Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

As the title says.

I'll start.

I believe DBZ Fighting Games should be strictly 3D.

Smash Brothers games should have less characters

The Uncharted games are mediocre at best.

Smash is a party game, gtfo with that competitive shit.

The less cut scenes we have in games, the better.

Originally posted by cdtm
Smash is a party game, gtfo with that competitive shit.
So it shouldnt have competitive elements because its not a traditional fighter?

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
So it shouldnt have competitive elements because its not a traditional fighter?

If you have to strip away 99% of everything to make it competitive legal, then it was never meant to be competitive.

But you can make anything into a competition. Little lines on a black screen can be made competitive. You tend to strip away what makes them fun in the first place, like Smash's random elements, but it can be done.

Items dont really make up 99% of Smash, but fair enough. People have different standards when it comes to playing that series competitvely or more seriously, but am not that anal when it comes to stage selection minus the few stages that are borderline unplayable.

Cant say am a fan of the tier culture that the Smash community revolves around. No other fighting series Ive seen, however competitive, emphasizes tiers the way they do. Think its because the community knows Smash isnt a traditional fighter and just want to be taken more seriously but eh, I always use my favorites regardless. If you use someone because theyre the top tier viable out of a handful of characters or something, you do you.

I'm almost done with RDR2, and my (possibly) unpopular opinion about the game is that it honestly is not that good. The story is solid enough but takes WAYYYYYYY too long to get interesting. The mission design, for the most part, is very generic and counter-intuitive for an open world game. The activities are decent but there isn't really much of a reason to do them. I think the first RDR is much better.

What's wrong with the mission structure?

Kingdom Hearts is the most convoluted cluster**** of a game franchise.

It's the equivilent of all those stupid comic book mega events with a billion tie in to series you never cared about, yet had plot critical information to the main series.

Originally posted by cdtm
What's wrong with the mission structure?

It's just very generic and often linear which flies in the face of the open world nature of the rest of the game. Most of the missions just boil down to "ride here with NPC, kill some people, collect something, repeat". There are some great standout missions, but I think I really began to notice this because of the sheer amount of required missions, which I think was just way too much.

And the game is very strict on how narrow the mission design is. You cannot step outside of the path you are required to take or it will fail.

Which is OK when its used efficiently and effectively (a bank robbery for instance) but when every mission does it...it's a slog in most cases.

There is a two missions that are virtually identical to each other near the end of the game.

Originally posted by cdtm
Kingdom Hearts is the most convoluted cluster**** of a game franchise.

It's the equivilent of all those stupid comic book mega events with a billion tie in to series you never cared about, yet had plot critical information to the main series. This is not an unpopular opinion.

This is:

The Last of Us was not only not one of the best games of all time, it wasn't even nearly the best game of its year. It was a very serviceable game with an okay story that did nothing to raise the bar.

The Switch is a gimmicky piece of shit with little reason to buy it because there are hardly any original games to justify the price.

Originally posted by Smasandian
And the game is very strict on how narrow the mission design is. You cannot step outside of the path you are required to take or it will fail.

Which is OK when its used efficiently and effectively (a bank robbery for instance) but when every mission does it...it's a slog in most cases.

There is a two missions that are virtually identical to each other near the end of the game.

Yeah the strictness is just bizarre, honestly. It really doesn't fit in with the development structure of the rest of the game.

Originally posted by NemeBro
This is not an unpopular opinion.

This is:




With KH's popularity, I figured this would be pretty controversial.

Originally posted by Impediment
The Switch is a gimmicky piece of shit with little reason to buy it because there are hardly any original games to justify the price.
You say that, but whenever the Switch/Nintendo does get something interesting exclusive, people have a meltdown and go all "I wasn't gonna get this shitty game/system anyway", like with Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 and such.

Oh yeah, forgot you were one of those people, looking at the thread again. So dismiss games here and there for being Switch exclusive, yet say there's not enough/no games to justify the price... Okay then.

Hey. I have an unopened copy of Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2.

200 dollars and it's yours.

Unpopular opinion.

Nintendo gets a pass from gamers all the time. Just look at Metroid Prime 4. If other companies did what Nintendo did....they get heavily criticized.

Also, Nintendo games are rarely ever as good as people say.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Unpopular opinion.

Nintendo gets a pass from gamers all the time. Just look at Metroid Prime 4. If other companies did what Nintendo did....they get heavily criticized.

Also, Nintendo games are rarely ever as good as people say.

Huh? There certainly are things to criticize Nintendo for but they should be commended for what they are doing with MP4 not criticized. Restarting development on a game that isn't at the standard they want and telling the consumers about it is great and refreshing.

I commend them for not releasing a shitty product.

But the game was announced way to early and it ****s people over who bought a Switch to play it.

EA announces they are stopping development on a unnamed Star Wars project. Internet heavily criticizes the company for doing so. However, Nintendo says, "yeah, Metroid Prime 4 ****ing sucked and we are starting new" and the Internet goes "that's amazing, finally a company that cares".....but other companies cancel shitty games all the time and get reamed out.

I agree that it was announced to early.

However, comparing canceling a game to restarting development is dumb as ****.

Yeaaah, in on way is restarting a game's development (unfortunate as it is) comparable to outright cancelling it like EA, or releasing in a buggy messy/shitty state like Bethesda. Nintendo's quality control is also partly the reason the first Metroid Prime didn't release on N64, as it would've aged terribly by comparison to what we got.

I hope either the next 2.5D game following Samus Returns or the Prime Trilogy port to Switch rumor eventually comes true, to tide fans over in the meantime.

