PCGamer: What's the most unpopular gaming opinion you're willing to stand by? - Games

the MOBA genre is zero skill trash only played by troglodytes

Dwarf Fortress' ability to create emergent storylines is probably far and away the best in the industry. Rivaled only by games like EVE, where the stories are usually generated by human interaction instead of system interaction

I'm always conflicted on MW2's campaign. It's great and I enjoyed it but I was really hoping for something closer in tone to CoD4. While I still prefer CoD2, 4, and WaW for online multiplayer the splitscreen in MW2 is one of the best party games.

Dragon Age 2 was a rushed buggy mess in a lot of ways and it was not nearly as good as Origins. But I still really enjoyed it.

Battle Royal games don’t deserve to be as popular as they are.

It was too cinematic and had a dumb plot compared to mw1 but I still liked it aswell. Coop was so much fun. Fucking 100'd it multiple times

On the flip side - Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 are both awful

Bethesda couldn't make a decent game if their life depended on it.

To this day I cannot fathom why people like competitive games. People keep trying to sell the idea to me and the end result is them yelling at a monitor. I'm indifferent to the supposed death of Half-Life 3 that announced last year. MGSV Is the best game in the franchise because I find the gameplay completely outweighs the hated story.

The floating crosshair as found in games like Red Orchestra and Squad is ridiculous, counter-intuitive, unrealistic, and an example of forcing a deliberately bad control scheme on a player base that has convinced itself that it's "realistic" when anybody who has ever shot a gun should think that's completely wrong. It makes firing unsighted much more difficult than it would be in real life, when a realistic game should strive to have a roughly equivalent level of effectiveness and ease of use. As a player, you have an intuitive understanding of where the center of you screen approximately is, and that's a great video game abstraction of how in real life you have an intuitive understanding of where your gun is pointed when point shooting in close quarters. Because of this, I find the excuse that "it's so that in CQB you can't just hip fire" completely wrongheaded, as a floating crosshair makes it much more difficult to guess where you're aiming. Instead of relying on the center of the screen, which is a very intuitive thing to point at things, you have to look at your gun to see where it's ended up on the screen so you can guess where it'll be as you make some mouse movements to adjust your aim. There is literally nothing wrong with giving a gun some slight bullet deviation when unsighted, as it, in combination with no crosshair at all, is a very good abstraction of both generally knowing where your gun is pointed, while having it still be only a guess and somewhat inaccurate. A floating crosshair has been a deal breaker for more than one game for me.

Having shot a gun =/= having shot a gun in a combat scenario. The floating crosshair when unsightet is realistic since you don't turn your upper body like a robot IRL. Human eyes work by making a snap turn and tracking a point while the head follows. It's to reduce motion blur. Sure you can fixate your eyes to your rifle and keep your upper back still, but what will happen is that when you pan your view fixed to your rifle you suffer massively from motion blur. And that blur can prove fatal if it obscures a threat. Besides; it's not too hard to learn how to point-shoot in games with a floating crosshair. Instead of aiming via the center of your screen you learn how to aim by approximating where your barrel is pointing. Not to mention that the feature makes the addition of laser sights a far more important tactical decision.

Bioshock 2 was better than 1 in terms of gameplay

Video games that keep trying to be movies need to die. They're not fun, they're not art, and they're just not good. Writers shouldn't be trying to inject their latest screenplay ideas into video games when it really just translates into excessive amounts of pretentious cutscenes, and often very sparse amounts of gameplay. Especially when teasing the game. Video games are video games, gameplay should always have a certain precedence over telling a story, because that's what makes the whole video game medium special, if you want to tell just a story that badly, go make a television show, movie, or write a book instead.

>The floating crosshair when unsightet is realistic since you don't turn your upper body like a robot IRL. I've never imagined your first person view as your torso and gun ultra rigidly rotating together. I see that as an abstraction of where your gun is pointed and the general direction in which you are facing. There are many, many games (both first and third person) that reflect this ideology. You might move your screen 10 degrees to the right, but the player model will only adjust the gun and not necessarily the legs or torso. To me, the center of the screen is where your gun is pointed, and not much more. >view fixed to your rifle you suffer massively from motion blur If you're having a problem with motion blur, that sounds like a setting that should have been disabled or the game shouldn't be doing in the first place. There's also nothing stopping you from looking with your real life eyes around the screen as a form of looking while still being disconnected from the gun. >Instead of aiming via the center of your screen you learn how to aim by approximating where your barrel is pointing. And I argue that that's very poor as it's extremely counter-intuitive to how anything works, and in my opinion feels very much like learning an extremely video gamey skill to work around a very video gamey "this is hard only because it's a video game" feeling problem. I dislike the floating crosshair on a fundamental level, and it's the one thing that I've noticed that when I bring up, has the strongest reaction from people who like games like Red Orchestra or Squad. Hence, why it was posted in a thread titled "What is the most unpopular gaming opinion you're willing to stand by."

