Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@Kidfried I think it's just anther case of reviewers turning against a game for being different. It was a tight, narrowly focused story and linear game. Perhaps a slightly longer runtime and no cliffhanger ending would have stood it in a more favourable light.
I find that reviewers tend to miss the point sometimes. Sadly for The Order, it just wasn't appreciated.

@RogerRoger I wish it would get a Pro patch.

So, I seem to remember me saying that the Tomb Raider reboot had better gameplay than Uncharted. I still stand by that, but that's definitely an unpopular opinion in PlayStation territory. I'm surprised I didn't lose a leg for saying it.

Also, I prefer Devil May Cry over God of War. Both are good series, it's just that the more stylish, skillful combat appeals to me more. It feels more rewarding and fun.

@Jaz007 To a degree, I do agree that some games are 'too' long - too much repetitive padding to drag it out but I do also think that some games are disappointing when short too.When you pay £40+ on a game, I don't expect it to be finished and essentially can be traded the next day - buy it on Friday and trade it in on Saturday because you have finished it. If a game is that short, generally I will wait until the price drops as I think £4-£5 an hour on a game is rather a poor investment. I know that some games can leave you satisfied after a 'short' story and most have a lot of other aspects too - like online co-op/MP too so they have potential longevity beyond the Campaign. I know I have played a few 'short' games and then been left feeling 'is that it' after beating it the game the same day I started it.

I beat H:ZD in 5/6 days - 75hrs and never felt that was too long, I beat God of War in 5/6 days too and never felt that was too long - both to Platinum level - although I did feel that GoW had more 'padding' in it with the two realms. My favourite games in recent years are the Witcher 3 (125-150hrs on just the campaign and majority of Side Quests - not bothering so much with Gwent, fist fights and horse racing and not inc the DLC which I completed everything on on both the PS4 and XB1 versions) and Assassins Creed: Origins (all areas and missions completed) which I probably had over 100hrs on - inc DLC. Even games like Tomb Raider (both) and Arkham Knight, I completed to 100% so these were not 'short' games and I never felt these were too long either.

Part of it isn't just to do with length or 'perceived' cost per hour value from my perspective - a game like Destiny (the first and all DLC) is probably the 'best' value in terms of Cost per hour for me despite the costs of the DLC and how 'little' content these were perceived to offer. I have nearly 100days (yes days) on just the XB1 version so that works out at 'pence' per hour so compared to a game that only offers 8hrs for £40 (or £5 per hour) that value is incredibly poor. However, its more down to the feeling of 'is that it' I get from short games - especially if I am enjoying it and want the experience to continue far beyond that ending. I guess if you are only playing an hour every few days or so, a Long game can be daunting, that ending seems so far away and with new games on the horizon, you want to get that one finished before you jump in to the next but conversely, I don't want to spend £40+ on a game that lasts me less than a day and then have 'nothing' to play until I can buy another game. Arguably I did get through games like H:ZD and GoW in less than a week but I did have other 'Long' games in my Back catalogue that I could play until the 'next' new game came along.

In general, and I say 'general' as there are exceptions, I tend to look at spending no more than £1 per hour on a game. I know some will argue that going to the cinema can cost more than a £1 per hour or a night out, but I don't do these either - why spend money on that when I can sit home and watch the movie for a lot less. If I had to choose between games, one that offers a 30hr campaign with 'hundreds' of hours via side quests, activities like hunting, material gathering etc or a 8hr game for the same cost, even if that '8hrs' is a significantly better story overall, I will opt for the game that offers much more game-play time and wait for 8hr game to drop in price to at most £12-15. Its not that I won't get to play that 'short' game but I can buy the much longer game and get much more 'value' from it because it keeps me entertained and playing for a LOT longer and then pick up the other when its much cheaper but still more 'expensive' on a cost per hour basis. Its like paying £5 for a ride on an extreme rollercoaster that lasts 1min compared to paying 20p for a slightly less intense rollercoaster ride but that ride lasts 5mins and is still a LOT of fun. Its like paying £1500 for a first class flight day trip and ticket to watch Barcelona play your team in the CL or pay £1500 for a fortnight all-inclusive holiday with Easy Jet and can still watch that Football match on TV for a lot cheaper - even if its not the same 'atmosphere' as being in the Stadium.