Nintendo essentially cancelled the game. From what I understand they are starting brand new with a different team or at least modified one.

How is any different taking a dev team making a Star Wars game and getting them to make a different Star Wars game?

Originally posted by Smasandian
I commend them for not releasing a shitty product.

But the game was announced way to early and it ****s people over who bought a Switch to play it.

EA announces they are stopping development on a unnamed Star Wars project. Internet heavily criticizes the company for doing so. However, Nintendo says, "yeah, Metroid Prime 4 ****ing sucked and we are starting new" and the Internet goes "that's amazing, finally a company that cares".....but other companies cancel shitty games all the time and get reamed out. No, they didn't stop development. They CANCELLED the game, there's a difference.

Nintendo isn't stopping development, they are starting new, with a new company who'll do the Metroid license proud (presumably and hopefully).

On the topic of EA & Star wars

Disney needs to cut ties from Unicron Arts and give the license to someone else, All that they've released in the time that they got the license are two games. Compared to when Lucasarts was around it released 16 games in 5 years.

Originally posted by Kazenji
On the topic of EA & Star wars

Disney needs to cut ties from Unicron Arts and give the license to someone else, All that they've released in the time that they got the license are two games. Compared to when Lucasarts was around it released 16 games in it's 5 years. They do it because Battlefront is "profitable" as opposed to what the fans want, which does suck, but IIRC they renewed their license with EA.

Further proof of EA being out of touch.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Nintendo essentially cancelled the game. From what I understand they are starting brand new with a different team or at least modified one.

How is any different taking a dev team making a Star Wars game and getting them to make a different Star Wars game?

If you can't see the difference between restarting development on a game and canceling one in favor of making a "smaller-scale" game I don't know what to say...

The problem is only further exacerbated by the fact that EA has completely bungled the SW property for the past few years.

How do you know what is happening with Metriod Prime 4 isn't similar? You have no idea.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
They do it because Battlefront is "profitable" as opposed to what the fans want, which does suck, but IIRC they renewed their license with EA.

When did EA renew the license for Star Wars?

I read EA bosses hate the license. The management that signed up are no longer part of the company and the current boss are not thrilled with it.

I'm not a big fan of the LucasArt comparison. Development is much different these days and LucasArts were in charge of the IP. EA has to consult on every decision with Disney. Also, some of the games were in development prior while EA had to start making games.

However, EA has ****ed it up. Also, aside from Activision and maybe Ubisoft...I don't see any other company willing to take that ****ing contract.

Originally posted by Smasandian
How do you know what is happening with Metriod Prime 4 isn't similar? You have no idea.

So you admit, your comparison sucks ass as we "have no idea". Good.

Originally posted by Kazenji
On the topic of EA & Star wars

Disney needs to cut ties from Unicron Arts and give the license to someone else, All that they've released in the time that they got the license are two games. Compared to when Lucasarts was around it released 16 games in 5 years.
And only one of those two games is really good imo, Battlefront 2 in its current form/after being rebalanced. Of course some still take potshots at the game because of the initial controversy but eh.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I'm not a big fan of the LucasArt comparison. Development is much different these days and LucasArts were in charge of the IP. EA has to consult on every decision with Disney. Also, some of the games were in development prior while EA had to start making games.

However, EA has ****ed it up. Also, aside from Activision and maybe Ubisoft...I don't see any other company willing to take that ****ing contract.

EA should have just never been exclusive in the first place. I have no problem with them having a license to make Star Wars in theory, but them being the only ones? That was a huge mis-step, and not the only one Disney has made with the franchise.

At least SWBF2 is now getting to the point where it resembles the game it was supposed to be from the start. Makes me wonder how long that will last though.

On topic, because there is no way EA shitting the bed is an unpopular opinion:

-Naughty Dog games (Uncharted, Last of Us) rely heavily on scripted sequences and decent stories to hide occasionally weak (those ****ing stealth sections), repetitive gameplay.

-Assassin's Creed, as a series, is creatively bankrupt and Odyssey is a prime example of that.

-Dragon Age 2 is a solid 8/10 game.

Assassin's Creed is the Call of Duty of the stealth genre, imo.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
And only one of those two games is really good imo, Battlefront 2 in its current form/after being rebalanced. Of course some still take potshots at the game because of the initial controversy but eh.


Meh...as much as i like Star Wars i just can't be bothered playing EA's Star Wars games.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
And only one of those two games is really good imo, Battlefront 2 in its current form/after being rebalanced. Of course some still take potshots at the game because of the initial controversy but eh.


It's not as good as Battlefront II Classic, no.

It's "pretty good", but not "really good".

I had/still have the original Battlefront 2 which is hard to see being topped, but I still really enjoy the EA BF2 for what it is. Wouldve liked if Grievous, Dooku, Obi-Wan, and such had been in the game sooner, but glad to have them now, and with Captain Phasma and the like on top of them, game has a pretty good roster and content for all three Star Wars eras. Just have to wonder who or what else they might add after Anakin. More Starfighter Assault maps or something would be nice too.

I dont see much reason for Star Wars fans to sleep on current BF2 as it is now, suck as it may that other things were cancelled (the open world SW game) but thats on EA.

Yeah; it's a pretty good game imo.

Hoping we get Ventress and Ahsoka soon, and of course some new paint options for the clones.

Originally posted by cdtm
Smash is a party game, gtfo with that competitive shit.

Smash being a party game is not an opinion though, it's a fact.

Maybe three times the charm. This 'ought to be the mother of unpopular opinions:


Nobody really had a problem with women in gaming, and it only became an issue because someone decided to make it an issue. No one was stopping Anita Sarkeesian from making whatever she wants.

