Anime Your Unpopular Gaming Opinions

[Ash]

All you guys get a monocle

Every time the codex disappoints me with its uncultured, unknowledgeable tards in one thread, prestigious gentlemen pull up in the pimp mobile in another.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

My bad

 

[Machocruz]

This conversation just reminds me things were better when japs dominated consoles and whitey dominated PC.

 

[Ash]

90s Gaming paradise. So much diversity. So much quality. So much creativity. Truly blessed to have experienced it. If we were born any other time, we'd have shitty 70s/80s games, shitty modern games, or neither.

 

[Morenatsu.]

My cock is huge and yours is small

 

[oddech_wymarlych_swiatow]

Saturn > PSX ... for each PSX exclusive there is a solid answer

Ok
What is the Saturn's answer for:

• Metal Gear Solid
• Tenchu 2
• Resident Evil DC
• Resident Evil 2
• Silent Hill
• Final Fantasy Tactics
• Final Fantasy 9
• Dragon Quest 7
• Chrono Cross
• Symphony of the Night

MGS, Tenchu - lack of such game
RE1 - Saturn has its own version, a bit worse graphics-wise but richer in terms of content
Silent Hill - Deep Fear
FF Tactics - Shining Force III
FF9 - Panzer Dragoon Saga
DQ7 - Devil Summoner 1
Chrono Cross - Shining the Holy Arc
Symphony of the Night - Symphony of the Night

 

[oddech_wymarlych_swiatow]

Ever played Silent Bomber? Bloodlines? Hogs of War? Parasite Eve? Vigilante 8? Vagrant Story? Also he mentioned arcade ports, Saturn doesn't have G-darius like the PS1, one of the best Arcade games of all.

And does PSX have Saturn Bomberman, Ghen War, Mr. Bones, Fighters Megamix, Fighting Vipers, Golden Axe - The Duel, Quake 1, Burning Rangers, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3?

I love PSX but it has so much of shovelware, bad 2D ports and really wasn't best in anything in that gen:

- it had no 2D capabilities as good as Saturn
- it had no 3D capabilities as good as N64
- it wasn't any novelty comparing to 3DO/Jaguar

 

[Hellraiser]

- it had no 3D capabilities as good as N64

This is only partially true, N64 sucked in particular on the texture side due to some inane built-in bottlenecks crippling the otherwise superior graphics chip. It's kind of like with the SNES soundchip getting crippled by low memory availability resulting in crappy quality and very interpolated samples being used for snes game music, but way worse.

EDIT: Also so what the chip was faster if the standard framerate was 20-ish tops and most games felt choppier than could be expected of similar PS1 games. AFAIK it was the first console to allow you to pick resolution modes in games, and for good reason

Here's a snippet regarding textures from a detailed comprison one guy did:

Textures applied to shapes enhanced the realistic look that many PlayStation games were striving for. While the Saturn held up to the PlayStation relatively well, the N64 was greatly limited resulting in more of a cartoon style.
The PlayStation conquered both the Saturn and the N64 on the texture front, but in different ways.
At a glance, the Saturn’s 1.5MB of video memory exceeds the PlayStation’s 1MB, but the Saturn’s video memory is segmented and has a smaller limit for textures. On the Saturn developers have 512KB for textures and display lists, 512KB for the frame buffer and 512KB for the 2D background CPU. The PlayStation, however had a more variable setup for its video memory and developers typically had about 700KB usable memory for textures.
As if the 512K of Saturn textures wasn’t limited enough, the PlayStation completely dwarfed N64’s 4kb of texture. This meant that the N64 developers often had to either use small textures across a surface or resort to Gouraud shading of polygons instead of proper textures.
Many N64 games (Mario 64 being an example) used Gouraud shading heavily to make up for a lack of texturing. This contributed to the cartoony look of many N64 titles as opposed to a more realistic look of competing PlayStation games. Many critics of the N64 style will refer to the graphics as being “blurry” or a “Vaseline filter”. One could argue that this helped the N64’s graphic seem less pixelated.
Developers like Rare were able to be more careful with the texture layering to work miracles with games like Banjo Kazooie. Banjo Kazooie was texture mapped, filtered, and had perspective correction/z-buffering.

