Anime Your Unpopular Gaming Opinions

[Odoryuk]

Unlimited saving is the one feature I can't live without. It is necessary when you have a work / life balance that is tough to maintain and want to add some gaming into it. I never know when I'm going to be needed around the house or when I just drop tired and need to go to bed. "I know you're tired, don't worry, the next save point is 30 minutes away." Just no.
I can forgive the issue for old games though. I know what I'm getting into when I start them.

Another one I'll add ? Adjustable difficulty on the fly. "Just get good" is a mentality I don't have the time anymore for, considering most games are to never be replayed again I do not see any worth in the investment. As a result, if I can't adjust the difficultyid game, I'll go for easy because if I don't and hit a roadblock, well, this game is getting uninstalled. I do like my challenge andy difficulty which is why I always put the difficulty as high as I can but always with the fallback of being able to change it later if I just don't care enough.

Are there even modern games that won't let you save at all for a long amount of time? Limited saves feature is a spectrum. Most modern games actually save your progress all the time (FromSoft games, roguelikes, etc), the only limited thing is that you can't have multiple save slots, but if you have to get to your crying toddler in the middle of a playsession, you won't lose much progress, if any at all, by just turning the game off (good luck if you were fighting a boss in a FS game though). I thought that starving for save points was left in the past.

 

[taxalot]

Unlimited saving is the one feature I can't live without. It is necessary when you have a work / life balance that is tough to maintain and want to add some gaming into it. I never know when I'm going to be needed around the house or when I just drop tired and need to go to bed. "I know you're tired, don't worry, the next save point is 30 minutes away." Just no.
I can forgive the issue for old games though. I know what I'm getting into when I start them.

Another one I'll add ? Adjustable difficulty on the fly. "Just get good" is a mentality I don't have the time anymore for, considering most games are to never be replayed again I do not see any worth in the investment. As a result, if I can't adjust the difficultyid game, I'll go for easy because if I don't and hit a roadblock, well, this game is getting uninstalled. I do like my challenge andy difficulty which is why I always put the difficulty as high as I can but always with the fallback of being able to change it later if I just don't care enough.

Are there even modern games that won't let you save at all for a long amount of time? Limited saves feature is a spectrum. Most modern games actually save your progress all the time (FromSoft games, roguelikes, etc), the only limited thing is that you can't have multiple save slots, but if you have to get to your crying toddler in the middle of a playsession, you won't lose much progress, if any at all, by just turning the game off (good luck if you were fighting a boss in a FS game though). I thought that starving for save points was left in the past.

I don't know. But there are definitely rare games that allow you to pick a difficulty when you start, and then fuck you if you picked the wrong although you have zero experience playing it and have no idea what you are sigining for exactly.

I haven't played the Souls game, but from what I hear, you save when you quit ? Like in roguelikes ? I'm fine with that compromise.

 

[Kabas]

Savescumming is my god given right and nobody will take it away from me!

Spoiler

I don't actually abuse saving that much and i don't really mind lack of unlimited saving as long as checkpoints don't have retarded placing tho.
Lately came to realise that i don't like games where savescumming feels like a necessity.

 

[taxalot]

I could TOTALLY do without autosaves though. It's 2024 and I still play like those don't exist.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

Just like with fast travel, once you give the players the option, it influences the design of the whole game.

Which is why Wizardry is the exact same game as the latest AAA open world game, and why video games have gone downhill since unlimited saving was introduced for nearly all games of note since the 1970s.

Ah this good old fashioned dumb as shit argument. Restricted save systems are desired for about 10 reasons, boiling down the problem into "just don't save" is smoothbrain comprehension of game design. I do restrict myself in games with unlimited saving. It is sub-optimal design, but I have to put up with it otherwise I would miss out on...well 80% of old PC games, some otherwise very good. Like the guy above says, it effects the whole game's design and not in a good way.

And you didn't think to mention those 10 reasons? Since someone else mentioned it, savescumming, if anything, makes the game harder for the dumbass abusing it. Trying to manipulate the RNG will work at first, but eventually they'll end up in a position where they just can't anymore. In an action game, the player will eventually end up with no ammo and health. Bad players will find a way to turn a good situation into an awful situation.

 

[ind33d]

Unlimited saving is the one feature I can't live without. It is necessary when you have a work / life balance that is tough to maintain and want to add some gaming into it. I never know when I'm going to be needed around the house or when I just drop tired and need to go to bed. "I know you're tired, don't worry, the next save point is 30 minutes away." Just no.
I can forgive the issue for old games though. I know what I'm getting into when I start them.

