Anime Your Unpopular Gaming Opinions

[iZerw]

Arcanum is not good.
DS2 is better than DS3 (even without DLCs).
BG1 > BG2
F:NV > FO2
SS1 > SS2
Larian makes shity diablo clones with awful writing. And no, TB is not enough to be a good game.
MM > Wizardry

 

[deama]

I think fallout 3 is just as good as fallout new vegas.

I think doom's and other similiar fps' level design sucks.

Dark souls isn't an rpg and shouldn't be on the RPG codex top list.

Dragon age 2 is better than 1.

 

[JarlFrank]

Thief 2 is not that great. Compared o modern games it's genius, but compared to the first game it's a letdown. The biggest problem is the samey-ness of the levels due to the fact that all of them take place in a city-like environment and the enemies you face are the same. In the T1 you had more variety present, both in locales and enemies. I didn't like the robots in 2. I thought they looked and sounded retarded. And speaking of which the villain just plain sucks. I mean in the first game you're battling the devil himself but here your opponent is some autistic incel with a lisp. Sorry, I meant lithp. What the fuck were they thinking?

Wrong.
Thief 2 is better than Thief 1. The systems, controls and AI are more polished. The levels are far better designed, complex and fun to play - not a single mission in T2 is anything short of good or that ever becomes unfun (the same can't be said for T1). Doubling down on the fantasy elements and give more prominence to the steampunk was a good choice. The story might have suffered from that, but who cares about that storyfaggotry when it gave more stealth focused challenges like cameras, alarms, turrets, eletrical systems, metal surfaces, etc.
In fact that's a good way to understand why T2>T1. T2 is the entry that's fully committed on stealth and how to perfect it. While T1 sometimes forgets that it's supposed to be a stealth game, because the game was originally supposed to be an action game, but only in the last development months is that the dev team decided to switch the focus to evasion and stealth

I used to be on the "Thief 2 is better than Thief 1" train but then I played hundreds of fan missions and played through the original campaigns again.

Now I'm firmly on the "Thief 1 is better" train.

Yes, Thief 1 has a more varied quality of missions. Some are great, some are shit (I hate Escape and Strange Bedfellows). But Thief 2 is overall more average in mission quality. Nowadays, after having played hundreds of fan missions, the T2 missions feel less distinct to me because a lot of them are thematically similar, while the Thief 1 missions are still very distinct in my mind. Thief 1 just has the greater variety and keeps throwing unexpected things at you. Bafford is a good first mission that introduces the world and gameplay, Cragscleft is still my favorite Hammerite mission in the official games, Bonehoard is an amazing dungeon crawl with thicc atmosphere, The Sword is just awesome in its weirdness and surprises you on your first playthrough. The variety gives more spice to Thief 1 and makes each mission unique.

Thief 2 feels a lot less unique in contrast. Yeah, you have highlighs like Life of the Party, First City Bank and Trust, Shoalsgate Station, Shipping and Receiving. But there is less variety since all the missions are in an urban or residential context. You mostly rob mansions and warehouses, and the missions have less individual character than in Thief 1.

I love both games and Thief 2 brought some cool new stuff into the game, but Thief 1 is still the more interesting experience overall.

 

[Taxnomore]

The real Baldur's Gate 3 is Pillars of Eternity.

 

[AdolfSatan]

Half-Life is a boring game about a nerd killing crabs with a crowbar and I'll take Hat Simulator 2 every single fucking day over it.

Deus Ex 1 is unplayable, clunky bollocks.

Might feel clunky at first, but it's worth investing the time in getting accustomed to it.

 

[Taxnomore]

FMV games were a great opportunity for gaming that failed only because lack of talent and budget.

 

[Parsifarka]

Dragon Age 2 is a fun game with big tiddies getting soaked in blood, hilarious writing, a friendly dog and awesome buttons to press in order to fight both mudslim invaders and SJW traitors while making a fortune and the only reason to dislike it is being a retard who somehow got attached to the shitty Origins. QED.

