No, I've definitely seen some people go "wow, has ANY game done this before?!" with even some of the more basic stuff you can do with the physical environment and objects. It's cool and all, don't get me wrong, definitely the most excited I've been for a Zelda game... But Nintendo fans are weird.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Raise the flame shield: Your "controversial" gaming opinion.
- Thread starter Laughing Banana
- Start date
No, I've definitely seen some people go "wow, has ANY game done this before?!" with even some of the more basic stuff you can do with the physical environment and objects. It's cool and all, don't get me wrong, definitely the most excited I've been for a Zelda game... But Nintendo fans are weird.
fluxanimator
Banned
I feel like just because this is Nintendo's first attempt that's no excuse. They've been so behind the times, then they show one game with up to date mechanics and holy crap, best game of the show! Apple gets the same kind of praise. It's something weird that happens with companies with a cult following.
I don't hate Nintendo. I really want them to succeed. I really wanna play all their top tier franchises on a capable console. I just don't have much faith that I'll get to.
According to Lab Zero, it cost 250K to create each character in Skullgirls.
And they're a small indie studio. I remember Ed Boon saying each MKX character cost about 1M dollars to make.
-God of War series is one of the most sicking video game series around. violence for the the sake of having violence.
-The last of us is the most overrated video game of all time, forced myself to play it to see how the story shape up to being called the best in video games, it was meh and I have forgotten about the game.
-Super Mario galaxy is worse than Mario 64.
-Resident Evil 1 is an Alone in the Dark rip off.
-The 3ds is the worst handheld I've bought. Horrible screen, horrible sound, and Nintendo should have sold less than the virtual boy because it was such an underpowered console in a time of high end smartphones.
-The evil within is a shitty game made by someone with no original ideas in his head so he had to take something out of every horror series and manged to make something dull, boring, and not at all scary not one bit.
-The last of us is the most overrated video game of all time, forced myself to play it to see how the story shape up to being called the best in video games, it was meh and I have forgotten about the game.
-Super Mario galaxy is worse than Mario 64.
-Resident Evil 1 is an Alone in the Dark rip off.
-The 3ds is the worst handheld I've bought. Horrible screen, horrible sound, and Nintendo should have sold less than the virtual boy because it was such an underpowered console in a time of high end smartphones.
-The evil within is a shitty game made by someone with no original ideas in his head so he had to take something out of every horror series and manged to make something dull, boring, and not at all scary not one bit.
Melchiah
Member
fluxanimator
Banned
I don't think development costs always equal breadth of quality or quantity. I didn't say they should be $15 because they don't cost much to make. It's that compared to many other genres I feel like they are severely lacking in content.
How do you define content?
I've played SF5 for 300 hours. I'll be playing it for the next several years.
Same with KoF, Tekken 7, etc.
So how do you define content?
Blueingreen
Member
Very agreed.
And on the subject of dumb joke-but-not-really images, that "FPS in 1993 vs FPS 2010" image that people still love to bust out is so, so stupid:
Taking the entirety of a stage's geometry (which is simple enough to be represented by a fairly small image, even) to represent the former and then simplifying the latter (which is generally a sequence of arenas) down to a line is the dumbest shit. It represents weak-ass criticism and, as a huge action game fan, priorities that I don't find value in.
I don't think it's supposed to be taken literally, what it's trying to convey is how streamlined FPS games are now compared to the early to mid 90's. If you played a game like Hexen/Heretic and it's convoluted level design an constant backtracking of key item hunting the argument doesn't exist in a vaccum. However there's just one problem that kind of level design IS NOT FUN ANYMORE, and that's my controversial opinion.
The constant backtracking, key hunting, obtuse puzzles that plagued so many early
Hexen
bonchooski
Member
Sucker Punch is overrated as a dev, their Infamous games are no better than UbiSoft open world games. They are chock full of filler quests that are boring as hell.
I just loved going into every region in Second Son and doing the same damn side missions to liberate every region.
