• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Raise the flame shield: Your "controversial" gaming opinion.

I feel that JRPG's have taken a huge dive in quality and can no longer compare to Western RPG's.

Games like Grandia 2 and Skies of Arcadia were amazing.

Games like Ni No Kuni, Kindom Hearts, Vesperia (etc) are terrible.
 
Smash is not a fighting game. Never has been. I am no prophet, but, if I were a betting man, my money would not be on it ever being one.
 
Some of the things in this thread...I read someone say that San Andreas was the worst GTA...I think I'm reading this just to get angry.

I liked it, but there was one mission that simply made me give up on the game. That game was fucking notorious for having missions that would require you to drive for 20 minutes and then tail someone. If you failed the tailing part, you had to restart the whole damn mission.

I forgot specifically what mission it was, but you had to drive from the forest/wooded area to all the way to the other side of the map in the city.
 
My opinion, but the PS4 is the worst "next gen" console to be released. There is no solid exclusive title worth buying the system for. I understand Infamous is good, but is it worth dropping $460 for (if you bought the console and game new in retail). The PS4 sure, is the most powerful console, but where are the good games? Indie titles are fine yes, but where is something REALLY worth playing right now?

As someone with every PS system except a PS4, there's nothing worth while on that system for me to play, exclusive wise. All I would buy is MGSV and that's all. It's a multiplat at that, too.

Since most games on the PS4 are also on the PC, I'd be the one to stick with Wii U for first party and PC for the 3rd party games.
 
Dark Souls 2 is a much better game than Demon Souls
Half-Life 2 is probably the most overrated game of all time.

You, I like. Demon's Souls was quite the exercise in tedium when I went back to it after playing Dark Souls 1 and 2. So much of it feels unrefined and it doesn't get bonus points because it was "the first".
 
- The PS3's best game is a PS2 game (Shadow of the Colossus)

- The PS2's best game is a Saturn game (Nights into Dreams)

- The PS3 library is trash and I regret buying 20+ games for it with the exception of Journey and Shadow of the Colossus (I only play it for sports games that get outdated easily)

- The Wii is the best 7th gen console hands down (its weak GPU held it back but fun gameplay is king)

- The 3d screen of the 3DS makes it the best handheld ever and we might not see another 3D handheld in the future. I wish the the Wii U gamepad had 3d.

- Guitar Hero is one of the best games ever made
 
Gaming Luddites both infuriate and make me sad.

I've been in the game since pre-Atari 2600 and have never ceased to be amazed at the evolution of gaming over the past 40 years.

Crying over genres that fall in and out of fashion strike me as short-sighted narcissism.

There's always something to appreciate, regardless of what's popular at the moment.
 
A party game, with action elements.

"Party game" isn't a genre, genius.

Nothing is stopping you from playing Street Fighter at a party, passing the controllers around, and nothing is stopping you from playing Super Smash Bros alone or at a tournament (which could be described as a party, anyway).
 
"Party game" isn't a genre, genius.

Nothing is stopping you from playing Street Fighter at a party, passing the controllers around, and nothing is stopping you from playing Super Smash Bros alone or at a tournament (which could be described as a party, anyway).

LMAO. Sure thing, guy. Mario Party and co. would like a word with you, though.

And by your definition, posting on GAF could constitute either a party game a fighting game.
 
LMAO. Sure thing, guy. Mario Party and co. would like a word with you, though.

Super Smash Bros plays like Mario Party in what universe?

Moreover, Mario Party is a mini-game collection (a collection of unrelated games).

And by your defintion, posting on GAF could constitute either a party game a fighting game.

Which definition is that? I've only said there is no genre called "party game" and that games like and unlike Super Smash Bros can be played in or out of parties.
 
Super Smash Bros plays like Mario Party in what universe?

Moreover, Mario Party is a mini-game collection (a collection of unrelated games).

Powerstone isn't a fighting game either. Smash is simply a less complicated Powerstone, streamlined down to a two player game.
 
