Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
This isn't just a Kings Field thing either. I see this all the time with Elder Scrolls. Arena sold 10,000 copies max, and even ten times that number doesn't come close to the millions Skyrim sold. Daggerfall was largely unknown too. Morrowind had a following among RPG nerds, and that's it. Same with Swery and Persona fans. Nobody had heard of Spy Fiction until Deadly Premonition became a meme. Persona 3 had a following among JRPG fans and was mildly controversial, but it wasn't until Persona 4 went mainstream in part due to Giant Bomb's playthrough. Again, a Japan only JRPG on the SNES was not something that would've had a big fanbase in the west.

Based though. I played Morrowind because the Toonami review of an open world sandbox was extremely novel at the time and it capture my 12 year old imagination.

I only played Persona 5, because one of my three best friends played Persona 3 and told me it was great, but by the time I gave Persona 5 a chance (About a year ago), it had been so long that when my friend mentioned he'd played "Persona" I had assumed he meant 4.

People really just want their own personal lore to be deeper than it is for some reason.
 
I appreciate the Nolan reference, but by that same token would Dunkirk and Tenet have been received better if they'd followed a more standardized story?

There's also a point where normal storytelling just does its job better than random factoids. Knowing the MCRN Tachi is normally docked inside the Donnager and that the Tachi has 6 PDC mounts that fire at 3000 rounds per minute is a cool touch for world building, but it isn't particularly useful when I want to know who the fuck Marco Inaros is and why the fuck he's dropping rocks on Earth and Mars. From Soft gives way too much of the former and not nearly enough of the latter.
The thing about the Dark Souls games (again, I can't speak on Elden Ring) is that the vast majority of the "storytelling" you're talking about happened in the long distant past of the dead world you inhabit. The basic premise of Dark Souls is incredibly simple - Gwyn, Age of Fire, fire is burning out which will plunge the world into darkness, you're the chosen undead destined to keep the fire burning.

Everything else is ancillary and non-essential lore from hundreds or thousands of years in the past and I don't see what's wrong with making that stuff difficult and labyrinthine. Making the history of the world relatively opaque and full of spotty information makes it feel authentic, rather than (once again) wiki-izing everything with concrete answers to every question and a comprehensive timeline of every event, right down to Gwyn's childhood trauma that made him want to kill ancient dragons or some equally retarded shit.

Sometimes you have to accept (as Tolkien talked about) the "distant mountains" as just being "distant mountains" without expecting an explanation of the plate tectonics of Middle Earth.

This:

Became this:

Tldr; they dialed the animeness up to 11.
Wait a minute - are you telling me the heroes learned to overcome even the greatest obstacle through the power of friendship? I didn't see that one coming!

Anime ruins everything.
 
Last edited:
The thing about the Dark Souls games (again, I can't speak on Elden Ring) is that the vast majority of the "storytelling" you're talking about happened in the long distant past of the dead world you inhabit.
I understand that. I just don't agree that Dark Souls does it particularly well. The world building doesn't feel compelling enough to make me believe that its a world that could have actually existed. The only way I can really describe it, is that it doesn't feel immersive to me in the way something like Night City does. It feels more like I'm walking across a theater stage and I have to work extra hard to suspend my disbelief in order to make it all shake out.
Everything else is ancillary and non-essential lore from hundreds or thousands of years in the past and I don't see what's wrong with making that stuff difficult and labyrinthine.
Nothing in principal, however my issues remain in the execution. I think From Soft executes it poorly, because From Soft have no writers that are worth a damn, and never have. No one gives a shit about From Soft's lore aside from Youtubers who make it their jobs to fill in the blanks and actually prepare a narrative to tell an interested (and notably unsatisfied) audience. People expect great combat from From Soft and that's what they get.

