Any weird/controversial opinions? I’ll start. Before the remake, the best version of Resident Evil 4 was the Wii version. The Wiimote controls old Resi’s tank controls better than any other controller at the time. The PC version had a bunch of little bugs and detractors that the Wii version just doesn’t have.
I’ll extend this by saying that the Wiimote is actually pretty damn good for shooters, and particularly good for accessibility. Not having to cramp up my hands to press buttons is awesome for having arthritis. Aiming with the Wiimote and moving with the nunchuck just feel really natural, you barely have to move your fingers for anything.
Graphics don’t fucking matter if only high end systems can run the game
Yeah, particularly when GPU prices have priced many out of the top tier games in the graphics department.
Breath of the Wild is merely okay.
It’s kind of tedious, the weapon durability system is annoying, and the visuals are held back by the Switch’s weak specs.
We don’t need bigger open worlds. I’d rather have a Far Harbor sized Fallout every other year than a FO4 sized game after 8.
I mean how else is Bethesda supposed to justify charging $60 for the same game reskinned?
The could always release Skyrim again. I think at this point if I buy another copy I get my next one for free.
Jokes aside, honestly as long as the asset flip is good I don’t mind. New Vegas was pretty much an asset flip and is widely accepted at the best Fallout.
That’s actually a pretty common take nowadays. Just not that popular among game studios, lol
Yeah, many games were actually made worse IMO by having them.
@LeylaaLovee When you play a long game (i.e. 60+ hours) all the way through, it’s hard to tell how much of it was genuine enjoyment over some kind of weird sunk cost situation.
Kind of like watching a show that goes on for a ton of seasons. You get into a habit and despite inconsistent quality, you keep going back and you’re not sure why, especially after the really bad parts.
It’s why I understand *some* of the 100+ hour playtime negative reviews, & am skeptical of positive ones.
People who get video game burnout or say gaming is dead or whatever are victims of AAA marketing.
Most of the time I see posts like this they complain that they bought all the newest games with great reviews and aren’t having any fun. Normally it’s Sony games and other cinematic experience kind of games. Or they are games that they put 100’s of hours into. They are doing the same stuff over and over and getting bored.
Unfortunately critics care more about production values and polish than novel game mechanics. Plenty of interesting games get overlooked due to being a little weird or not fitting in modern game conventions. If you only play the big budget AAA stuff you are going to get burnt out because they all copy each other trying to be the next “big game”. If you play games that get bad reviews, have weird mechanics, or do something different you won’t get burnt out. I like to recommend the Gravity Rush games to people who have a playstation and are burnt out on the “cinematic” games. They typically have never heard of it and end up having a blast with them. Makes me sad when I see people still buying games based on metacrtic scores. They miss out on so much.
I know this post is about games specifically, but this is so true about all media. It’s wild how many people bemoan how “bad” movies/tv/music/etc is, when it’s super obvious their only frame of reference is mainstream media that’s mostly doing the same thing all the time. If they took a look just once at indie content creation, they’d see there’s so much cool stuff out there. But their so locked into the “right” media that they don’t consider anything else.
Getting back to games, I rarely ever buy AAA games anymore. There’s so much cool indie stuff being released all the time, it’s simply not worth it to me to deal with all the downsides that come along with AAA games.
Ugh you’re not joking. Many of my friends that game complain about the same thing, yet getting them to try any new game that isn’t League of Legends, Apex, Dead by Daylight or Destiny is like pulling teeth.
The worst part is that most of those games have an endless grind or some sort of FOMO mechanics that encourage people to keep playing even though they’re having an awful time.
Nintendo games are great FIRST games.
If Zelda is the first action RPG you ever played, it will forever hold a warm spot in your heart.
Same for Smash Brothers and fighting games, Mario Kart and racing games, or Pokemon and turn based RPGs.
But if you aren’t 10 years old or have played literally any other games, they really aren’t very good.
You need to back this opinion up with games you think are better.
No, I don’t. It’s a hot take… :)
But since you asked… pretty much every fighting game is better than Smash. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken. If you take power-up platform battlers as it’s own genre, then it’s also beaten by Powerstone.
