Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Kirby

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I think the worse example of launch dlc is elders scrolls online. You need to buy collectors edition to get imperial race. You get a mount too. To get mount in game is extremely expensive.

Its shambolic. Cordoning off a completed part of the game behind a pay wall.

There are some misguided souls in here who will still defend this practice. (and you know who you are).

Potatoeman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have to be honest here. I get the motivation behind early access for smaller developers, financially and artistically. I get their appeal, as it almost allows the player feel like they're engaging in a meaningful development dialogue and seeing a game grow, warts and all. And yes, it is entirely optional. Personally I don't have any time whatsoever for early access, though.

To me, a game should be a complete thing when I play it. Like I don't want to see a rough cut of a film before the final one, I'd rather play a game that has evolved and developed behind the scenes and emerged as a finished work. Perhaps this boils down to the fact that the games I tend to prefer aren't ones that tend to benefit from public refinements, a few minor fixes aside. My gaming time is limited enough that I want the best I can get, and patiently revisiting alphas and betas holds little appeal - I'd even worry that it would damage my enjoyment of the finished game, much of the surprises and enjoyment having been minimised by playing through a rough draft.

Again, I can see the benefits, but just something I don't have the time or patience for. I'd actually rather alpha and betas be included as an 'extra feature' of some sort, so I can revisit them out of curiousity after I've played the final game (I'm sure that's technically frustrating to implement - a video or two will do if so :pac:)

Steam used to have some quality control but it seems to have gone out the window.

johnny_ultimate

Potatoeman wrote: »

Steam used to have some quality control but it seems to have gone out the window.

In Valve's defence, they still pull games that genuinely abuse the system: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-06-valve-hauls-scam-earth-year-2066-from-steam-early-access

Still little love for early access though! I've read a few (p)reviews of Godus, and wondered why anyone would put themselves through dozens of hours of a game that's currently sounds like so much of a bland, repetitive mess in the vague hopes that it will get good somewhere along the line!

ShadowHearth

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In Valve's defence, they still pull games that genuinely abuse the system: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-06-valve-hauls-scam-earth-year-2066-from-steam-early-access

Still little love for early access though! I've read a few (p)reviews of Godus, and wondered why anyone would put themselves through dozens of hours of a game that's currently sounds like so much of a bland, repetitive mess in the vague hopes that it will get good somewhere along the line!

I dont think he ment early access games. There are a ton of shovelware launched on Steam in the last few weeks as publishers dump their old games that they got with some of the studios.
Its becoming a huge issue as people get tricked in to buying crap as they think those are new games. Good games get buried in a sea of **** and dont get first page advantage.

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

Its shambolic. Cordoning off a completed part of the game behind a pay wall.

There are some misguided souls in here who will still defend this practice. (and you know who you are).

Except boiling the argument down to "LOCKED CONTENT BAD" is equally misguided.

Case in point, Elder Scrolls Online. In this instance, the addition of an entire race and race-specific mount is something which has traditionally been part of a post-launch expansion pack with MMOs. These are entirely optional purchases for gamers who may or may not be happy with the core game they've originally bought.

Kind of like DLC.

If the Imperial content had been a piece of regular Day One DLC then it would have been no different than the myriad of other content which is developed specifically for this purpose as with other titles. The game ships with nine races already, having one addition behind a paywall is far from symbolic in this context. The real problem with Elder Scrolls Online, however, is that this type of content is only available as part of a £90 accessory-heavy Collectors Edition which a lot people may not want, despite wanting this extra content included.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I dont think he ment early access games. There are a ton of shovelware launched on Steam in the last few weeks as publishers dump their old games that they got with some of the studios.
Its becoming a huge issue as people get tricked in to buying crap as they think those are new games. Good games get buried in a sea of **** and dont get first page advantage.

These are two different things though? While there's certainly been a bunch of crap pushed onto Steam in the last couple of months I have zero objection to publishers, first party or otherwise, putting their older catalogue of games on Steam. Night Dive, the company who got the rights to System Shock 2 and got it onto GoG and Steam, for instance should be praised for this. They also recently put Shadowman up there too, a favourite of mine from way back in 1999 whose disc I bought are hiding in some attic somewhere. As long as the Release Date for these title is correct then I can't see a problem with this really.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

Except boiling the argument down to "LOCKED CONTENT BAD" is equally misguided.

Case in point, Elder Scrolls Online. In this instance, the addition of an entire race and race-specific mount is something which has traditionally been part of a post-launch expansion pack with MMOs. These are entirely optional purchases for gamers who may or may not be happy with the core game they've originally bought.

Kind of like DLC.

