• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

What Are Your Unpopular Gaming Opinions? (Ver. 2)

LancerStaff

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
8,118
Location
Buried under 990+ weapons
3DS FC
1504-5709-4054
I just don't like limited saves or extremely limited lives. Like, having a max of nine is fine... But replaying whole levels and having lives as a limited resource isn't really fun for me. Secrets like in DKC work better when you can afford to lose a few lives... I don't remember lives being very limited in the original trilogy anyway. Though I didn't care for the original trilogy either, so yeah...
 

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
The Uncharted games (other than 4 since I've never played that one) as a trilogy is mediocre at best. Uncharted 1 had a fun story, but the gameplay is just not fun at all. Uncharted 2 was good in my opinion, but not as good as everyone claims. Uncharted 3 is alright, but the story just tries to be too much like the second game and shoehorn in crazy set pieces so hard that it is hard to not notice.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
The Uncharted games (other than 4 since I've never played that one) as a trilogy is mediocre at best. Uncharted 1 had a fun story, but the gameplay is just not fun at all. Uncharted 2 was good in my opinion, but not as good as everyone claims. Uncharted 3 is alright, but the story just tries to be too much like the second game and shoehorn in crazy set pieces so hard that it is hard to not notice.
As a man who loves that series to death, I both agree and disagree.

Uncharted 1 has the misfortune of being an early HD game. Looking back on it a little under a decade later, it really doesn't hold up. The tech isn't entirely there yet, the game play feels a little off and clunky, and there's some major questionable design choices like shoehorned in motion controls. IMO most early HD games don't hold up very well. I've been replaying the first Mass Effect and I'm having a really, really hard time getting through what was once one of my favorite games.

Uncharted 2 is good. It's fun, does everything the first game did but better, nixes the more obtuse choices. It's not perfect, but still very good save for the sheer amount of story it shoves down your throat. No, it's not the best game ever but you really shouldn't let hype affect your opinions anyway.

Uncharted 3 was alright. It had its problems, like lots of boring slow walk "levels" (which is a problem with a **** ton of HD era games and kills replayability, its especially bad here given how obfuscating the story is). The general pacing is all over the place, but it can still be fun, underwhelming. On the upside, it has the virtue of having the best puzzles in the entire series.

Two play-throughs later and I'm still not sure how I feel about the forth game. The grappling hook is a really fun mechanic when you get to use it in combat but feels shoehorned in when its used in puzzles. In the other games exploration and platforming is used to break up combat, here it feels like the other way around. And while yes, exploring is fun since they give you a few big, open levels to do in, I do miss the fights from times to time. Objectively speaking, it's probably the best in the series but I think my nostalgia filter is keeping me from fully admitting it.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,979
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
The biggest issue with the Uncharted series is the plot-gameplay relationship, and it is a cataclysmic issue. Nathan Drake is presented as a likable, realistic and grounded man who is a typical "good guy explorer-adventurer." Yet during the course of the series, Nathan Drake kills well over 3,000 (others protagonists kill dozens as well).

The story and the story direction actively tries to act like all that killing in the gameplay never happens. They're divorced. There are never bloodstains from killing. Characters never discuss the massive amount of killing they commit, the morals of killing, whether they enjoy or dislike the necessity of violence in these situations, or why they don't use nonlethal as an alternative option.

Characters never have mental of physical side effects associated with massive amounts of killing or warlike violence (like veterans and victims of war show). Yet, these characters are all presented as being realistic in a world with only some unrealistic aspects (physics and magic namely). This massive story/character-gameplay disconnect makes the gameplay feel like the story isn't happening, and the story feel like the gameplay isn't happening.

Nathan Drake "transforms" in the series, but never past killing a hundred people. He never questions if it is morally wrong or avoidable, and it never carries mental weight. We should see the violence effect him as we see in all great works of fiction, from comic books to cinema. Nathan Drake should have dissociative disorder, war trauma, and maybe develop alcoholism. Nathan Drake should become gradually less lightheartedly funny and more darkly funny in a depressing way. He should struggle with loving killing and battles, yet knowing it is wrong.

All the Uncharted games should have built up to events in Uncharted 4 where Nathan Drake rejects violence to make that character evolution, that gameplay of immense violence, and that continuity actually matter. Maybe Nathan Drake in Uncharted 4 would have struggled with immense depression, but found a way out of his head with Elena's help. Maybe before setting off in his adventure, he promised Elena he wouldn't kill again, and would rely purely on nonlethal means and weaponry. That could be a sense of struggle for the player, and give Uncharted 4 forced difficulty and character interactions and discussion subjects previous entries never have.

The series is lighthearted in presentation, but the way it sticks to "No consequences" makes it incredibly boring. You can be lighthearted in many ways and keep this character depth. In Metal Gear Solid 1, you see Solid Snake alone express all of this. We feel Solid Snake's mental war scars when he talks. You see nonlethal options presented at every turn, but as the canon story direction. This is done while the game keeps up a mostly lighthearted presentation in spite of the violent and grim story circumstances story circumstances, not much different from Uncharted.

Uncharted could have been nonlethal optionally from the beginning. Like Metal Gear, it could present players with unique rewards and higher scores for choosing a nonlethal route. It could also be presented as the canon gameplay method, so all the killing Nathan Drake does is more comparable to his biggest fictional inspiration, Indiana Jones (with about 100 murders vs. over 3,000). Differences in cutscenes, dialogue and character relationships could have been presented in addition to higher difficulty using nonlethal options, adding replay value.

Overall Uncharted is hyped up as being far greater than what it is. It is a fairly standard linear action adventure with not a lot to it past good gameplay mechanics, fantastic graphical optimization, and a few stellar missions and segments. Uncharted features disjointed gameplay segments, many sequences with nothing happening, an unmemorable overarching plot, and awful protagonist characterizations, all of which draw no emotion or player interest. The story and gameplay, instead of drawing upon one another, drag each other and every Uncharted game down into the mud of mediocrity.

