Unpopular Gaming Opinions

_CreeD_

Okay, I'll admit it.

I preferred Blagger to Manic Miner....I know it was a blatant copy, but for some reason it was just more fun.

Also I thought Martin Galway > Rob Hubbard , but not by much.

Singularity is one of the best FPS ever released. Superior to the entire Halo franchise, COD, etc.

sarumite

Deleted User wrote: »

Singularity is one of the best FPS ever released. Superior to the entire Halo franchise, COD, etc.

It was a shame activision just allowed it to die. I think it reviewed quite well.

CiDeRmAn

_CreeD_ wrote: »

Okay, I'll admit it.

I preferred Blagger to Manic Miner....I know it was a blatant copy, but for some reason it was just more fun.

:eek:

You sick twisted cur!

gizmo

sarumite wrote: »

It was a shame activision just allowed it to die. I think it reviewed quite well.

I'm a massive fan of Singularity but after reading this, I can kind of understand why things didn't work out.

CiDeRmAn

Makes me want to nip out and buy it, though it's unlikely I'll play it.
I remember the Wolfenstein game a couple of years ago on the PS3/360, it was not great by any stretch but it was fun and the goodwill of the franchise carried it over the line, but there was a sadness there of how really good it might have been.
Ah well, it least neither of them was Haze, or Fracture.

Retr0gamer

Singularity for me was more surprisingly enjoyable than great. Definitely worth it for the price it goes for lately but it wouldn't be challenging the top tier shooters for me.

gizmo

It's actually on sale on Steam at the moment as part of an oh-so-rare set of Activision reductions.

While I would have been happy to pay full whack for it given the enjoyment it gave me, at that price any FPS fan should give it a go.

Angron

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Makes me want to nip out and buy it, though it's unlikely I'll play it.
I remember the Wolfenstein game a couple of years ago on the PS3/360, it was not great by any stretch but it was fun and the goodwill of the franchise carried it over the line, but there was a sadness there of how really good it might have been.
Ah well, it least neither of them was Haze, or Fracture.

I thought Haze was all right. Not a great game, but I found it decent enough fun.

chrislad

I apparently finished that game about 18 months ago. Cannot remember a thing about it.

ZeitgeistGlee

Jade Empire was one of BioWare's best games, miles better than the Dragon Age series for its era.

C14N

gizmo wrote: »

It's actually on sale on Steam at the moment as part of an oh-so-rare set of Activision reductions.

While I would have been happy to pay full whack for it given the enjoyment it gave me, at that price any FPS fan should give it a go.

Hmm, an apparent cult-following and a middling Metascore? Sounds like this could be another Spec Ops The Line. Now I feel I have to buy it.

jaxdasher

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

Jade Empire was one of BioWare's best games, miles better than the Dragon Age series for its era.

Love that game except for one flaw. Ridiculous amount of loading screens. I played that game all night til dawn when I got it.

Retr0gamer

C14N wrote: »

Hmm, an apparent cult-following and a middling Metascore? Sounds like this could be another Spec Ops The Line. Now I feel I have to buy it.

It definitely isn't a spec ops the line.

shruikan2553

76/100 is a fairly decent metacritic score, especially if you read the article someone had above.Seems like they just tried to do too much. I told myself I wouldnt by any games for awhile but Im being tempted by that one. Unlike the call of duty games it has a good discount.

CiDeRmAn

C14N wrote: »

Hmm, an apparent cult-following and a middling Metascore? Sounds like this could be another Spec Ops The Line. Now I feel I have to buy it.

I thought Spec Ops The Line's advances were all in the field of story telling, or at least bravery at taking troops operating in a region all too familiar to the headlines of today and having them involved in some morally outrageous activities while, initially at least, giving them the alibi "We're the good guys, the liberators" until it all comes apart, and usurping the players expectations and on screen actions as well.
A fitting and interesting update to Heart of Darkness and it's be inappropriate to say I had fun but it was probably All Grow'd Up Piece Of Entertainment Media Of The Year (not a real award) along The Last of Us.
Oh, and the story was hung upon a competent third person cover shooter, itself kind of luring the player into a false sense of expectation before everything turns to dung.
I thought the way the title screen changed with the gameplay was a nice touch too.
I have a feeling history is going to mighty kind to that game, it may turn out to be as important as The Last of Us in the end, if not more so.

All in all I'd say the game is a real kick in the proverbials to those who previously played too much COD and Gears.

