Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

@FullbringIchigo Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath for a price drop. Nintendo doesn't tend to do that until years after a game comes out. Kind of a shame.

The game (on Switch) goes on sale for $45 on the eshop once in a while, and used physical copies can be obtained for as little as $41 complete in box.

Used Wii U copies are going for around $30 on ebay.

In the States, anyway.

But yeah, I don't see it going much below that. Nintendo is still selling copies of Mario Kart Wii for $35 to this day. Heck, that one is still in the top 100 games on Amazon!

The games holding their value also means you get good prices if you resell them. It also means I have no issues whatsoever supporting them at launch, as the price won't crater in a year like with Sony or most AAA third party titles.

@Ralizah yeah it's currently sitting at about £35 in the UK

a Pokemon one today

Mega Evolution is a much better system that Z-Moves

@beemo i have still yet to finish Skyward Sword, not because i didn't like it but because it glitched out on me

i was on the final pearl mission in order to power up my sword, you know where you have to collect those pearls and for some reason the final goddess pearl isn't there so i can't collect them all thus i can't finish it

i'll probably start a new game at some point because i love the Zelda series but that really pissed me off

Nintendo really needs to drop the gimmicks and just have more power. I'd much rather the Switch wasn't portable and had more power for games to utilize. It should be equal to the PS4 and One, not less because it's portable. It failed to use its own idea for the Wii U gamepad too, which is a shame because it had potential.
On that note, the Wii U gamepad was a great idea that was very underused. If Nintendo had told it's developers to use well instead of letting them completely ignore (Donkey Kong always using it to display what's on TV...), it would have been awesome. But nope, they had some cool ideas at E3, then made no one use them.

@Jaz007 Honestly think that the Switch should be portable. If there's one market that Nintendo has dominated even after all these years it's the portable market.

And while a portable can be powerful enough to run triple AAA games, heck look at games like Borderlands 2, Rayman Legends, and otherd for example on the Vita. So a Switch that can run say Assassin's Creed Odyssey on it's own is feasible Nintendo tried to stick with wacky gimmicks to try and making gaming appeal to everyone while alienating gamers. Sorry can't have your cake and eat it too. But guess with Nintendo it makes sense since all they have is gaming. I mean Sony has it hand involved in the movie industry, and personal electronics like TV and stuff, while Microsoft has it's Windows OS and such.

@Tasuki @Jaz007 They say the Switch doesn’t even run Dead Cells without studdering. I’m not one to hate on the Switch, and it certainly has a market, but when next gen hits, its tech is going to fall further and further behind. Games are just going to get bigger and more demanding, and I’m not sure the Switch will keep up and just become more niche. But at the end of the day, if people will still buy it and sacrifice graphical fidelity and AAA quality for portability, more power to ‘em. Meanwhile I’ll be playing a huge library of excellent PS4 titles via backward compatibility and new next gen titles in 4K at 60 fps on my PS5.

@Jaz007 @Tasuki @Th3solution I'd say that shifting focus to power is the worst thing that Ninty could do.

While I wasn't a fan of the Wii, it kept them firmly in the business. WiiU took too long to arrive and was badly marketed, but was a great machine. The Switch has proved it is pretty much just what it needs to be for the faithful and the mainstream.
If they conceded and fell in to the power struggle, they would either begin charging even more for multi platform titles with a more powerful machine being a loss-leader or simply lose out through not being able to compete with the multimedia and online aspects of Sony and Microsoft's offerings.

@Th3solution to be fair Nintendo has said multiple times that they target their systems to kids not the hardcore gamer so if they can make their systems more affordable and more enticing to their target audience by sacrificing power then that's fine

most people buy a Nintendo for Nintendo games anyway and as they are built for the current system then there is no problem

@Kidfried It's just not what they do.

As I said on another thread, I do think that there will be a Switch hardware revision - but it will address the hackable nature of the system and possibly address some quality of life and build quality concerns as opposed to being significantly more powerful.

I do agree that Nintendo's own games are a lot more 'basic' in their design and art direction and therefore don't need the power that Sony/MS strive for. Whilst it does limit Nintendo on what 3rd Party games it can play and the visual/performance of these compared to other consoles, its USP is that these are playable anywhere thanks to Switches Portability. Its 720p screen doesn't need 4k visuals either and using a 'low res' screen - especially one that small, isn't going to look blurry or low res like a 720p game on a 55" 1080p (let alone 4k) screen. Nintendo's game visuals, also suit 'small' screens.

I am not saying Nintendo games look 'bad' by this but they are more 'simplistic' because they use cell shading or colour fills. You don't get cloth textures on Mario for example - just Blue fill for his dungarees and Red for his top. Zelda isn't as detailed or realistic looking as games like H:ZD, Witcher 3 etc. As such they don't need a massive GPU.

As for the 'future', no doubt Nintendo will get 'left behind' with the power gap as fewer and fewer 'new' games can be (or devs will want) scaled down to the 'extreme' levels needed just to run.That could still not be an issue as there will no doubt be numerous 'indie' games that can be ported as well as a massive 'history' of PS3/XB360 era and older games that could get a Switch version. OK so it won't be able to play RDR2 or Cyberpunk 2077, but it could play Mass Effect or BioShock on the go. Not ALL gamers today have been gaming for 20yrs+ and/or played these when they were 'current' - there are gamers who are only just 18 for example and too young to have played these...

If Nintendo were to make a console to compete with the PS5/Xbox, it puts them in direct competition and they 'could' find they lose out to these but as a hybrid portable device, they are more likely to be seen as a 'companion' to these - as well as capture those gamers that are maybe rarely able to sit down in front of a TV and play for extended periods. Kids without their own TV to adults who maybe spend a lot of time travelling, in hotels or when at home, share the TV with family so don't get too much chance to monopolise it with gaming. Of course there are some people that just love Nintendo games anyway so will still buy it just for Mario, Zelda etc but the point is, it, like the Wii has a much wider demographic than the Sony/MS consoles and can appeal to owners of those too because its 'different' rather than being the same.