Uncharted should have inspired and maybe even forced greatness in the future of action-adventure video games. Instead, Uncharted merely gives greater incentive for more mediocrity in the genre, and continues a sad trend in video games where gameplay and story aren't connected, and thus drag each other down instead of lifting each other up. That is why Uncharted is massively overrated (although still enjoyable to play), and why I think video game historians will agree with me by and large on the matter. when looking back on this series and video game evolution decades from now.

(Note: I presented this in such a matter-of-fact manner because it should be evident that this is an opinion because I wrote it in an opinion thread. Criticize, agree, expand or retract with my various assessments and my overall opinion as you may in any civil discourse you so desire.)
 
Last edited:

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
The killing thing.
I'm going to be honest here, friend. I don't think you got the point, focusing on the moral and ethical ramifications of Nate's high body count just isn't what Uncharted is.

Should Drake have PTSD? Yes.

Should Drake resort to outlets to deal with his trauma? Yes.

Is that appropriate for a series like Uncharted where the point is to make you feel like the hero of an adventure movie? Nope.

I'm not going to pretend like Uncharted has good writing. Because by the gods it doesn't. Uncharted 3 treats major ground-breaking revelations about the character's pasts like they're nothing. Uncharted 4 expects us to accept Sam as an important part of Nathan's life despite the fact that nobody felt the need to mention anything about it ever. But that's fine, Uncharted might have a balls story but a bad story doesn't make a good game bad.

Overall Uncharted is hyped up as being far greater than what it is. It is a fairly standard linear action adventure with not a lot to it past good gameplay mechanics, fantastic graphical optimization, and a few stellar missions and segments.
Okay, here's another unpopular opinion of mine: People really, really need to stop acting like story is everything in video games. It's terrible that in today's gaming culture the phrases "good gameplay mechanics" and "stellar missions and segments" still amount to a 'mediocre' game because of a lame narrative. Which can be circumvented by pressing the start button during cut scenes.

Games are games, not books, not movies. A fun game with a bad story is still good, and a boring game with a good story is still bad.

Uncharted should have inspired and maybe even forced greatness in the future of action-adventure video games. Instead, Uncharted merely gives greater incentive for more mediocrity in the genre, and continues a sad trend in video games where gameplay and story aren't connected, and thus drag each other down instead of lifting each other up. That is why Uncharted is massively overrated (although still enjoyable to play), and why I think video game historians will agree with me by and large on the matter. when looking back on this series and video game evolution decades from now.
Obviously you like Uncharted, otherwise you wouldn't have written such a passionate post about it. While I'll gladly say the first game hasn't aged well, I'll still put out there that the Uncharted series is very good and damn well worth your time if you want a fun third person shooter. Sure, its overrated but overrated should never be equated to bad or mediocre.
 
Last edited:

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,979
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
Uncharted might have a balls story but a bad story doesn't make a good game bad.
The Uncharted series gameplay still has numerous issues. I like video games being unrealistic, but there's a point when enough is enough. We see the 3 following situations dozens of times by Uncharted 3, and each time presented either in a coy manner or as if it is brand new:
-Nathan Drake is going to hang onto a mountain/something while it collapses and he barely escapes it.
-Nathan Drake will sneak up and take out enemies and then get ambushed.
-Nathan Drake will need to just gun down about 20 people who are firing on him all while looking for an escape route.

The weapons often lack utility options, the gameplay challenges past "enemies do more damage," and after playing 4 of them, it is repetitive. Not in a good sense like fighting games, but in a bad sense that makes me think "I've played this game before, and it is losing its' luster" that hurts replay value.
Okay, here's another unpopular opinion of mine: People really, really need to stop acting like story is everything in video games. It's terrible that in today's gaming culture the phrases "good gameplay mechanics" and "stellar missions and segments" still amount to a 'mediocre' game because of a lame narrative. Which can be circumvented by pressing the start button during cut scenes.
It was the right situation to express my biggest discontent with Uncharted (since the 2 previous posts already documented most gameplay issues and praise), and that was the story-gameplay relationship. I do think since story is a bigger part of Uncharted than it is in other action-adventure series like Tomb Raider or Zelda, that criticizing Uncharted more than such series makes more sense.

My main criticism of Uncharted isn't even the plot is bad, but that it goes against the gameplay, and the gameplay goes against the story. If the story and characterization were bad but flowed with the gameplay, it would be so much more enjoyable.

I will say I agree with your point though... mostly. There are a number of exceptions past this.

Zelda is a fantastic exception. Zelda game have stories are often lackluster, but the story parts are few and far between. Additionally the characterizations are rarely bad and sometimes even great, and that usually plays heavily into the story, along with Zelda's solid lore. That makes the story not feel boring, but rather necessary and like a nice resting point for pacing purposes. In this instance, Zelda's story, characterization, world and gameplay all mesh together incredibly well even when all of those aspects are mediocre. The game becomes greater than the sum of its' parts.

This is why even when I found Skyward Sword a subpar game on all levels (sans music, controls and lore), I still enjoyed it. Everything flowed easily even though it was far too easy of a game, the gameplay was overly simplistic, the enemy design was terrible, and it was essentially a walking simulator. When you see games mesh like this, often even with lacking gameplay, they can still be enjoyable.

Creating an atmosphere that is either fun or makes you think is in many ways another way video games can pique and maintain your attention past gameplay. Video games are more than just gameplay, even though gameplay is a feature in the arts exclusive to video games, that does not mean video games can only be enjoyable via gameplay (decision making and influencing a game and its' world is a hugely underrated aspect!).
Games are games, not books, not movies. A fun game with a bad story is still good, and a boring game with a good story is still bad.
That's not necessarily true. Walking simulators (The Stanley Parable, Gone Home), graphic adventures (The Walking Dead, The Wolf Among Us) and visual novels (Steins;Gate, Phoenix Wright) don't have much enjoyable gameplay, but the plot can be amazing, and make for a fantastic video game experience. Certain games can be very plot heavy with minimal gameplay that isn't enjoyable and still be fun.