Another one I'll add ? Adjustable difficulty on the fly. "Just get good" is a mentality I don't have the time anymore for, considering most games are to never be replayed again I do not see any worth in the investment. As a result, if I can't adjust the difficulty of a game, I'll go for easy because if I don't and hit a roadblock, well, this game is getting uninstalled. I do like my challenge and difficulty which is why I always put the difficulty as high as I can but always with the fallback of being able to change it later if I just don't care enough.

i actually think every game would be better if it were like fallout 4 survival or iron man XCOM and players were not allowed to make manual saves. manual saving means the optimal strategy is to mash quicksave every six feet in case you get jumped. even starfield would be fun if you knew that dying meant you would lose your progress instead of just reloading to when you opened the door

 

[Butter]

i actually think every game would be better if it were like fallout 4 survival or iron man XCOM and players were not allowed to make manual saves. manual saving means the optimal strategy is to mash quicksave every six feet in case you get jumped. it's absolute misery

Fallout 4 wasn't designed around Survival. Apart from the game's propensity to crash if the player so much as drops the wrong inventory item, you can pretty trivially get fragged by an errant grenade or an exploding car and lose hours of progress. Compare that to early Wizardry which was actually designed around not being able to save in the dungeon. There is no Game Over; instead you just create a new party to go and rescue the old one, then get them resurrected at the Temple. The game also lets you skip floors as you get further into it, so you're not taking as much risk (and not consuming as many resources) to get to the bottom of the dungeon.

Limited saving systems can be fantastic, but it has to be central to the game's design.

 

[ind33d]

i actually think every game would be better if it were like fallout 4 survival or iron man XCOM and players were not allowed to make manual saves. manual saving means the optimal strategy is to mash quicksave every six feet in case you get jumped. it's absolute misery

Fallout 4 wasn't designed around Survival. Apart from the game's propensity to crash if the player so much as drops the wrong inventory item, you can pretty trivially get fragged by an errant grenade or an exploding car and lose hours of progress. Compare that to early Wizardry which was actually designed around not being able to save in the dungeon. There is no Game Over; instead you just create a new party to go and rescue the old one, then get them resurrected at the Temple. The game also lets you skip floors as you get further into it, so you're not taking as much risk (and not consuming as many resources) to get to the bottom of the dungeon.

Limited saving systems can be fantastic, but it has to be central to the game's design.

actually one great aspect of the steam deck nobody talks about is that if every game can suspend/resume, you theoretically don't need save games at all. saving is an antiquated concept from a bygone era. the only reason manual saving should exist is for bugtesting and modding

 

[Ash]

And you didn't think to mention those 10 reasons?

Nope. Falls on deaf ears/blind eyes, it would be a big post, and I just end up getting pissed off at the average gamer's level of stupidity regarding game design.

 

[Silverfish]

Additionally, it's not easy to rephrase "I don't like it" nine times.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

All argument against free saves are moot and retarded when the absolute majority of modern games doesn't even allow you to save and exit.

 

[Hell Swarm]

actually one great aspect of the steam deck nobody talks about is that if every game can suspend/resume, you theoretically don't need save games at all. saving is an antiquated concept from a bygone era. the only reason manual saving should exist is for bugtesting and modding

There are games that don't like it. And I still might want to save before something then try it a different way. Maybe I wasn't happy with a B+ rank on a boss fight and I think I can do better. Who says I shouldn't be able to save before a boss and try again?

The issue with save debates if you can never justify saves being restricted because real life matters more than a game. I don't like people using save states in games not designed for it (Souls games all have this problem now, and that's on top of quitting out as you die from a fall). But general saving any where any time or a constant save rewrite as you play? Zero issue. Some times you need to go do something or you pet needs letting out. It's a single player game and it shouldn't concern any one else how often I save or why.

 

[taxalot]

Here's my most unpopular opinion : except on a few fast paced games, I like 30 FPS better. And to be clear, I have a 4070 and a 1080p screen so I'm able to push 60 in all current games.

I am not sure why. It feels the picture is more crisp ? There is no playability impact ?

Actually, I believe the reason is that I have been trained to play on *weak* hardware and 30 / sub30 FPS gaming has been so much how I am used to play that higher framerates feel "disturbing". I will never argue for the superiority of what I'm doing, so it's in fact, not an opinion, but it's still the way I prefer playing in most games.

60 FPS is however better for fast paced FPS , Shmups, or platforming. I won't argue with that.

 

[Habichtswalder]

Here's my most unpopular opinion : except on a few fast paced games, I like 30 FPS better. And to be clear, I have a 4070 and a 1080p screen so I'm able to push 60 in all current games.

I am not sure why. It feels the picture is more crisp ? There is no playability impact ?

Actually, I believe the reason is that I have been trained to play on *weak* hardware and 30 / sub30 FPS gaming has been so much how I am used to play that higher framerates feel "disturbing". I will never argue for the superiority of what I'm doing, so it's in fact, not an opinion, but it's still the way I prefer playing in most games.

60 FPS is however better for fast paced FPS , Shmups, or platforming. I won't argue with that.

I usually don't even recognize the amount of FPS. I recognize visible lags and freezes but besides that I don't see a difference most of the time.

 

[Shaja]

Having trouble for sleeping? Feeling stressed?

Just play or watch a gameplay video of Arx Fatalis! You will fall asleep fast !

 

[Ash]

Arx Fatalis' gameplay is absolute

It's slow paced yeah but so is...almost all RPGs? So you just don't like RPGs. But wait, I see vampire chick on Santa Monica Pier...you like VTMB whose gameplay is like 1/3rd as good as Arx's, so you probably are a combination of storyfag/theme or setting whore/waifu-loving degen/goth faggot. You certainly are no prestigious gameplayfag. Which is it?