 

[Taxnomore]

Nobody actually liked Grimoire.

 

[Volrath]

Alien: Isolation is overrated garbage, as are the dishonered abortions.

Not to mention Prey.

FUCK.THAT.GAME.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

"Allowing for options" is different from putting in a silly mechanic and then leaving it to players to restrict themselves from using it. It's the developer's job to give you a fully tuned game, not a toolkit for you to pick which mechanics you like and ignore the rest.

I'm sorry, no. I cannot agree to this, nor can I explain how any rational thinking person can agree with this. Chekov's Gun does not apply to game design.

You adhere to the concept that every game should be "fully tuned" and "not a toolkit". If anything, this reveals that you have no imagination and/or expect way too much of game developers. You're stuck in the thought that it's the developer's job to create a game and dictate how the player plays the game.

No. That's not how it works. The developer can (at best) create a game and expect how a player will play it. The dev has no control over how players play his games, and the one that tries only betrays his own imagination.

If a game has a range of "mechanics" that serve specific functions and are balanced against one another that work together to make the game fun, then that's great, dev did a good job... until the inevitable happens when someone introduces the metagame, usually by asking what happens when one of the mechanics is removed/not used (another common scenario is asking what happens when a new mechanic is introduced, but that's beside the argument here). Do the rest of the mechanics stop being balanced as a result? Does the game fall apart at the seams because of its absence? If so, then the dev did not do as good a job as expected, because he didn't account for the metagame, or chose to ignore it. That's his problem, but it should not become the player's problem.

The magic of Thief is that players can pretend the blackjack doesn't exist and the game doesn't care, it just carries on and so does the player. I don't have an exact playbook for Thief here describing every move needed to beat it, but I do know that you don't need even half of the gear (or "mechanics" in your words) the game has to offer to win. They're just tools in a toolkit, to help get the job done. Thief is in a very small group of games that are designed so loosely in terms of mechanics, yet works as a result.

I would continue building my argument to counter yours, except you've already destroyed your own argument. What I do mean?

I've ghosted The Dark Project and I loved it, but you can't get mad at people for criticising a game for things that are in the game, nor can you get mad at people for not using your LARP mode where you pretend the weak aspects of the game just magically don't exist.

Point to me where The Dark Project introduces ghosting as a mechanic. Point to me where the game intends for you to use it. I'll skip ahead: It doesn't. At no point does The Dark Project mandate ghosting. ("Undercover" doesn't count because you're masquerading as a Hammerite, not ghosting. You're free to blow your cover at any point.)

In addition, ghosting requires that many of your so-called "mechanics" simply not be used. That breaks your (stupid) argument that if a mechanic is introduced, then it's to be used. In fact, the entire concept of ghosting is a fan-made term to describe a certain method of playing the game. And here you are, admitting to having played the entire game like that, pretending that aspects of the game magically don't exist. Now who's in pretend LARP mode?

Where are the limits on your "just ignore it" logic?

The limits are restricted only by the will of the player (a.k.a. the metagame) and the outermost boundaries of the game, i.e. whether the game becomes completely unplayable as a result.

While we're at it, explain the Armageddon spell in the Ultima games. The devs put it in the game and told you how to use it, therefore it's there to be used. But what happens if you do?

What's the comparison to the blackjack?

To paraphrase yourself: "It ruins the game." But unlike your exaggerated words, the Armageddon spell literally ruins the game, to the point of no return. That's its only purpose, by design. According to your seemingly ineffable stance on video game design, the Armageddon spell should not be in a game... but it is. Several of them, in fact. And they are considered to be great games, milestones in gaming history even. And the inclusion of the Armageddon spell is one of the notable parts of their game design.

 

[Goi~Yaas~Dinn]

There is no reason to pay for your videogames anymore.

PC sucks just as much as Mac or Console.

Quake is better than Doom, but still shite.

System Shock 1 is so clunky it actually is unplayable, and thus trash.