It's just when they started a "there's a problem with women in gaming culture" campaign to promote those stupid games, that people started talking about it in those terms.

Originally posted by cdtm
Maybe three times the charm. This 'ought to be the mother of unpopular opinions:


Nobody really had a problem with women in gaming, and it only became an issue because someone decided to make it an issue. No one was stopping Anita Sarkeesian from making whatever she wants.

It's just when they started a "there's a problem with women in gaming culture" campaign to promote those stupid games, that people started talking about it in those terms.

I wouldn't say it was nobody; but instead a small minority.

Women have been heavily involved in gaming for years, both as creators and as playable characters. As many as men? No, but how is that any different from any field that predominantly attracts men. Some of the all-time classic games have had women heavily involved in them.

You can't say there's no sexism in the industry (or any industry for that matter), but it's long been a case of, if you're good enough, you're in.

That's my 2c anyway.

I think there sexism in the gaming industry. I don't think its as prevalent as used to be but it still exists. However, I don't think its specific to game development but rather the tech industry as a whole.

I also believe there is misogyny within the gaming culture. How big is it? I'm not sure but it does exist. The whole gamer gate thing wouldn't exist if that was the case.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I think there sexism in the gaming industry. I don't think its as prevalent as used to be but it still exists. However, I don't think its specific to game development but rather the tech industry as a whole.

I also believe there is misogyny within the gaming culture. How big is it? I'm not sure but it does exist. The whole gamer gate thing wouldn't exist if that was the case.

Wasn't that originally about journalism ethics?

I won't say the misogyny argument was a deflection from that, but it's funny how there the focus seemed to shift away from ethics, to the point it simply wasn't part of the conversation.


Not that there NEEDS to be a conversation. I think even people in the industry would readily agree clickbait, score manipulation, and a dependance on the good will of content producers who you're supposed to be looking critically at, are parts of the "journalism" industry and have been forever.

Well...I assume you are talking about game journalism and not the industry as a whole. I'm not sure and maybe I misinterpreted gamers gate.

But I would agree that there is a problem with woman in gaming. Or at least the tech industry in general.

Unpopular opinion: Dead Space 3 wasn't that bad.

I agree. I enjoyed it a lot when it came out.

After playing the second time, I was less enthralled but it was still a good game.

Capital Ships should never have "weak points", or be defeatable by a one man fighter/bomber.

Stripping down main guns is fine, but it should be left to your own capital ships to finish them off. Making them so weak any old super pilot in an experimental spacecraft could blow them up just devalues the awesomeness of capital ships.

Originally posted by Impediment
Unpopular opinion: Dead Space 3 wasn't that bad. A POX!

A pox on you and your lineage!

Here's a very unpopular opinion:

A majority of reviews on sites like Metacritic are "fake", a.k.a. shills.

If over 90% of Amazon reviews are fake, what are the odds most of those user reviews are regular people? Some, maybe, but I doubt a lot.

Here's another:

Definition of a children's game is a game that appeals to, and is played by children, right?

In this day and age, actual children's games are games like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc. Because those are the type of games that apeal to kids these days.
Go to any Gamestop and you'll see kids begging their mommies to buy them the new COD, Red Dead, etc.
Play those games online and what do you hear over the mics? Edgy kids screaming into the microphones.

The meme about having colorful graphics and cute characters means its a kids game doesn't really apply if the majority of "actual kids" are not the ones rushing out to play and buy these games instead of the new GTA.

That's like a new a type of Dog food hitting the market, and hardly any dogs will eat the food, and the majority of the sales come from cat owners. Cats seem to love that type of dog food brand.
Eventually can that be even called Dog food anymore?

Originally posted by cdtm
Here's a very unpopular opinion:

A majority of reviews on sites like Metacritic are "fake", a.k.a. shills.

If over 90% of Amazon reviews are fake, what are the odds most of those user reviews are regular people? Some, maybe, but I doubt a lot.

If you mean the user reviews on Metacritic, I 100% agree. Even if they aren't fake, many are alarmist and laughably exaggerated, giving a game a 1 out of 10 for the most meager of flaws. I ignore them completely.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Here's another:

Definition of a children's game is a game that appeals to, and is played by children, right?

In this day and age, actual children's games are games like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc. Because those are the type of games that apeal to kids these days.
Go to any Gamestop and you'll see kids begging their mommies to buy them the new COD, Red Dead, etc.
Play those games online and what do you hear over the mics? Edgy kids screaming into the microphones.

The meme about having colorful graphics and cute characters means its a kids game doesn't really apply if the majority of "actual kids" are not the ones rushing out to play and buy these games instead of the new GTA.

That's like a new a type of Dog food hitting the market, and hardly any dogs will eat the food, and the majority of the sales come from cat owners. Cats seem to love that type of dog food brand.
Eventually can that be even called Dog food anymore?

That is messed up, Alot of those games aren't meant for kids....good to see parents actually giving a shit.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Here's another:

Definition of a children's game is a game that appeals to, and is played by children, right?

In this day and age, actual children's games are games like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc. Because those are the type of games that apeal to kids these days.
Go to any Gamestop and you'll see kids begging their mommies to buy them the new COD, Red Dead, etc.
Play those games online and what do you hear over the mics? Edgy kids screaming into the microphones.

The meme about having colorful graphics and cute characters means its a kids game doesn't really apply if the majority of "actual kids" are not the ones rushing out to play and buy these games instead of the new GTA.

That's like a new a type of Dog food hitting the market, and hardly any dogs will eat the food, and the majority of the sales come from cat owners. Cats seem to love that type of dog food brand.
Eventually can that be even called Dog food anymore?