The Ace Attorney series has limited (but solid) gameplay mechanics with a fantastic story and characterization. Despite the lacking and limited gameplay, it is one of the most well-received video game series ever. I played through the first game for the first time this year, and I didn't even notice there was barely any gameplay. I was too busy enjoying the entirety of the game!

Some game parts also have "bad" or incredibly limited gameplay but are engaging for other reasons. Metal Gear Solid 1 has a torture scene where you must press a button rapidly to resist the torture. It is a one-off part of the game, and it is a part of the story and it even influences the story. That part is a not only a nice change of pace, but makes the story and the rest of the gameplay feel like it carries more weight. It enriches the rest of the game. That's good game design on all levels.

While with most games you are right, there are many genres and games and situations where this isn't true.

I do think more games should just abandon story altogether from the game than have a bad story. The Elder Scrolls games benefit by having very little story, and instead huge focus on a grand adventure story. Call of Duty would meanwhile massively benefit from ditching a story in favor of single-player challenges. Overwatch, by keeping the story separate from the gameplay and via PvE events, is slowly creating a massive lust for a story mode, and has kept fans interested in the story and the gameplay, even though the story is limited to CGI Pixar-esk videos at the moment.

Multiplayer games like DOTA, League of Legends, Counter-Strike and Team Fortress have all but abandoned story for gameplay (and lore). That model needs to be looked at more than just excusing terrible stories and single-player campaigns.
Obviously you like Uncharted, otherwise you wouldn't have written such a passionate post about it. While I'll gladly say the first game hasn't aged well, I'll still put out there that the Uncharted series is very good and damn well worth your time if you want a fun third person shooter. Sure, its overrated but overrated should never be equated to bad or mediocre.
I liked it, but I didn't love it. I am disappointed more than anything in the series and its' failure to capitalize on so many aspects (I feel similarly about Zelda come to think of it). Uncharted 2-4 were fun, enjoyable games, but they should have been so much more. That's my penultimate frustration. It sucks seeing good games that could be definitive video game masterpieces not even come close to that. It happens to most single-player games sadly.

I will say there was one part of the series I have nothing but praise for: the dungeon solving (and the buildup and resolution of these segments). In these segments, we got great story buildup, fun characterization, enjoyable and varied dialogue, engaging character building, all while you do an awesome and enjoyable and interactive puzzle.

The puzzle design was consistently impressive and diverse in Uncharted, and the group of people who made the puzzles should make a puzzle-orientated (indie-ish) story game. I would buy it in a heartbeat. I want more of this sort of design in video games please.
 
Last edited:

LancerStaff

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
8,118
Location
Buried under 990+ weapons
3DS FC
1504-5709-4054
Thing is, there's a lot of games with the one or two major flaws... Super Paper Mario is entirely too easy and makes bosses forgettable, Mario Galaxy is slow as balls and the endgame cleanup is lackluster, Zelda's combat usually has zero thought put into it, so on and so forth... What really separates the best from the best of the best is how big the biggest flaw is.

Then of course there's a difference between a flaw and a disagreement. A disagreement is like looking at Kirby's Epic Yarn and complaining about how easy it is or the lack of story... A flaw is like KHBBS and how the game is focused entirely on combat and yet has no balance and gives you dodges that can be spammed infinitely to avoid everything. So a game like Zelda can have weak combat but still be a great game if that wasn't really the goal in the first place.
 

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
It was late last night, so I didn't really have much time to write more in my post, but I also wanted to say that Assassin's Creed 3 is not as bad as people say (an uninteresting main character when it came to personality was my main issue with the game).

The Kingdom Hearts games have good gameplay, but some boss fights are bull****, a lot of the time they don't really do enough with the Disney properties, and the story makes absolutely no sense. When I was still in middle school I was kind of able to take the story seriously, but now I just find myself laughing at a lot of the things that happen in the story. By the way I am not trying to say the games are bad, just that some of the things the series is praised for could be a lot better (like if the story actually had good writing).

Even a lot of the good horror games being released in recent years are only really scary early on in the game, but isn't really that scary after you've been playing for a few hours. When I was playing Resident Evil Remastered for the first time last month (I need to get back to that game since I still haven't beat it yet) I noticed that even after hours of playing, the game still managed to put me on edge by throwing me into dangerous situations I hadn't yet encountered. A lot of the scariest moments for me in RE:Remaster were when I had to backtrack through areas I've already been in multiple times, but something unexpected happens, or when I knew that I had to backtrack somewhere, but along the way I would have to go through an area where I killed a zombie that was ALMOST certain (the uncertainty added to the fear) to be a crimson head by the time I go back. Even more intense is when I have made a decent amount of progress and want to go save so that I can come back the next day and continue, but I am one hit away from death and have no healing items or defensive weapons. A lot of horror games nowadays don't really manage to remain scary after a few hours, because they almost never throw you into something you haven't encountered before more than once or twice in the whole game. Even though a lot of those games have enemies that do a ton of damage or just one shot you to try to make them seem like a threat, they pretty much all have autosave at checkpoints that are not far from the next. For horror games, saving the game manually in save rooms that are spread out from each other helps to create more fear by having death be a lot more punishing.
 

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
Which one?
I can't really remember a lot of them too well, but I can remember two bosses in particular from 358/2 Days that were annoying. There was one boss in that game against a possessed sarcophagus that I hated (I can't remember exactly why I found it so annoying since I have not played that game in forever), and there was another against a giant treasure dragon that was not even hard to fight, it just took an eternity to kill it since it would just constantly keep flying around so you could only get in a few hits before it flew away and you had to chase it again. In D3 the fight against Ansem's second form was hard since he has so much health and he has one attack that does an insane amount of damage and is really hard to dodge. I think the first time I beat that boss was because of some glitch that got me stuck somewhere I could hit him, but he couldn't reach me. 358/2 and D3 were the only ones I can remember playing, but I swear I remember I played through another one of the games.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
The puzzle design was consistently impressive and diverse in Uncharted, and the group of people who made the puzzles should make a puzzle-orientated (indie-ish) story game. I would buy it in a heartbeat. I want more of this sort of design in video games please.
I always thought the puzzles were the weakest part of uncharted. A vast majority of them boil down to "check the book then do what it tells you."