A party game, with action elements.
What is a party game?

Arguing whether Smash is a fighting game is one of the silliest things ever. If it's not a fighting game, it won't stop people from playing competitively and including it at fighting game tournaments.
Powerstone isn't a fighting game either. Smash is simply a less complicated Powerstone, streamlined down to a two player game.
lolwut
 
Powerstone isn't a fighting game either. Smash is simply a less complicated Powerstone, streamlined down to a two player game.

1) Super Smash Bros is not necessarily a two player game. Also "Power Stone" is a two player game. Only Power Stone 2 has four players.

2) Power Stone is a fighting game in 3D space with an "arena" feel and by "arena" I mean leaning towards Gundam Vs. rather than Virtua Fighter if that makes sense (1 and 2 are rather different in this respect). Super Smash Bros is a 2D fighting game with out of bounds zones and multiple floors. Not only are the not alike, they are not even different from typical fighting games in the same respect.


Here's a controversial opinion: If, in 2014, you still have trouble calling Super Smash Bros a fighting game, it's because you lack the analytically abilities to break free from simplistic memes made by people who are better off staying quiet on the matter.


It doesn't need to play like Mario Party to be a party game.

That can only be true if you also understand that "party game" is not a genre. Then that would mean "fighting game" and "party game" (whatever that is) are not exclusive. Thus, saying Super Smash Bros is a party game is not an explanation on why it is not a fighting game.
 
I bought Thief recently from Steam and am enjoying it a lot. I tried to play the original Thief (1st one) last year but gave up on it after a couple of hours.
 
Man, look at this streamlined two player game.

ibqrGVsIjdMgBs.gif
 
1) Super Smash Bros is not necessarily a two player game. Also "Power Stone" is a two player game. Only Power Stone 2 has four players.

2) Power Stone is a fighting game in 3D space with an "arena" feel and by "arena" I mean leaning towards Gundam Versus rather than Virtua Fighter if that makes sense (1 and 2 are rather different in this respect). Super Smash Bros is a 2D fighting game with out of bounds zones and multiple floors. Not only are the not alike, they are not even different from typical fighting games in the same respect.


Here's a controversial opinion: If, in 2014, you still have trouble calling Super Smash Bros a fighting game, it's because you lack the analytically abilities to break free from simplistic memes made by people who are better off staying quiet on the matter.

Here's a controversial opinion: If, whenever the case may be, you are too blinded by stupid fanboyism to comprehend that other persons might have a different opinion than you about the special children's game you like to call a fighting game, perhaps you shouldn't be using terms like "analytical" (badly at that, considering the adverb form you used), when they are beyond your vocabulary, and, in all probability, your ken.

Now then, would you care to continue your little and loud tirade against my opinion? Perhaps you could come up with a better insult than your opening slight of "genius", if you tried hard enough, or sought smarter help.
 
Here's a controversial opinion: If, whenever the csse may be, you are too blinded by stupid fanboyism to comprehend that other persons might have a different opinion than you about the special children's game you like to call a fighting game, perhaps you shouldn't be using terms like "analytical" (badly at that, considering the adverb form you used), when they are beyond your vocabulary, and, in all probability, your ken.

Now then, would you care to continue your little and loud tirade against my opinion? Perhaps you could come up with a better insult than your opening slight of "genius", if you tried hard enough, or sought smarter help.

First, I called you a genius because it was a wordplay with genre. For that matter, I wrote analytically because I changed the sentence around, but carelessly left the word in that form - admittedly I do this a lot. It's not reflective of the meaning though.

Second, and more importantly, in this post you've failed to make any sort of defense against me poking holes in your logic, including there being no party/fighting game dichotomy and your ridiculous comparison between Power Stone and Super Smash Bros which leans towards a fraudulent understanding of either Smash or both of those games (and a shallow one for both in any case).

