Unpopular Opinions On Gaming

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I'm not familiar with Omen, but DRI is my best friend in DMC 4. I just don't find the Blitz's that fun to fight regardless of how easy/hard they are, though I'd still take them over those stupid enemy-posessing blade scarecrows.

Omen is a technique with Pandora's Box that you can use with the GS style. You hold down R1 and press forward and triangle and so long as you don't get hit during the animation, it instantly knocks down all enemies on screen and takes out the shield of any enemies that can't be melee attacked until you shout down their defenses. If you do that than you can immediately de-shield Blitz, and then DRI it, with one usually being enough to kill it on lower difficulties, whereas on DMD mode you can just chain 2 together. Basically you can kill it without it ever having a chance, or you can just combo it to your liking until it recovers, and then rinse and repeat the process until it's dead. If you're fighting one as Nero, you can literally just chain grab it until it's dead (and before it can regenerate it's shield). Also, if it grabs you and tries to sucked kill you, you can always break out of it by activating DT, so long as you have the minimum amount necessary.

Ironically enough, I found the Dreamrunners to be one of the few enemies from DmC to be legitimately fun to fight.

The problem is on the harder difficulties. They can parry and counter you whenever they want, even mid-combo. That's just terrible design. It's challenging, but not in a fun way. It's like the Chimera enemies from DMC4 that can passively attack you with their blades, even when you are in the middle of attacking them. Say what you want about Blitz, but at least it's a fair enemy that doesn't downright break the rules of the game.

Looking up Omen, I actually didn't know Pandora's Box had its own gauge, I only learned to use its most basic forms, and mostly used it situationally (yeah, I'm more of an instinctual fighter). That being said, I've always appreciated how DMC lets you take on any enemy with any weapon set, so long as you were skilled enough.

It's a really interesting and underrated weapon. Omen is actually borderline overpowered, with the only caveat being that you can't counsel out of the animation at any time, and it is quite long, but it literally knocks anything that's not a boss to the floor.

[gunswordfist]

yeah, blitz is no fun to fight. how bad have modern day fighting game bosses gotten?

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

yeah, blitz is no fun to fight. how bad have modern day fighting game bosses gotten?

Any enemy that you suck at is no fun to fight for you. Like I said, you should probably be playing Dynasty Warriors instead of Devil May Cry.

[Rynnec]

yeah, blitz is no fun to fight. how bad have modern day fighting game bosses gotten?

Overpowered attacks with ridiculously high priority, cheap gimmicks, and overly defensive play styles that perfectly read your controller imports and force you to resort to using cheap anti-AI moves rather than legitimate skill. That kind of shit is fine for the arcade versions, but it's just cheap BS on console versions.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Seth from SF4

That final boss from KOF XIII

Every final boss from every DOA game

And on the subject of DMC, Sanctus and Arkham are the worst boss fights ever.

Also, DMD mode in DMC3 and Master Ninja mode in NG2 are by far the 2 most difficult and infuriating modes that I've ever encountered in gaming, and I hate them. Very Hard and Mentor mode are the best ways to play those games, respectively.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Any boss that has QTEs in the middle of them. ESPECIALLY if they instantly kill you for missing them.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Any boss that has QTEs in the middle of them. ESPECIALLY if they instantly kill you for missing them.

The worst is when they happen at the end of a fight, and force you to repeat the boss fight if you fail the QTE, or in the case of Bayonetta causes you to mess up your rank in an otherwise perfect fight just because you failed a QTE, which the game counts as a death.

[Dr. Insomniac]

I found this guy's unpopular opinion on gaming.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I don't like Sand Box games, like....at all. I just find them to be all about scope, but with the most mediocre mechanics all around. I went through a phase where, when I was younger, I thought that GTA was awesome, much like everything else. And, to be sir, I can still kind of see how the sheer ability to do ridiculous things can be fun for people. However, for me, I'd take a well-thought out, more focused gameplay experience any day. When people here this, most just think it means to be more linear and constrained. That is not what I mean at all. Not being big and open doesn't mean something is more limited. Rather, being more focused can mean that the game excels at what it does right.