If the Imperial content had been a piece of regular Day One DLC then it would have been no different than the myriad of other content which is developed specifically for this purpose as with other titles. The game ships with nine races already, having one addition behind a paywall is far from symbolic in this context. The real problem with Elder Scrolls Online, however, is that this type of content is only available as part of a £90 accessory-heavy Collectors Edition which a lot people may not want, despite wanting this extra content included.


These are two different things though? While there's certainly been a bunch of crap pushed onto Steam in the last couple of months I have zero objection to publishers, first party or otherwise, putting their older catalogue of games on Steam. Night Dive, the company who got the rights to System Shock 2 and got it onto GoG and Steam, for instance should be praised for this. They also recently put Shadowman up there too, a favourite of mine from way back in 1999 whose disc I bought are hiding in some attic somewhere. As long as the Release Date for these title is correct then I can't see a problem with this really.

One thing to put good old classics, the other thing is too dump old shiet that nobody wants. that shovelware takes up space in front page and new releases bit.
for the last few weeks there were mostly **** thrown and not good games and if good old games were there, they got lost in sea of crap.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

One thing to put good old classics, the other thing is too dump old shiet that nobody wants. that shovelware takes up space in front page and new releases bit.
for the last few weeks there were mostly **** thrown and not good games and if good old games were there, they got lost in sea of crap.

I was going to ask if you had any examples of old **** that no one wants but then I saw Actua Soccer 3 as I went through the list of New Releases. At least it has the correct release date I guess. :pac:

I do agree with your point on their presence in the New Releases section though, perhaps if Valve is going to encourage older releases they should just add a Recent Additions tab or similar? I mean, there's certainly value in having a list of releases like FreeSpace (which current has "Release Date: 7 May 2014", not cool) and the (hopefully) forthcoming No One Lives Forever which Night Dive also got their hands on, right?

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

I was going to ask if you had any examples of old **** that no one wants but then I saw Actua Soccer 3 as I went through the list of New Releases. At least it has the correct release date I guess. :pac:

I do agree with your point on their presence in the New Releases section though, perhaps if Valve is going to encourage older releases they should just add a Recent Additions tab or similar? I mean, there's certainly value in having a list of releases like FreeSpace (which current has "Release Date: 7 May 2014", not cool) and the (hopefully) forthcoming No One Lives Forever which Night Dive also got their hands on, right?

I just scrolled through 50 new releases and all of them are 2014 now. Looks like Steam finally cracked down on it. I cant say much about new games, but there are a lot of stuff I have not heard before at all and I would argue on the quality of those titles.

Its TBs video and he is not to everyones taste, but here is an example of shiet that was thrown on steam in the last few weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOSs7LVotmo

Maximus Alexander

I think it's great that Steam is stocking old games, even if they are obscure or unpopular. There's plenty of games out there that are part of gaming history and would otherwise be lost in the sands of time.

Even if the majority don't like particular games, or if they were universally panned by critics, there will be folks out there who remember them fondly or would find something to enjoy if playing them anew. I love typing the name of a game I remember from many moons ago into the Steam search bar and finding that it's available.

I strongly agree though, that they shouldn't appear as new releases and should bear the original release date. They could perhaps add a 're-release' or 'latest release' date if they felt it necessary.

ShadowHearth

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think it's great that Steam is stocking old games, even if they are obscure or unpopular. There's plenty of games out there that are part of gaming history and would otherwise be lost in the sands of time.

Even if the majority don't like particular games, or if they were universally panned by critics, there will be folks out there who remember them fondly or would find something to enjoy if playing them anew. I love typing the name of a game I remember from many moons ago into the Steam search bar and finding that it's available.

I strongly agree though, that they shouldn't appear as new releases and should bear the original release date. They could perhaps add a 're-release' or 'latest release' date if they felt it necessary.

I think some people miss understood me. Old shovelware is not the same as an old game/classic. I love classics and I am playing this week Stronghold like mad.
Steam really needs to work on their quality control, but by the looks of it they finally started doing something about it.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I just scrolled through 50 new releases and all of them are 2014 now. Looks like Steam finally cracked down on it. I cant say much about new games, but there are a lot of stuff I have not heard before at all and I would argue on the quality of those titles.

Ah, the problem being they're incorrectly labelled with their upload date on the front page though. For instance, Actua Soccer is on page 4 listed as May 2, 2014 but when you click into it, it shows Release Date: 4 Dec 1998. I'd imagine they're working on fixing this although pushing them into their own category would certainly help even more.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I think some people miss understood me. Old shovelware is not the same as an old game/classic. I love classics and I am playing this week Stronghold like mad.
Steam really needs to work on their quality control, but by the looks of it they finally started doing something about it.