Third, "special children's game" lol okay

EDIT: To give an example of what I mean in saying lacking analytical thought, consider how one could associate Super Smash Bros with a mini-game collection like Mario Party before a much more similar 2D fighting game. This can only really be done if one doesn't look at any of the elements of these games and just bounces off a likely decade old meme. "Party game" completely overlooks mechanics and is poorly thought up, whereas genres are highly depended on mechanics.
 
Here's a controversial opinion: If, whenever the csse may be, you are too blinded by stupid fanboyism to comprehend that other persons might have a different opinion than you about the special children's game you like to call a fighting game, perhaps you shouldn't be using terms like "analytical" (badly at that, considering the adverb form you used), when they are beyond your vocabulary, and, in all probability, your ken.

Now then, would you care to continue your little and loud tirade against my opinion? Perhaps you could come up with a better insult than your opening slight of "genius", if you tried hard enough, or sought smarter help.
It's always fun to watch a meltdown.
 
The Wii U is by far the best gaming platform (of the 3) currently and for the future.

This generation, so far, has shown me how far away I am from the common gaming population in terms of opinions and what makes a good game. Kind of scares me because I realize that means my type of gaming may eventually fade away even more than it already has.
 
I feel that JRPG's have taken a huge dive in quality and can no longer compare to Western RPG's.

Games like Grandia 2 and Skies of Arcadia were amazing.

Games like Ni No Kuni, Kindom Hearts, Vesperia (etc) are terrible.

Those aren't even the best JRPGs, go play some Falcom or Atlus titles. The newer Gust titles are also quite great.
 
I liked the latest Devil May Cry from Ninja Theory a lot and thought it was just as good as the previous 2 DMC titles (DMC3 & 4. I haven't played DMC2 and too little of the first one to have an opinion about it)
 
Here's a controversial opinion: If, whenever the case may be, you are too blinded by stupid fanboyism to comprehend that other persons might have a different opinion than you about the special children's game you like to call a fighting game, perhaps you shouldn't be using terms like "analytical" (badly at that, considering the adverb form you used), when they are beyond your vocabulary, and, in all probability, your ken.

Now then, would you care to continue your little and loud tirade against my opinion? Perhaps you could come up with a better insult than your opening slight of "genius", if you tried hard enough, or sought smarter help.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, not his own facts."
 
I view online multiplayer games like touchscreen mobile games. They're boring, repetitive, with a shallow move set and the only people who play them are narcissists obsessed with their gamer score as if it is a significant life achievement.

I'd be glad if online games were obliterated and instead developers concentrated on challenging single player games, and tried to advance AI and puzzle/challenge mechanics instead.

I metaphorically kill a kitten every time someone says a developer should put a multiplayer mode into a game.
 
I think The Last Of Us is a mostly boring game (with brief flashes of brilliance in design) wrapped in a cliche post apocalypse story whose only real saving grace is that the ending made me think for three seconds. Granted, those three seconds were spent in the car while I was on my way to trade it in.

I think Silent Hill 4 is better than Silent Hill 3, though I do think Heather is a better protagonist than Henry.

I also think Silent Hill Downpour is a really good take on the series marred only by budgetary and polish issues which were a direct result of Konami not giving a fuck about the series any more.

I think Sony's E3 conference this year was one of the most boring I've ever seen.

I think a solid 99% of indie games are garbage. Thomas Was Alone was only ok because of the narration, I tried really hard to give a shit during To The Moon's ending but just couldn't, and Gone Home was a complete fucking waste of time and money.

Speaking of Gone Home-I love that games are getting a bit more diverse in their representations of certain groups. I hate when something gets praise heaped upon it JUST for the fact that the main chacter has a vagina/is a lesbian/is Chinese/whatever. Gone Home is a good little story wrapped in a shitty little game. I hate it that when I bring up the point that countless books and (to a lesser extent) movies have done that same kind of story better, people reply with YEAH BUT NOT GAMES RIGHT? Sorry I consume other media beyond videogames.