John Carmack destroyed iD from the inside out.

Yahtzee stopped being interesting to watch before episode 10 of Zero Punctuation.

Forgotten Empires is overbloated heresy.

The Fairchild Channel F is the first videogame console, and the first console generation shouldn't count.

Civilization II was the last good one.

The original Gameboy was bad.

Mobile gaming is cancer.

 

[DalekFlay]

Unpopular for Codex: some modern AAA games are enjoyable.

Unpopular for everywhere else: most modern AAA games are not enjoyable.

 

[Tehdagah]

Alien: Isolation is overrated garbage, as are the dishonered abortions.

Not to mention Prey.

FUCK.THAT.GAME.

Horror games in general are shit. It's a genre that shoves gameplay in the background.

 

[Egosphere]

Alien: Isolation is overrated garbage, as are the dishonered abortions.

Not to mention Prey.

FUCK.THAT.GAME.

Horror games in general are shit. It's a genre that shoves gameplay in the background.

I'd say that only took effect around 2010, when Amnesia became huge. Then Outlast gave the genre a good kick that seems to have broken it beyond repair.

 

[DalekFlay]

Horror games in general are shit. It's a genre that shoves gameplay in the background.

I like Alien Isolation, but it definitely would have been better with more stealth/combat sections and less wandering around with nothing happening. As you say though, that seems to be built into horror games because they think it builds and releases tension.

 

[Lemming42]

EDIT: Made this whole post less edgy because the last thing we need is for this to snowball into a Lilura vs smaug style battle

I'm sorry, no. I cannot agree to this, nor can I explain how any rational thinking person can agree with this. Chekov's Gun does not apply to game design.

You adhere to the concept that every game should be "fully tuned" and "not a toolkit". If anything, this reveals that you have no imagination and/or expect way too much of game developers. You're stuck in the thought that it's the developer's job to create a game and dictate how the player plays the game.

No. That's not how it works. The developer can (at best) create a game and expect how a player will play it. The dev has no control over how players play his games, and the one that tries only betrays his own imagination.

If a game has a range of "mechanics" that serve specific functions and are balanced against one another that work together to make the game fun, then that's great, dev did a good job... until the inevitable happens when someone introduces the metagame, usually by asking what happens when one of the mechanics is removed/not used (another common scenario is asking what happens when a new mechanic is introduced, but that's beside the argument here). Do the rest of the mechanics stop being balanced as a result? Does the game fall apart at the seams because of its absence? If so, then the dev did not do as good a job as expected, because he didn't account for the metagame, or chose to ignore it. That's his problem, but it should not become the player's problem.

The magic of Thief is that players can pretend the blackjack doesn't exist and the game doesn't care, it just carries on and so does the player. I don't have an exact playbook for Thief here describing every move needed to beat it, but I do know that you don't need even half of the gear (or "mechanics" in your words) the game has to offer to win. They're just tools in a toolkit, to help get the job done. Thief is in a very small group of games that are designed so loosely in terms of mechanics, yet works as a result.

I would continue building my argument to counter yours, except you've already destroyed your own argument. What I do mean?

I'll summarise all this: you think that people who identify weak game mechanics need to use their imaginations to pretend that the mechanics don't exist. I get that the game allows for the blackjack to be removed and still continue, but I don't think the game gives you any incentive to do so beyond making the game challenging for yourself, nor did the devs intend you to ignore it.

Point to me where The Dark Project introduces ghosting as a mechanic. Point to me where the game intends for you to use it. I'll skip ahead: It doesn't. At no point does The Dark Project mandate ghosting. ("Undercover" doesn't count because you're masquerading as a Hammerite, not ghosting. You're free to blow your cover at any point.)

In addition, ghosting requires that many of your so-called "mechanics" simply not be used. That breaks your (stupid) argument that if a mechanic is introduced, then it's to be used. In fact, the entire concept of ghosting is a fan-made term to describe a certain method of playing the game. And here you are, admitting to having played the entire game like that, pretending that aspects of the game magically don't exist. Now who's in pretend LARP mode?