Racing games better than Mario Kart? For pure racing, Gran Turismo, Project Gotham, Metropolis Street Racer. For racing with powerups, bombs and such? Wipeout.
Again, Nintendo games are great intros to a genre, and if it’s your first game you’ll look at all of them with warm fuzzy glasses on.
But as an adult, who has played hundreds of RPGs? Breath of the Wild was an empty world that bored the shit out of me.
I’m glad to finally see some folks who agree with me!
Great hot take. I sort of agree for something like Pokemon. But I’m surprised you think this way for all Nintendo games. In the world of 3D platformers for example, I’d say it’s pretty hard to find something better than Mario Galaxy, or 3D World. Same goes for Mario Kart. It’s got crisp controls, and the last game in particular had great track design. I wouldn’t say Wipeout is a very apt comparison given it’s not a kart racer.
I would disagree, as someone who didn’t grow up with Nintendo and very recently got a switch. The games have a very distinct feel and artstyle that isn’t very common. They also have great scores and are generally quality games.
Yeah, my kid loves Mario Odyssey, like the way I loved Mario World.
Prime Nintendo target audience! Congrats!
deleted by creator
People spend way to much time complaining about how games are not perfect in their eyes, instead of taking it at face value. They get literally outraged when a game doesn’t function exactly how they want, instead of finding a game they actually enjoy.
Back in the day we’d just pick whatever looked cool at the store and hoped it was decent. People have the right to complain, but its gotten out of hand and modern gamers are whiney as all hell.
Edit: just want to clarify, I’m mainly refer to post launch and established games. If a game promises somthing and is released half baked, 100% people are in the right to complain.
Because modern games are expensive. And the hardware you need to run them are also expensive.
So if you buy a game, you expect it to work as advertised. When you’re then presented with a buggy and glitchy mess, obviously you’ll get angry.
Gamers didn’t just become whiny, publishers became greedy and sloppy.
Imagine a trailer for a new movie. It looks cool. All the famous reviewers said it looked cool. So you pay to go see it at launch. And you’re presented with one short action scene, followed by 2 hours of watching paint dry.
That’s exactly what so many new modern, marketed games are like.
Games were more expensive in the 90s, when you take inflation into consideration.
Games now cost 3x as much. My pay hasn’t increased 3x. So even with inflation. Games are more expensive now.
Games during the NES/SNES era were $50+. Are you saying games now cost $150+ dollars? Or are you just in a region where inflation/currency has made prices shift more than in the US?
Tend to agree, except when it comes to most AAA games. There are some pretty valid criticisms there.
I think with media people tend to watch critics review entries that they can’t keep up with and they adopt some of their habits. The thing is someone who plays every game is going to notice any aspect that’s been done better before and point it out as part of their review. But the more positive reviewers will state that they did enjoy the game and that part seems to get lost sometimes.
I could spend an hour telling you things I didn’t like about Tears of the Kingdom. Its still probably the best game I played this year.
Paradox Interactive is eventually going to release so many DLC that they eventually collapse inward from their own gravity and implode, taking the company’s future with them.
They’re basically in an arms race against The Sims
And now they’ll have their own Sims game, so they’ll be going into overdrive.
That isn’t a hot take though, everyone and their mother makes jokes about how many DLC there is for Paradox Interactive games.
Here’s the real hot take -> I don’t mind the amount of DLC on Paradox Interactive games. Every game of their I’ve played was really good on its own, and I only buy any DLC after I’ve poured tens of hours into the main game, usually not because I feel like anything was lacking from the main game, but just because I want an excuse to keep playing it. So for all I care, they can keep making all the DLC they want if the base games keep being this good.
That is hotter than mine. You must not mind paying a lot of money.
How’s it any different than buying a new game though?
In the end, is paying $30 for DLC and getting another 50 hours of gameplay really that much worse than paying $60 for a new game?
As long as I actually use the DLC, to me it’s equivalent. I’m paying money to extend the hours of entertainment I’m getting.