I think Reggie and Miyamoto and Iwata are great and I want them to run Nintendo forever.

I only bought a Vita as early as I did because I thought it would get hacked earlier and we'd be playing Dreamcast emulators on it by now. Oh well, at least I have portable MGS2.
 
I view online multiplayer games like touchscreen mobile games. They're boring, repetitive, with a shallow move set and the only people who play them are narcissists obsessed with their gamer score as if it is a significant life achievement.

I'd be glad if online games were obliterated and instead developers concentrated on challenging single player games, and tried to advance AI and puzzle/challenge mechanics instead.

I metaphorically kill a kitten every time someone says a developer should put a multiplayer mode into a game.
What about cooperative MP? How do you feel about that?
 
People who don't appreciate, or at least respect, the desire of developers to use the medium as a means of interactive, heavily narrative driven experiences, are philistines.
 
I actually really enjoyed Beyond: Two Souls. Despite the writing issues and overall zaniness, there was enough in there that really resonated with me. The Homeless chapter in particular stands out - so does The Condenser. Just a fantastic atmosphere. Story was all over the place but I liked it as sort of a series of short films about a girl/woman's life. Never really all comes together but they're mostly enjoyable on their own.
 
I think the focus on story in games like Last of Us, Uncharted, Enslaved, The Order, Heavy Rain etc are all unhealthy for the medium of games in general.

This isn't a comment about the quality of them however.

I think the focus on emulating the strengths of other media forms (film mostly) is doing a disservice to the strengths of games. So whilst games have the benefits of interactivity, the praise for these games seems mostly focussed on the narrative twists and turns rather than the actual player controlled moments (which in some of them is quite good on occasion).

Personally I think the strength of story telling within games is where the game environment itself as you wander through it forms the extent of exposition. Think Metroid Prime, or the first Halo game before the story went dumb. Those games exhibit the 'show, dont tell' method of story telling which keeps out of the way of play, and as a result enhances it. Shadow of the Colossus is another example of this.

I always wanted to post in this thread but I see what I wanted to say has already been said.

Though to extend on this maybe. I feel that a lot play out more like teenage fantasies with very mediocre story telling. To me this isn't pushing the industry forward with story telling, it's going backwards and settling. I don't get a feeling of greatness in many of these "epics" when the story telling is so mediocre, poorly paced and flat out boring.

I wish we would move pass the teenage fantasies and glorified violence.
 
Skyward Sword is an amazing game. Top 3 Zeldas easily.

There is is an amazing amount of game for your buck. The way the game uses it's overworld helps change the formula in a great way. All dungeons are awesome. The combat is improved with added complexity. Overall the bosses are the best in the series. The added item collecting and upgrading mechanics bring a welcome amount of variety. The sidequests are awesome, beaten only by Majora's Mask.

Story wise I think it's great. Always being behind Zelda, adds a lot to it. All characters main and side are interesting. Link and Zelda are characterised better than every other game minus Wind Waker. There's also the best Zelda character is ages - Groose. Ghirahim is an awesome villain too! Plus I think this game does a great job with the lore and timeline of the series as a whole.

Haters be damned.

P.S. The motion controls are good, Fi isn't annoying and the backtracking doesn't take anything away.
 
What about cooperative MP? How do you feel about that?

I'm criticising the traditional death match/capture the flag competitive online game, which I think is the most tedious braindead form of gameplay ever. Anything that moves more into developer-designed challenges that progress in difficulty is better. Destiny looks interesting, and might actually be the first game I'm willing to play online, with it's ability to play alone but jump into cooperative battles.

But the way the press fawned over Titanfall is my personal nightmare, and everyone focusing on the multiplayer maps for the Halo remake has my eyes rolling as I quite liked Halo 1's single player. I just want MS to hurry up and be crowned the multiplayer console so people don't keep arguing for Sony to pursue it.
 