It says something when older more mature people can enjoy "kiddy" Nintendo series or whathaveyou, and "more mature" series are often played by kids and mic squeakers online/offline.

Originally posted by -Pr-
-Dragon Age 2 is a solid 8/10 game.

Amen to this. I played 2 before Origins, and while Origins is a 10/10 top ten games played contender IMO, 2 is a worthy follow-up.

It's a Ghostbusters to Ghostbusters II situation.


FFVIII is comparative in quality (and better in some areas, obviously graphics but I also argue music) to its older brother FFVII. VII captured the zeitgeist at the time of its release, but VIII is every bit its equal except in some plot-meandering and a weaker villain. VIII suffered from coming out hot-on-the-heels of the biggest JRPG of ever.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Here's another:

Definition of a children's game is a game that appeals to, and is played by children, right?

In this day and age, actual children's games are games like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc. Because those are the type of games that apeal to kids these days.
Go to any Gamestop and you'll see kids begging their mommies to buy them the new COD, Red Dead, etc.
Play those games online and what do you hear over the mics? Edgy kids screaming into the microphones.

The meme about having colorful graphics and cute characters means its a kids game doesn't really apply if the majority of "actual kids" are not the ones rushing out to play and buy these games instead of the new GTA.

That's like a new a type of Dog food hitting the market, and hardly any dogs will eat the food, and the majority of the sales come from cat owners. Cats seem to love that type of dog food brand.
Eventually can that be even called Dog food anymore? ...Er... Minecraft?

I'm not sure what his definition of kids. Under 10? Between 10-14?

And this isn't something new. Kids have been wanting to grow up by consuming mature content for 20-30 years. Kids wanted to play Doom when it was released instead of "kids" games. Kids have been wanting to watch rated R movies for decades. I wanted too!

Originally posted by Smasandian
I'm not sure what his definition of kids. Under 10? Between 10-14?

And this isn't something new. Kids have been wanting to grow up by consuming mature content for 20-30 years. Kids wanted to play Doom when it was released instead of "kids" games. Kids have been wanting to watch rated R movies for decades. I wanted too! I remember not being allowed to Play Halo: Combat Evolved and getting jealous when I saw a family friend playing it.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I'm not sure what his definition of kids. Under 10? Between 10-14?

And this isn't something new. Kids have been wanting to grow up by consuming mature content for 20-30 years. Kids wanted to play Doom when it was released instead of "kids" games. Kids have been wanting to watch rated R movies for decades. I wanted too!

Nintendo is considered a "kiddy console", and Super Mario a "kids game".

At least, that seems to be the consensus among pc gaming elitists I've had contact with. They also call Team Fortress 2 "For casuals", for some reason.


Yes, I remember how back in the day, kids loved anime because of swears, or how Heero saying "I'll kill you" was a big deal. Although I think some of those "kids" were in college at the time..

The thing is, there's a reason kids weren't really supposed to see whatever they wanted until they were 15 or so. It messes you up.. I should know, I saw a Christmas movie where a kid has his family murdered by a guy dressed in a santa costume, then gets sent to a Catholic orphanage and puts on a santa suit, methodically hunts down nuns, and the movie ends with Mother Superior getting her head lopped off. Part of me looks back in nostalgia, and part of me kind of wish's I saw that three or four years later, because it isn't something a single digit kid can easily process.

This all depends on the maturity of the child and what they can handle.

And that depends on the parents discretion on what their kids can handle. They would know best.

I bet everyone will disagree with this:

PC gamers always get the shaft. Jamestown is one example: The PS4 edition gets four new ships, new maps, more content. The fans ask devs if there's plans to bring that to PC, even as a paid dlc, and they say "No. We're completely focused on making the best PS4 experience."


Another example, is a game called Strike Suit Zero. The PC release was essentially a glorified tech demo, and the "directors cut" version was built specifically for the PS4, and later PORTED to PC. With many, many bugs as a result.


PC gamers are an afterthought.

Amnesia is a phenomenal game but it screwed up the horror genre near irreparably and did waaaay more damage than RE4/5 ever did. Most horror games these days are shitty low effort first person run and hide simulators (indie horror games are especially guilty of this) and I attribute this exclusively to Amnesia.

I can agree with that. I will say that some of the very good games have influences from that genre (RE7, Alien Isolation, Evil Within 1/2 and even RE2 remake) but I agree with the rest.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I'm not sure what his definition of kids. Under 10? Between 10-14?

And this isn't something new. Kids have been wanting to grow up by consuming mature content for 20-30 years. Kids wanted to play Doom when it was released instead of "kids" games. Kids have been wanting to watch rated R movies for decades. I wanted too!
This was what first got me into the likes of Doom and Mortal Kombat as a kid to begin with, so it's kinda natural I guess, even though I also still liked and played Mario and other things that were more for my age.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Amnesia is a phenomenal game but it screwed up the horror genre near irreparably and did waaaay more damage than RE4/5 ever did. Most horror games these days are shitty low effort first person run and hide simulators (indie horror games are especially guilty of this) and I attribute this exclusively to Amnesia.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Amen to this. I played 2 before Origins, and while Origins is a 10/10 top ten games played contender IMO, 2 is a worthy follow-up.

It's a Ghostbusters to Ghostbusters II situation.


FFVIII is comparative in quality (and better in some areas, obviously graphics but I also argue music) to its older brother FFVII. VII captured the zeitgeist at the time of its release, but VIII is every bit its equal except in some plot-meandering and a weaker villain. VIII suffered from coming out hot-on-the-heels of the biggest JRPG of ever.