As for quality control in general, yes, I completely agree. I'm definitely a fan of more curation of both the storefront and the standard of titles allowed on the Early Access program. There was an article on the subject on Kotaku recently which raised some pretty good points on the issue, definitely worth a read imo.

Maximus Alexander

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I think some people miss understood me. Old shovelware is not the same as an old game/classic. I love classics and I am playing this week Stronghold like mad.
Steam really needs to work on their quality control, but by the looks of it they finally started doing something about it.

No I know what you're getting at, I just think that one person's shovelware is another's treasured nostalgia. The majority of games have something to offer, even if they were pretty poor by critical standards.

I suppose I just don't see any negatives to putting everything on Steam, but it should probably be added quietly in the background instead of clogging up the front page and the new releases lists.

CiDeRmAn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Bought Singularity today.
Only a fiver from the evil Gamestop empire.
I am unlikely to get to play it mind you, with such a substantial backlog!

Varik

I dislike Indie games, not because they're not $100m games or the stupid notion that they're just shovel-ware off the various app stores but because of the name "indie" and the attention of the pretentious gaming hipsters who are so far up their own asses most of the time.

dreamers75

my unpopular opinion is I dont like Unchartered or The Last of Us simply because the controls in 3rd person are stupid. RDR and GOW manage to make 3rd person shooting and fighting reasonably playable but UN and TLOU somehow dont make it work.

Ass Creed is another game with stupid controls in 3rd person, I find I adapt to them and play them regardless but still annoys me that some companies that make only 3rd person games dont get the control system right.

In TLOU the part in the hospital where you switch something and ****loads of things come at you, decent control system and I can take them......nope.....run run like ****.

Uncharted oh look there are some well placed cover bunkers in front of me.....will spend the next 20 minutes trying to headshot someone 200 yards away.

Ass creed i want to stab just one person but the game decides i need to fight 7 guys or parappa the rapper.......press the button at the right time.....NOT HIM..... THE OTHER GUY....**** sake... X X X X X X A X X XX another Ass creed moment " you have to race X to this roof" falls off roof for no apparent reason.

Grimebox

Varik wrote: »

I dislike Indie games, not because they're not $100m games or the stupid notion that they're just shovel-ware off the various app stores but because of the name "indie" and the attention of the pretentious gaming hipsters who are so far up their own asses most of the time.

That is a dreadful reason to dismiss anything

Corholio

Varik wrote: »

I dislike Indie games, not because they're not $100m games or the stupid notion that they're just shovel-ware off the various app stores but because of the name "indie" and the attention of the pretentious gaming hipsters who are so far up their own asses most of the time.

So...you dislike indie games for something that has got absolutely nothing to do with the games?

johnny_ultimate

The first two reasons are actually slightly more rational than the second two, although they're still highly irrational.

Benzino

Probably already said before, but I find the Bioshock series to be very overrated, to me they are average FPS games at best.

Pac1Man

They shouldn't really be looked at as FPS games though, even though they are.

shleedance

I hate The Last of Us. Played it and just didn't enjoy it.

Generic zombie game number 503493 with emotional bits tacked on, more like. Actually, screw this entire zombie craze - they're not scary, they're not interesting. They're boring.

Kirby

dreamers75 wrote: »

my unpopular opinion is I dont like Unchartered or The Last of Us simply because the controls in 3rd person are stupid. RDR and GOW manage to make 3rd person shooting and fighting reasonably playable but UN and TLOU somehow dont make it work.

Ass Creed is another game with stupid controls in 3rd person, I find I adapt to them and play them regardless but still annoys me that some companies that make only 3rd person games dont get the control system right.

In TLOU the part in the hospital where you switch something and ****loads of things come at you, decent control system and I can take them......nope.....run run like ****.

Uncharted oh look there are some well placed cover bunkers in front of me.....will spend the next 20 minutes trying to headshot someone 200 yards away.

Ass creed i want to stab just one person but the game decides i need to fight 7 guys or parappa the rapper.......press the button at the right time.....NOT HIM..... THE OTHER GUY....**** sake... X X X X X X A X X XX another Ass creed moment " you have to race X to this roof" falls off roof for no apparent reason.

This is a pretty good example of a common problem these days.

"I am not good at this, which makes it bad" syndrome.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps its not the games that have poor controls....but rather that you are controlling them poorly?

I am no crack shot in FPS games even though I play tons of them. I play them, I enjoy them, but I know my aim isn't the best. That's my failing, not the failing of the game and I'm not going to criticise a game and its controls because I suck at them.