Ive got collective thousands of hours in paradox titles. The good dlcs (and there are trash ones I haven’t bought) adds dozens of hours of playtime. They also keep the mod community active which adds hundreds more.
It seems expensive but 10-20 bucks every few months is reasonable to me.
My bigger issue is some of them are starting to feel very paytowin with the feature/power creep (compare vanilla Russia/Ottomans in EUIV to dlc versions for an example)
It’s a game I like and it gets more and more stuff. The only times games keep adding more things to itself is either a very infrequent constant subscription fee, or more frequent DLCs. There’s only so much you can do off the sales of the base game.
Most AAA games are boring. All the big games from the last few years are just plain boring. They found a formula back in the 2000’s that they never expanded upon or really changed in any way shape or form. The focus is on visuals and story (and I gotta say, the stories are pretty fucking cringe a lot of the time unless you’re a 13 year old) or skinnerboxes and psycho tricks to keep you addicted and the gameplay remains the same stale shit it’s been for over 20 years. I feel like AAA games are games for people who don’t play games, because the actual game part is always the worst part about them.
This is facts. I’m a zoomer. AAA games haven’t meant shit to people my age for the most part. The 3 undebatable most important games of my generation are Minecraft, Five Nights at Freddy’s, and Undertale. Talk to any gamer under the age of 25-30 and they will likely agree with at least 2/3 of those. All those games started with one person dicking around. We’re fully in the era where the formula is starting to stink like piss because it’s so stale. We’re going to see a “crash” of sorts soon, the infinite growth these shitty publishers have seen off games as a service isn’t infinite
To be fair, 2 of those games are legit some of the GOATs. I’ve been gaming since my mom played Mario with me in the early 90s, and those two games are something else.
I remember buying the Minecraft alpha for $10, and there wasn’t that much to do, but it was strangely addicting.
What do you mean, AAA games expand upon the formula…
When small indie studios create unique smash hits and then all we see from AAA studios are clones of that game with more monetization. If that’s not capitalist innovation, then I don’t know what is.
Back then AAA meant the game had budget, scale, graphics, polish… Nowadays all of these qualities are present in AA devs, and plenty of indies as well.
I feel like the only real differences the AAA has is 1) very detailed and realistic graphics (which does not equal good looking or good art direction, mind you), and 2) a lot of overhead management and investors. These investors are all looking to make returns on investment, which is probably why they so strongly discourage taking risks by deviating from the pre established formula, and strongly encourage absurd monetization practices.
Not to say there’s no good AAA games nowadays, Fromsoft is amazing with their souls borne series, and Zelda is pretty solidly designed imo.
AAA also tend to spend a lot on celebrity images and voice acting. Which is weird to me. I don’t think anyone bought Cyberpunk just for Keanu Reeves.
The popularity of skill based matchmaking decimated game design that allows people of different skill levels to play together and progress in a multiplayer setting. Most games actually punish you for playing with better players on your team instead of allowing you to help somehow without being a liability. And when you are, the game is no longer winnable and people get extremely pissed off ensuing you won’t get to play with them again.
Everyone i play games with gets the “sbmm is one of the worst things to happen to video games” rant every single time i play a game that has it. I dont play them often thankfully
Any way you can clarify the negatives of SBMM or have a good yt vid or something that explains it? In theory I like the idea because I think back to unranked halo 3 and one game I’m a god and the next I’m getting absolutely destroyed and it kinda sucked having such a wide gap lol
The short of it is really 3 main issues and ill use cod as the example:
First it makes it difficult for friends of different skill levels to play together and have fun. Me and my boys cant play cod together because ill go 30-6 one game where they barely break even and then for the rest of the night theyll go like 6-12 because i popped off too hard. Making it so we play 3 games before they arent having fun cause im just better at the game than them.