Retr0gamer

I feel it's a hell of a lot more important than Last of Us. Last of Us was the better game and was better made but nothing it did couldn't have been done outside of the videogame medium. If you break it down it's pretty much a more ham-fisted Another World or Ico. There was one moment when it broke away from videogame norms towards the end but all it did was copy Spec Ops itself while totally missing the point of why it was so effective in Spec Ops.

I fully expect a few people to miss the point of what I'm saying here but I'm not arguing that Last of Us is a good game. What I mean is that it's reliance on gameplay interspersed with cutscenes isn't advancing videogames just because the writing is better than the average videogame. As I said it's a better game than Spec Ops but what Spec Ops did with its narrative would not work outside of a videogame and it really uses the medium in interesting ways.

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I feel it's a hell of a lot more important than Last of Us. Last of Us was the better game and was better made but nothing it did couldn't have been done outside of the videogame medium. If you break it down it's pretty much a more ham-fisted Another World or Ico. There was one moment when it broke away from videogame norms towards the end but all it did was copy Spec Ops itself while totally missing the point of why it was so effective in Spec Ops.

I fully expect a few people to miss the point of what I'm saying here but I'm not arguing that Last of Us is a good game. What I mean is that it's reliance on gameplay interspersed with cutscenes isn't advancing videogames just because the writing is better than the average videogame. As I said it's a better game than Spec Ops but what Spec Ops did with its narrative would not work outside of a videogame and it really uses the medium in interesting ways.

I suppose The Last of Us was mostly a grim Uncharted game, with much of the same clever use of story and cutscene wrapped around a solid but predictable game engine. The cover shooter and stealth elements were fine but it was the scenes that took you out of that, like the later scene in the snowy woods, that felt the best of the bunch, at least to me anyway.
The game featured a dystopian, post apocalypse America, and there was nothing new in the setting at all.
The enemy were interesting but a lot of that was based in the exposition rather than their actual function, which was nothing we hadn't seen in Resident Evil and the Left for Dead franchises.
The last part of the game took some good chances, and I am still affected by the scenes between the children in the middle of the game, but much of my time with it was spent pushing forward, hiding behind convenient bits of scenery and doorways, shooting at people and once-people in a manner I have done a million times in a million other games, just to see the next bit of the storyline, which was compelling.
In that regard I suppose it had more in common with Bioshock Infinite, though it's gameplay was far less satisfying the story and world it was set in was incredible.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Last of Us was the better game and was better made but nothing it did couldn't have been done outside of the videogame medium.

I'd strongly disagree with that. What makes the Last of Us so effective is that the player is allowed take part in the journey themselves - sure, it's not exactly the finest example of player agency out there (although I would argue Spec Ops only highlights the lack of player agency and the trouble with 'choice' in most games, rather than actually overcoming it in any meaningful way), but not all games have to. Instead, venturing through the world and interacting with the characters the way you do are distinctly 'video gamey' ways of telling a story, and would not be replicable in another medium. Cutscenes are used to tell some of the story, yes, but so are plenty of moments where you uncover a small exchange between Joel and Ellie when you venture off the beaten track or explore the environment. When you 'survive' one of their ordeals or obstacles, it packs more of a punch because there's a controller in your hand.

If you stripped the 'game' away from The Last of Us, you'd be left with a familiar setting and a not unfamiliar relationship study / genre drama. But it's the 'game' that adds depth and freshness to the story and draws us into the world in a more immediate and engaging way. Playing the Last of Us offers a far more engrossing experience than watching it does, and ensures many of the dramatic beats and emotional undercurrents hit harder than they would in a completely 'passive' medium. It doesn't matter that the story is pre-authored - Spec Ops is completely pre-authored too, albeit with a couple of binary choices.

I did have reservations about the game too, but for a specific type of game storytelling - and the one that is by far the most common, actually - Last of Us is top class. It's not Ico, but then pretty much no game is Ico, which I'd pretty much consider the most nuanced and purest narrative ever told in a videogame.

I fully expect a few people to miss the point of what I'm saying here but I'm not arguing that Last of Us is a good game.

I think there's a word missing there :pac:

Thank you Johhny

The last few posts were making my eyes hurt...

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I did have reservations about the game too, but for a specific type of game storytelling - and the one that is by far the most common, actually - Last of Us is top class.

That there is pretty much what I'm saying. It might be telling a better story than most games but it's telling it in the most common way game stories are told. It's not groundbreaking in anyway.

