Anime Your Unpopular Gaming Opinions

[rusty_shackleford]

vtmb isn't very good

 

[Master]

The last two games are the best Hitman games to date. Almost everyone admits that Hitman 2: SA had far too much filler. Most of the missions in that game had no replay value at all.

Man, they just have bigger levels. Mechanically they are behind most of the previous ones. Also consider that 50% of a hitman game was style, which the new ones lack completely.

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

IO didn't get the disguise mechanics right until the third game. Silent Assassin's disguise mechanics ruin it completely and make it play a lot differently to the later games.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

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.

Consistency. That's what Thief 1 lacks and 2 has.
T1 might be more distinct, but that for me that means little, when there are a fair number of levels which can be frustrating to complete in a enjoyable manner. Then to make matters worse, is how T1 sometimes seems to be conflicted in what kind of game it's trying to be. I don't hold these errors against LGS since the game did have a rocky development and the idea to be about stealth only came in late. But they are flaws none the less, flaws that T2 properly adressed.
T1 worst levels can unfun and frustating (specially to ghost them). T2 worst levels on the other hand, are still enjoyable, complex, detailed and immensely replayable. Which is something that still amazes me, that despite how big the levels are they are still so complex and detailed that everytime I play them again I always find something new and a different way to beat them. While in some levels in T1 no matter how much I replay them, I will always eventually complete them in a similiar manner to the one I did when I first completed them, because it's too much of a hassle to try another way.

Also the average mission quality of T2 is very good.

 

[Master]

IO didn't get the disguise mechanics right until the third game. Silent Assassin's disguise mechanics ruin it completely and make it play a lot differently to the later games.

Huh? SA had the best disquising. It did play differently in that, you had to pay attention to what you were doing.

 

[rolandz_Baton_PROD]

It's possible this was already mentioned, and forgive my inability to read, but if there's one thing that i've recently started to hate the most, that is waypoints or any other artificial clutter that tells the player exactly where they need to go or where their objective is. This not only undermines the player's intelligence, but also removes his/her ability to solve the problems and obstacles the game throws at them on their own.

That^ is the pinnacle of how to correctly give the player all the information he needs, and then send him off to his own accord to solve the game's (Deus Ex) own conflict. Not plastering this fucking UI shit that clutters the screen of useless, offensive pixels.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

mass effect andromeda was pretty fun and I'm upset that it got no DLC/probably won't get a sequel because there's really no other space opera RPGs

 

[Seigneur Voland]

The first Witcher is a terrible game, amateur, clunky, buggy, shitty, with only one or two good things to save.

Risen (my first PB game) and Elex (my second and last) are two of the most retarded video games ever -a summum of imbecility and nullity resumed by the combats alone. The devs should have stopped to smoke weed a long time ago.

Paper Sorcerer is an unfinished buggy shit, with a very questionable choice of music for this "Medievil" fictional universe, a bit like if a cut-scenes heavy, melodramatic J-RPG had for OST the first Impaled Nazarene or some Marduk.

Wasteland 2 is flawed alright, but still good.

 

[NJClaw]

I unironically enjoy Dragon Age: Origins romances with Morrigan and Leliana, especially if you drop Leliana for Morrigan and, in the end, you decide to ignore her plan and to sacrifice yourself.

 

[Nano]

T1 might be more distinct, but that for me that means little, when there are a fair number of levels which can be frustrating to complete in a enjoyable manner. Then to make matters worse, is how T1 sometimes seems to be conflicted in what kind of game it's trying to be. I don't hold these errors against LGS since the game did have a rocky development and the idea to be about stealth only came in late. But they are flaws none the less, flaws that T2 properly adressed.

Just because the levels are varied doesn't mean that the game is inconsistent. You came into Thief 1 expecting a mansion burglary simulator (especially since Bafford's Manor is the first level), but that isn't really what the game is about.

T1 worst levels can unfun and frustating (specially to ghost them). T2 worst levels on the other hand, are still enjoyable, complex, detailed and immensely replayable.

Kidnap and Sabotage At Soulforge are far more terrible than Thief 1's worst levels.

 

[Egosphere]

It's possible this was already mentioned, and forgive my inability to read, but if there's one thing that i've recently started to hate the most, that is waypoints or any other artificial clutter that tells the player exactly where they need to go or where their objective is. This not only undermines the player's intelligence, but also removes his/her ability to solve the problems and obstacles the game throws at them on their own.

That^ is the pinnacle of how to correctly give the player all the information he needs, and then send him off to his own accord to solve the game's (Deus Ex) own conflict. Not plastering this fucking UI shit that clutters the screen of useless, offensive pixels.

Those old games also had a compass if you were never sure what direction you were facing. Such a simple mechanic, yet so much better than a quest marker

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Just because the levels are varied doesn't mean that the game is inconsistent.

Yes it is. Like I said, the game was originally to be an action game, but because of development problems did the dev team realise way down the line the idea to be a stealth game. And you can see the consequence of this genre shift in some levels, on how weirdly out of place some designs choices are and how frustating of missions are to ghost (meaning they weren't that well thought out as stealth challenges).