Each to their own and of course their circumstances may dictate that shorter games are 'better' for them, but I want my games to offer a lot of content and to keep me entertained for at least the equivalent of a £1 an hour....

@DerMeister I certainly enjoyed the reboot a hell of a lot - story was great too. Yet to play Rise' though.

Combat affinity is pretty important. Sometimes a game can just put you off. I recall the early PS3 days - bought Assassin's Creed on a friend's recommendation. I was about a third of the way through Heavenly Sword at the time and AC just felt bloody awful. Took it back and didn't play another AC game until Black Flag.

The gameplay in Uncharted is basic, but it's functional. The shooting, platforming and occasionally puzzles (I do remember a few brain teasers) isn't the best you'll see but it gets the job done, and combining that with the setpieces, writing, and graphics, and the series is a great overall package.

But yeah again, TR'13's gameplay just clicked for me. It's worth noting that I haven't played Rise, so I dunno if anything changed between games. Lara controls well (although Nate's more heavy control is more "realistic"), I loved the upgrade system, and the open hubs had plenty enough to do.

I think with Uncharted, it’s got solid gameplay the shooting, and given the tone of the games, I think it’s lots of fun. Uncharted 3 had it best with the melee and shooting combo. The fast-paced more vertical gameplay of 4 was good, but it lost some complexity in the melee department in exchange for more fast-paced gameplay, which was different, but not quite as good. I think it just works really well. It’s more than the sum of it’s part, and the set pieces elevate it above most other action games. Gameplay mechanics aren’t necessarily the most important thing.

@DerMeister Rise of the TR is more of the same in terms of Game-play. A bit more polished maybe but very much the same. Its an obvious progression from TR with more expanded 'hubs' with more Puzzle tombs, more side quests and more 'Hubs' essentially. They took out the MP too and added more into the game - especially end-game where you can play 'survival' where food and heating matter. I think the Story of TR is better but that's subjective - everything else has been improved or at the very least not deteriorated.

I love Uncharted but I much prefer the game-play of Tomb Raider. Uncharted is very linear - even if its been 'widened' in some cases which has served no additional advantage other than to make collectibles a bit more difficult to locate. At least the car sequences are no longer on rails as at least you get too drive the Jeep now. Uncharted has never been the most original or best in class but I have always found it more than adequate. Its always been the story, the characters etc that drive you on rather than the game-play itself - maybe why I never really liked the MP. Obviously its well made, not just a visual delight with great animations, attention to detail etc and well written with great characters, but the game-play, whilst more than adequate, is also consistent too but more functional. If I am being 'critical', I don't like some of the changes they brought to 4, Enemy marking/wall hacking and having your 'Partner' fight with you too broke some immersion for me. For example, stealthing the grave-yard and crouching in a bush so I didn't get seen but the AI couldn't see Sam making some odd movements in the open as he 'tried' to crouch in the small area Nate was hiding in took me out of the moment and made it 'evident' this was a 'game' and just 'adequate' but not great AI - better AI would have spotted Sam or made Sam realise he couldn't fit in the area I was an selected a 'different' area to crouch in - I know TR doesn't have the issue of a Partner to screw up immersion or get in the way when going for the 'gun' challenges of course...

At the end of the day, I generally prefer Uncharted for Story but I much prefer Tomb Raider for the 'game-play'.

I prefer the combat in the Tomb Raider games, but Uncharted do story and characters a lot better imo. Lara comes across as a bit boring in the rebooted games.

hey look even PlayStation Access had the same idea, any you agree with people

I don't agree with everything, but Rob does make some good points even for what I disagree with.

A rundown of what I do agree with-

-2. Didn't know liking cutscenes was unpopular, but yeah, I agree. I don't view them as a reward, but I do love them for helping sell the story. You can only tell so much through gameplay alone.

-3. I'm not going to go into artistic detail, but yeah, Raiden was brilliant in MGS2.

-5. DEFINITELY agree. Mostly because all the long games are tiring. Shorter games are crucial for gaming in order to balance out all the blockbuster stuff.

-6. I wouldn't say inverted controls should be standard, but it's not as big a deal as everyone makes it.

-7. I rarely play stuff on Easy, but I do agree that it's just as legitimate a way to play as any other. Especially if you want to get through the story, but the game keeps kicking your tocks (Looking at you, Dragon Age Origins).