If you really want a game similar to Uncharted but with much more focus on puzzles and exploration check out the original Tomb Raider games.

Adding another unpopular opinion to the thread: I really, really want to like Bloodborne. Most of the boss fights are really cool and exciting, the game has solid controls and I like the game's ascetics. But whenever I try to buckle down and actually play the game I find it so tedious and boring that I end up putting it down after less than thirty minutes of play.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member

Guest
I find the idea of the next Smash Bros. for Nintendo's upcoming Switch being an enhanced port of the Wii U installment to be underwhelming. Don't get me wrong, I'll most likely buy it regardless of whether it's a port or a new game, but I wouldn't feel the same excitement I had for past entries if Smash for Switch were merely a port.
 

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
I always thought the puzzles were the weakest part of uncharted. A vast majority of them boil down to "check the book then do what it tells you."
I agree, out of the first three games I can only remember one puzzle in the third game that had me stuck for a little bit.

Adding another unpopular opinion to the thread: I really, really want to like Bloodborne. Most of the boss fights are really cool and exciting, the game has solid controls and I like the game's ascetics. But whenever I try to buckle down and actually play the game I find it so tedious and boring that I end up putting it down after less than thirty minutes of play.
Are you in your first playthrough? Bloodborne was the first souls game I played and finished (played DS2 and got bored/frustrated at an optional boss I didn't know was optional), so I had the same issue as you at the beginning. Once I started to get pretty decent at the game I was playing the game non-stop. I really want a sequel to the game, but I can't see how a sequel could add to the deep lore the first game had.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
I agree, out of the first three games I can only remember one puzzle in the third game that had me stuck for a little bit.
Ten bucks says it was the light puzzle where you have to line up the pieces.

Are you in your first playthrough? Bloodborne was the first souls game I played and finished (played DS2 and got bored/frustrated at an optional boss I didn't know was optional), so I had the same issue as you at the beginning. Once I started to get pretty decent at the game I was playing the game non-stop. I really want a sequel to the game, but I can't see how a sequel could add to the deep lore the first game had.
I feel like I've played a decent amount of it. I beat the Cleric Beast and some dude in a grave yard whose name escapes me, but I just can't bring myself to play. Every time I try I feel like I'm forcing myself into doing something I really don't want to.
 

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
Ten bucks says it was the light puzzle where you have to line up the pieces.
Oh yeah I was stuck on that one too, but I kind of remembered that one being from the second game, but I guess I was wrong. I was stuck on the one you said and also one where you have to walk along a certain path and I was stuck on it for a little bit even though it was actually pretty easy in hindsight.

I feel like I've played a decent amount of it. I beat the Cleric Beast and some dude in a grave yard whose name escapes me, but I just can't bring myself to play. Every time I try I feel like I'm forcing myself into doing something I really don't want to.
If those are the only two bosses you've fought then you have not played that much of the game. It wasn't until I made it to the night time phase of the game that I got decent at it (I'm guessing you are still in the evening phase. You reach the night time phase after you beat a certain boss and the sky turns dark instead of it being kind of sunset-ish).
 

PlayfulMushroom

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
185
Came up with some more:

- 95% of all Sega games remind me of the awful stuff you'd find in a run-down arcade hall. The best examples I can think of is "Samba de Amigo" and "Crazy Taxi" for the Dreamcast. Seeing games like that triggers my gag reflex.

- Neither "Bloodborne" or the "Dark Souls" games are really any good. They are not particularly hard or interesting (bad story, uninspired enemy designs, locations etc).

- Pokemon consists of generation 1-3 and 6-7. Generation 4 and 5 were so bad that I haven't touched them since I finished them after release. The regions suck, the Pokemon suck, the story suck and the music is awful.
 

FamilyTeam

This strength serves more than me alone.
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
2,332
Location
South America
NNID
MontanaCity
- 95% of all Sega games remind me of the awful stuff you'd find in a run-down arcade hall. The best examples I can think of is "Samba de Amigo" and "Crazy Taxi" for the Dreamcast. Seeing games like that triggers my gag reflex.
...Eh?
What's wrong with Crazy Taxi? It's just an arcade game. Something you pay for cheap to get some quick action.
It's just like all arcade games, it's pretty simple yet surprisingly deep, and it's really fast-paced. People also really fondly remember the soundtrack. It got so many people, including myself, into Punk.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Came up with some more:

- 95% of all Sega games remind me of the awful stuff you'd find in a run-down arcade hall. The best examples I can think of is "Samba de Amigo" and "Crazy Taxi" for the Dreamcast. Seeing games like that triggers my gag reflex.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Sega primarily makes arcade games? Besides, Samba de Amigo and Crazy Taxi are fifteen years old. Its not the games' fault that modern arcades have seen better days.

- Neither "Bloodborne" or the "Dark Souls" games are really any good. They are not particularly hard or interesting (bad story, uninspired enemy designs, locations etc).
I don't really care much for either series but if you think something like this or this is uninspired then I don't know what to tell you. And honestly, if you can call what are generally considered very challenging games "not particularly hard" you should have something to back that up. On the note of story, it isn't the point of the game. Its the challenge and exploration.
 
Last edited:

FamilyTeam

This strength serves more than me alone.
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
2,332
Location
South America
NNID
MontanaCity
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Sega primarily makes arcade games? Besides, Samba de Amigo and Crazy Taxi are fifteen years old. Its not the games' fault that modern arcades have seen better days.
Hell, Crazy Taxi still kinda holds up. It's a bit ugly now and is pretty glitchy (I guess you could say it's CRAZY HEY HEY HEY!) but yeah, Crazy Taxi is 18 years old AFAIK and most of the crazy glitches only really happen if you invest enough time in the game to play them long enough to see them happening. If you got enough skill to accelerate the taxi to 400KMH to crash it against a vehicle and seeing it warp all over the map, you probably have put enough time in the game you wouldn't have put unless you liked it.
And come on, the original version's soundtrack. That is still incredible.
 

