What are your unpopular gaming opinions?

[Crescent Rose]

Pretty much what title says. Got to thinking about some of my unpopular opinions on certain games and I figure to make a thread about it.
I'll start it off

-Half Life franchise is not that good and mediocre really
-Witcher 2 was not a good game
- Other than fps and rts, gamepad > keyboard and mouse
- I hate this new fad of using retro graphics in games
- Most indie games are trash (obviously with a few exceptions)

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

I would not play 800x600 on my current widescreen because the Ratio make the game look distorted but on my previous PC I was playing under 800x600 in almost any game and I din't mind that very much.

Then it's greatly depend on your screen size and ratio even more then it's native resolution.
on a small laptop monitor even 800x600 usually feel clear enough ... :P

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย REDXJeenks3000:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lemonfed:

you don't need 720p to play a game , more is better but even in 800x600 most game look great.

[♠ZerØ♠]

I run all games on minimum settings, aside from aspect ratio.

[Tito Shivan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย REDXJeenks3000:

Controller> keyboard mouse

I believe there's a bigger generational factor in that opinion than people admit.
I grew up on KB+M and hate controllers. I often find the opposite on younger people.

Another unpopular opinion: Consoles have hurt PC gaming.
Reasons:
-killing the dedicated servers 'culture'.(P2P networking, dev managed servers)
-killing the community based servers 'culture'. (matchmaking systems, no third party servers options)

[FulvousFox]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Mint-Berry Crunch:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zach "The Mach" Back in Black:

My main problem with Let's Players is how they always have to talk over everything, and there's so many of them! I can barely find a game walkthrough without some overhyped adult yelling over the game. I want to be able to watch some TellTale in peace ;_;

I don't mind those who are intentionally meant for humor, aka Uberhaxornova, Cr1tikal, etc, but I hate it when a person like one of the following I mentioned tries to do a serious playthrough. Sometimes they run out of things to say to the point where they are just stating the obvious. It's not always wise to talk, silence can be a good thing.

No hate towards them though, as I like a lot of them, but some of them need to pull themselves together and quit overreacting to the littlest of things.

Can you define the "everything" that LPers talk over?

Some of them can literally not stop talking over gaming dialogue. Watching any TellTale game is a nightmare with these kinds of people. Sometimes the gameplay gets so slow and boring, that they actually just start making random noises, singing, or just stating what we can already see. Now I've seen a good couple of LPers that actually talk when they should, and it's quite nice.

[iceman]

i actually think that philosophy in metal gear rising was solid and interesting.

[♠ZerØ♠]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Master Chief༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽:

i actually think that philosophy in metal gear rising was solid and interesting.

If you can follow it, it was interesting but most people didn't play the full games, and lost so much from not following each game.

[CatPerson]

What are your unpopular gaming opinions?

"Steam is not all that."

...I use it some, because times change and all, and I don't hate it, but that doesn't mean I love it.

P.S. another one: "Multi-player doesn't = better/more fun." I'm sick of MP, PvP or Online based anything. More single-player games, please. That aren't "app-based" or puzzle/adventure games. It's the main reason I'm considering Fallout4, even tho I'm not a huge Bethesda fan at all.

[chibilibi]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

-Persona 3 is not a bad game

That's an unpopular opinion? Because Persona 3 and 4 seem to be pretty much universally loved.

[FulvousFox]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย chibilibi:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

-Persona 3 is not a bad game

That's an unpopular opinion? Because Persona 3 and 4 seem to be pretty much universally loved.

Yeah, what? Who doesn't like that game?

[GW_Goose]

zombie survival games suck

[FulvousFox]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย woodentoaster99:

zombie survival games suck

Bruh, back up. Your edge is too sharp.

[Ailes]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

-killing the dedicated servers 'culture'.(P2P networking, dev managed servers)
-killing the community based servers 'culture'. (matchmaking systems, no third party servers options)

I never thought about blaming consoles for that. But maybe you're right. P2P sucks. I miss the days when games had proper and efficient server browser mechanics and not some ♥♥♥♥♥♥ half-baken random matchmaking garbage.

[FulvousFox]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Sharisad:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

-killing the dedicated servers 'culture'.(P2P networking, dev managed servers)
-killing the community based servers 'culture'. (matchmaking systems, no third party servers options)

I never thought about blaming consoles for that. But maybe you're right. P2P sucks.

When we say P2P, are we literally talking about having to pay to win, or just a game where paying has more benefits? (Example being TF2)

[Ailes]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zach "The Mach" Back in Black:

When we say P2P, are we literally talking about having to pay to win, or just a game where paying has more benefits? (Example being TF2)

No, we are talking about peer-to-peer. I don't know the details, the layman I am, but it's basically when the players connect to each other directly with no server inbetween to relay everything instead. P2P is when you start some multiplayer game and hit the "start game" button and have people join your game "just like that". What that guy, and me, and I hope not too few others, prefer is having dedicated servers instead which are set up beforehand for example through some third-party server provider you're paying and who gives you some login credentials and maybe some web-interface to manage that server with. These "dedis" are better because they are used only for the purpose of hosting a game. In P2P games you can get connection issues much more often because of the unreliable, instable machines of each individual player. If you can properly connect to begin with, because I can hardly do so in numerous P2P games. I could never get Warframe or Torchlight 2 running any good when playing with others, least not without messing with my router and manually forwarding ports, which I absolutely hate because I'm getting paranoid about security loopholes I might accidently create. I never need to have any such worries when connection to dedicated servers.

[FulvousFox]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Sharisad:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zach "The Mach" Back in Black:

When we say P2P, are we literally talking about having to pay to win, or just a game where paying has more benefits? (Example being TF2)

No, we are talking about peer-to-peer. I don't know the details, the layman I am, but it's basically when the players connect to each other directly with no server inbetween to relay everything instead. P2P is when you start some multiplayer game and hit the "start game" button and have people join your game "just like that". What that guy, and me, and I hope not too few others, prefer is having dedicated servers instead which are set up beforehand for example through some third-party server provider who gives you some login credential and maybe some web-interface to manage that server with. These "dedis" are better because they are used only for the purpose of hosting a game. In P2P games you can get connection issues much more often because of the unreliable, instable machines of each individual player.

Oh! Sorry! By P2P I thought you meant Pay to Play! Sorry.