Making the history of the world relatively opaque and full of spotty information makes it feel authentic, rather than (once again) wiki-izing everything with concrete answers to every question and a comprehensive timeline of every event, right down to Gwyn's childhood trauma that made him want to kill ancient dragons or some equally retarded shit.
You can do both things at once. Look at the general lore of Westeros for example. A lot of Westorosi history is written definitively, enough that you can get a backbone and understand how the world works, who the major players are, what empires are where etc. and yet there are still things left to interpretation like the fate of Daemon Targaryan who according to Westorsi historians is dead, and yet all note his body, nor his weapons and armor were ever discovered after his final battle in which his dragon, his enemy's dragon, and his enemy's body were discovered, and yet he never appears in the lore after this point. So we don't have a set in stone answer on whatever happened with Daemon, its open to interpretation, but we still know who Daemon was, what he did, and why its interesting we don't know how his story ends.

Also, edit here, The same fat fuck who wrote Daemon Targaryan is the same fat fuck From Soft hired to do the story for Elden Ring and then barely fucking utilized. They had a guy who knows how to do this better than they do, and they still fucked it up.
 
Those are all sequels. Remasters way back when were a rare thing.
I think Super Castlevania 4 was a remake of the first Castlevania (despite being numbered as 4), that might be the only exception.

That's a pretty big "just". Metro Exodus is just Metro Last Light with an open world and it completely ruined the pacing of the original formula. Making a linear series "open-world" is nearly as consequential to core gameplay concepts as a 2D series transitioning to 3D.
I don't know about that... I think it depends on the genre. As one example, Platformers are so simple in 2D but transitioning to 3D seemed to be very difficult, they had to pretty much reinvent the ideas and change the goals with Mario. I actually think Sonic had a more faithful transition to 3D than Mario did, but even the Sonic Adventure duology plays pretty differently than Sonic 1 or 2 did.

Fighting games on the other hand probably had the easiest transition to 3D for obvious reasons (your goals still stay the same, and now you can just hit from different angles).

Going back to platformers, I think it's pretty easy to make the case that the jump from 2D Mario to 3D Mario was a lot more difficult than it would be for 3D Mario to become open-world (from a design perspective anyway, there's no way they could've done it on N64 or even GameCube, at least not very well because of hardware restrictions).

On average I'd say the jump to 3D was a lot more difficult for most genres than it is for games to go open-world. GTA3 basically pioneered open-world design, and it had the benefit of an easy transition, like Zelda did. Some genres just wouldn't even make sense going open-world (fighting, sports, etc) so I wouldn't count those.
 
So we don't have a set in stone answer on whatever happened with Daemon, its open to interpretation, but we still know who Daemon was, what he did, and why its interesting we don't know how his story ends.
I don't think that's universally better, especially when some historical figure isn't relevant to understanding the plot. Sometimes only having a tiny bit of information about setting fluff and leaving vast portions to the player's imagination gives it far more texture than having a complete character bio and history and the only mystery being "oooooooooh, but maybe he didn't die in that battle, ooooooooh!"

More information does not inherently make a setting better.

transitioning to 3D seemed to be very difficult, they had to pretty much reinvent the ideas and change the goals with Mario
And they SHOULD do that in all the games that "go open-world", but instead they typically just funnel you into traditional linear sections. Most series that have transitioned to "open-world" are the equivalent of Mario 64 having the 3D castle and all the paintings containing 2D Super Mario World levels.
 
I don't think that's universally better, especially when some historical figure isn't relevant to understanding the plot.
Well, we're not going to find anything that's universally better, every tool in the shed has its purpose. Additionally your point kind of misses mine, you focus too much on what the example was and not enough on what it demonstrated.

Things like unreliable narrators, missed translations, characters not having all the information, information being lost, etc. are all useful for obscuring the absolute truth of what happened and making it read like a wiki.

it far more texture than having a complete character bio and history and the only mystery being "oooooooooh, but maybe he didn't die in that battle, ooooooooh!"
Also a bit reductive. If we keep using Westeros as an example (Again because From Soft literally hired the guy that came up with it to write for Elden Ring so it seems a good comparison), Westros has characters like Daemon who meet mysterious fates. It has Old Valyria which due to some unknown circumstances brought about a doom onto their entire Empire. We have castles like Storm's End which is built upon a material that exists no where else in Westeros and has some people speculating that perhaps Westeros used to be a more advanced civilization that is rebuilding from some unknown apocalypse and that's not even to get into the extended universe's more exotic locations and sorceries.