ThatsBullocks

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
148
Location
You Ess Eh
NNID
BullockDS
Hell, Crazy Taxi still kinda holds up. It's a bit ugly now and is pretty glitchy (I guess you could say it's CRAZY HEY HEY HEY!) but yeah, Crazy Taxi is 18 years old AFAIK and most of the crazy glitches only really happen if you invest enough time in the game to play them long enough to see them happening. If you got enough skill to accelerate the taxi to 400KMH to crash it against a vehicle and seeing it warp all over the map, you probably have put enough time in the game you wouldn't have put unless you liked it.
And come on, the original version's soundtrack. That is still incredible.
I think Crazy Taxi is how many of us 90s kids discovered the Offspring.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,979
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
I think I perceive video games differently from most people because I am left-handed, which means my brain works differently, lol. I am pretty sure our preferred hand (and thus brain processing) has a big impact on how each of us perceives games.
I always thought the puzzles were the weakest part of uncharted. A vast majority of them boil down to "check the book then do what it tells you."

If you really want a game similar to Uncharted but with much more focus on puzzles and exploration check out the original Tomb Raider games.
I've played and own all of the original Tomb Raider (except like the 4th one I think), and I definitely enjoy them, but none of them really combined all those elements into one (story + character + gameplay).
I find the idea of the next Smash Bros. for Nintendo's upcoming Switch being an enhanced port of the Wii U installment to be underwhelming. Don't get me wrong, I'll most likely buy it regardless of whether it's a port or a new game, but I wouldn't feel the same excitement I had for past entries if Smash for Switch were merely a port.
Nintendo in this day and age can't go a system cycle without a Smash or Mario Kart game. It is like Microsoft or Sony consoles going without a new Hal or Gran Turismo game respectively. Smash especially makes too much money to ignore.

Nintendo is ultimately just following the example of remastered/re-released games in order to keep said games relevant and keep fans of those games happy, all whilst making the next iteration with Smash and maybe even Mario Kart as well.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
I think I perceive video games differently from most people because I am left-handed, which means my brain works differently, lol. I am pretty sure our preferred hand (and thus brain processing) has a big impact on how each of us perceives games.
I'm left handed.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,979
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
Unpopular opinion: Kingdom Hearts is a very lackluster series all-around.

The gameplay is good-ish for a hack 'n' slash action game, but lacks a lot of depth (in part due to lacking Melee attack inputs), especially in the 2nd game where the series essentially became "Press X to attack and win, Press Triangle to counter/do special stuff and win."

The bosses are also all too often way too easy and lacking in unique challenge, the story is utterly nonsensical and cannot be explained without sounding worse than some weird fanfic and making the person explaining it sound insane, the spell utilization is still basic and hasn't evolved, the overall gameplay mechanics haven't really evolved much, the original protagonists are quite frankly awful, some of the Final Fantasy and Disney characters are just flat boring/uninspired variants of themselves, Chicken Little is in the game, there's massive amounts of filler in the story and gameplay progression of the story, the game lacks a super hard mode commonly found in similar games (with the exception of a handful of bosses/moments, which I guess isn't so bad), and I still don't understand how a teenage protagonist has bigger feet than Shaq.

For all that goes into the series, it should be more than what it is. But as it stands, it isn't even the sum of its' parts.

I will say, however, whoever did the licensing and got all that legal mumbo jumbo together is a mad genius. As much as we hear Sakurai and Smash Bros developers hark on the legal difficulty of acquiring all those characters in Smash games, that is NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING compared to what hell someone at Square Enix has to deal with negotiating with Disney, Disney studios, and Square Enix studios on top of that, and having to bounce everything back and forth a thousand times. It sounds like a form of torture actually.
I'm left handed.
Another Unpopular Gaming Opinion: Lefties are the superior.

Leonardo DaVinci, Albert Einstein, Shigeru Miyamoto.

Check mate righties! :awesome:
 
Last edited:

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
They are not particularly hard or interesting (bad story, uninspired enemy designs, locations etc).
I have absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion about those games, especially for Bloodborne. The games aren't really all that difficult once you are used to them, because the whole point is that you get better while the game doesn't get any easier.

- Pokemon consists of generation 1-3 and 6-7. Generation 4 and 5 were so bad that I haven't touched them since I finished them after release. The regions suck, the Pokemon suck, the story suck and the music is awful.
I personally loved Gen 4 (I guess I am kind of biased since that was where I started with Pokemon), but I can see where you are coming from with the music not being that good (I think even though Gen 4 didn't have great battle music most of the time, it had great music for a lot of overworld areas). The main issue I had with Gen 4 was that battles were way too slow. I am kind of neutral on Gen 5 though. I agree that the Pokemon and the Unova region kind of sucked and had like maybe 2-3 cities I thought were actually cool, but B2/W2 improved that Gen a little by adding some new locations to the region that were kind of interesting. The main thing I liked about Gen 5 was that the games had interesting villains.
 

FamilyTeam

This strength serves more than me alone.
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
2,332
Location
South America
NNID
MontanaCity
I find it incredible how anyone can still say they liked Gen 6 in this day and age. It was as barebone and formulaic as a Pokemon game gets.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Unpopular opinion: Kingdom Hearts is a very lackluster series all-around.
A begrudgingly as I say this, I kind of agree. I used to absolutely adore the franchise when I was younger. But going back and playing them now they don't hold up very well. Especially the first game with its obtuse camera (although the HD version does fix this), slight clunk factor and repetitive battles it throws at you constantly. The second game is miles above the first, but its got its share of blatant padding and the battles are still repetitive and relentless.

All and all I'd say that KH is a pretty shallow series, but can be dumb fun if you go into it with the right mindset. Had those games come out when I was 23 instead of 13 I'd probably consider them solid one-and-done kind of deals.