From the below interesting analysis I recommend reading if anyone is interested how it compared:

https://www.racketboy.com/journal/ps1-strength-and-weaknesses-vs-n64-sega-saturn

Also lets be honest, while the Saturn had better 2D hardware than the PS1, the PS1 was hardly bad at it. Abe's Oddyssey, Rayman, Heart of Darkness and SOTN all show it could do very nice 2D graphics that probably were easier to implement due to the PS1 C library than in Saturn's Assembly. Which BTW is what PS1 was indeed best during that generation, easiest development (well document C library vs Nintendo's retarded "we won't share microcode tools, make them yourself" approach vs Saturn's two video chips to work with in paralel also quads), hence the shovelware you mentioned but also a ton of ports and indie games due to that (also because Sony was really fucking generous with royalties and other fees, they charged 1 dollar per CD pressed and if developers failed to sell games they would even refund it*, the net yarose dev kit was also priced adequately to what small "indie garage developers" could afford).

*meanwhile nintendo nickle and dimed developers on N64 cartridges (although of course they were way more expensive to make than CDs) and demanded a high minimum order leaving the publisher with the risk if it didn't sell.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

FF Tactics - Shining Force III

Have to disagree here
The level and encounter design of FFT is spectacular - they truly tried to make the conditions of each battle unique

 

[Tehdagah]

- it had no 3D capabilities as good as N64

This is only partially true, N64 sucked in particular on the texture side due to some inane built-in bottlenecks crippling the otherwise superior graphics chip. It's kind of like with the SNES soundchip getting crippled by low memory availability resulting in crappy quality and very interpolated samples being used for snes game music, but way worse.

EDIT: Also so what the chip was faster if the standard framerate was 20-ish tops and most games felt choppier than could be expected of similar PS1 games. AFAIK it was the first console to allow you to pick resolution modes in games, and for good reason

Textures applied to shapes enhanced the realistic look that many PlayStation games were striving for. While the Saturn held up to the PlayStation relatively well, the N64 was greatly limited resulting in more of a cartoon style.
The PlayStation conquered both the Saturn and the N64 on the texture front, but in different ways.
At a glance, the Saturn’s 1.5MB of video memory exceeds the PlayStation’s 1MB, but the Saturn’s video memory is segmented and has a smaller limit for textures. On the Saturn developers have 512KB for textures and display lists, 512KB for the frame buffer and 512KB for the 2D background CPU. The PlayStation, however had a more variable setup for its video memory and developers typically had about 700KB usable memory for textures.
As if the 512K of Saturn textures wasn’t limited enough, the PlayStation completely dwarfed N64’s 4kb of texture. This meant that the N64 developers often had to either use small textures across a surface or resort to Gouraud shading of polygons instead of proper textures.
Many N64 games (Mario 64 being an example) used Gouraud shading heavily to make up for a lack of texturing. This contributed to the cartoony look of many N64 titles as opposed to a more realistic look of competing PlayStation games. Many critics of the N64 style will refer to the graphics as being “blurry” or a “Vaseline filter”. One could argue that this helped the N64’s graphic seem less pixelated.
Developers like Rare were able to be more careful with the texture layering to work miracles with games like Banjo Kazooie. Banjo Kazooie was texture mapped, filtered, and had perspective correction/z-buffering.

From the below interesting analysis I recommend reading if anyone is interested how it compared:

https://www.racketboy.com/journal/ps1-strength-and-weaknesses-vs-n64-sega-saturn

Also lets be honest, while the Saturn had better 2D hardware than the PS1, the PS1 was hardly bad at it. Abe's Oddyssey, Rayman, Heart of Darkness and SOTN all show it could do very nice 2D graphics that probably were easier to implement due to the PS1 C library than in Saturn's Assembly. Which BTW is what PS1 was indeed best during that generation, easiest development (well document C library vs Nintendo's retarded "we won't share microcode tools, make them yourself" approach vs Saturn's two video chips to work with in paralel also quads), hence the shovelware you mentioned but also a ton of ports and indie games due to that (also because Sony was really fucking generous with royalties and other fees, they charged 1 dollar per CD pressed and if developers failed to sell games they would even refund it*, the net yarose dev kit was also priced adequately to what small "indie garage developers" could afford).