T1 worst levels can unfun and frustating (specially to ghost them). T2 worst levels on the other hand, are still enjoyable, complex, detailed and immensely replayable.

Kidnap and Sabotage At Soulforge are far more terrible than Thief 1's worst levels.

Jokes on you. Thief 2 has no bad levels. Kidnap is pretty fun, and Sabotage at the Souls Forge was a good way to end the game.
While Thief 1, without even mentioning Thieves Guild, you have: Into The Maw Of Chaos, Escape!, Strange Bedfellows, Undercover and Down In The Bonehoard.

 

[Egosphere]

Just because the levels are varied doesn't mean that the game is inconsistent.

Yes it is. Like I said, the game was originally to be an action game, but because of development problems did the dev team realise way down the line the idea to be a stealth game. And you can see the consequence of this genre shift in some levels, on how weirdly out of place some designs choices are and how frustating of missions are to ghost (meaning they weren't that well thought out as stealth challenges).

T1 worst levels can unfun and frustating (specially to ghost them). T2 worst levels on the other hand, are still enjoyable, complex, detailed and immensely replayable.

Kidnap and Sabotage At Soulforge are far more terrible than Thief 1's worst levels.

Jokes on you. Thief 2 has no bad levels. Kidnap is pretty fun, and Sabotage at the Souls Forge was a good way to end the game.
While Thief 1, without even mentioning Thieves Guild, you have: Into The Maw Of Chaos, Escape!, Strange Bedfellows, Undercover and Down In The Bonehoard.

Masks was awful, as was soulforge. Soulforge is the worst level out of the first 3 games. It's not even Thief, more like first person Factorio.

 

[Lemming42]

- Oversexualised women in games are annoying. Giant breasts, skimpy outfits, all that tedious 3D titillation. It makes the medium more lowbrow than it deserves to be.

Agree with this. Not because I'm worried about games being considered lowbrow, but I just think oversexualisation is really tedious. I was considering something along these lines for the OP but held off as it might have derailed the thread into the 999th "complain about Sarkeesian" thread. Games from the 90s with literal chainmail bikinis were facepalm-inducing at the time and outright cringey now, fuck only knows how they'll look to people in two decade's time.

Just because the levels are varied doesn't mean that the game is inconsistent.

Yes it is. Like I said, the game was originally to be an action game, but because of development problems did the dev team realise way down the line the idea to be a stealth game. And you can see the consequence of this genre shift in some levels, on how weirdly out of place some designs choices are and how frustating of missions are to ghost (meaning they weren't that well thought out as stealth challenges).

T1 worst levels can unfun and frustating (specially to ghost them). T2 worst levels on the other hand, are still enjoyable, complex, detailed and immensely replayable.

Kidnap and Sabotage At Soulforge are far more terrible than Thief 1's worst levels.

Jokes on you. Thief 2 has no bad levels. Kidnap is pretty fun, and Sabotage at the Souls Forge was a good way to end the game.
While Thief 1, without even mentioning Thieves Guild, you have: Into The Maw Of Chaos, Escape!, Strange Bedfellows, Undercover and Down In The Bonehoard.

I really like Down In The Bonehoard. Escape! isn't exactly bad - trying to stealth it makes it terrible, but it's alright as just a kind of frantic run-past-everything level. Undercover is the level that's always really confused me, though. I genuinely do not know what the fuck they were thinking.

 

[schru]

– The first System Shock is better than the sequel, though that's not to say the latter isn't interesting;

– Daggerfall has nice atmosphere, music, and visuals, but in the end it's a tedious, repetitive game;

– An Elder Scrolls Adventure: Redguard is a really fun little game and one of the few actually good ones that Bethesda made; the combat is simplistic, but the sense of adventure is nice;

– Baldur's Gate II is an overrated game and a bad sequel, but it's not that uncommon an opinion here;

– Thief II was quite underwhelming compared to the original; it felt more like a map-pack with a poorly fleshed-out story;

– Return to Castle Wolfenstein wasn't very good; the concept was appealing, but neither the level design, the combat, nor the atmosphere were interesting; Wolfenstein (2009) had better combat;

– Deus Ex: Invisible War is actually fun for what it is, but I played it without any positive expectations;

– Half-Life 2 and the episodes were very fun, even if the tightly-scripted linearity was disappointing and the character moments/drama weren't always interesting;

– the original Doom might still be the most well-rounded pure shooter ever made.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Soulforge is the worst level out of the first 3 games.

You misspelled Thieve's Guild. Also Soulforge is a far better endgame level than Into the Maw of Chaos.

I really like Down In The Bonehoard. Escape! isn't exactly bad - trying to stealth it makes it terrible, but it's alright as just a kind of frantic run-past-everything level.

Down In The Bonehoard and Escape! are very good examples of what I said about T1 original concept affecting the final release. They are good concepts for a mission of an action/dungeon crawler game and not a stealth one.

 

[Egosphere]

Soulforge is the worst level out of the first 3 games.

You misspelled Thieve's Guild.

That was only added to Thief Gold. And i'd say it's more than balanced out by Song of the Caverns, the opera mission.