I just loved going into every region in Second Son and doing the same damn side missions to liberate every region.
fluxanimator
Banned
Compare something like SF5 to GTA or Skyrim or any large story-driven game. I can explore all over the place, countless locations, characters, huge musical scores, tons of different weapons, clothes, different people, races, monsters all that I can interact with. Fighting games all have a roster of fighters with unique moves, stories and locations. But compared to many other games that's almost nothing.
Admittedly fighting games aren't my thing. And I can totally understand how someone could love fighting games and spend 100s of hours playing them. But for me there's just not much there.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I've probably dropped more hours on Pac-Man then many RPGs. Would you say that means Pac-Man has more content?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I don't disagree with that, at least not outright.
Even playing DOOM recently, I wasn't in love with backtracking. I loved the firefights.
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
Fighting games are mostly about learning. That's the content. You learn how to handle characters with intricately-designed toolsets, develop a personal methodology for succeeding as them, then go play against countless other humans, all of whom have picked their own characters and developed their own unique styles. Really, fighting games (quality ones, anyway) have immeasurable amounts of content - it's just content you have to put in effort to engage with, not content you can passively consume like in big adventure games.
A game you can spend 500 hours playing and constantly, meaningfully improving at has effectively has 500 hours of content, yes. Games aren't defined by how many unique art assets they have.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
That's not content, that's replayability.
fluxanimator
Banned
I get that. But if I'm spending my money on a game I prefer 80% passive content and 20% learning to the opposite. Just my gaming habits nowadays. I'm in for the story, the experience. Not fine tuning my skills over hundreds of hours. It's just not my thing.
This.
Don't really see the difference. I can play 1,000 matches of just about any fighting game and literally never have the same experience twice. That's content to me.
That's fine and an entirely different statement than:
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Replayability of content is arguably as important as how much base content there is, if not more.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
That would simply mean the game is enjoyable.
But to say content equates to the time I spent on a game, That I disagree with. Content is the makeup of the game. The levels, characters, maps, weapons, whatever.
I could spend more hours playing the original Mortal Kombat, then I did Smash Bros Brawl. Does Mortal Kombat have more content because I spent more time with it? No. It has much less content.
fluxanimator
Banned
I still stand by that. A game is worth what I am willing to pay for it. That doesn't mean I can't see the value others put on a game. But I'm buying the game for me, not someone else. And just because someone can play a fighting game for 500 hours doesn't mean as much went into creating it as a game like GTA or Witcher.
Nah, that's pretty accurate.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Terrorblot
Member
I was really happy to see that Eurogamer article about Bioshock Infinite posted. I've been saying since the get go that Bioshock Infinite was overrated and was surprised to see how much GAF apparently agreed with me after all. I think the complaints Eurogamer gave about the plot were unfair, I enjoyed the plot almost front to back (ghost mom, bleh), but the gameplay was awful.
So you're basically saying, "Games I don't enjoy as much as xyz should be the amount of money I'd want to spend on them."
Gotcha.
I don't know how you'd quantify how much went into creating games.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Lol, if anything, the idea that the game is great is more controversial on here now
neurosisxeno
Member
The Vita actually has an impressively high attachment rate, there was a topic on it around here earlier. It's a system salvaged by Whales who really like the system. If Sony would release a new handheld that's basically a beefed up Vita that takes MicroSD memory, that thing would be fire.
Games like that have been around since last gen as well. Just Cause, Saints Row, and GTA 4/5 all have a lot of dynamic elements. There are probably hundreds of others that feature a lot of the elements that Nintendo proudly displayed as innovative.
I'm just excited Nintendo is making a Zelda game that isn't as formulaic as the previous 4-5 which have all followed the same general structure.
Terrorblot
Member
I was really happy to see that Eurogamer article about Bioshock Infinite posted. I've been saying since the get go that Bioshock Infinite was overrated and was surprised to see how much GAF apparently agreed with me after all. I think the complaints Eurogamer gave about the plot were unfair, I enjoyed the plot almost front to back (ghost mom, bleh), but the gameplay was awful.
fluxanimator
Banned
Well of course, that's basic economics. It's worth what I'm willing to pay. When I said fighting games should be $15 I didn't really mean they should be changed to that price. That's just what they are worth to me personally. People seem to be getting kind of defensive over opinions.