I personally loved Gen 4 (I guess I am kind of biased since that was where I started with Pokemon), but I can see where you are coming from with the music not being that good (I think even though Gen 4 didn't have great battle music most of the time, it had great music for a lot of overworld areas). The main issue I had with Gen 4 was that battles were way too slow.
I started with Red as my first Pokemon game, loved it as well as Gold and Ruby. Diamond was so bad it convinced me that I was done with Pokemon until White came out. Sure, DPP did some great stuff for competitive Pokemon but as a single-player RPG it was one of the slowest, most boring games I have ever slogged through. To this day its the only main series Pokemon game I have never beaten (Sun aside, which I'm working on ATM).
 

FamilyTeam

This strength serves more than me alone.
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
2,332
Location
South America
NNID
MontanaCity
I started with Red as my first Pokemon game, loved it as well as Gold and Ruby. Diamond was so bad it convinced me that I was done with Pokemon until White came out. Sure, DPP did some great stuff for competitive Pokemon but as a single-player RPG it was one of the slowest, most boring games I have ever slogged through. To this day its the only main series Pokemon game I have never beaten (Sun aside, which I'm working on ATM).
By this point you must've definitely heard Platinum basically fixed everything DP ****ed up royally. HGSS are based off of Platinum after all, and I don't see anybody complaining about that one.
Also, Platinum has a much larger postgame as well, so it'd be better with just that. But it's that coupled with so much more. They even changed some of the maps around and made them look prettier, they expanded on the lore and the gameplay...
It was what DP should have been to begin with... but hey, better late than never.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,979
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
(Note for the following Pokémon opinions: I got all the Gens, bought a game of each version [at least 1 of say X and Y for example], and started with Blue and then Red in 1998.)

Controversial Pokémon Opinion #1: Gen 4 of Pokémon was the best Generation of Pokémon games.

Diamond and Pearl had the weakest music in the main series ever, some slow-ish (although intelligent and reasonably balanced) gameplay, and a cluttered and confusing region, but they were still great. The top tier Pokémon were also much better than Gen 2 and 3, and the starter families IMO were the best ever (Infernape is one of the most underrated Pokémon ever BTW. Best fire starter ever, sorry Charizard, Blaziken and Delphox mega fans).

Then Platinum comes out, and BOOM! Fixes most of those issues and just most of D/P's issues and general, and is IMO the best Pokémon game ever to that point. The region is easier to navigate, the region is prettier, the region has more diverse locales, the trainer balance is better, the gameplay is touched up a bit, and the region is so much more fun and diverse and fun to explore even in the post-game. In fact, Platinum was the Pokémon game that started the "End Game matters" trend.

What follows Platinum? the remakes of IMO the previous Best Gen (Gen 2) that surpassed the hype in HeartGold and SoulSilver. Both versions somehow topped Platinum and the legend of Gen 2, all while fixing the flaws of Gen 2 (lacking Kanto areas, lacking late game, lacking things to do in Kanto). The replay value for these remakes is absurdly high too, and it finally brought back the day and night cycle! Oh, and it had great remixes and the original music, which was incredible! I for one think HG/SS are still the best Pokémon titles ever.

Gen 4 really was what Pokémon needed. It finally got the series' competitive/vs battle balance down to where it felt was finally modernized (Pokémon has stuck to this model ever since), it fixed so many of Gen 3's issues and new features, all while still allowing the series to get back the "classic feel" that Gen 3 lost.

\\

Controversial Pokémon Opinion #2: Gen 3 of Pokémon was the worst Generation of Pokémon games... but also the most innovative and raw.

Now, the great with the generation was it had some stellar Pokémon, arguably the best non-Gen 1 cast of Pokémon. It had some great music. It had a cool new look for cities. It made scale matter a bit more with the new tech of the GBA. The introduction of abilities, Natures, and so many cool moves were the most innovation the series has ever seen from a gameplay perspective.

But the bad... oh man. The region layout of Hoenn is flat terrible. And despite unique environments, much of the world feels useless outside of trainer rematches; as if it is a location you visit once, and never again. The trainers are also incredibly underpowered. The surf movement speed is awful. Dive is a cool concept, but it is too slow and lacks much depth, and it has virtually no underwater Pokémon diversity. Almost all of the caves feel worthless. The ocean/surf Pokémon variety was disappointing. Hoenn also feels incredibly small, especially after Gen 2 having 2 regions. The gameplay often slows to a grinding halt in a way never seen before. And worst of all, the gameplay just doesn't feel like it has the "magic" that was at the heart of Gen 1 and 2.

Gen 3 had Fire Red/Leaf Green, which despite these shortcomings was reasonably enjoyable.

Then Emerald dropped, which was pretty underrated and an overall very good game that pushed Pokémon into what happened in Gen 4. It made Hoenn so much more interesting, increased the trainer difficulty, more events everywhere, loads of new things to do, and it made more locales feel important. Oh, and the Battle Frontier was awesome. Emerald didn't come close to fixing all of R/S's issues, but it did a fair job.

But Gen 3's issues goes past what happened in Gen 3. The Omega Ruby/Alpha Sapphire remakes were the worst Gen remakes. They made Gen 6 look so bad. Despite some improvements of Hoenn, added mini-locales, some added backstory, the neat Delta Episodes, new tune upgrades, and loads of legendary Pokémon, OR/AS only kept a handful of Emerald changes.

OR/AS largely kept the issues of Ruby and Sapphire, whilst going without the Emerald fixes. In fact, after playing both OR/AS and Emerald back-to-back, even with Gen 3's worse battle system (Gen 6 is actually pretty cool), I enjoyed playing Emerald more. OR/AS absolutely just lacked heart and conviction. The cool features of Emerald and additions of HG/SS were absolutely missing. Like Ruby and Sapphire, the "magic" of Pokémon felt gone, and the game felt disconnected.

It sucked, because I really wanted to see what an upgraded Emerald version (with features from Ruby and Sapphire) would look like. Instead, we merely got an upgraded Ruby and Sapphire versions.