I started a replay of the series just before Christmas, and while I stopped during Inquisition due to the sheer amount of side-quest shite, I had enjoyed playing Origins and 2 to an extent I hadn't expected, and I had originally loved Origins and liked 2 a fair amount. 2 has very strong characters, a decent plot and some damn, damn deep lore too.

I love FFVIII. I don't know if I would put it as close to VII as you, but I can't argue with anyone that likes VIII that much. It's a wonderful game, and the Draw system really never bugged me that much (it seems to be most people's biggest gripe). Plus, Triple ****ing Triad.

Originally posted by cdtm
I bet everyone will disagree with this:

PC gamers always get the shaft. Jamestown is one example: The PS4 edition gets four new ships, new maps, more content. The fans ask devs if there's plans to bring that to PC, even as a paid dlc, and they say "No. We're completely focused on making the best PS4 experience."


Another example, is a game called Strike Suit Zero. The PC release was essentially a glorified tech demo, and the "directors cut" version was built specifically for the PS4, and later PORTED to PC. With many, many bugs as a result.


PC gamers are an afterthought.

Not to mention all the substandard ports. Arkham Knight, for example.

What I love about Dragon Age 2 is that they had the balls to limit the game to a city and have the story progress over 10 years.

However, the issue is that the city never really changed.....

Originally posted by Impediment
Unpopular opinion: Dead Space 3 wasn't that bad.

Having played it, I can vouch it's really not that bad.


Another unpopular opinion: Fallout 4 doesn't suck.

Of course PC gamers get shafted, otherwise consoles wouldn't be as good as a market.

They do get mods, so the point is mostly moot

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Amnesia is a phenomenal game but it screwed up the horror genre near irreparably and did waaaay more damage than RE4/5 ever did. Most horror games these days are shitty low effort first person run and hide simulators (indie horror games are especially guilty of this) and I attribute this exclusively to Amnesia. What is the alternative?

Originally posted by NemeBro
What is the alternative? More varied game design outside of first person running and hiding. Implement combat and more involved interactions.

IMO RE7 and Alien Isolation are two examples of horror games that do first person right. Alien Isolation, especially, handled it perfectly. Plenty of enemies and situations you could deal with differently. If you ran into a group of survivors, you could drain your own resources to kill them in a gunfight, stealth past them, or you could attract the Xeno and hightail it out of there while it slaughtered the shit out of them. Working Joe Androids were ignored by Xenos and were hard to kill, so they were more of a threat which in turn encourages stealth or running, but you could kill them if you really got in a pickle (which only happens if you run into hostile Joes). Doing so runs the risk of attracting the Xeno if you use firearms, so melee weapons are probably smarter. They are especially vulnerable to EMPs and the stun baton (depending on the model you encounter; the industrial models are immune to EMPs) if you wanted to use your crafting resources.

The Xeno itself was flat out invincibile so the only way to deal with it for most of the game was stealth. Stealthing around it was always a minigame. You could use the motion sensor to track its movement, but it can faintly hear the beeps it gives off on the sensor which in turn attracts it. This means you had to pick and choose when to use the sensor. You had options for stealthing around it like hiding, the use of flares and noisemakers to draw it away, and flashbangs. You could also use find a junction box and reroute systems to turn off air filtration and make shit foggy or turn off lights so it's harder for enemies to spot you. You could use those same boxes to set off alarms or speakers in a different area and draw the Xeno (or any other enemy) away from where you want to go. Eventually, you got a flamethrower that was capable of actually scaring it off and giving you breathing room but this was just a temporary solution and ammo is insanely limited. The Xeno also the best and most unpredictable AI I've ever seen in a horror game. I've run through this game on the highest difficulty a few times and I still can't anticipate what it's going to do. It could relentlessly stalk the hell out of you for 30 minutes or it could disappear into the vents for large chunks of game time. It might randomly 180, sprint down a hallway, and accidentally run into you, or it might fuk off in search of you to a different wing. If you're hiding under a table but still in plain sight, it's going to see you so its better to hide under and behind things that break its line of sight.

Basically give more varied situations, options for dealing with those situations, and AI more complex than just chasing you around and hitting you like Outlast or one of the other 20 Amnesia clones. If you're not going to have combat, expand on the stealth. IMO Alien Isolation is the most underrated horror game of the past decade.

The problem with varied approach's in stealth games, is I'm horrible at stealth, but feel like I'm not doing it right if I just kill them. It's why I never got far in Thief or Dishonored.


Something like Soma forces me to think outside my comfort area.

Never was a fan or got the appeal of the Halo series.

At the time I was playing Unreal Tournament , Quake 3, Tribes 2. When Halo dropped, it was just a generic space shooter to me that copied elements like the look , and game-play from those games I mentioned and other similar game out at the time.
Played it at friends houses, and I was underwhelmed.

I guess if it was your first FPS then it would have been amazing. Kind of like the feeling I got when I first played Goldeneye on the n64.

Pokken Tournament is a good fighting game

Well Halo was really the first of it's kind on consoles. Not to mention it had one hell of a campaign.

Originally posted by ares834
Well Halo was really the first of it's kind on consoles. Not to mention it had one hell of a campaign. Halo is great but that could be my nostalgia speaking. I was a kid when I played it so I doubt I was all that hard to impress. It is kind of typical sci-fi fare and I haven't really been impressed with it since Reach, so I can understand his stance tbh

Originally posted by cdtm
The problem with varied approach's in stealth games, is I'm horrible at stealth, but feel like I'm not doing it right if I just kill them. It's why I never got far in Thief or Dishonored.