And you could pretty easily quantify what went into creating a game. Time taken to create and budget for a start.
Why is disagreeing with your statement getting defensive?
The shittiest part about this thread is that people spew bullshit and whenever anybody tries to have an actual discussion, the people with the "controversial opinion" just fall back on the stupid premise of this thread, which, when you're just listing "controversial opinions" with no logic or reasoning, just lists, is no better than "list threads" and makes me wonder why this thread exists.
You said something. People took issue with it. The thing is, what you said above isn't a controversial opinion...so, yeah. Whatever. I don't even disagree with the logic we've come to. However, I do take issue with your initial statement that fighters should be 15 dollars just because they're fighters.
And yes, you could quantify time taken with a budget, but then you fall into the spiral of money = quality, and that's just silly. Because, using Witcher 3 as an example, cost much less and had nowhere near as people working on it than, say, Assassin's Creed with its 500 person development team. Does more people working on a team means more went into a game? Does that mean that The Last Guardian is going to be one of the best games ever since it's taken so long? But how can that be when the development team is smaller than many AAA games? Do we take into account the amount people are paid in the various regions where salaries where vary greatly?
No, I don't think it's so easy as you claim. I don't think more budget means more went into a game. I don't think more people means anything in relation to a game, its quality, or the amount of content (or even what content means).
Don't see how that would be because of hardware limitations. Surely if that was an issue the maps would have been less complex not more. You could make an argument it's there for padding out the game length but that's different.
Personally I like the exploration elements when done well as I need something other then just firefights to keep my attention. My favourite FPS from the era was Exhumed/Powerslave because it's of almost Metroidvanian level structure.
bobawesome
Member
Zero Time Dilemma is easily the weakest of the Zero Escape games and is my biggest letdown in gaming.
Biggest ever? Either way, it's a very long-awaited finale to a series with some pretty huge fans. On top of that, they've moved a bit far from the visual novel roots. I hardly think this is going to be a controversial opinion.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Now go into detail as to why its better. I could use a good laugh.
bobawesome
Member
Yes, my biggest ever. Virtue's Last Reward is one of my favorite games of all time and I waited three years to see everything pay off. For things to end as they did... I was quite upset.
In time I don't think it'll be a controversial opinion but many people seem to be in love with the game at the moment.
People place different values on different games. I totally understand that thinking. Like, for me, Mass Effect 2 is my biggest letdown in gaming ever, simply because it totally wasn't what I expected or wanted at the time.
I still appreciate the game, but I can't really see myself ever being as disappointed as I was in that game simply because my hopes were so high for it.
Here's my well-thought-out explanation: NOSTALGIA
But seriously, from the moment I first laid eyes on the arcade cabinet in 1986 I was sold. The vibrant colours, the gentle theme tune, the feeling of going on an adventure: it was the kind of game my younger self was yearning for. A couple of years later I was stunned to see a Commodore 64 conversion of Pac-Land (I didn't even know the game was converted to home computers) at my local video game store and promptly picked it up. Thankfully, it was one of the very few non-awful C64 coin-op conversions and I consequently put quite a few hours into the game. It's one of the happiest memories I have of the 8-bit era.
Not long afterwards I played Super Mario Bros. at a friend's place. It was good, but I wasn't blown away. Years later I bought the Wii Virtual Console version and completed it. It was a fun experience, but it could never rival the sensation of exploring the wonders of Pac-Land.