Second reason is it ruins any casual experience. Most days, for me a grown adult with a full time job, id like to just hop and play casually in my free time but with sbmm and the constant fluctuation in the system and where it places you can spend many, many games in a row in an absolute sweat fest without any reprieve. The skill level of a playerbase is typically on a bell curve meaning your much more often to face average players without sbmm, because thats where most players fall in the skill range. With sbmm you are waiting for whatever algorithm to have mercy on you and give you an easier lobby. Which can lead to a cycle of getting stomped for a couple games then stomping others for a game, rinse, repeat. Most people would i know would rather just roll the dice than trust some arbitrary system to place them in a lobby that may be fun.
Third issue is its redundent. In most competitive games there is a casual and competitive/rabked mode. If i wanted to play against people guaranteed to be my skill level id play ranked. Refering back to issue one, i dont play ranked with those friends because we vary in skill, casual would be the mode for that situation but due to sbmm being in casual both modes really just seem to be ranked.
Bonus reason: When mw2 came out in 2022 there was talk about using sbmm to manipulate people using the data to keep them winning just enough to keep playing but not enough to ruin others experience. Sounds great to some but to me thats not what competitive games are about. And i definitely dont need some studio dictating how much fun i have in a game, telling me essentially when i get to win.
Interesting points, thanks!
Console support ruins games that otherwise could have been truly amazing games because they need to be watered down to support controller-based gameplay and weaker specs (see: Cyberpunk 2077).
To maybe take this a step further. I think console (or PC or Mac for that matter) exclusives are fine for sone of the reasons you outlined. I see a lot of hate for this primarily among redditors. I do not feel like a console company paying a game developer or buying a studio to develop a game exclusively for them is bad for the industry. Especially if they’re doing it well. I recognize that there are companies out there that are using this method and harming the industry.
Sony has been killing it in the exclusives department for years now and it’s honestly great to see. I have a buddy who works for one of their studios and it seems pretty good on their end too. They’re pretty hands off. The model seems to be to have talented developers put their vision on the Playstation and stay out of the way.
For context. I don’t need to play EVERY amazing game. Nor do have the time.
Console support had nothing to do with the LITERAL huge holes in the game.
On release, you could literally find unfinished areas the size of chunks in minecraft and drop through the map.
Some buildings were literally missing sides.
Not saying the original claim about console support kneecapping some games, but cyberpunk was just a bag of lies and hot shit on release.
I’m currently playing through Breath of the Wild for the first time and I don’t think it’s an amazing game. I think it’s decent and fun enough, but it has a lot of grindy BS and aimless wandering, plus a story that is a rehash of literally every Zelda game every made, but now with 100% more open world.
Seriously how many times are we going to beat Ganon? And good God the voice acting is cringe.
Also, I just freed the second divine beast and I still have no idea how to dodge or flurry rush.
I got bored after like 8 hours of looking for things to do before I just said “fuck it, I guess I’m killing Ganon.” I don’t know when I am meant to go find the Master Sword but I was able to get it without having a quest and just using my knowledge of Hyrule from past games (“sword in forest!”) and I activated the 4 ancient machines; but then I couldn’t find many side quests that weren’t just fetch quests for things I already had in my posession.
TOTK actually has shit to do. I thought BOTW was a bit bare bones before, but given it was Nintendo’s first go at it I just thought it was that. But TOTK makes BOTW look like an alpha build of a tech demo for TOTK.
Zelda games straight up have a very mediocre story. And often nothing about their world building makes much sense either. They’re definitely a series built only for fun gameplay. Everything else is just glue to hold the gameplay together.
Personally, I love the gameplay and exploration, but you’re definitely right about the story and voice acting.
PS: dodging should be the same as jump (x). Lock on with ZL and point the movement stick to the side you wanna dodge to, the jump. If you pull the stick back, you’ll do a backflip. Whether you want to jump back or to the side depends on the enemy attack (eg, do they swing horizonal or vertical?). If you dodge juuuust before the enemy attacks, you’ll get a slow motion during which you’re prompted to spam y to rapidly attack. Especially useful for tough foes like lynels.
Turn on japanese audio.
So I can’t understand anything without subtitles?
Yes. Way better voice acting.