The world building is better all around both from a mysterious standpoint and a defined standpoint. Item Descriptions and this idea of a "dead world where the lore is long gone because its so old" seems more and more like an excuse to not hire any serious writers than it does a way to maintain intrigue and mystery.
 
Item Descriptions and this idea of a "dead world where the lore is long gone because its so old" seems more and more like an excuse to not hire any serious writers than it does a way to maintain intrigue and mystery.
Well, it can be both. If it works to maintain intrigue AND makes development cheaper, I'm all for it.

The idea that you need "serious writers" to invent an interesting setting for a video game seems specious to me.
 
And they SHOULD do that in all the games that "go open-world", but instead they typically just funnel you into traditional linear sections. Most series that have transitioned to "open-world" are the equivalent of Mario 64 having the 3D castle and all the paintings containing 2D Super Mario World levels.
I think it was a commendable effort by Nintendo, but I still respect Sega for keeping the spirit of what made the Sonic games more intact initially. The only thing really missing is the top/bottom sections 2D Sonic had. There were often basically a top path and lower path to take, but Sonic sort of took most of that choice and just made it completely linear instead of making branching paths.

Just as a note, I've only played half of Sonic Adventure (as Sonic) and none of Adventure 2 yet, so maybe I'm wrong, but not from what I've played.

Going open-world shouldn't just be a whole new design philosophy but with the same old character slapped in, unless it's absolutely necessary, which I don't feel it was with Mario. The 3D Land/World games are closer to what you'd expect from Mario's jump to 3D (whether they're better or worse is debatable).
 
Well, it can be both. If it works to maintain intrigue AND makes development cheaper, I'm all for it.

The idea that you need "serious writers" to invent an interesting setting for a video game seems specious to me.
It can be both, but I need you to come up with a bigger post. I got like 10 minutes till clock out time and I really don't want to have to look at any more blueprints today.

Also, any game that's attempting to tell a story or sell a setting will benefit from good writers who can help define it. I'm not saying that these writers are necessarily in the gaming industry mind you, or that they're 100% necessary, but I think they're more likely to be focused on the details that make a setting believable.
 
but I think they're more likely to be focused on the details that make a setting believable.
Believable in what sense? As I mentioned the other day, the premise of Dark Souls is a nebulous creation myth and the death of that world. I think it has to be aesthetically consistent (and I think it does a pretty good job in that respect), but "believability" doesn't strike me as vital in a fantasy world.

Again, it's about giving the player just enough information to get their own imagination going. That's always, always going to be more satisfying than even the most comprehensive world-building lore with a million "details" added by "serious writers".
 
Daggerfall was largely unknown too.

Daggerfall had a demo that packed into PC Gamer which, on its own, was bigger than most RPGs. Of course, it was all randgen crap, but so was the main game. Back in the 90s, far more people played any given game than bought it, because full-episode demos were pretty common.

The thing about the Dark Souls games (again, I can't speak on Elden Ring) is that the vast majority of the "storytelling" you're talking about happened in the long distant past of the dead world you inhabit. The basic premise of Dark Souls is incredibly simple - Gwyn, Age of Fire, fire is burning out which will plunge the world into darkness, you're the chosen undead destined to keep the fire burning.

Everything else is ancillary and non-essential lore from hundreds or thousands of years in the past and I don't see what's wrong with making that stuff difficult and labyrinthine. Making the history of the world relatively opaque and full of spotty information makes it feel authentic, rather than (once again) wiki-izing everything with concrete answers to every question and a comprehensive timeline of every event, right down to Gwyn's childhood trauma that made him want to kill ancient dragons or some equally retarded shit.

Star Wars got ruined by nerds demanding explanations for every prop and throwaway line in the movies, so that we ended up getting a novel about how Han Solo got the stripes on his pants.
 