*meanwhile nintendo nickle and dimed developers on N64 cartridges (although of course they were way more expensive to make than CDs) and demanded a high minimum order leaving the publisher with the risk if it didn't sell.

The most annoying thing of the PS1's graphics were the textures "shaking" uncontrollably. Even today it looks off-putting.

 

[Lemming42]

Still playing Pool of Radiance, still trapped in the middle ground between being entertained and being bored. I remember the Krynn games being a bit more interesting and had intended to go onto them after PoR (skipping PoR's sequels) but I don't think I can be arsed. The combat system's already worn out its welcome, I think I'll just play this to the end then give up.

What I really don't get is why people jerk off over Gold Box games as some kind of pinnacle of RPG depth. Plenty of games from the mid-to-late 90s and beyond are way more involved and complex. Take this year's BG3 - yeah, you can dislike BG3 for any reason you want, and I have plenty of criticisms of the writing and quest design myself, but in terms of mechanical depth, combat encounter design, and RPG systems which tangibly affect combat and world interaction, it's head and shoulders above PoR. Even the short/long rest system, which I don't like, is better than resting to memorise and spam Cure Light Wounds over and over for infinite health, as in PoR. I dunno why people like to pretend 80s shit was uniquely deep, most older games are mechanically more simple than modern games. The UI just usually sucks in older games, so doing basic actions feels more strenuous.

Probably an unpopular gaming opinion buried in there somewhere, "older games are not necessarily more deep or complex than newer ones" or w/e. Not that mechanical complexity is necessarily the mark of a good game, though, or that a game being more "deep" makes it better than one that's shallower but far more fun.

 

[NecroLord]

Deus Ex: Invisible War is not completely terrible, and deserves a more thorough assessment and to be played with an open mind who is not averse to some disappointment.

 

[Hagashager]

Still playing Pool of Radiance, still trapped in the middle ground between being entertained and being bored. I remember the Krynn games being a bit more interesting and had intended to go onto them after PoR (skipping PoR's sequels) but I don't think I can be arsed. The combat system's already worn out its welcome, I think I'll just play this to the end then give up.

What I really don't get is why people jerk off over Gold Box games as some kind of pinnacle of RPG depth. Plenty of games from the mid-to-late 90s and beyond are way more involved and complex. Take this year's BG3 - yeah, you can dislike BG3 for any reason you want, and I have plenty of criticisms of the writing and quest design myself, but in terms of mechanical depth, combat encounter design, and RPG systems which tangibly affect combat and world interaction, it's head and shoulders above PoR. Even the short/long rest system, which I don't like, is better than resting to memorise and spam Cure Light Wounds over and over for infinite health, as in PoR. I dunno why people like to pretend 80s shit was uniquely deep, most older games are mechanically more simple than modern games. The UI just usually sucks in older games, so doing basic actions feels more strenuous.

Probably an unpopular gaming opinion buried in there somewhere, "older games are not necessarily more deep or complex than newer ones" or w/e. Not that mechanical complexity is necessarily the mark of a good game, though, or that a game being more "deep" makes it better than one that's shallower but far more fun.

I felt that way with Ultima. The game is remarkably simple. You could beat it in an extended afternoon. Damned if it feels that simple though. Navigating the UI just sucks. **Playing** any Ultima from the '80s is truly miserable.

 

[octavius]

Deus Ex: Invisible War is not completely terrible, and deserves a more thorough assessment and to be played with an open mind who is not averse to some disappointment.

It would not have been so bad if it was just named Invisible War and you weren't led to except Deus Ex 2.
Personally I enjoyed it enough to (IIRC) complete it, and thought it was far superior to the first Splinter Cell game.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

fighting games are a shallow middle-tier genre

All that high and mighty talk and then this. You are just so fucking cute

 

[kroki]

morrowind actually IS a dogshit game. i played it to death back then for hundreds of hours, defended it on forums, read random articles and lore snippets on uesp for days. recently revisited it with just a handful of graphics and qol mods. its honestly unplayable in 2023 unless youre high or something idk. wizardry 8 or gothic 1 on the other hand, now these are good games.