I have to disagree that it being a videogame adds anything to the story or that it's used in any creative ways. In fact it detracts from time to time. There's too raft puzzles for my liking. But there we are getting into personal opinion territory. I know what you are getting at but I didn't think the game elements added anything to it like for example Silent Hill 2 and even then I'd be hard pushed to say Silent Hill 2 pushed the envelope in terms of how games tell a story.

I think you are being way too harsh on Spec Ops. Sure it uses simple binary choices but it's the way that it uses them that matters. When I was playing the game I was so tempered by modern gaming that I didn't recognise that they were even choices and I felt awful when I found out that I did have a choice. That's very different to something like Mass Effect with a transparent and mechanical morality meter and color coded answers. Maybe you recognised it when you were playing it or had it spoiled but for me I saw it has taking a familiar trope of gaming and subverting it.

I felt the same with the fact that the Spec Ops was pre-authored since I found it subverted that trope as well and used it as part of it's narrative. Spec Ops does however have a lot of flaws but it's interesting and does something new which is why I'd considering a very important game when it comes to storytelling along with something like Ico, Another World or Earthbound. Last of Us might be a great game but it's pretty much a genre piece and sticks to the videogame blockbuster template.

Josey Wales

Seems to be an unpopular opinion around here based on another thread but I am actually interested in the new Call of Duty game. I haven't played one of these games in a few years so I'm ready for another helping.

Deleted User wrote: »

Singularity is one of the best FPS ever released. Superior to the entire Halo franchise, COD, etc.

Tried to play this about two months ago. Got about a half hour into but had to give up on it. It was giving me motion sickness.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote:

I think you are being way too harsh on Spec Ops. Sure it uses simple binary choices but it's the way that it uses them that matters. When I was playing the game I was so tempered by modern gaming that I didn't recognise that they were even choices and I felt awful when I found out that I did have a choice. That's very different to something like Mass Effect with a transparent and mechanical morality meter and color coded answers. Maybe you recognised it when you were playing it or had it spoiled but for me I saw it has taking a familiar trope of gaming and subverting it.

I think Spec Ops is a really fascinating game, and my comments were more observations on the way it works as opposed to harsh criticsm But it's a weird contradiction in many ways - it aggressively critiques the limitations and fundamental issues of military shooters and binary moral choices... but only does so by rigidly adhering to military shooters and binary moral choices. This works well enough for it, but it IMO also sorts of limits its potential (and actually a very similar thing was done in Bioshock, just in a far less confrontational and challenging way). Like the way Bioshock sadly collapses in the third act when the big reveals are out of the way, Spec Ops' biggest limitation is that it doesn't present a truly viable alternative for future games to follow. Maybe that's too much to ask for, but I know Spec Ops' impact on me was kind of dulled simply by the fact that I spent 80% of the game playing a mediocre cover shooter - even though I know half the developer's point is to make the gameplay a repetitive chore. It also feels a bit like a lecture at times - there's some subtle stuff there, but they emphasise a lot of the themes in a very explicit, no-room-for-debate way. Pointing this stuff out is a worthy first step, but genuinely challenging them is another thing entirely.

When the French New Wave directors started getting attention, they were critics - commenting on prevalent trends in cinema in written form. But then they started making films themselves, and subverting and abandoning existing ways of cinematic storytelling almost entirely (although occasionally borrowing some of the stuff that did work / they liked). To me, Spec Ops is actually more like those early articles than Breathless or The 400 Blows - it highlights and comments on limitations and foundational issues, but doesn't manage to transcend them. There can only really be one Spec Ops: The Line, one that is effectively a piece of intertextual criticism. A true revolution would be its own thing entirely. I'd also compare it to something like Cabin in the Woods or Scream - almost more of a genre satire (albeit with a very different tone than those two films). It's still very welcome, though, as it is a smart game that rightly kicked off a whole lot of debate about important issues of common game storytelling and design. I don't know if its observations will or even can trickle down to other games in any tangible way, but hey a baby step is certainly better than nothing.

Retr0gamer

I don't really think that it needed to offer an alternative. It would be nice if it did but even criticising such a stale genre and challenging the player is something that I don't think any game has done and why it will or at least should be held up as an important work in the medium. I found it far more effective than Bioshock, although that's more so because System Shock 2 had the exact same twist at the midway point but it was handled in a more subtle and less hamfisted manner (both games lost steam after that point as well). I feel that was more a pacing issue with both games, the big surprise was out of the way and there was nothing really else interesting to do other than to progress onwards towards the end of the game, just like every other game.