 

[smaug]

BG1 has bad exploration

that’s why they went for more linear and compact areas in the sequels

 

[Falksi]

Dragon Age Origins is awesome.

Mass Effect 1 is brilliant too.

Dark Souls 1 is way too repetitive, and has never been an RPG.

Dragon's Dogma is a modern day Beat 'em Up with RPG elements, and not an RPG.

Crispy is straight.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Most old games have aged horridly from a UX standpoint. Terrible UI, bad controls, barely any/no key remapping, and in the case of nearly every RPG: absurdly bad inventory management, etc.,

 

[Lemming42]

Dragon Age Origins is awesome.

Mass Effect 1 is brilliant too.

I'm raging

 

[Unkillable Cat]

I'll try and make this short as this is getting tiresome and it's not that many things we disagree on anyway.

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.

No, that's not what I said at any point. What is this obsession of yours that everyone must do something or need to do something in light of circumstances?

I said that "in this particular case" (meaning that Thief is part of the exceptions rather than the norm) players can choose to ignore the blackjack if they so wish, and that it won't break the game. Nothing is forced, and I don't even mention whether the game gets better or worse as a result. That part is all in your head. And don't forget my final words of that post: "If the player is then still standing there bitching about the blackjack, then the problem is with the player and not the game."

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.

Again, no. I never said anything about ghosting being the best way to play Thief. That's all in your head, and not my problem.

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.

Once again you butt heads with the truth: Games are about the player's choices. Your choices are your choices, my choices are mine, anvi's (dumb) choices are his, and so on.

But you can't seem to get away from your thought that there is only one way to play a game, and that it must be done in one particular manner... which is the one you've decided upon, and all other players must and need to play the game in your way. If you're lucky this discussion may be over a game where it just so happens that the developer agrees with you (sucks to be him then) but this is Thief, a game that's incredibly lax on how it gets played. As long as the loot is grabbed and Garrett lives it really doesn't give a taff about the hows, wheres or whys. That's one of many reasons why people love it.

But enough of this, on to something else:

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.

Correct. Sometimes it's just about finding enjoyment in a pile of shit. Whether people choose to do that in a shitty/great game is their choice, and their right. (Whether it's a Bethesda title or not is irrelevant.)

On a final note: Thank you for having this debate. It helped me remember how I used to approach games back when I was a kid, and how I have lost track of that in subsequent years. I'm hoping this will help me going forward. I hope you experience something similar.

 

[Lemming42]

I'll try and make this short

Awesome.

Once again you butt heads with the truth: Games are about the player's choices. Your choices are your choices, my choices are mine, anvi's (dumb) choices are his, and so on.

But you can't seem to get away from your thought that there is only one way to play a game, and that it must be done in one particular manner... which is the one you've decided upon, and all other players must and need to play the game in your way. If you're lucky this discussion may be over a game where it just so happens that the developer agrees with you (sucks to be him then) but this is Thief, a game that's incredibly lax on how it gets played. As long as the loot is grabbed and Garrett lives it really doesn't give a taff about the hows, wheres or whys. That's one of many reasons why people love it.

I don't think everyone should ghost the game - I just personally think it's the best way to play it. My problem is that the knockout mechanic feels half-assed, has no drawbacks or restrictions (it's piss easy even to KO enemies from the front since the AI isn't great), thus forcing players to limit themselves (to whatever extent) to give the game challenge. That's dodgy games design IMO, and there's room for improvement - I like the suggestion made earlier in the thread of tranq darts with a limited supply, for example, and I like the way the tranq bow works in Deus Ex, where enemies stay conscious long enough to raise the alarm if the player isn't careful. Hitman 2 had enemies wake up very quickly, forcing the player to plan very carefully if they intended to KO someone. Stuff like that.

Remember this is the unpopular opinions thread...

Correct. Sometimes it's just about finding enjoyment in a pile of shit. Whether people choose to do that in a shitty/great game is their choice, and their right. (Whether it's a Bethesda title or not is irrelevant.)

Then we're agreed on that, but surely people can still criticise the writing and quest design of those games. It'd be ridiculous to say "if the player is still standing there bitching about the quests, then the problem is with the player and not the game".

On a final note: Thank you for having this debate. It helped me remember how I used to approach games back when I was a kid, and how I have lost track of that in subsequent years. I'm hoping this will help me going forward. I hope you experience something similar.

Absolutely, I hope this helps you too.

 

[Mikeal]

Lol Thief series has no bad levels.

 

[Silentstorm]

Most old games have aged horridly from a UX standpoint. Terrible UI, bad controls, barely any/no key remapping, and in the case of nearly every RPG: absurdly bad inventory management, etc.,

Is that really an unpopular opinion?

At least when it comes to computer gaming that is a big complain about old games made by people trying them out who didn't grow up with them, sure, you have people who manage to still have fun or get into some games, but overall, a lot of old games, particularly RPG's, would just be frustrating and annoying to a lot of gamers just by their menus and controls alone.

Not to say they are wrong or stupid, just that gaming changed a lot over the years when it comes to interfaces and controls.