 

[Lemming42]

I wouldn't call it "dogshit" but yeah, I used to like it a lot more in the past than I do today. When you get over the setting - which is absolutely superb - then the game is basically just a standard Todd-era Bethesda game, with even less reactivity and even shittier enemy AI than Oblivion and Skyrim. Same kill-and-loot gameplay loop that totally wears out its welcome, same copypasted identical dungeons, same total loss of challenge after a certain point, same dull ultra-linear quests.

The world never reacting to anything you do is terrible, too. Even back when I loved the game, the total unreactivity bothered me. The slave farms are a great example - basically everyone who plays the game is going to attack slavers on sight, the least the devs could do is have something, anything happen as a result, rather than everyone dumbly standing around repeating their dull wikipedia dialogue like nothing's happened. Oblivion NPCs going "by the nine divines, assault!!!" and running into a wall is downright sophisticated by comparison.

I'd love to see a modder really go over it all with a fine-tooth comb, reworking the dungeons and expanding the quests and preferably making it so that the AI isn't fucking atrocious and the combat is actually fun rather than a tedious and constant distraction. Tamriel Rebuilt is head and shoulders above the base game in quest design but it's still scuttled by MW's gameplay and mechanics being so bad. Skywind might be alright but I'm only mildly impressed by the trailers, and Skyrim gameplay isn't exactly a quantum leap up from MW, and it means the loss of some of the things about MW that actually were fun (spellmaking etc).

 

[Lady Error]

NES was the best console. Super Mario 3 and Contra/Probotector are still the best platformers.

Also, consoles are for kids.

 

[Ash]

fighting games are a shallow middle-tier genre

All that high and mighty talk and then this. You are just so fucking cute

Thanks baby.

They are though. The combat mechanics have some depth for sure but they can only really shine in multiplayer, and even then shit gets boring pretty fast. You never have to worry about things like: elevation differences (level design doesn't exist), multiple targets (strict 1v1 or tag team), your footing (environmental hazards don't exist), just as an example. There are no secondary, intertwining gameplay elements at all, pure arena combat. They're acceptably good at that, they're not trying to be more that and nor should they necessarily, but you can't play for hours on end (unless autistic). It only becomes fun with friends and even then the lifespan is limited. Perhaps I just have too high standards. I am fine with that.

The singleplayer in particular is fucking worthless, just mindlessly hammering on bots (low diff.), literally there's a term for that called "button mashing", or trying to find the flaw in their programming (high diff.). Fuck that. Hence, shallow mid-genre. I respect them for what they are, but let's not pretend you can sit down with them for hours on end, replay them for hours on end, or walk away feeling bliss/peak fulfillment (unless you just won a tournament or something, which is top 1% of autistic players).

 

[Ezekiel]

NES was the best console. Super Mario 3 and Contra/Probotector are still the best platformers.

Also, consoles are for kids.

What do users here think of Super Mario All-Stars? Are the graphics and music in Super Mario Brothers and SMB3 worse than in the NES originals? I've played both versions a few times, but am curious. I would say it's better to play the NES versions.

 

[Ash]

All stars SMB3 is TECHNICALLY better because sensible game saving between levels + nice tasteful aesthetic & audio upgrade. People have claimed decline on here before but it's really over the most nitpicky of examples I've ever seen put forward. Original NES version is quite ugly, though still less puke-inducing than World's sickly-cute art.

NES version (emulated) is in REALITY better thanks to endless high quality romhacks out there. Start with Super Mario Adventure and SMB3Mix.

Basically, play all-stars version for the base game (the greatest 2D platformer of all time), then accept the audio-visual decline + save state lameness and move over to romhacking the NES version for some really cool homebrew content.

