• Uncommon opinions about games
    591 replies, posted
I liked Redsteel.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];41702368']about which part?[/QUOTE] the zombies part was a little disagreeable but I could see how you could think that. however what you said about fallout new vegas is unforgivable
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;41703131] Both the Batman Arkham games are equally good.[/QUOTE] It is uncommon? I don't like DayZ and never ever going to play it.
I fully enjoyed most entries in the Pokemon: Mystery Dungeon series.
I liked Asylum way more. Probably because I actually managed to find every collectable :v:
Fallout 3 Is the most over rated game of all time.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;41703126]the zombies part was a little disagreeable but I could see how you could think that. however what you said about fallout new vegas is unforgivable[/QUOTE] I think the atmosphere and world design of fallout 3 is better in every regard. You could argue differently about gameplay, but I like fallout 3 far more. I do play a heavilly modded version though so that might make me a bit biased.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];41703708']I think the atmosphere and world design of fallout 3 is better in every regard. You could argue differently about gameplay, but I like fallout 3 far more. I do play a heavilly modded version though so that might make me a bit biased.[/QUOTE] the atmosphere of fallout 3 was better, i'll give you that, but the gameplay, writing, general storyline etc of new vegas, as well as the feeling of a world full of actual humans instead of a seemingly endless amount of raiders (all the factions and whatnot) were miles ahead.
Yeah, save for that fact that it was a desert and deserts are boring to explore, everything else about the setting was miles ahead of 3.
Rust got boring after a day. Also I thought new vegas didn't have enough deserts imho. I really loved walking around in a desolate area, finding wrecks and stashes.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;41703875]the atmosphere of fallout 3 was better, i'll give you that, but the gameplay, writing, general storyline etc of new vegas, as well as the feeling of a world full of actual humans instead of a seemingly endless amount of raiders (all the factions and whatnot) were miles ahead.[/QUOTE] I play fallout three with quite a few high end graphics mod and FWE so that might change my opinion a bit. NV just didn't feel serious to me. The game largely felt like one big joke, not an apocalyptic wasteland. I guess that really is the origin of fallout, but it breaks my immersion and makes it hard to view as a serious world. Look at supermutants, a dangerous force in fallout 3. A joke in new vegas. It just doesn't feel dangerous and real.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;41703131]Star Wars Battlefront II is still the best Star Wars game ever.[/QUOTE] That's a funny way to spell Star Wars Battlefront I
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;41684399]I hate Mass Effect 1's everything, except the story and universe which are top notch. The gameplay, the look, the stiffness of the animations, the elevators, just... urgh. The blue-as-smurf-dicks Normandy literally gave me a headache.[/QUOTE] Honestly, even the story and universe are cliche as hell. It is essentially Star Trek, like [I]every[/I] Sci-if book, game, or movie made since that shows incarnation. Oh, there are minor differences, but it is basically the same thing. {Mostly} Kind, benevolent, democratic alliance of various alien races? Check. Big, pointlessly evil villains with poor or no motives (something Stark Trek usually did a decent job of subverting, to its credit)? Check. The aesthetics even look like the new Abrams movies. In my opinion, any game that relegates the setting to what is virtually an [I]in game wiki[/I] is doing it wrong. You have to weave the story and world together.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;41703875]the atmosphere of fallout 3 was better, i'll give you that, but the gameplay, writing, general storyline etc of new vegas, as well as the feeling of a world full of actual humans instead of a seemingly endless amount of raiders (all the factions and whatnot) were miles ahead.[/QUOTE] The setting is "better" if you didn't know the setting of the original fallouts. I mean like, they made a valid excuse in the fact that DC was bombed TO ABSOLUTE SHIT and how the East Coast Mutants and Raiders fuck shit up, but if they didn't pull that, there would be no reason for how underdeveloped DC was after 200 years.
Fallout 3 had a good, albeit generic, post-apoc setting. Fallout: New Vegas had a true Fallout setting.
