Unpopular Opinions On Gaming

[talonmalon333]

everyone here seems to agree with that.

Who?

Anyway, I do think Metroid Prime is great. Just not nearly "best game ever" material as it's often made out to be. I especially like that they released the entire trilogy on one disk for the Wii, with all the great motion controls of Metroid Prime 3. There's just no going back to the GameCube controller for me with those games.

[gunswordfist]

wand, foggle and spark.

[talonmalon333]

wand, foggle and spark.

Wand is the one who they're supposed to be agreeing with. He can't agree with himself.

As for Foggle, hasn't he called Metroid his favorite Nintendo franchise?

[gunswordfist]

he seems to really love tropical freeze.

[Foggle]

Tropical Freeze is probably my favorite Retro game, but I still love Metroid Prime 1-3 a lot (and more than DKC Returns).

Metroid is my favorite Nintendo franchise, closely followed by Donkey Kong and Zelda.

[gunswordfist]

I see now. i've beat 2 mario games, 2 zelda games, 0 metroid games and 0 dk games so i can't comment.

[talonmalon333]

I pick Metroid Prime here. It's just something special, whereas DKC Returns is more of a, well, a "return" to the past.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Tropical Freeze is Retro's best game. It's pretty much excellent in every way, and leaves me hoping their next game is a new DKC game.

Though of course there are certain Retro fans that not only highly disagree, they have sworn off Retro for making inferior 2D games and sullying their talent when they could be making a Metroid Prime 4 game that they would whine about more than Metroid Prime 3 for being inferior to the first game.

I'm sure when Retro's next game is announced there will be a lot of whining, either way. A lot of those fans didn't play Tropical Freeze because of some silly boycott or another excuse.

[talonmalon333]

I do hear that, after DKC Returns, they weren't sure if they should do a Metroid or DK game. But they picked DK because they felt they had "unfinished business" with it, which makes sense.

[talonmalon333]

I'm not sure how unpopular this opinion is, but I've been thinking lately, and I have to say that I think the Game Boy and Game Boy Color were the weakest of Nintendo's handhelds. I mean, they were still good, and the Game Boy in particular was a novelty for allowing you to game on the go back then. But looking through their libraries, they don't seem to have as much greatness. With the GBA and DS, I think Nintendo really hit their handheld stride.

[gunswordfist]

the ds is my least favorite. gba is my favorite. gb/c has some of my favorites like link's awakening, oracle of seasons and pokemon red/blue/silver.

[Spark Of Spirit]

The Game Boy Color is Nintendo's weakest handheld and the GBC has a great library.

I'd say that says a lot for Nintendo's portables.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Alright, I know that I've already touched on this before, but my opinion on it has soured even more over time:

I can no longer stand the combat in the Batman Arkham games. And before anyone says anything, it's not because of stuff like combo depth. People forget that DMC1 barely has many combos, yet I still enjoy that combat infinitely more. It's the same with games like Streets of Rage and Turtles in Time, the combat is shallow, but fun and still feels interesting. After wondering about what makes the combat in Arkham so monotonous for me, I finally came to the conclusion that it has no interesting applications. In any of those other games that I mentioned, and many more, you are rewarded for understanding the differences between every enemy and exploiting their weaknesses. In Arkham, you just chain combat multiplier by basically one-hitting each enemy and then trading to another, and some enemies you hace to disarm or counter first, and big enemies require combos where you just mash the attack button. After a while, when you come to the realization that this is the strategy throughout the entire game, the combat just ceases to be fun anymore, IMO, because the enemies aren't interesting and there is really no need to do anything different.

In Streets of Rage, you have different strategies like letting the motorbike enemies come to you so you can knock them off, or strategically lining up enemies in a row and stun-locking them, or using specific weapons for certain situations. In DMC1 you can't even deal with every enemy with just melee attacks. For instance, Shadows must be weakened eith guns first, and what's more is that they respond to your behavior, so if you literally just stand and do nothing but aim at them, they'll get impatient and botch a spike attack at you, at which point you can jump on the spike and get critical damage on them with any gun (seriously, try that shit, it works). Bosses like Griffon cam be killed in just 2 or 3 hits if you know how to critical him by baiting him to rush you while you fully charge up a Meteor and smash him in the face with it at the last second.

Basically, neither game is super advanced, but tgey n ake up for it with interesting enemies and different applications of their limited combat options for different scenarios. When you get down to it, Arkham just lacks that variety, and of course doesn't have the depth of Bayobetta, DMC sequels, or NG to make up for it, so I just really can't enjoy it anymore, despite thw fact that so many gamers and critics alike praise it as one f the best combat systems around in modern gaming. I just don't think that it is, personally.

[Spark Of Spirit]

To be honest, I liked Arkham more for the 3D Metroidvania aspects and sneaking and not so much the combat or the bosses. That said, people liked it so much because it was easy and looked flashy. It had its faults such as off screen enemies getting a cheap shot, clutters of enemies getting in the way of what you wanted to do, and combat challenges that were simply not fun.

Asylum was up against Uncharted 2 for GOTY when they both came out and I never fully got the appeal of either. At least I could explore in Asylum, though.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I actually enjoyed Asylum because it wasn't obnoxiously big and didn't have pointless and badly designed side quests. The combat was serviceable for a single play through, as was the stealth, and the exploration was fun because while the area was relatively small, it was more cleverly designed. With Arkham City, though, I felt like it was just bigger for tge sake of being bigger, and that's when I started to notice how derivative the gameplay really was.