Description:​

As of 2006, this [super mario adventure] is hailed as one of the greatest NES hacks of all time. This Super Mario Brothers 3 hack changes the game right down to the core by tweaking the actual game engine itself!
Aside from the ‘typical’ graphics and text changes, this hack alters musical melodies, a full line up of all new levels, new power ups, new abilities for Mario, and even new enemies! When I say new, I’m not talking about changed graphics; I’m talking about completely new power ups and monsters. Money mushrooms, invisible Mario, time stopping potions, Kuribo shoes in any level that don’t disappear, shy guys that create projectiles, heat seeking bullet bills, and others are just the beginning of the changes made to this game.
On top of that, you have random weather patterns on every stage, boss battles on every stage, and infinite lives, so your coins go to more useful purposes. They will be used to buy items from Toad’s house and get some level exits to appear. Let’s not forget stored, and switchable, power ups such as those found in Super Mario World!
This description really doesn’t do this hack justice. It’s certainly impressive to say the least. Just download it and try it out! It’s definitely one of the most advanced SMB3 hacks to date and pretty darn fun as well!

 

[Ash]

Deus Ex: Invisible War is not completely terrible, and deserves a more thorough assessment and to be played with an open mind who is not averse to some disappointment.

It's not completely terrible no, but it is utterly sub-par and doesn't really deserve anything. don't waste your time and play better, non-sellout games, of which there are hundreds.

 

[Hagashager]

still less puke-inducing than World's sickly-cute art.

That's a fuckin' hot-take right there. I have never heard anyone complain about World's graphics before.

Personally, I prefer World, but I do really enjoy SMB3. SMB3 feels like Nintendo wanted everything they could muster. World is admittedly less expansive, but much more focused. It feels better to play.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

but they can only really shine in multiplayer

There is no but, they are multiplayer games.

(level design doesn't exist)

But stages do effect gameplay, size matters.

multiple targets

Never played Isuka?

environmental hazards don't exist

They are "fun" options in some games, it always sucks except for funsies.

no secondary, intertwining gameplay elements at all, pure arena combat

Yes, that's the entire point of the genre, this is a good thing.

but you can't play for hours on end (unless autistic)

Once you graduate from "haha I'm pushing da buttons :D WOW HADOKEN XD" to having fun playing the actual game, yes you can.

It only becomes fun with friends and even then the lifespan is limited.

Playing strangers is even more fun, the great games are still being enjoyed to this day.

The singleplayer in particular is fucking worthless

No one who likes fighting games gives a fuck about singleplayer beyond trainingsmode options.

let's not pretend you can sit down with them for hours on end, replay them for hours on end, or walk away feeling bliss/peak fulfillment

Good, no need to pretend

you just won a tournament or something, which is top 1% of autistic players

Tournaments are fun as fuck if just to compete and hang around with a bunch of people that all like the same thing a lot. kinda like here . Winning is cool but a good time is guaranteed.

Not liking them is fine, thinking they are a mid-tier genre is just ignorant.

 

[Ash]

World is for soy boys. More focused in which way? It's shorter than 3. Less complexity & depth than 3. More linear than 3. The physics suck. the art sucks. It's decline in every way.
More focused...on what, core platforming gameplay? Explain how exactly. It's the same thing just less of it. Lazy.

As for the art. Gross. Look at that bush on the left in the foreground, ZERO detail. Look at that lazy background, SMB3 All stars had more detail let alone almost any other SNES game. The HUD is fucking UGLY. Mario himself should be tossed in a blender, so cutesy in a very weird way. Yuck, it offends my eyes. Alongside the toybox-sounding music it really blends into peak decline.

Taken alone, it's a decent-ish game. Compared to the greatest platformer of all time, that being SMB3, it's shit. Same goes for every other Mario game out there.

Not liking them is fine, thinking they are a mid-tier genre is just ignorant.

I learned nothing from your post. Not that any of it is wrong per se, it's just all stuff I already knew. Nope, genre is mid-tier.

Well a few things are wrong but I'll point out this one:

"There is no but, they are multiplayer games."

Nope. they have singleplayer segments. The only thing that changes w/ multiplayer is human opponent. It's a game changer for sure but doesn't turn it from shit to high level genre. It changes from shit to (respectable) mid level. If they had worthy singleplayers instead of garbage I'd consider upgrading it a tier.

"Once you graduate from "haha I'm pushing da buttons :D WOW HADOKEN XD" to having fun playing the actual game, yes you can."

Easy autism diagnosis. You're cute.