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.
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 cdtmThis is not an unpopular opinion.
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:
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.
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 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.
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.