BetterThanThou

I wasn't a big fan of GTA V, in fact I sold it a few weeks after I bought it without finishing the story just because I saw I could get €40 back on it, I found it boring and I felt it couldn't really compare to past GTA games. I'm not a fan of Fallout, or the majority of RPG games for that matter, the only one I've ever truly enjoyed was Skyrim. I don't think the Nintendo 64 was great, it may have been great for it's time, but I always hear of people saying the gameplay is superior to current gameplay, but I don't agree with this. I liked the Wii remote and felt it made some games a lot more enjoyable, in fact I thought the Wii in general was great, my main problem was the lack of HD. I think PC gaming is a huge hassle, a few years ago I bought a PC to game on, and I could play a lot of games on high settings with no lag, and while it was beautiful, I've always found it alot less hassle to game on consoles, and therefore more enjoyable.

crybaby

i just can't get into GTA V there's something about the gun controls that feels so wrong after playing Last Of Us

CiDeRmAn

BetterThanThou wrote: »

I wasn't a big fan of GTA V, in fact I sold it a few weeks after I bought it without finishing the story just because I saw I could get €40 back on it, I found it boring and I felt it couldn't really compare to past GTA games. I'm not a fan of Fallout, or the majority of RPG games for that matter, the only one I've ever truly enjoyed was Skyrim. I don't think the Nintendo 64 was great, it may have been great for it's time, but I always hear of people saying the gameplay is superior to current gameplay, but I don't agree with this. I liked the Wii remote and felt it made some games a lot more enjoyable, in fact I thought the Wii in general was great, my main problem was the lack of HD. I think PC gaming is a huge hassle, a few years ago I bought a PC to game on, and I could play a lot of games on high settings with no lag, and while it was beautiful, I've always found it alot less hassle to game on consoles, and therefore more enjoyable.

Fallout is, in a lot of ways, a Elder Scrolls game, with a different setting.
Nintendo 64 games have always suffered due to the filtering employed by the systems visuals but some of the games remain outstanding.
That said, if you just don't like them fair enough, I would suggest a quick play of Mario 64 and Blastcorps should sort you out!
The Wii was pretty great, and the sad thing is you consider this to be an unpopular view. There were tons of good stuff on the system and I still have a decent library of games for the console.
I used to find PC gaming a pain, having done a bit of it back in the 90's, spending more time configuring drivers and settings than playing, but things have moved on and it seems a lot smoother now. But the mark remains and I went to consoles and never looked back for gaming purposes at all, though PC gaming now seems to eclipse easily even the best the two new consoles have to offer, it may be time to revisit that old decision.

Big Knox

dreamers75 wrote: »

my unpopular opinion is I dont like Unchartered or The Last of Us simply because the controls in 3rd person are stupid. RDR and GOW manage to make 3rd person shooting and fighting reasonably playable but UN and TLOU somehow dont make it work.

Ass Creed is another game with stupid controls in 3rd person, I find I adapt to them and play them regardless but still annoys me that some companies that make only 3rd person games dont get the control system right.

In TLOU the part in the hospital where you switch something and ****loads of things come at you, decent control system and I can take them......nope.....run run like ****.

Uncharted oh look there are some well placed cover bunkers in front of me.....will spend the next 20 minutes trying to headshot someone 200 yards away.

Ass creed i want to stab just one person but the game decides i need to fight 7 guys or parappa the rapper.......press the button at the right time.....NOT HIM..... THE OTHER GUY....**** sake... X X X X X X A X X XX another Ass creed moment " you have to race X to this roof" falls off roof for no apparent reason.

Sorry man but there's not a thing wrong with the controls in Uncharted or TLOU. It is most definitely you. Also I don't think it's a coincidence you like RDR which has full on auto-aim enabled by default.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

danthefan

With one caveat: I don't like Mario games. They all feel the exact same to me. Have absolutely no interest.

The caveat: Super Mario Galaxy, which was pretty good.

CiDeRmAn

Only issue with any controls in Uncharted and The Last of Us was the damn stupid tilt/touch controls in the original Uncharted and the Vita edition.
As much as I find the gameplay at times a little repetitive the controls are fine and dandy.

CiDeRmAn

danthefan wrote: »

With one caveat: I don't like Mario games. They all feel the exact same to me. Have absolutely no interest.

The caveat: Super Mario Galaxy, which was pretty good.

So Mario 64/ Mario Golf/ Mario Party/ NSMB/ Galaxy/ Mario Land/ Sunshine/ Dr Mario/ Smash Bros / Donkey Kong/ Mario Kart series are all the same?
Nope.
Not at all.
And each series entry is quite unique as well.

It never ceases to amaze me that people just don't like Mario games when the only thing they typically have in common is Mario.

Maybe you don't like the game, just the character.
If it was Bubsy the Squirrel in the lead role perhaps they would be more palatable?