 

[Beans00]

Arx Fatalis' gameplay is absolute

It's slow paced yeah but so is...almost all RPGs? So you just don't like RPGs. But wait, I see vampire chick on Santa Monica Pier...you like VTMB whose gameplay is like 1/3rd as good as Arx's, so you probably are a combination of storyfag/theme or setting whore/waifu-loving degen/goth faggot. You certainly are no prestigious gameplayfag. Which is it?

 

[soutaiseiriron]

Having trouble for sleeping? Feeling stressed?

Just play or watch a gameplay video of Arx Fatalis! You will fall asleep fast !

exploration is fun and cool actually

 

[Clockwork Knight]

A middle ground would be better. 1 in every 20 are experimental and the others are standard bunkers. It would make the experiments interesting to discover and rewarding in the lore. If everyone is special no one is special, so have special vaults be rewards for exploration and lore reading.

Considering how many there are and how many the player visits or knows of, this might be the case anyway. 8 (Vault city), 13, 76 and 101 didn't have anything too weird going on.

edit: actually I'll just look them up

https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_known_Vaults

101's experiment was the overseer being told he can keep it sealed as long as he deems necessary. I forgot that was part of the overseer's orders and not something he decided to do on his own. 13's replacement water chips were sent to vault 8 by mistake. The experiment in 29 is clearly the most terrifying one.

Social experiment. Said to be full of "rich, obnoxious teenagers".

 

[Lemming42]

I don't like pre-rendered graphics. Commandos, Desperados, Baldur's Gate, IWD, Final Fantasy VII, all that kind of thing. Something about it really puts me off. Just looking at Candlekeep makes me want to vomit. BioWare's artists in particular did a really bad job, everything in BG1 and BG2 looks so distorted and shitty.

Desperados is probably the least offensive of the bunch and looks good at times, but seeing the big fortress level recreated in full 3D for the Desperados 3 DLC just drove it home how much better it looked that way.

 

[NecroLord]

Savescumming is my god given right and nobody will take it away from me!

Spoiler

I don't actually abuse saving that much and i don't really mind lack of unlimited saving as long as checkpoints don't have retarded placing tho.
Lately came to realise that i don't like games where savescumming feels like a necessity.

I like being able to save when I want and where I want.
Especially in RPGs which are prone to crashing.
Nothing more infuriating than not having a previous save...

 

[Ash]

I don't like pre-rendered graphics. Commandos, Desperados, Baldur's Gate, IWD, Final Fantasy VII, all that kind of thing. Something about it really puts me off. Just looking at Candlekeep makes me want to vomit. BioWare's artists in particular did a really bad job, everything in BG1 and BG2 looks so distorted and shitty.

Desperados is probably the least offensive of the bunch and looks good at times, but seeing the big fortress level recreated in full 3D for the Desperados 3 DLC just drove it home how much better it looked that way.

Oh man, this is a hot take to me. I fucking love 90s pre-rendered graphics and to me it remains the peak of video game visual appeal, looking even better than modern ultra AAA shit.

 

[Hell Swarm]

I don't like pre-rendered graphics. Commandos, Desperados, Baldur's Gate, IWD, Final Fantasy VII, all that kind of thing. Something about it really puts me off. Just looking at Candlekeep makes me want to vomit. BioWare's artists in particular did a really bad job, everything in BG1 and BG2 looks so distorted and shitty.

Desperados is probably the least offensive of the bunch and looks good at times, but seeing the big fortress level recreated in full 3D for the Desperados 3 DLC just drove it home how much better it looked that way.

Could you go into more detail? What makes it look distorted and shitty to you?

 

[Lemming42]

Candlekeep's probably the best example:

Spoiler

I'm not sure how to describe it, but it just looks so wonky and strange to me. The outer walls and towers look too small, the houses are all mismatched and strange sizes, and the orientation of everything feels very odd, everything at tilted angles which make it all look like a surreal nightmare. It's even more jarring when the player and NPCs are there to mess the scale up even more (and also look visually different to everything else on the screen). This was a constant in BioWare's maps. I can't remember the exact map, possibly the mines in BG1, but one of the indoor dungeon maps made me feel genuinely queasy.

On top of that, a lot of pre-rendered stuff tends to have a very muddy and ugly early 3D look which has aged badly, especially when you compare it with pixel art before it and full 3D after it. Some of the stuff from PS:T, for example, was just awful looking. The art style might be good, but the execution looks very unappealing IMO:

Spoiler

Others, like Arcanum and Crusader: No Remorse, tend to have an unpleasant grainy effect.

 

[Hagashager]

I agree to a certain extent. My exception, personally, is Icewind Dale. The art there is very beautiful, NPCs are integrated well and the traversable terrain is sign-posted properly.

BG1 in particular feels a little too much like Ocarina of Time in that you're playing a character sprite/model in a pre-rendered 2D image that follows the player.