Believable in what sense? As I mentioned the other day, the premise of Dark Souls is a nebulous creation myth and the death of that world. I think it has to be aesthetically consistent (and I think it does a pretty good job in that respect), but "believability" doesn't strike me as vital in a fantasy world.
That's a bit harder to define. Believable in the sense that it seems like something that could have actually existed. The alluring part about fantasy is that, while it is fantastical, the best fantasy is still real enough that you can almost believe it, or that you want to believe it. At least for me, Dark Souls never rose to that, but in their defense, I don't think most Asian games really ever sell their fantasy that well. Asian cultures tend to like thinly veiled set pieces more akin to a theater than they do deep world building that you might get out of something more traditional like Tolkien.
Star Wars got ruined by nerds demanding explanations for every prop and throwaway line in the movies, so that we ended up getting a novel about how Han Solo got the stripes on his pants.
Star Wars got ruined by people who had billions of dollars to run astro-turfed campaigns indicating that people wanted that. In reality, almost all of those projects failed and ended up with fans complaining that they were explaining irrelevant details. Again, its a cool quirk of the Falcon that it tends to run like a piece of shit. Its retarded that the ship runs like shit because its a non-binary black droid freedom fighter who's being sassy.

Again its a nice detail to know that the Rocinante's Machine Shop has a sign that reads "Take care of her and she'll take care of you." , its not cool to learn about the fire sell that Amos bought the sign at from a sassy half-asian half-black woman on Ceres Station. One of those added to the world, the other indulged in excess.
 
I might as well add the forth lie. That many soulsbourne fans were big into King's Field before the series went mainstream. Utter bullshit. Nobody played Kings Field. Before Dark Souls, FromSoftware were "the armored core people". And even if you were the rare 0.01% of people who used their chipped PS1 to play weird Japanese imports, your favourite was not going to be a janky JRPG that was primitive even by the standards of the day, that you couldn't even read.
Excuse you, I absolutely loved King's Field 2 US and Armored Core before either were cool.
 
Stopped reading right here. Maybe play those games first.
I have played them. I played a lot of Super Mario All Stars it is a remake/remaster of the three Mario games on the NES and a US release of the actual Mario 2 that was a Japan only game. Super castlevania IV is a remake of the first game on the NES. Super punch out is basically a remake of the first punch out but it's better. I haven't played much of Super Metroid. But from what I have seen of the game it's a remake.
There is nothing wrong with playing FPS games with a controller. Keyboard and mouse are more precise but sometimes I just want to sit back and relax with a controller in hand and an FPS is perfectly enjoyable and playable with a controller.
You can play a FPS with a controller. You can also jerk off with sandpaper. That doesn't mean you should do it.
I'm a Dark Souls fan and will happily admit the last third (I really don't think it's half) of the game is terribly unpolished compared to the rest.

God knows the game is not perfect, but I still believe the parts that are good are SO good that it's still top 5 (top 3? top 1?) games of the 2010s. It's been so influential on the audience and industry that "Souls-like" is right up there with "Rogue-like" and "Metroidvania" where a single game has defined an entire genre.


What do mean "the only thing"? Running at 60 fps is infinitely more important than some trivial increases in graphical fidelity in a game that already looked fine.
It depends. If a game looks as rough as RDR did with the jaggies and low resolution I will take a cleaner better looking game over higher frame rate. Both are preferable though.
Those are all sequels. Remasters way back when were a rare thing.
Not really. Remasters have been around since at least the SNES and Genesis. Remasters were happening with the PS2 Gamecube and Xbox. It's not a new trend and it likely won't ever stop.
Kids on Xboxes kick my dick in, and I play CoD on PC with a mouse. So yeah.
They probably use auto-aim that or they are playing with a mouse and keyboard.
 
It depends. If a game looks as rough as RDR did with the jaggies and low resolution I will take a cleaner better looking game over higher frame rate..
That is an objectively retarded opinion and people like you are why it's somehow still considered acceptable for console games to run at 30 fps in the year of our Lord 2023.

Kill yourself.
 
That is an objectively retarded opinion and people like you are why it's somehow still considered acceptable for console games to run at 30 fps in the year of our Lord 2023.

Kill yourself.
I don't even play on consoles. At least not exclusively. I do most of my gaming on a PC at a steady 60 fps on high to ultra settings. Consoles are locked at 30 fps because they are using shitty outdated cheap hardware. Nothing I say will ever change that.

Cry more console faggot.

By the way, telling people to kill themselves is super fucking gay. Especially on a forum like this. This isn't fucking Facebook or Twatter. Go do that lame faggot shit to normies. LOLOLOLOLOL
 
Back
Top Bottom