I mean lets be honest, the movie industry is doing a very good job of trying to make movies die. Video games don't have to 'try' to do that.

I hate the older 2D Mario games because to me they feel more like performing surgery than playing a platformer. The Yoshi's Island and even the NSMB games are far superior A new single-player Quake is unnecessary. More DOOM is all we really need The New Colossus is better than The New Order and Old Blood, at least from gameplay and technological standpoints The Witcher III is boring, though that's mostly because I hate high fantasy in general and the game's combat Resident Evil 4 hasn't aged very well largely because the controls are so shitty by today's standards (not to mention the awful narrow FOV). Games like Dead Space and The Evil Within are much more fun to play solely because the controls feel much better to me Most of Super Mario Odyssey's post-game content is lazy, boring scavenger hunts Mario Kart isn't very fun due to the way the items work Maybe I'll post more later if I can think of anything I agree, actually. To me, first-person platforming feels the most natural because it's the easiest to determine if you're going to land on a platform or not. Of course, it somewhat depends on how a game's physics and mechanics work. For instance, games like Dying Light or even DOOM 2016 feel great because the developers of either game made sure that going from platform to platform felt natural. On the other hand, games like Half-Life prove to be a bit more frustrating in that respect.

That is exactly me. I hate the main quest, but I can't stop playing the game, wondering around, shoot things.

Hmm, let's see: Nothing Naughty Dog makes is fun. The Soulsborne games are decent with interesting motifs but From Software and the genre in general are massively overrated. I actually don't think Todd Howard is a bad guy. Resident Evil 6 was only half bad. Leon's Campaign and half of Sherry's campaign was enjoyable. I don't care about Mario at all and don't really find him or his games special outside the industry and society impact they had. But as games they're rather bland and uninteresting. Terrorist Hunt in Rainbow Six: Siege is actually fun. Farcry 4 was the best full Farcry game (so not including Blood Dragon). Micro-transactions are not all sin. But loot boxes still are. Unreal is an unpleasant engine for 95% of the games that use it. We haven't had anywhere near enough sci-fi shooters, and this recent trend of wanting to do historically accurate World War 2 again is boring and uninspired. Star Citizen will not reach even 1/10 of the hype and follow in the footsteps of No Man's Sky. Starbound is better than Terraria in every way except the bosses. Hyperlane only is the dumbest shit in Stellaris. Watchdogs 1 wasn't a bad game, just overhyped. (Watchdogs 2 is still vastly superior.) Even missing the second half, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is much better than Human Revolution. 2017 Prey is a good game that should never have been called Prey as that title frankly has nothing to do with the game at all and Prey 2 should have still been made. The original Prey was a bad game. Michael Chrichton's book Prey is weird and has no relation to any of them. The Tomb Raider reboot series is good.

It's frustrating when someone takes a very good engine but 100% fucks it up by Not changing out of the default graphical effects Not recreating their game by changing the rules and physics of the engine in some way Not optimizing for their game to negate the 'standard' bugs that come with said engine. These three things are pretty universal. (Most) engines today are objectively good, unless you don't modify it to work for your game.

We haven't had anywhere near enough sci-fi shooters, and this recent trend of wanting to do historically accurate World War 2 again is boring and uninspired. Sci-fi shooters are, like, the baseline of shooters, though. There's far from a shortage of sci-fi shooters; the quality of said shooters varies per game, of course. That's not to say I'm tired of them, though. The main reason I'd like to see a WW2 shooter again, however, is because technology has become so much better and can capture the large scale battles in greater detail than WW2 games in the past, but having different stories and settings, instead of recycling D-Day or whatever, would be paramount. Call of Duty: WWII doesn't seem to cut it, Brothers in Arms is dead in the water, Medal of Honor may as well be dead, and we'll see what BF:V's war stories are like.

I get ya. It ain't the most directly intuitive thing. Though it does provide a more controllable alternative to just making hip fire have random spread and it can't be circumvented by drawing a crosshair on the screen with ReShade or something else. Having played airsoft for a long time I feel like floating 'crosshairs' make point shooting in games work really similarly to how it works in real life. Not to mention that this excerpt for Wikipedia. Point shooting is also a technique used by trained archers and marksmen to improve general accuracy when using a bow, firearm, or other ranged weapon. By developing a feel for a given weapon such as a pistol, the shooter can become so accustomed to the weapon's weight and where it is aimed that they can remain relatively accurate without the need to focus on the sights of the gun to aim. By continuously practicing with a weapon, a shooter can develop a subconscious coordination between their eyes, hands, and brain, utilizing a natural human sense known as proprioception to aid in the proper and accurate use of a ranged weapon to the point that they can fire said weapon by "instinct". In game you basically draw a mental cross-hair from the gun which you use to approximate where the shots will land. The motion blur that I mention was concerning real life. As in taking my rifle and pointing it around so that my sight is fixated to where the rifle is pointing will cause motion blur to occur when I turn around. And if I let my eyes look around normally then my rifle is not pointing towards where I'm looking anymore. The strong reactions from the Red Orchestra or Squad fans is that it's the most realistic option. Though is it only hard because most games have guns shoot where you look, with actually the majority of shooters having bullets literally come out of your eyes, so it becomes an oddity when a game comes where guns shoot where the barrel is pointing instead.