For instance, a game like Halo is basically sending you from point A to point B while shooting things, but the enemy AI is so interesting to fight against with how they behave, the guns are mostly fun to use and exploit their strengths and weaknesses, and the level design allows you to try lots of different strategies and tactics.

Action games like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, and Bayonetta are essentially good at one primary thing, which is combat, but those aspects are done so well that the fighting alone makes the games so replayable to the point of lasting me many hours more than I'm willing to sink into any carelessly slapped together sand box game experience.

And games like Zelda, Castlevania, and Metroid provide all of the great exploration elements of any sand box game, while actually having more focused progression and making it actually feel more rewarding to discover new areas because you actually had to figure out how to get there, first, which makes the experience feel much more interactive, like an actual adventure.

Also, playing a good platformer like Mario or Sonic with lots of hidden areas and alternate paths makes for much more fun exploration than just walking or driving anywhere you want at any time in a sand box game. I prefer good, refined gameplay, to just using the power of whatever hardware a game is running on to expand the scope.

Honestly  I feel that if it weren't for their gigantic scope in the first place, more people would call out games like Assassin's Creed or Arkham City for their actual gameplay mechanics, which are honestly incredibly mediocre, IMO.

[Nel_Annette]

Speaking of Assassin's Creed, and as someone who really enjoys the series...

I feel like they really shit the bed this year. Unity and Rogue within a month of each other. On two separate generations of consoles. Guys, are you fucking kidding me? It's bad enough when it's one game a year. And I'm torn too, because I've always wanted to play a game completely from the Templar side of things (Rogue, the games are much more entertaining story-wise when it's grey vs. grey morality), and the French Revolution is an era I always wanted the series to cover. But this... ergh. This will be the first year where I don't buy the new release(s) on launch day. Hell, for all I know Rogue will end up getting a PS4/XBO "upgrade" next year just to entice fans who don't have their last gen consoles anymore. 

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I remember that, not that long ago, Assassin's Creed 3 was being advertised. Then it had come out and I didn't even know about it. Later on I was hearing that AC4 would be coming out, and I'm pretty sure that it hadn't even been a year since AC3 was released. And then I heard something about AC Black  flag, and I was thinking: isn't there already another AC game already coming out? Are they releasing 2 within a year of each other, now?

I understand that the series is popular, but Ubisoft seems to be milking it dry.

[Nel_Annette]

Unity is October 28, Rogue is November 11, so basically about two weeks apart. Bloody stupid. And this will be five games in a row set in the 1700s. I like the ideas for these games (French Revolution, Seven Years War as a Templar), but I'm ready for something different.

I feel like this will be the year they finally oversaturate the market with this series, and sales will dip next time around. I hate hoping that for a series I like, but they need to slow the fuck down already and give it a break.

(Though to be fair, I loved the shit out of IV, so much better than Revelations and III.)

And you know what, that's something that also bugs me about the series: the titles. If the game is part of the mainline story and not a side game, assign it a number so people know what to play in order. Brotherhood should be III, Revelations should be IV, III should be V, Liberation should be VI, Black Flag should be VII, etc. They say they only do a numbered sequel when the protagonist changes, Unity and Rogue both have new protagonists and neither are numbered. How confusing that must be for new players.

Again, I love the series, but there's so much I'd have done different at this point. Like the naming, or re-adding the Da Vinci Code-esque glitch puzzles from II/Brotherhood. Those were what hooked me into the series. The fuck happened to them?

[talonmalon333]

This sums up Assassin's Creed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk8SBmNh28

(Not that I've played the games yet, but I can recognize the point.)

[RacattackForce]

I don't find Super Mario Bros. 2 to be all that fun. Maybe because I just suck at playing it with the Wii U gamepad, but the title just doesn't do much for me.

[Foggle]

It's a great game, but it isn't much like the other Mario games (since, well, it isn't one), so I can see why you wouldn't like it. Personally, I have to be in a specific mood to enjoy SMB2, whereas I can pick up almost any traditional Mario (2D or 3D) title whenever I want and have lots of fun with it.