I'm criticising the traditional death match/capture the flag competitive online game, which I think is the most tedious braindead form of gameplay ever. Anything that moves more into developer-designed challenges that progress in difficulty is better. Destiny looks interesting, and might actually be the first game I'm willing to play online, with it's ability to play alone but jump into cooperative battles.

But the way the press fawned over Titanfall is my personal nightmare, and everyone focusing on the multiplayer maps for the Halo remake has my eyes rolling as I quite liked Halo 1's single player. I just want MS to hurry up and be crowned the multiplayer console so people don't keep arguing for Sony to pursue it.

Im curious if you feel the same way about people who play traditional sports? Personally I play multiplayer games online because its fun. Playing against human opponents I find to simply be more interesting then fighting against an ai opponent. A little competitiveness never hurts here and there. Yea there are people who simply play to show off their epeen and get the highest score out there. Some of us just want to have some fun playing against other people though.
 
I have hated almost every game made by Rockstar and I can't understand what so many people see in them. They follow the boring "go there and kill a guy/steal a car" format ad nauseaum. No plot to speak of and if there is, like in Red Dead Redemption, they drag it until the story starts to suck with multiple endings which just makes the game overstay it's welcome.

Ocarina of Time is a good game but not spectacular.

Mass Effect 3's ending is very, very good.

edit: Oh, and I think storytelling is one of the most important things in gaming. I don't mind cut-scenes, I think gamer input is - like in movies or books - getting into a story, not pushing buttons.
 
People who don't appreciate, or at least respect, the desire of developers to use the medium as a means of interactive, heavily narrative driven experiences, are philistines.

Agreed, although I wouldn't be so harsh to call them philistines. I do really hate the 'HURR DURR, this isn't even a video game, I'M NOT HAVING FUN THEREFORE THIS SUCKS!" attitude a lot of the more narrative driven games get (Amnesia: aMfP, Gone Home)
 
Waaaaay underrated gem and unjustifiably thrown under the bus by fanboys of the original series.

Some of the best music on the 3ds and one of my favorite games on the 3ds because of it's humor and creative puzzle gameplay (both in the world and through battles).

Don't listen to the fanboys, give the game a tr first before bashing it.
 
I think Watch Dogs could have been game of the year had the missions been a bit more varied. It reeks of Ass Creed 1 where it needed to sequel to bring all the ideas together.
 
i can't understand how anyone can get hyped for a fucking CGI reveal

gameplay > cgi
I think usually other factors are at work, like developer reputation, new entry in a series, and/or it successfully conveys a core premise that is of interest to you.

... But, yeah, it's only enough to get a game on my radar, real gameplay needs to be seen to properly anticipate it, though we've seen how that can be mocked up too (Bioshock Infinite anyone?)
 
I thought about posting this in the Valiant Hearts OT thread, but I didn't want to start a flame war there. No holds barred in here though.... :)

The gameplay in Valiant Hearts is an absolute chore. Others even admitted this, but then made excuses for the repetitive gameplay serving as a vehicle for the game's amazing storyline.

For me, the storyline was just as mindless and simplistic as the gameplay. Valiant Hearts had your "typical Ubisoft overemphasis on diversity and inclusion" storyline: "In WWI, Germany was evil, but the real heroes were all the diverse cultures and nations who participated in the war - from India to Canada..." It felt like a rehash of AC III's "In the Revolutionary War, the British and the Colonists were corrupt, the only heroes were Native Americans."

And - I even found the dog irritating, because it yelped and barked at you the whole game due to the game's horrible control scheme.

I know I sound like a misanthrope, but I wanted to like this game. World War I has so much untapped potential for games....
 
i can't understand how anyone can get hyped for a fucking CGI reveal

gameplay > cgi

The second statement is obvious. The first is this weird logic that I never saw until I came to GAF. Yes I'd rather see gameplay, but some games it's just nice to know that they exist.

Plus I'd rather have CGI than have the developer talk at me while showing vague concept design work for four or five minutes.
 
Top Bottom