I’ve never understood this idea. Usually I see it in reference to anime. How can you even appreciate the voice acting when its in a language you don’t understand while you are trying to read something in English?
The english dub in BOTW is distractingly bad because it wasn’t written for english. The characters saying ridiculous things sounds better when it’s in Japanese, and most of the time with Nintendo games it doesn’t even matter what they are saying it’s just sound.
You don’t need to be able to know the words to understand the emotions. It’s asking why watch any movies in the original language.
When I went to go see Star Wars Episode 3 when I was overseas, the English version with subtitles was packed while the local language dubbed version had a moderate crowd. People want to see the original because the delivery is usually just better, even if they can’t understand the words.
How can you know if the delivery is better if you don’t even know which words are being inflected upon, if they are being said awkwardly, so on and so forth.
That you use Star Wars kinda cements the point. The prequels were infamous for their odd dialogue and stilted deliveries.
It’s not that the voice acting or delivery is better; it’s that you can’t tell the difference because you don’t know what it should sound like.
You can still tell when someone sounds stiff and awkward vs when someone sounds genuine.
If someone gives an emotional monologue in tears, their acting ability should be clear. Even if you don’t speak the language.
There’s shrines near the start of the game that teach you to dodge & flurry rush;
While locking onto an enemy, jump while moving to the side or backwards at the last second before an enemy attacks-- if the timing is done correctly, you can flurry rush. The trick is finding the timing for each enemy type, though you start to get a feel for it.
It’s a grindy mechanic, but I really enjoyed filling out the compendium once you upgrade your Sheikah Slate-- taking pictures of things became the focus of the game for a while, and I’m glad that TOTK improved upon that.
BotW was the first Zelda game for me, and it was such a massive disappointment. It’s just open world without any redeeming qualities, with every single mechanic existing just to support open world. Felt more like a sandbox than a game. It’s fun for about 2-3 hours, but then I just got really bored
I did finish it, because hey I paid for it, but it was not really something too fun for most of the time
EDIT: And I’m still mildly salty that BotW got GOTY in a year we got Nier Automata and Persona 5
Handheld gaming is on average more fun than console or PC gaming.
Steam Deck crew!
If I had a controller for my phone, it would be my primary gaming device. The DS thing of pretty much being able to pause and walk away from the game at any time is awesome.
The DS thing of pretty much being able to pause and walk away from the game at any time is awesome.
One of the main reasons the Switch ends up with most of my gaming time.
Hideo Kojima’s games are bad.
For context, when I was 11 my friend told me that MGS was incredible, so I went to his house to play it. It was fucking tedious. I spent hours shuffling around grey corridors, interspersed with painfully long dialog and cut scenes that were mostly about nothing.
Then, years later I decided to go back to MGS V and give the series another try. I had the exact same reaction to it as the original game. Endless waffle about characters and situations that meant nothing to me, uninspired modern military aesthetics, and boring locations.
They were clearly very well-made games, and I appreciate that people have massive regard for them. I just don’t like them at all.
Upvoted for providing one of the few real hot takes in this thread. I’m a huge MGS fan, but I can see why people wouldn’t like it. MGS plays with realism a lot, all while also playing with ideas from Hollywood. It makes for a very strange mix.
Now this is a hot take - I tend to agree with you. MGS has always felt like more B-movie than game, featuring a convoluted story that doesn’t justify the enormous amount of cutscenes. The stealth gameplay that’s there pales in comparison to titles like Splinter Cell too.
Personally, the best Metal Gear game in my mind is Rising: Revengeance, and it’s not even close. Highly recommend you play that one if you haven’t already.
Third-person shooters suck. The character model gets in the way of seeing and I don’t need to see the super tacticool costumes. And the more decent third-person shooters switch to first-person for aiming down the sights anyway.
Cards in video games suck. Unless it’s simulating a real card game. Otherwise we don’t need powerup cards and such, use some other mechanic. My level 89 death knight doesn’t need to be pulling cards out of his pockets.
Motion blur, vignetting, depth of field, lens flare, none of these should be the default. Show me the game world clearly.