Something like Soma forces me to think outside my comfort area. It doesn't even have to be stealth. AI is just one of the better done examples. They could also just go the RE7 or RE2 route, give you a good amount of weapons/unlockables with limited resources and add boss fights (just like older survival horror games like Silent Hill or og RE).

Originally posted by Inhuman
Never was a fan or got the appeal of the Halo series.

At the time I was playing Unreal Tournament , Quake 3, Tribes 2. When Halo dropped, it was just a generic space shooter to me that copied elements like the look , and game-play from those games I mentioned and other similar game out at the time.
Played it at friends houses, and I was underwhelmed.

I guess if it was your first FPS then it would have been amazing. Kind of like the feeling I got when I first played Goldeneye on the n64.

After playing Duke Nukem 3d for years, I was like "Meh".

Hell, Goldeneye was more fun, imo.

I give CE credit where its due, but definitely dont agree with the people who put it on a pedestal. Halo 2 and onward is where its at.

Unpopular opinion, Halo 5 was a decent step-up from 4, though I hope 6 lives up to what people are wanting as a return to form.

Microtransactions and pay to win are the single greatest thing ever to happen in gaming history.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Microtransactions and pay to win are the single greatest thing ever to happen in gaming history. Welp, pack it up boys. I don't think any answers ITT can top this.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Microtransactions and pay to win are the single greatest thing ever to happen in gaming history.

Microtransactions are not totally bad. They are bad when studios abuse them (Which is most of the time) or make the game unplayable because most of the content to play the game is behind a pay wall.
When a studio uses them right, they are not bad and help the development team keep putting out new content like new maps, heroes, game modes, etc.
When its stuff like cosmetics, voice lines, emotes and other non pay to win shit , then it isnt a problem. Things that you are not forced to get to enjoy most of the game experience.

K Rool was already balanced in Smash Bros before the nerfs.

British have horrible taste in gaming. I mean, liking the awful Wipeout series, yet hating Twisted Metal? How in the world could someone not like Twisted Metal??

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Welp, pack it up boys. I don't think any answers ITT can top this. How is pay to win good for gaming though?

It literally means you pay to get an edge over other players in a multiplayer setting. Lol.

In most games if you did that without paying or in a game that didn't have the ability to "pay-to-win" it'd be called "cheating".

I never had a problem if the pay to win only gave you unlocks. I would never use them and I rather have them taken out of the profit structure but I don't think its cheating if you pay to give all the weapons/unlocks.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I never had a problem if the pay to win only gave you unlocks. I would never use them and I rather have them taken out of the profit structure but I don't think its cheating if you pay to give all the weapons/unlocks. It is cheating. You're paying to receive a gear-based edge over opponents.

You naturally do more damage, move faster, quicker, etc. If thats not cheating, I dunno what is.

Sure... You could grind for 300 hours in multiplayer alone to get most of the unlocks.

...Or you could pay an extra $20 to get the unlocks immediately making you an unstoppable killing machine. It's just wrong, lol.

That logic is flawed.

Nah, cosmetics aren't a big deal. If its a multiplayer game.

How is it any different then buying DLC in that case?

Charging an insane account for cosmetics is ****ing dumb , i agree.
In my previous post i meant games that don't do that.
For example : Overwatch. They sell you loot boxes in order for you to be able to get skins , voice lines, emotes, etc. You don't have to buy loot boxes to unlock these things because you can earn then when you level up. But it will be a slower process to unlock things that way.
So some people buy loot boxes to get things quicker. That helps the devs put it maps, new heroes, etc.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
How is pay to win good for gaming though?

It literally means you pay to get an edge over other players in a multiplayer setting. Lol.

In most games if you did that without paying or in a game that didn't have the ability to "pay-to-win" it'd be called "cheating". I don't agree with it at all, and I'm not defending it. Personally, I think all that is a blight on gaming and things will never really recover from its conception, which I think is the more popular opinion.

I'm just saying, no opinion in this thread is more unpopular than that.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You're not supposed to buy all of the cosmetics, though; just the ones you like. The point is not to collect them all; it's to make you visually different from other players.

Sure. And **** that.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
It is cheating. You're paying to receive a gear-based edge over opponents.

You naturally do more damage, move faster, quicker, etc. If thats not cheating, I dunno what is.

Sure... You could grind for 300 hours in multiplayer alone to get most of the unlocks.

...Or you could pay an extra $20 to get the unlocks immediately making you an unstoppable killing machine. It's just wrong, lol.

That logic is flawed.

Is it wrong, yes. I don't think they should have these type of microtransactions.

But its not cheating. You are not getting an advantage on people. Its not an aimbot or others popular cheats.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Is it wrong, yes. I don't think they should have these type of microtransactions.

But its not cheating. You are not getting an advantage on people. Its not an aimbot or others popular cheats. Its not an aimbot, sure, but even the slightest damage boost that you've paid for gives you an advantage, especially if we're taking 2 players at the same skill level.

Hell even if you have an immensely skilled player, lets say he's facing an average player. If the immensely skilled player has wildly inferior gear in that situation, all it'll take will be 2 shots.

I'll compare it like this: Let's take it like this, there's a mod for jedi academy called "Movie Battles II", it's a multiplayer mod for the game thats a complete conversion and turns it into something akin to class-based multiplayer games.

They add microtransactions to said mod, you get an instant increase in power, speed, everything, and it destroys the play experience, which means angry players, which means yelling on forums and company getting flak from all over the place. You may as well HAVE an aimbot with the force you're putting out.

Why do you think it was altered so seriously in so many games? It's a form of cheating that ruins the game for everyone else who is playing it normally.