@Kidfried random battles are pretty good 😂 Although I can take or leave em, I came to peace with them when I was a kid, and I find them relaxing these days.

1. Random battles need to go back to the Devil from whence they came when brought up. I hate them.
2. I agree about cutscenes. When I was playing DMC3, they always felt like a reward especially.
3. Haven’t played it yet.
4. I haven’t played it, but I never will. Watching that was enough to reaffirm it’s an abomination. Anyone who says the hairstyle is good is also insane.
5. Yes, shorter linear games are very valuable and more triple games should be that way. An extra mode or something should be added if more of the gameplay is needed.
6. Inverted controls are good to have as an option, but should t be standard is most cases.
7. Weaklings! Just kidding. It should be can be instead of is though. I’m not willing to play easy on lost every game.

Lol, when I first started gaming, I could only used inverted controls. It just felt natural to me. Like you’re controlling a turret on a swivel from behind. But I had to be purged of my wickedness, I think it was by the game Infamous maybe. It didn’t have the option to change to inverted controls and the only way I could play it was “normal” (gosh, hasn’t society progressed enough to be inclusive and know that inverted-control people are not “abnormal.” Still so much predjudice in this world...) so I had to train myself, or rather untrain my natural tendencies of playing inverted. Now standard controls is the only way I can play.

Now I know how left-handed people feel.

@RogerRoger @Kidfried @Jaz007 to be fair on random battles the main reason they were there was because of the limitations of the systems it took a lot for a game to have everything happen in the same area in the PS2 days ESPECIALLY on huge RPG's like Final Fantasy and the game that did it ether had very small maps linked together of very bland and boring open areas BUT i do also agree with one thing Rob in the video said, in RPG's where you have to level up random battles DO help make that easier

as for everything else in the video i actually agree with it APRT from Inverted controls, they can go to hell

@Kidfried Totally agree with you. Grinding in Bloodborne was actually easier I think just knowing I could make a certain run through a well known area, kill a handful of high level enemies, then exit and come back after they respawn, and do it all again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Not sure why Rob thinks it would be better to leave the grinding to random chance and run in circles. Relying on any random occurrence in a game is usually frustrating (although I do like to be surprised by a game sometimes, but usually that would be like a plot twist or unexpected narrative element)

Personally I don't like the traditional Random Battles. It used to annoy me when trying to get somewhere when all of a sudden, you get transported to a 'battle'. I hate turn based battles too incidentally as they are just random too. Whether you opt to fight or not, once back to the world, take a few more steps and yet again be transported to another battle... just annoying and frustrating.

Big open world games tend to allow you to pick your battles - essentially these are Random but also optional. If you know where or can see enemies in an area, you can choose to engage or opt to go around. Its not a 'compulsory' fight, as part of a mission/quest but a 'random' encounter. The Witcher 3 for example has bandits riding around that you can opt to engage or avoid if you want - different from Bandit camps - these are 'Random' encounters but I also think games like H:ZD has 'random' battles too - its up to you if you decide to take on some of the robot beasts that are not part of the storyline or quests. To me this is the evolution of the 'Random' battles we had when hardware didn't have the Horsepower to render a world with roaming enemies, didn't have the horsepower to have 'real-time' combat - especially with bigger worlds and RPG elements. The only place for 'Random' battles and Turn Based combat today is in 'Retro' games as far as I am concerned. Its old mechanics born out of necessity through limited hardware to realise their vision and having to compromise on putting enemies visually in their worlds and having real time combat.

Ok, I'll throw in that there should be a PlayStation 5 VR bundle at PS5 launch, which Sony should push hard. Not likely but I'd like to see it happen.

@Kidfried The Research Hall is a very good place to farm blood echoes, if like me you are around level 100 and it takes 60k+ to level up. Chalice Dungeons are also good, but are quite same.

Just watched the latest promo for Shadow of the Tomb Raider (which I am properly excited beyond words for) and it reminds me of perhaps another unpopular opinion —

I dislike underwater swimming sections in games.

I think developers like to show off the variety of gameplay and create puzzles and hidden items underwater, but to me it’s just not fun. I dread those parts. The timed nature where you have to hurry before you run out of oxygen is just too anxiety provoking. Underwater environments can be beautifully rendered and the swimming animation can look wonderfully realistic, but if you can’t really appreciate it because you’re too busy panicking to find a place to surface for air, well, it’s just a waste.