I never got tired of WW2 shooters, I love em. If it's a good shooter I'll like it, no matter what setting it is. I've replayed MOHAA and CoD1/2 countless times.

Open World games are genuinely fun, even the so-called "cookie-cutter" games like what Ubisoft tends to put out. Gameplay-wise, Skyrim is the best TES game ever. Morrowind wins on the story and lore front, but Skyrim is just more fun to play. I had no issue with ARK: Survival Evolved putting out the Scorched Earth DLC for sale when the base game was still in early access. They had court settlements to pay, not releasing Scorched Earth might have been the difference between survival and bankruptcy. It would have been nice if they had bothered using some of that money actually optimizing the game, though. I think even now you still need fucking space-age technology to run the damn thing at a decent framerate. The Godzilla game for the PS3/PS4 is way better than the fighting games and is probably the best Kaiju-related game even, but I'm witholding a final judgement until I can get my hands on an english translation of that "City Shrouded In Shadow" game that came out in Japan last year. Given all the licenses it uses it'll probably never come westward, but hopefully there's one of those "translated for english-speaking parts of Asia like Hong Kong" versions I can import. Predator: Concrete Jungle was actually a decent game. The writing for the last 3rd of the game was pretty fan-ficcy (which is weird because apparently the writer for the game was Grant fucking Morrison), but unless someone else out there releases a game where you play as the Predator it's really the best we got. Not counting the Aliens Versus Predator games, mind you, I'm talking about a purely standalone Predator experience. Combining the above with the Open World game thing, I really hope that Ubisoft having that limited-time Predator event for Ghost Recon Wildlands a few months back is some sort of indication that they're making a Predator game. I think the Far Cry style would suit a Predator game really well. Jurassic Park: Trespasser is genuinely fun. It's objectively a terrible game, but I unironically love and enjoy it and I just do not know why. I'd love to see a remake or spiritual sequel to it made.

Competitive multiplayer (especially the forced esports bullshit in Overwatch) is atrocious.

co-op >>> actual feces >>> compshit

Sony first party games have turned into a majority of Souls styled story focused games and I find them all incredibly stale and uninteresting.

Mirror's Edge Catalyst was a good game

Overwatch was a mistake. It has a bunch of talented people working on it, but its overbearing focus on esports, lacking-in-depth character design, lack of any gameplay mechanics outside of the characters, focus on ultimates turning potential back-and-forth matches into "no action until one team has ultimates", and absolutely fucking despicable microtransaction system that by all means started the lootbox craze put it squarely in the "one of the hugest failures of the gaming industry" section of video game history. Oh, and we can't forget that absolutely abysmal patch """support""" - letting Heroes like Roadhog and Mercy run rampant in all games for months on end until they eventually rework them into something completely different, while always ignoring characters like Soldier 76 and Pharah for years. I could honestly spend an hour ranting about everything wrong with the game and its development cycles (or lack thereof). I will honestly say that as much as I hate the game however, characters like Genji, Hanzo, and especially the newer characters like Doomfist and Wrecking Ball are honestly very well designed and enjoyable to play. They feel more like fighting game characters in a FPS environment than MOBA/FPS hybrid mistakes like almost every character.

- Other M was alright if you get past the garbage-tier story - Fire Emblem got better in the newer games, y'all are just allergic to anime - TF2 is perfectly fine even with the hats, unlocks and paint, in fact it's even better - Megaman 3 has the best OST in the series and I wish people stopped giving attention to MM2 only - Life sims are terrifying and I cant fathom why anyone thought making them was a good idea - D.Va is not annoying in the slightest - Yooka-Laylee was better and had more charm than A Hat in Time, plus it doesnt give me motion sickness - Excessive game difficulty and the elitism that tends to follow it can go to hell - Games should be optimized as well as possible to run on low-end machines, not everyone has money to replace their old systems right away - Link's Awakening was just alright, the Oracle games perfected the formula and deserve much more attention - The Koroks are the best part of Breath of the Wild, fight me - Co-op/PvE gameplay is much more fun than competitive PvP

The MGSV thing isn't an unpopular opinion. Almost everybody thinks that about the game, the general consensus is that the game's absolutely fucking awful story can be forgiven because it has such good gameplay.