Now we don't KNOW if people got them normally, but still. You shouldn't be able to get an op weapon by paying for it, it ruins the game.

Originally posted by cdtm
British have horrible taste in gaming. I mean, liking the awful Wipeout series, yet hating Twisted Metal? How in the world could someone not like Twisted Metal??

I'm British and I ****ing loved Twisted Metal.

The Kinect is fun. Wish it survived longer.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
The Kinect is fun. Wish it survived longer. I agree, loved the Kinect. The complex games weren't the best, but the simple ones worked great.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Its not an aimbot, sure, but even the slightest damage boost that you've paid for gives you an advantage, especially if we're taking 2 players at the same skill level.

Hell even if you have an immensely skilled player, lets say he's facing an average player. If the immensely skilled player has wildly inferior gear in that situation, all it'll take will be 2 shots.

I'll compare it like this: Let's take it like this, there's a mod for jedi academy called "Movie Battles II", it's a multiplayer mod for the game thats a complete conversion and turns it into something akin to class-based multiplayer games.

They add microtransactions to said mod, you get an instant increase in power, speed, everything, and it destroys the play experience, which means angry players, which means yelling on forums and company getting flak from all over the place. You may as well HAVE an aimbot with the force you're putting out.

Why do you think it was altered so seriously in so many games? It's a form of cheating that ruins the game for everyone else who is playing it normally.

Now we don't KNOW if people got them normally, but still. You shouldn't be able to get an op weapon by paying for it, it ruins the game.

Your JEDI example is different than getting paying for some unlocks. They are paying to be better than everbody else. That's not cool.

Your complaints sound more like you are annoyed you spend hours getting a weapon while others can get it by paying some money. That's a valid argument.

But its not cheating. If somebody can pay to get an OP weapon, it should be the question of microtranscations but why the devs allowed a gun to be OP'd in the first place.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Your JEDI example is different than getting paying for some unlocks. They are paying to be better than everbody else. That's not cool.

Your complaints sound more like you are annoyed you spend hours getting a weapon while others can get it by paying some money. That's a valid argument.

But its not cheating. If somebody can pay to get an OP weapon, it should be the question of microtranscations but why the devs allowed a gun to be OP'd in the first place. Explain to me specifically how a super op weapon is different then letting people pay for Aimbot?

Because everybody can get that gun.

If pay to win equals getting a gun that nobody else can get...I agree wholeheartedly its wrong. Would that be cheating? Yes, I can see the argument be sound. But....clearly the devs allowed this to happen...so is it really cheating if the devs allow people do to so.

And if that's what you mean....then we both agree.

But paying to get unlocks instantaneously instead of grinding for them...thats not cheating. Everybody would be able to use the "super OP" weapon.

Rail shooters are awesome.

They are, and lowkey miss them.

I don't like the very first two Zelda games.

Originally posted by cdtm
Rail shooters are awesome.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
They are, and lowkey miss them.

The Nintendo Switch has motion support so hopefully someone decides making a railshooter on there one day. I liked those too especially the Resident Evil and Dead Space ones.

And speaking of Nintendo, and while the Switch is amazing, the Wii U was still good. The hate it got was uncalled for.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
The Nintendo Switch has motion support so hopefully someone decides making a railshooter on there one day. I liked those too especially the Resident Evil and Dead Space ones.

And speaking of Nintendo, and while the Switch is amazing, the Wii U was still good. The hate it got was uncalled for.
Can't forget House of the Dead as well, but yeah, the RE Chronicles games were memorable.

Still, I'd have skipped the Wii U in a heartbeat if I had known then that its successor would be this much better overall and had so many things that the U lacked. Even comparing to the Gamecube is giving Wii U too much credit IMO, when the U had a much smaller library than GC.

Axiom Verge us garbage.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
The Nintendo Switch has motion support so hopefully someone decides making a railshooter on there one day. I liked those too especially the Resident Evil and Dead Space ones.

And speaking of Nintendo, and while the Switch is amazing, the Wii U was still good. The hate it got was uncalled for. It wasn't a bad console, just very under the radar and had a massive lack of third-party support, which it needed to compete with the PS4 and Xbox One.

On the other hand, the Switch is getting as much third-party support as it did in... probably the 80's. Jesus.

On topic:

Skyrim is super boring. I don't hate it, but once I get Dragon's Dogma for my switch I can't see myself ever going back to it.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Skyrim is super boring.

Never really played Skyrim or The Elder scrolls games but i feel the same way about the Fallout series. Pretty boring to me. Charming , yes, but boring.

Originally posted by cdtm
Axiom Verge us garbage.

You're garbage.

Originally posted by Kazenji
You're garbage.


The gameplay is awesome.

But the player character... They just put their homely programmer self in a lab coat and threw it in the game. Takes me right out of the immersion, seeing that Mary Sue.

Breath of the Wild is not a Zelda game and is completely overrated.

https://i.imgur.com/fBlYWqr.jpg

Originally posted by Impediment
Breath of the Wild is not a Zelda game and is completely overrated.

To be fair, is any Zelda game even a Zelda game if you can't play as Zelda?

Originally posted by Impediment
Breath of the Wild is not a Zelda game and is completely overrated.

This is a case of, "you're damned if you do and your damned if you don't".

If they would have released Breath of the Wild and if it was similar to the past games than everybody would be complaining that Nintendo just rehashes games. Even though people ignore that other companies do that all the time their franchises rehashing the same game with a new coat of paint(better graphics).

BOTW was a fresh take on the Zelda series and some people are still not happy. Might have to do with people not liking the series no matter what they do with it tbh.