Breath of the Wild had one of the more unsatisfying worlds I've explored in an open world game from a variety perspective. Its only saving grace is the beautiful environments. The actual content in those environments was almost always super shallow and repetitive. I want to find new things, not just another Korok seed or monster camp or tower.

Breath of the Wild's world is incredibly interactive and is much more immersive thanks to the interplay of various in-game systems throughout. I also love how much open wilderness there is in the game. It really feels like you're getting lost in the wilds of Hyrule.

Horizon is visually beautiful, but its world feels incredibly shallow in comparison, like window dressing.

And let's not even talk about The Witness and its static, dead environments. The puzzle design is clever, but I never felt any sense of joy in traversing its environments.

AS an open world experience, I've found nothing that can satisfy me in the way BotW does. I've yet to try The Witcher 3, but I get the sense that its world isn't terribly interactive either, and the game's focus is on complex plotlines and side-quests.

@Kidfried Speaking for myself:

• I enjoy the minimization of narrative elements in BotW. Personal preference. I hate having my ear talked off because I had the nerve to walk into a place where a quest is triggered or something.
• I love the complex game systems and extremely interactive environments. So many games feel... static. Dead. As I said, the scenery is window-dressing between plot objectives or activities. They often don't have independent environmental patterns. Weather doesn't matter, if it changes much at all. You can't interact with a tree, or a rock, or a wall, or anything else if the game designers don't want you to. You can't just naturally fulfill your own curiosity, or use the interplay of systems to find creative solutions to problems. You're just shuffled down pre-determined routes, doing exactly what the devs want you to do.
• I love the lack of direction to the game's progression. So many other open world games are just linear games that hide their linearity with a lot of open, wasted space in between main quest objectives. They also frequently lock you off from exploring major portions of the environment until later in the game.
• I love the focus on exploring the wilderness. Other open world games give you a big map filled with activities to do, but there's no sense of adventure in that.
• I love how fun the mere act of moving around the game is. Link is a joy to play as, whereas characters in most other open world games are often very awkward to control and easily get stuck on scenery. They're just not nearly as fun to play as.

I'm becoming more comfortable with Miyamoto referring to it as an "open air" game, though, as I do think you're right. In many crucial ways, it is very different from your traditional open-world game. It's closer to something like survival mode Minecraft than it is to Skyrim, actually.

I wouldn't call it THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME, but I do feel like BotW is an innovative and wonderful take on the open world genre. One that addresses so many of my concerns with other games in the genre.

@Kidfried @Ralizah @KratosMD Forgive my ignorance of BotW, as I don’t have a Switch but I find the discussion interesting. I think I am of the opinion (not sure which one is unpopular) that I need a balance of objectives/purpose with also freedom in my open world games. The way you all talk about BotW, it sounds pretty much like you’re describing No Man’s Sky, which I would call the purest form of an open world game that I have experienced. And since NMS was not particularly riveting to me, I would surmise that I might dislike BotW. What do you guys who like BotW think of NMS and its openness and lack of objectives or goals? And if you didn’t care for it, how is it different? (I know it’s different because it’s Fantasy world vs outer space, and combat and traversal is different, but what I mean is how is it different from an “open world” stand point of lots of open space between areas of interest with nothing to do, and no barriers to move about at will, and the game is specifically not pushing you in any particular direction?)
I love exploring to find a treasure and solve a puzzle and make a discovery, but there is such a thing as “too open” which results in things being a bit mundane.

@Th3solution Given it has NPCs, side-quests, a main plot line, cutscenes, etc. I don't really see it as comparable to NMS.

Also unlike NMS, content in the game is intentionally designed, so it avoids the limitations of random generation in games like Minecraft and NMS.

It is VERY open, though, and adventurous exploration is the beating heart of the game.

@Th3solution There the side-quests in BOTW, but while I mess to play more, it hasn’t grabbed me yet. You explore sure, but I feel like I don’t find anything. Another shrine? Doku seeds? It feels like kinda empty so far. And I think a game that’s about the journey to objectives needs to have a strong story, like Shadow of the Colossus.

@Jaz007 SotC does not have a strong story. It barely even has a narrative to it. It has the most basic of set-ups and a very ambiguous conclusion.

I honestly was disappointed in BotW even to the fact that I traded my copy in a few weeks ago to get Octopath Traveler.

BotW just felt boring and empty with no direction in the game. Don't get me wrong I love open world games like Skyrim and Fallout for example but at least those had a story and direction BotW didn't. I mean all I got was to deafet Ganon. Um Ok why? I mean I know he's the badguy from playing previous Zeldas but this game had no reason. In the first one you went into the dungeons to get pieces of the Triforce. Zelda III it was to rescuse a maiden or get a pendent to get the Master Sword. In BotW you go into these dungeons just because they are there for no reason and just get a handful of rupees?

Plus, this might be me but I didn't get any sense of accomplishment. Again like Skyrim or Fallout or any other similar Open World RPG you unlock skills at a certain point, learn new attacks, manuvers, gain more hit points, stat points etc. and in a way your character feels like you are getting stronger. BotW not so much.

I feel that the only reason BotW got the praise that it did is because it's Zelda and it's Nintendo. If Bioware or Bethesda released something like that they would be a laughing stock, people would be screaming for a refund, and blowing up forums and such saying how bad it is and they are for releaseing a game like this but again because it's Zelda it gets a pass.

Is it a bad game, not at all if you like big open world's without sustainance or just want something to mess around in. Is it a bad Zelda at least to me it is.