-snip-
A game's story doesn't matter as much as how it's told
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41705130]Alexander was an amazing movie.[/QUOTE] Wrong thread :v: [editline]4th August 2013[/editline] Though this should just be in the Unpopular Opinions thread IMO, no reason for two at all.
I'm getting so sick of open-world games, you just give me too much to do and I feel pressured to try everything that it's just overwhelming. Some people argue "there's so much to do is what makes it so great!" but it's just too much. Skyrim with it's ton of locations and guilds and what not, I never finished because there was more to do than I wanted. It starts feeling like a chore to finish the game, and they try to shove tons of lore down your throat all at once. I happen to prefer linear shooters because they can focus more on what the player will experience than what they could. I used to love the idea of being able to go anywhere anytime but now I've played so many of them now I'm sick of them. What I like is a linear game that tells me its story. Not many possible stories, but one story with one outcome. I'm sick of games getting RPG elements being shoehorned in when they don't need them. MP games that make you level up to get new weapons when they aren't RPG based games. Tomb Raider and Far Cry 3 had totally unnecessary RPG aspects, (by the way I swear these games are a rip off of each other. The both focus on a group of ordinary people who get stuck on an island and the pc has to rescue their friends and defeat the mysterious enemy on the island. Heck they both even WWII Japanese as part of the setting!) Blood Dragon fixed this by just buffing the player as they went on. (even then that's unnecessary) I think player progression in SP games should be what it used to be, the player faces bigger enemies and gets better weapons to counter them. Instead, now we have the same enemies over and over again, just scaled to match the player. Think about the bandits in Borderlands, they never change at all, they just get more health and do more damage. Shirtless psychos just take more bullets to kill at the end than at the start. No go back and look at Far Cry, first your just dealing with a bunch of mercs, but then you start fighting professionals who are better armed and better trained, so obviously it makes sense they'd get a health/damage increase. HL2, metrocops get replaced with soldiers and eventually the elite. Unreal, the Skarrj get bigger and armored as you progress farther. I'm trying to avoid saying older games are better because all of the games that I ragged on here I also enjoyed, but I think it wouldn't hurt for devs to look at making it simpler.
[QUOTE=Skyward;41705144]Wrong thread :v: [editline]4th August 2013[/editline] Though this should just be in the Unpopular Opinions thread IMO, no reason for two at all.[/QUOTE] Dammit, this is what I get for only reading the first 2 words of the title.
Most of the time when games try to be "realistic," more often than not it means the controls will be frustrating and/or godawfully slow
Counter Strike is shite
I despise zombie games.
[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;41704747]That's a funny way to spell Star Wars Battlefront I[/QUOTE] i think they're both equally good battlefront 1 has better maps, battlefront 2 has the whole space battles and play as jedi thing going on i love battlefront 1's menu tho
But it added a jump feature, which makes up for everything. Especially the jedi quadripple jumps.
Lots of people will say how good you are is measured by how many kills you get. I say it's measured by how often you die. If you get like 10 kills and 5 deaths I think you did better than the guy who got 20 kills and 10 deaths.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41683330] I mean like, think about Valve's other games Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 (which weren't even really valve's doing iirc, pretty sure turtle rock did the first one[/QUOTE] Turtle Rock had the concept and made an early version before being bought up by Valve to develop it with Valve's devs. [QUOTE=milkandcooki;41683330] Now there's DOTA 2 and CS:GO. Dota 2 is nice, it's just not my kind of game and it has an awful community. CS:GO wasn't even made by Valve so that doesn't even really count either.[/QUOTE] Valve DID develop CS GO. Hidden Path only helped them with the 3D models and animations. The rest was made by Valve. Otherwise it would only say that Hidden Path made it.
[QUOTE=darcy010;41707959]But it added a jump feature, which makes up for everything. Especially the jedi quadripple jumps.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure you could jump in battlefront 1 (obviously not as a Jedi). Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I really find aesthetics and animations and graphical tech pretty important, for example when I go from playing a beautiful looking game where the character animation is super smooth and nice, to a game where the player controls like a sliding box with really rigid animations, it's surprisingly jarring and just doesn't feel as good to play.
FPS games are boring to play without ragdoll physics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.