Eh, some people want and welcome change, while others are kinda purists who want things to stay mostly the same. You really cant please everyone, but BotW has been mostly well received.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Eh, some people want and welcome change, while others are kinda purists who want things to stay mostly the same. You really cant please everyone, but BotW has been mostly well received. Breath of the Wild, in my opinion, is one of the greatest games ever made, and for damn sure the best Zelda games.

Playing through it for a second time now and loving it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I started a replay of the series just before Christmas, and while I stopped during Inquisition due to the sheer amount of side-quest shite, I had enjoyed playing Origins and 2 to an extent I hadn't expected, and I had originally loved Origins and liked 2 a fair amount. 2 has very strong characters, a decent plot and some damn, damn deep lore too.

I love FFVIII. I don't know if I would put it as close to VII as you, but I can't argue with anyone that likes VIII that much. It's a wonderful game, and the Draw system really never bugged me that much (it seems to be most people's biggest gripe). Plus, Triple ****ing Triad.

Still haven't played through Inquisition yet, as the PS3 version of it is nigh-unplayable. Horrible compared to what I've seen of the current gen version.

Agreed on all accounts with DA2, I liked the changes to the character animations during combat as well (the mages twirling their staves around like Gandalf, for example). And man, the end of Act 2 plot point with Hawke's mother...wow, gut-wrenching.


The Draw system in VIII actually provided excitement in certain battles: fighting a new enemy? What kind of magic might it have? Will this boss have a new guardian force? Triple Triad = best minigame ever. Tons of fun to play + excellent in-game awards for completing the questline.

Honestly, Abyss Odyssey isn't "that" good.

Not compared to something like Guardian Heroes.

Average, at best.

GTA V is not that good. San Andreas was better.

And it's certainly not worth all the bs Rockstar makes consumers go through, what with the login system, the capcha, the drm, the constant performance issues. I don't know why players put up with it, NOTHING is THAT good.

I don't agree, but I think you'll find that opinion is more popular than you might imagine.

I really enjoyed GTA V.

San Andreas was great as well but it's hard to compare either of them considering they are almost different games.

If you're dislike the login system, the capcha, the drm etc for it, Then go play it on the Console then.

Don't plan on buying it.

Only played it, because a friend loaned out their account.


Not saying the game is bad, it's not. Pretty decent actually. I just think the constant stream of problems and headaches with each game is a bit ridiculous, and would completely turn me off on any product I paid for (That's also why I wait on console gens, and avoided the rrod of the 360 era, failing systems of the ps2 era... Instead, I just kept enjoying last gen, until/unless they ironed out the headaches and I saw something I really wanted (There's only about a half dozen games I've ever really "needed." I can sub one "merely good" game for another.)

What constant stream of problems?

And GTAV is last gen....

Originally posted by Smasandian
What constant stream of problems?

And GTAV is last gen....


Talking about GTA V, so talking last gen. Rockstars problems apply across the board though.

GTA IV was a fiasco, too. Every release is a buggy mess, full of performance and drm issues, poor optimization, and headaches for the player. They're worse then Bethesda, and that's saying something.

Considering my biggest concern with a gaming company (Or really, any company I sink money into) is:

1. Their quality control. Are they rushing things out the door, just to make a quarterly? Why should I buy their trash, to solve their problem?

2. Customer satisfaction priority. I won't rate second to shareholder satisfaction, period.


Bottom line, everyone says "speak with your wallet". So this is me speaking with my wallet. Show me something I want, at a good quality, with minimal/zero headaches and good customer support, and I "might" consider buying it.


Yes, I'm absolutely unreasonably demanding. I think one SHOULD be demanding, if they're paying for it. Money isn't something to be frivolous with, and you damn well better believe I won't part with it, and not expect the moon and the stars.


Otherwise, I can do without. That's my opinion, and it's the only one that matters to me.

Most of their games that they release on console first then PC later are a buggy mess, So what else is new.

Yeah....I do not understand this. GTAV release wasn't a fiasco. I remember distinctly being able to play with no problems when it was released on the 360.

I do remember GTA Online launch was not that great....

A game you need a million mods to make playable, probably isn't a very good game.

Like Skyrim. Anyone who recommends playing it, has about a thousand asterisks, followed by an extensive list of visual, gameplay, and bugfix mods. It's almost like the fans did all the work of remastering the game for free.

Skyrim was great at release even without mods. Mods just make it waaaay better.

Persona 3 music > Persona 5 music

Originally posted by ares834
Skyrim was great at release even without mods. Mods just make it waaaay better. If you love exploring worlds, it'll scratch that itch, for people like me who play games where combat is a dealbreaker, not so much.

I love Skyrim, even unmodded.

I have tons of hours on PC, Switch, PS3.

Its a great game, it can be boring sometimes, but it can also be really fun.

To be fair I had way more fun in games like Dragon's Dogma, Breath of the Wild and Kingdom Come: Deliverance, though.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Persona 3 music > Persona 5 music <<<<< Persona 4 music.

Originally posted by ares834
Skyrim was great at release even without mods. Mods just make it waaaay better.

I played Skyrim at launch on the X360. It was an amazing experience for me.

I preferred Oblivion.

A lot of it was nightmare fuel but kinda wish Microsoft kept that indie program going they've had during the days of Xbox 360. Some games from that were actually pretty ok.

Knack is just as fun to play as Crash and Spyro back on the PS1. Nobody thinks it's good 'cause the "criticism" everyone hears is from goofballs quoting memes.

Sonic Unleashed wasn't a good game but I think people got too carried away hating on the Werehog design. I thought it looked cool.