Is getting great support as well, still being updated.
I don't like it make mind you, but my 10 year old son thinks it's his reason to get up in the mornings.

I feel like this;

Grimebox · 13-05-2014 10:02am

The Surround Gamer wrote: »

I think that Minecraft is one of the most overhyped games in video gaming history. Just how the heck did that awful "game" get so popular, anyway?

It's open ended nature is what I don't like at all. I've had enough of sandbox games in general. Gimme some linear please

CiDeRmAn · 13-05-2014 10:58am

Grimebox wrote: »

It's open ended nature is what I don't like at all. I've had enough of sandbox games in general. Gimme some linear please

I'm the same, as regards more linear less sandbox.
It's one of reasons why I preferred Batman AA over AC.
They seem to be just linear games but spread out, with numerous similar fetch quests in between to pad it out.

ShadowHearth · 13-05-2014 12:00pm

Emmmm what kind of definition of sandbox people are using. If what, there are barely a few games that could be called proper sandbox.

So far, the best ever sandbox type game is Rust. If you have not played Rust Properly, then you don't know what sandbox Type game is.

I know for sure that I prefer more focused games like Witcher series, then open world games like skyrim. I always prefer quality over low quality quantity.

Grimebox · 13-05-2014 12:23pm

Rust is another example of a sandbox game is dislike. Crafting games in general bore me. Plus Rust is currently in the dreaded early access stage.

"You can build anything you want!", I can also build nothing because I don't see the point. I like a narrative.

I arguably didn't give Rust enough time.

ShadowHearth · 13-05-2014 12:26pm

Grimebox wrote: »

Rust is another example of a sandbox game is dislike. Crafting games in general bore me. Plus Rust is currently in the dreaded early access stage.

"You can build anything you want!", I can also build nothing because I don't see the point. I like a narrative.

I arguably didn't give Rust enough time.

A lot of people play Rust in a VERY VERY WRONG way. they dont play it as a Sandbox game, thats the problem.

johnny_ultimate · 13-05-2014 12:43pm

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

Magill · 13-05-2014 12:54pm

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

Man, you could have at least chosen a good game to commit your time to. Titanfall is pretty bad imo.

Grimebox · 13-05-2014 1:13pm

For a competitive gaming on the PC, you are still pretty bad after 100 hours. Competitive gaming is a completely different kettle of fish however. I have just over 700 hours in CSGO. I'm still learning and getting better. The only single player game that comes close to that is Skryim with 70 hours.

The label of casual gamer is very different when it comes to competitive vs single player games.

CiDeRmAn · 13-05-2014 1:24pm

My max was some 60 hours into Oblivion some years ago.
I think I sank 40 hours into Fallout 3.

I have acquaintances who play mental hours of the big online RPGs, but there you have emergent gameplay and really a never ending adventure where the games I mention a big but definitely finite.

I suppose the question then is, are you happy to play same game, refining and improving your character and taking pleasure the consistency of the world you are inhabiting or are your more interested in a story before moving on to a completely new adventure.

And that'll depend on these being your kind of game to begin with.

super_furry · 13-05-2014 1:25pm

Very true that. 250 hours in TF2 and I'm still only alright when I'm playing any class other than medic.

Angron · 13-05-2014 1:27pm

super_furry wrote: »

Very true that. 250 hours in TF2 and I'm still only alright when I'm playing any class other than medic.

I'm on 300+, and the only classes I'm really comfortable at playing are Pyro, Heavy, Soldier, and Medic. I'm fecking woeful at Sniper and Spy :P

CiDeRmAn · 13-05-2014 1:29pm

So, are we seeing a new gaming master race? That of competitive online games players?
While the rest of use are "casual"?
What a load of cobblers!

Kirby · 13-05-2014 1:30pm

I tend to put a lot of time into games I like. I played Mass effect to death. Same with the Last of Us. But story games eventually have a limit. Multiplayer stuff doesn't. I put 530 hours into Football Manager 12 and 250 into FM13. And about a thousand into Fifa in the last 5 years or so.

In contrast, I've bought some games and stopped after 3 or 4 hours so it balances out. :P

Retr0gamer · 13-05-2014 1:34pm

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.

Angron · 13-05-2014 1:38pm

I can regularly knock out a few hundred hours in games I'd mostly do single player. For example on steam, between 5 Dawn of War games (Dark Crusade, Soulstorm, DOW2, Chaos Rising, and Retribution) I've got 516 hours. (I've got more for Dark Crusade, but that was before I got it on steam cause I kept misplacing my disk.) I've had a few pokémon games where I've reached 2-300 hours or more, and even maxed out timers on a few of them (it stops counting after you hit 999:59).

I just never really think of myself as a hardcore gamer, cause I don't really think it matters what you class yourself as.

Mal-Adjusted · 13-05-2014 1:39pm

In fairness, online multiplayer games are also very limited (as we saw with EA last week) because once they turn off the servers, you're game is now a paperweight. it could take ten or twelve years, which for most people is acceptable, but it will happen. With a story driven, single player game, or ones with local multiplayer, I can go back to every now and again, like i do with films i like.

BTW, i'm not saying one is better than the other, but it's a fallacy to say that multiplayer stuff doesn't have a limit.

kunst nugget · 13-05-2014 1:39pm

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.

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

Going Strong · 13-05-2014 1:43pm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

So, are we seeing a new gaming master race? That of competitive online games players?
While the rest of use are "casual"?
What a load of cobblers!

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.

johnny_ultimate · 13-05-2014 1:43pm

I assume we're talking about 'casual' (;)) competitive here as opposed to professional competitive, because surely it would take a full time commitment to advance to the stage where you're competing in paid tournaments and making a living from it as opposed to doing so as a time intensive hobby?

Oh, the unique joys of attempting to come up with definitions of gaming phrases!

Retr0gamer · 13-05-2014 1:51pm

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.

Yep you're right it was bull****. Must have read it somewhere less reliable than a scientific text then.

I should know better, I'm actually sitting here correcting final year science and health theses and looking out for that kind of bull****

Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Comments