Pac1Man

Side note about Spec Ops.

Looking at one of the interviews with the developer, one of the choices the player had when they realized the mission was sour was to simply stop playing the game. Don't know why but I loved that! Presumably this was at the point of the Kentucky fried mother-baby sequence.

C14N

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I have a feeling history is going to mighty kind to that game, it may turn out to be as important as The Last of Us in the end, if not more so. All in all I'd say the game is a real kick in the proverbials to those who previously played too much COD and Gears.

I think so too. I have a feeling that Spec Ops will be remembered and inspiring to the few who did play it when it came out, especially compared to the likes of COD or Gears that won't age as well when their graphics start to age and the multiplayer servers get switched off.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I feel it's a hell of a lot more important than Last of Us. Last of Us was the better game and was better made but nothing it did couldn't have been done outside of the videogame medium. If you break it down it's pretty much a more ham-fisted Another World or Ico. There was one moment when it broke away from videogame norms towards the end but all it did was copy Spec Ops itself while totally missing the point of why it was so effective in Spec Ops.

I fully expect a few people to miss the point of what I'm saying here but I'm not arguing that Last of Us is a good game. What I mean is that it's reliance on gameplay interspersed with cutscenes isn't advancing videogames just because the writing is better than the average videogame. As I said it's a better game than Spec Ops but what Spec Ops did with its narrative would not work outside of a videogame and it really uses the medium in interesting ways.

I disagree. I think The Last of Us would not have been nearly as effective to me, personally, if it was a film or a TV show instead of a game.

For example, the opening scene with Sarah does an excellent job of putting you in her shoes when the panic starts and did a tremendous job of making the player attached to her in just a few minutes. I also think that the actual stealth/shooter gameplay and how you need to approach things was important in building the characters and creating tension, being the one terrified for your life and bashing some guy's head in with a brick is very different to watching it. The part where Ellie takes centre stage was important because of the fact that the roles are switched. That you are fighting for Joel and then later you fight as Joel for Ellie is an important part of forming an attachment. I don't think the ending (which is what made me particularly like it) could have been anything as good in another medium. Playing as Joel is what makes you sympathise with him so much and look past all of the horrible, violent things he does up to this point and without that attachment, the ending where you have to slaughter so many people and finally pull the trigger on the doctors just wouldn't have felt like such a kick in the teeth. I also think it was important that his rampage was something you couldn't have done earlier in the game when you first meet Joel. It was only possible because you, the player, helped him build up his skills and arsenal throughout the game up to that point.

Just my two cents, but I've seen many people disregard it as nothing more than a wannabe film and I just think it does that a disservice. I don't think any copying of Spec Ops was intentional,TLOU was only released around one year afterwards so I'm assuming it was largely finished when Spec Ops came out. I even remember that what interested me so much in Spec Ops was that I was fed up with all of the consequence-free morally unambiguous shooters I had been playing and it was the The Last of Us E3 trailer that piqued my interest in something different. I would consider them to be about equals myself. Spec Ops came first and was probably more brutal but TLOU was more polished and well rounded. The fact that TLOU was a massive success while Spec Ops was not was also important. Spec Ops sold under 1 million copies, it's not going to inspire many AAA devs to copy it. TLOU sold over 4 million on just one system and the fact that it did that while taking risks and being a brand new IP could make it more of an inspiration for others in the near future.

ZeitgeistGlee

jaxdasher wrote: »

Love that game except for one flaw. Ridiculous amount of loading screens. I played that game all night til dawn when I got it.

Just finished a replay of it last night and it really cemented my opinion of the game being a missed gem. Only gripe I really had with the game is how the Closed Fist ideology was pin-holed into the typical chaotic, thuggish evil alignment of most BioWare games instead of how its described. With that said I don't think BioWare have ever managed to do a thorough alignment system that makes you properly think about your choices.

gaynorvader

gizmo wrote: »

I'm a massive fan of Singularity but after reading this, I can kind of understand why things didn't work out.

I actually worked in Activision at the time Singularity was in early Alpha and I played through the original storyline. It's a pity they couldn't get it to work because a lot of the time based puzzles were awesome and the storyline was better, though I don't think they'd made an ending when I played it through.

I'm more excited for the upcoming third Riddick game than any other title on the horizon.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm more excited for the upcoming third Riddick game than any other title on the horizon.

Didn't even know there was one!? Loved Escape from Butcher Bay.