So yeah... Ruby and Sapphire and its' remakes... are Pokémon's weakest links (among the main canon games) IMO.

\\

Controversial Opinion #3 on Pokémon: The start of Sun and Moon absolutely blows. X and Y had too much hand holding, but this is ten times worse. I got to a small town twice and had to get my hand held there, and now I'm in a city on the same island getting my hand held throughout each little stop in the city. What gives?

Why can't Pokémon games let you be free after two small involved quests with slightly deceivingly little freedom (that introduce you to new mechanics) without feeling overly intrusive? It's so annoying, and I had to stop playing because it was boring me so much.

I don't want to watch this same little tween dweeb "rival" jump around happy that I kicked his Poppolio or whatever into the ground and then be all happy and talkative while saying nothing 5 different times for 2 minutes on my screen within 20 minutes followed by this dumb lab assistant. I was tired of it with that one rival from X and Y. This is just absurd.

Pokémon, your games are bad at communicating or making me care about your characters in this presentation style with these graphics and repetitive characterizations. Stick to the gameplay please, and characterization focusing on more powerful heroic presences (think Lance) and the villains, not these preteen ditsy kids.

It sucks even more because I hear Sun and Moon are the best Pokémon games in ages, and I am enjoying the gameplay difficulty thus far and quite a few of the early game new Pokémon and Alolan forms of older Pokémon. I certainly hope this is just one major setback, and that this isn't a trend in the game.
 
Last edited:

jarbAin

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
371
Location
Snooping as usual
3DS FC
4124-6082-4371
Unlockable super hard difficulty settings in RPG games are not good. (Or any super hard difficulty in general.)

I am fine with games having challenge, and I'm not saying that they should be easy, and I think that in most cases, some sort of New Game + is good, but it needs to be done correctly.

There is nothing fun in a ´´enemies do twice as much damage as they normally do´´ mode, since it really doesn't make the game too much different. It just sucks out the fun of the game by punishing all mistakes absurdly hard, and removes the reward from being bold when attacking, since you can't get hit. Essentially it just forces you to play lamer against the enemy you could also have fun playing against. And since most RPG that I have played do not usually have the most versatile movement options, dodging attacks can be a pain.

And the problem with this sort of thing is, that it causes general agony for perfectionists.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
By this point you must've definitely heard Platinum basically fixed everything DP ****ed up royally. HGSS are based off of Platinum after all, and I don't see anybody complaining about that one.
Also, Platinum has a much larger postgame as well, so it'd be better with just that. But it's that coupled with so much more. They even changed some of the maps around and made them look prettier, they expanded on the lore and the gameplay...
It was what DP should have been to begin with... but hey, better late than never.
I never said gen 4 was bad, just Diamond (and probably Pearl). HG was great (WHY WAS THIS THE ONLY ONE WITH AUTO RUN) but I never got around to playing Platinum. I also hear the TCG was pretty bomb in gen 4, but I had left that boat for MTG at that point.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,979
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
A begrudgingly as I say this, I kind of agree. I used to absolutely adore the franchise when I was younger. But going back and playing them now they don't hold up very well. Especially the first game with its obtuse camera (although the HD version does fix this), slight clunk factor and repetitive battles it throws at you constantly. The second game is miles above the first, but its got its share of blatant padding and the battles are still repetitive and relentless.
I find the 1 vs. 2 argument compelling. I think 1's gameplay was less fun to play most of the time, but more intuitive, challenging, and thought out.

2 was more fun, but was so easy it felt like the game was sometimes telling me "hey this is how stupid we think you are."

I will say you are dead right about the games. I beat 1 3 or 4 times and 2 about a dozen times in full, and I beat a few other ones as well. And each time the games felt worse. I stopped GRINDING GRINDING GRINDING, stepped, back, and realized "wow, this is dumb" "these mechanics suck" "this game is disappointing and isn't as good as the hype says it is.
All and all I'd say that KH is a pretty shallow series, but can be dumb fun if you go into it with the right mindset. Had those games come out when I was 23 instead of 13 I'd probably consider them solid one-and-done kind of deals.
I still don't get why Birth by Sleep wasn't called "Kingdom Hearts III" or "Kingdom Hearts Zero," and why III is going to come out 2 to 2 1/2 console generations (at earliest) after II.

I will say if Square Enix isn't nostalgic about their works, Kingdom Hearts III can be great, story and original character aside.

Also, lastly, a terribly popular decision: Sora, despite having a neat weapon, awesome moveset, and cool powers and abilities, is absolutely a terrible character and is an unforgivable character. The Kingdom Hearts series should move on from him and his friends to another era of the story, or just move on to a new canon.
Unlockable super hard difficulty settings in RPG games are not good. (Or any super hard difficulty in general.)

I am fine with games having challenge, and I'm not saying that they should be easy, and I think that in most cases, some sort of New Game + is good, but it needs to be done correctly.

There is nothing fun in a ´´enemies do twice as much damage as they normally do´´ mode, since it really doesn't make the game too much different. It just sucks out the fun of the game by punishing all mistakes absurdly hard, and removes the reward from being bold when attacking, since you can't get hit. Essentially it just forces you to play lamer against the enemy you could also have fun playing against. And since most RPG that I have played do not usually have the most versatile movement options, dodging attacks can be a pain.
I don't think the problem is that it forces you to play "lamer." I think the problem is it doesn't force you to play smarter. Harder difficulties should have enemies adapt to the environment more, be more aware with their senses, have new moves and talents, and not be able to be cheesed with the same "press A to win" tactics (like what can be done to damn near every action RPG enemy; I'm looking at you dead in the face 3D Zelda games).