Is nostalgia clouding my judgment? Sure, all the time! Just look at my username
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Here's my well-thought-out explanation: NOSTALGIA
But seriously, from the moment I first laid eyes on the arcade cabinet in 1986 I was sold. The vibrant colours, the gentle theme tune, the feeling of going on an adventure: it was the kind of game my younger self was yearning for. A couple of years later I was stunned to see a Commodore 64 conversion of Pac-Land (I didn't even know the game was converted to home computers) at my local video game store and promptly picked it up. Thankfully, it was one of the very few non-awful C64 coin-op conversions and I consequently put quite a few hours into the game. It's one of the happiest memories I have of the 8-bit era.
Not long afterwards I played Super Mario Bros. at a friend's place. It was good, but I wasn't blown away. Years later I bought the Wii Virtual Console version and completed it. It was a fun experience, but it could never rival the sensation of exploring the wonders of Pac-Land.
Is nostalgia clouding my judgment? Sure, all the time! Just look at my username
Keep your happy memories, and never revisit Pac-Land. At least that's what I've come to learn when revisiting games from my childhood.
I'm the reverse of you. Super Mario Bros first, and I later played Pac-Land on one of the PlayStation Namco Museums. I was happy to finally give the game a whirl, as I skipped it on Turbografx. Yikes...I was pretty disappointed.
fluxanimator
Banned
I think you are assuming I am saying that money or time spent making a game = quality. I am not saying that at all. I'm comparing 2 well made versions of game genres (SF, SBros and Witcher, GTA or equivalent) and saying that one has way more content. Content meaning assets, music, voice over work, acting, writing, graphics tech etc. Yet these games cost the same price to consumers.
Then your argument should be that Witcher 3 and GTA need to charge more given those costs, not that fighting games should be cheaper.
leandrochiarello
Member
Skyrim combat is better than Witcher 3 combat.
1st, I don't agree with your black and white definition of content. I don't know that it's very easy to create a single fighting game character, its mechanics, how they interact with the rest of the roster, and the ability for the game to grow and evolve once in the hands of thousands of players.
2nd, So we, the consumer, should be charged based on the amount of money and time that goes into a game?
The only issue (and it isn't an issue, not really) is that you value less the content being made in fighters (or any other genre you don't care about) than those in the games you keep listing.
Which, again, is fine. And again, phrased as, "I will never pay more than 15 dollars for a fighter because, 'I prefer 80% passive content and 20% learning to the opposite. Just my gaming habits nowadays. I'm in for the story, the experience. Not fine tuning my skills over hundreds of hours. It's just not my thing.'" So the "passive" content of those games appeals more to you, and you then put a value judgment on them because you value them more than the opposite.
But, again, that's not a "controversial opinion."
Judging by what I see on pretty much any souls thread that's far from an uncommon opinion
fluxanimator
Banned
That's valid. But I'd selfishly prefer the games I like not to raise in price.
Okami Haundo
Member
Mario Sunshine should get a remake/sequel before we see a brand new 3D Mario. If the rumors are true, we'll have 3 Luigi's Mansion games (4 if you count the arcade game) before we see Mario Sunshine again. This is not acceptable!
fluxanimator
Banned
Witcher 3 has more content than Street Fighter. I'd consider that a fact. That doesn't mean tons of people won't put hundreds of hours into SF and dislike W3. Play what you love.
Maybe I should phrase it like this... I consider fighting games to be more like an indie game. Indies are rarely $60. Doesn't mean I give them no value. Some of my favorite games are in that category. And many I would have gladly paid more than what I did for them. But indies usually seem to be priced "correctly". $5-$20
My rephrased comment that you prefer isn't an opinion. It's a fact. It's not an opinion that I prefer rpgs to fighters. The opinion is that I don't think a fighter should cost as much. The fact that other people prefer fighters has no bearing on my personal opinion. Which is what this thread is.
I'm in total agreement, and I didn't like either Skyrim nor Witcher 3. In fact, I guess that could be my controversial opinion - I do not find that the western, open world RPGs fun at all. I tried to get into Witcher 3 multiple times and never really got anywhere in it. I can totally see why others like it, but it's just not my bag, baby.
Also, I prefer high resolutions over high framerates. Tell that to some PCMasterRace people and they'll flip out on you for it.