What you've said here is literally exactly what I said in my post - the best way to play Thief (ghosting) requires you to ignore the way the devs intended you to play it. That's a bad thing because the player shouldn't have to ignore mechanics to have the best experience, yet that's what you're asking people to do by ignoring the blackjack.

The part of your post I just quoted makes me think you're not looking at what I'm writing:

I've ghosted The Dark Project and I loved it, but you can't get mad at people for criticising a game for things that are in the game, nor can you get mad at people for not using your LARP mode where you pretend the weak aspects of the game just magically don't exist.

The whole point of this sentence was to show that I agree Thief is a great game without the blackjack, but I don't think the player should have to come up with "metagames" (as you call them) such as ghosting/no KO to create a balanced and fun game.

To paraphrase yourself: "It ruins the game." But unlike your exaggerated words, the Armageddon spell literally ruins the game, to the point of no return. That's its only purpose, by design. According to your seemingly ineffable stance on video game design, the Armageddon spell should not be in a game... but it is. Several of them, in fact. And they are considered to be great games, milestones in gaming history even. And the inclusion of the Armageddon spell is one of the notable parts of their game design.

It's a non-standard game over. That's not the same thing as the blackjack, which the devs intend the player to use without penalty to get through the game. I don't know where you think the comparison is.

EDIT: I want to focus in on one part of your post because I think it's probably got the most interesting potential for discussion rather than us just going back and forth on whether or not the blackjack should be in Thief:

The limits are restricted only by the will of the player (a.k.a. the metagame) and the outermost boundaries of the game, i.e. whether the game becomes completely unplayable as a result.

In this case, the people who say Oblivion/Fallout 3 work as hiking simulators if you just ignore the quests are correct. I'm pretty sure that's how a lot of the mainstream audience played the games - ignore all the NPCs and quests and just have fun looting and exploring. I think that's a legitimate way to play the games, and probably the best way given the state of Bethesda's writing.

Because I can just ignore Thief's knockout mechanic, you object to me criticising it at all. Is this any different from someone saying Oblivion's writing shouldn't be criticised because the player needn't interact with it? Oblivion doesn't become unplayable if the player ignores all the NPCs - it actually improves.

 

[Harry Easter]

- A lot of the games we loved back then haven't aged that well, even if we can still play them, because we know them in our sleep.

- The general writing of RPG's got overall better in the last few years.

- D:OS2 is the best modern CRPG when it comes to combat, choices and interacting with the gameworld.

- The idea of big geniuses in game development is redundant.

- LGBTQ - people don't kill gaming. The industry does that to itself since it started.

- MOTB is the better Planescape: Torment.

- Pillars of Eternity (with White March) is better than BG1+2 together.

- The OC of NWN2 is better than people give it credit for.

- Being cynical and acting like Spoony was never cool and there will be more cool stuff coming out, than we like to admit.

- Age of Decadence is unbalanced and way bigger than it should have been. Dungeon Rats was the better game, because it concentrated on the parts, that were important to it.

- The story of Dragon Age 2 was pretty good, until BW chickened out with the ending.

 

[Goi~Yaas~Dinn]

- A lot of the games we loved back then haven't aged that well, even if we can still play them, because we know then im our sleep.

Games don't age, we do.

 

[CoolioMaximus]

Mario 2...it’s a pretty good game

 

[Swigen]

Doom 3 was a good gaem!!

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

This thread and the people who wrote on it should be caged in a box, sealed with chains and thrown to the sea, jumanji style.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

dark souls games are terrible

 

[Jezal_k23]

I love all Doom games (except for Doom 3 which I merely like), including Doom 2016 which I think is awesome and I'm looking forward to Doom Eternal. Unpopular here, not so much elsewhere.

 

[Lady_Error]

Civlization V (playing in strategic view and with all expansions) is the best installment of the series.

 

[111111111]

I dont like playing games anymore