If, for instance, Twilight Princess HD's hard mode made the Moblins better at dodging your attacks, more careful with attacking by launching safer and better timed attacks, and shielding more often, beating them would be more rewarding and more challenging. It would force you to actually consider their offensive and defensive abilities, and punish their actions and inactions.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Also, lastly, a terribly popular decision: Sora, despite having a neat weapon, awesome moveset, and cool powers and abilities, is absolutely a terrible character and is an unforgivable character. The Kingdom Hearts series should move on from him and his friends to another era of the story, or just move on to a new canon.
I actually like Sora as a protagonist. I feel like he manages to strike a good balance between being an audience surrogate and having his own personality. Sure, he's got the enthusiasm one should have when playing meticulously detailed levels based on their childhood movies, but he's also brave, fun-loving and deeply loyal to his friends.

I really wish the series would let us play as him more. Most of the spin-offs either star other characters or feature "fake" version of Sora. Aside from Dream Drop Distance, which finally let us play as the real deal (plus Riku).
 

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
By this point you must've definitely heard Platinum basically fixed everything DP ****ed up royally. HGSS are based off of Platinum after all, and I don't see anybody complaining about that one.
Also, Platinum has a much larger postgame as well, so it'd be better with just that. But it's that coupled with so much more. They even changed some of the maps around and made them look prettier, they expanded on the lore and the gameplay...
It was what DP should have been to begin with... but hey, better late than never.
Yeah Platinum was the one that got me into Pokemon. I once played Pearl for a few minutes after I finished Platinum and I was just thinking that I probably would have never gotten into Pokemon if I started with Diamond or Pearl. After HG and SS came out I would have to say I would't really be able to understand someone if they tried to say ALL of Gen 4 was bad.

I find it incredible how anyone can still say they liked Gen 6 in this day and age. It was as barebone and formulaic as a Pokemon game gets.
The only things I really liked about X and Y were Mega Evolutions, character customization and the graphics, but overall for a Pokemon game it was really all that special. OR and AS however do bring Gen 6 up a little in my eyes, because those games were just great other than the fact that they removed character customization.
 
Last edited:

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
OR and AS however do bring Gen 6 up a little in my eyes, because those games were just great other than the fact that they removed character customization.
ORAS kinda took everything I loved about RSE, dragged in the back and then blew its brains out. Don't mind me and my nostalgia-bias or anything.
 

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
ORAS kinda took everything I loved about RSE, dragged in the back and then blew its brains out. Don't mind me and my nostalgia-bias or anything.
I don't understand at all how you come to that conclusion unless you just wanted to see a remake of Ruby and Saphire without the stuff added in after those games came out.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
I don't understand at all how you come to that conclusion unless you just wanted to see a remake of Ruby and Saphire without the stuff added in after those games came out.
Goodbye adventure and exploration. Hello rival teleporting you whenever you have to go somewhere slightly out of the way.
Goodbye timeless (midi) orchestral soundtrack. Hello 2010s wubwub music.
Goodbye battle frontier. Hello tedious storyline revolving around a dumb character.
Goodbye cunning and intimidating eco-terrorists. Hello stupid spandex pirates and girl with a robotic personality because that appeals to some otaku somewhere.
Goodbye elusive legendaries. Hello charity Lati.

GET OFF MAH LAWN
 

FallenHero

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Bronx, New York
Goodbye adventure and exploration. Hello rival teleporting you whenever you have to go somewhere slightly out of the way.
Goodbye timeless (midi) orchestral soundtrack. Hello 2010s wubwub music.
Goodbye battle frontier. Hello tedious storyline revolving around a dumb character.
Goodbye cunning and intimidating eco-terrorists. Hello stupid spandex pirates and girl with a robotic personality because that appeals to some otaku somewhere.
Goodbye elusive legendaries. Hello charity Lati.

GET OFF MAH LAWN
Don't mind me and my nostalgia-bias or anything.
Wow you were not kidding...
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,979
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
I liked Gen 6's gameplay balance and how some mechanics were made easier to access. But overall, X and Y were a step down from the greatness of Platinum > HG/SS > B/W > B/W2 chain that was going on.

The series went below even that D/P level with X and Y. Not surprising since that run for what? 6 years was pretty great and hard to maintain.

Despite my misgivings about the start of Sun and Moon and the hand holding in the game, it has cooled down as I reached the 2nd island (I am going slow, like I did with your mom), :troll: and the games' greatness is more evident. It still holds your hand too damn much.

Also, another unpopular opinion: Pokémon routes should be bigger, contain more huge sections of (non-cave) wilderness more option, and have more wild Pokémon variance from grass patch to grass patch (like what Sun and Moon does). While yes I like bigger towns and cities that started appearing more frequently each gen (though Gen 6 kinda slowed it down), it's the bigger routes and wilderness I really want.
ORAS kinda took everything I loved about RSE, dragged in the back and then blew its brains out. Don't mind me and my nostalgia-bias or anything.
OR/AS were much better than Ruby and Sapphire, but that isn't saying much. You are, however, 100% accurate on Emerald version. Emerald was pretty good.

Also, the music in the originals was pretty meh with the instrumentals. I think you took the one flaw of the music in OR/AS a bit far. It was an upgrade, and ultimately that one song was the one issue. The Rayquaza variant was much better.

Still... I wish the Pokémon Company would invest in proper orchestra and classical music recordings like what was done with Zelda: Skyward Sword, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and V: Skyrim, and both Mario Galaxy games.

I will say I adore the Sun and Moon soundtrack so far though.
 
Last edited:

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
I know a lot of people love the classic "quest to be the best" story in Pokemon but I really wish the world changing crises would take center stage as the usual formula is quietly pushed aside. Meeting a legendary Pokemon and putting a stop to world endings plans really should be the pinnacle of the journey. Defeating the elite four after you've met with a physical god and saved the planet from destruction almost feels quaint.

Sun/Moon spoilers:

Taken up to ridiculous levels in SM where dimension-destroying creatures from another existence are running loose, and yet this takes a back set to you becoming Alola's first champion. I appreciate the efforts to make the Pokemon games feel more like serious RPGs by giving them a more complex story, but fighting a human-squid abomination in another dimension is normally what goes at the end, Game Freak. Not before the "real" climax of re-challenging a few dudes you fought before then fighting your regional professor.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom