Unpopular Video Game Opinions

[JS19]

Liking MM is a better game isn't crazy.

Thinking OoT didn't innovate is absolute crazy talk. Game was extremely innovative for the entire 3D adventure genre.

I didn't say that OOT didn't innovate, I said that it didn't innovate as much as people think. I mean, I can only think of Z-Targeting that ended up being the basis for 3D combat post-OOT. Other than that, the story is nothing earth-shattering, and to me it feels like LTTP brought over to the third dimension with a bit of flaws (taking too long to do something that took minutes to do in LTTP for instance).

 

[aleshemsky83]

I didn't say that OOT didn't innovate, I said that it didn't innovate as much as people think. I mean, I can only think of Z-Targeting that ended up being the basis for 3D combat post-OOT. Other than that, the story is nothing earth-shattering, and to me it feels like LTTP brought over to the third dimension with a bit of flaws (taking too long to do something that took minutes to do in LTTP for instance).

Z targeting is pretty innovative but the rolling system, jump slash and navi (both as a guide and marking points of interest) believe it or not were pretty significant innovations in 3D games.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Also majoras mask had some seriously broken time mechanics especially if you never learn the songs from the scarecrow which are possible to miss completely (plus they don't even get recorded in your menu you need to memorize them)
The 3ds version is far better from what I hear but that's 15 years late.

 

[Blitzkrug]

The 3DS version pretty much cleans up all of that. Owl statues actually save your game as a concrete file instead of that stupid save state system it used in the N64 version.

I just hate the changes they made to the boss battles.

 

[JS19]

Z targeting is pretty innovative but the rolling system, jump slash and navi (both as a guide and marking points of interest) believe it or not were pretty significant innovations in 3D games.

Rolling I've seen in other games and didn't really use it much during combat, jump slash isn't really an innovation as much as it is an extension of Link's move pool (also something that I've seen in other games, like Zelda II). Navi isn't really an innovation either considering we've had hint systems for years before 3D gaming came along.

Also majoras mask had some seriously broken time mechanics especially if you never learn the songs from the scarecrow which are possible to miss completely (plus they don't even get recorded in your menu you need to memorize them)
The 3ds version is far better from what I hear but that's 15 years late.

Actually, the songs are accessed through the menu. There are song notes that denote each song that you have remembered during your journey. Also, how does it mean the time mechanics are broken?

 

[aleshemsky83]

The scarecrow songs, song of double time, slow down time, etc do not get put in your menu. Every other song does. Problem is they're some of the most important songs in the game.

They're also broken because you can not go to the specific time for the quests. There is an insane amount of waiting around and rewinding to the 1st day if you miss it.

Put it this way. Every dark souls style game is pretty much copy and pasted OOT controls. Fable is another one with real similar controls. If games having your exact control scheme unchanged 20 years later isn't incredibly innovative I don't know what it.

Navi highlighted points of interest, stuff you could hooks hot, etc. Literally every game does that now. I could be wrong and other games had that mechanic but I don't think so.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Mortal Kombat in arcades drew in a more mainstream audience who didn't actually know/give a **** about fighting games thanks to all the angry soccer mom media coverage it got.

Most fighting games with legit arcade releases were better than MK. Most fighting games now are still better. Only thing I would put MK2 and 3 over in arcades was the first KI, but even that is better these days.

The point of Mortal Kombat was never to be a super-strategic fighting game. The point was to rip someone's spine out and beat them to death with it because it was ****ing cool.

If you really enjoyed fighting games you went elsewhere

Mmmm, even before the coverage MK was the rage at the arcades. There were always huge crowds around the machines. MK was the top money maker for years.

MK I and II were pretty good, III went too much down the combo road for me. I bought X on discount and don't have the patience to learn all the different combos.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Actually in gen 1 Psychic types are only weak to Bug and are immune to Ghost moves entirely.

Man I forgot about that bug back in the day.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Man I forgot about that bug back in the day.

All you needed was your stater and an Alakazam to bury the entire game.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Z-targeting changed 3D combat forever. Almost every 3D combat game since has in some way utilized or built upon the Z targeting foundation. It's one of the most significant innovations in video game history.

 

[RandV]

Z-targeting changed 3D combat forever. Almost every 3D combat game since has in some way utilized or built upon the Z targeting foundation. It's one of the most significant innovations in video game history.

Eh I don't know... OoT gets credit for being first, but this feature was going to happen one way or another. We were still in the early stages of 3D platform gaming here and new techniques were going to invented. From a technical perspective moving the camera lock from the character to the target really isn't that difficult.

I'd guess the legwork for this was done in Mario 64, where you had a camera that could switch between being locked onto Mario to being fed from Lakitu who follows you around. Once Nintendo had this built, it probably didn't take much programming to implement the Z targeting. Someone just had to first realize it was actually needed.

 

[Blitzkrug]

If you want to see how far the Z targeting thing has come, take a gander at the For Honor beta coming this week.

The whole combat system is basically built on the same foundation, just with more added to it.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Eh I don't know... OoT gets credit for being first, but this feature was going to happen one way or another. We were still in the early stages of 3D platform gaming here and new techniques were going to invented. From a technical perspective moving the camera lock from the character to the target really isn't that difficult.

I'd guess the legwork for this was done in Mario 64, where you had a camera that could switch between being locked onto Mario to being fed from Lakitu who follows you around. Once Nintendo had this built, it probably didn't take much programming to implement the Z targeting. Someone just had to first realize it was actually needed.

Once something is designed properly, its hard to imagine it being designed any other way. Its kind of like the iphone design with the large touchscreen and home button (and then going deeper the app store), its not as if there isn't any other way, its just that the design was so good every other phone used it.

 

[Emperoreddy]

You can go through an absolute laundry list of features that are now normal in gaming, that wasn't before OoT.

It's usage of context sensitive buttons to expand the control scheme, Z-targeting, an open world, how it used and incorporated music into gameplay. Graphically it was innovative, 3D games like this simply didn't exist yet.

Z-targeting I imagine would be the biggest thing since it made combat in a 3D space work. Games before it were absolute chores

 

[Osprey]

My unpopular opinion is that "z-targeting" is the devil. It takes away the concept of aim and puts training wheels on combat. Where's the challenge in combat if you just target an enemy by pressing a button and all of your attacks magically land without you needing to be the least bit skilled at aiming?

We didn't have z-targeting on the NES or SNES. Imagine how much easier those games would've been if they'd held our hand by making our attacks (say, our Mega Man blaster shots) automatically hit whatever we wanted. We actually had to <gasp> aim.

Z-targeting isn't a feature that should be praised, IMO. Perhaps 3D combat was a chore beforehand, but that doesn't mean that greatly dumbing it down for the least skilled of gamers was the best answer for it that could've been dreamed up and that it should still be used nearly 20 years later.

 

[aleshemsky83]

The challenge should not be facing the direction of your enemy which is all z targeting does. It does not guarantee projectile or even slash attacks hit. Ive missed and died plenty with z targeting. The enemy can still move and hit you back. The challenge should be rolling, dodging, countering, reading and baiting your enemy etc.

It's not about lack of skill as much as it is basic functionality.

But z targeting doesn't belong in every game absolutely. In fact there is a mega man game that had auto targeting and it's considered the worst.

 

[JS19]

My unpopular opinion is that "z-targeting" is the devil. It takes away the concept of aim and puts training wheels on combat. Where's the challenge in combat if you just target an enemy by pressing a button and all of your attacks magically land without you needing to be the least bit skilled at aiming?

We didn't have z-targeting on the NES or SNES. Imagine how much easier those games would've been if they'd held our hand by making our attacks (say, our Mega Man blaster shots) automatically hit whatever we wanted. We actually had to <gasp> aim.

Z-targeting isn't a feature that should be praised, IMO. Perhaps 3D combat was a chore beforehand, but that doesn't mean that greatly dumbing it down for the least skilled of gamers was the best answer for it that could've been dreamed up and that it should still be used nearly 20 years later.

In fairness, you're comparing the NES/SNES to 3D games, which is completely fallacious. With NES and SNES games, the player has a 2D view and is limited to 8-directions via the D-Pad. 3D games are far more nuanced since you need to pay attention to your surroundings in a 3D view, and you have far more than 8-directions with analog control. Furthermore, lock-on doesn't guarantee that you will successfully hit your target. All it does is focus the camera for you on one target to prepare for attacking the enemy.

As for your Mega Man example, I played Mega Man Legends and Legends 2 to death, and you'd be pretty surprised how often you can miss your buster shots and special weapons even with the lock-on enabled. It's not braindead like you seem to think it is.

The scarecrow songs, song of double time, slow down time, etc do not get put in your menu. Every other song does. Problem is they're some of the most important songs in the game.

They're also broken because you can not go to the specific time for the quests. There is an insane amount of waiting around and rewinding to the 1st day if you miss it.

Put it this way. Every dark souls style game is pretty much copy and pasted OOT controls. Fable is another one with real similar controls. If games having your exact control scheme unchanged 20 years later isn't incredibly innovative I don't know what it.

Navi highlighted points of interest, stuff you could hooks hot, etc. Literally every game does that now. I could be wrong and other games had that mechanic but I don't think so.

I don't think not being able to do certain sidequests at a specific time means that the time mechanic is broken. If you miss that sidequest, you still have other things to do. The three day cycle merely exists for you to pack as much stuff to do as you can because you're going to be resetting a lot if you're going for completionist runs. Which means time management skill is a must. The onus is on the player to make sure they're managing time effectively. 3D does streamline this with the Song of Double Time taking you to the exact time of the day, but I really don't see a problem going from the 3DS to the N64 versions (and vice versa). I also personally don't have a problem with the songs but that was mostly because I focused on "inverted" and "double" as hints and remembered how to apply the Song of Time in those manners. I can see how it would be problematic, especially if you miss the scarecrow.

 

[Emperoreddy]

There is a massive difference between 2D and 3D environments. Efficiently controlling the camera was one of the most difficult thing for designers to do during the beginnings of 3D gaming.

It isn't a fun game or a fair challenge if the gamer has to spend just as much or more time fighting the camera and controls as opposed to enemies. Z-Targeting solved a gigantic problem in 3D games, and that is why some form of it is still used to this day.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

All you needed was your stater and an Alakazam to bury the entire game.

and something that flies so you don't have to walk everywhere

 

[Osprey]

The challenge should not be facing the direction of your enemy which is all z targeting does.

I, personally, think that something as basic as facing in the direction of the enemy should be part of the challenge. I can see why they removed it in the 90s, when people were only just playing 3D games for the first time and didn't really have the controllers to navigate in 3D well, but is facing the enemy really something that we need to be hand-held through in 2017?

In fairness, you're comparing the NES/SNES to 3D games, which is completely fallacious. With NES and SNES games, the player has a 2D view and is limited to 8-directions via the D-Pad. 3D games are far more nuanced since you need to pay attention to your surroundings in a 3D view, and you have far more than 8-directions with analog control.

I don't believe that there's as big of a difference as you think. Most of the time, in 3D games like OoT, you're attacking an enemy who's on the same plane as you (i.e. not above you or below you). That plane (usually, the ground) is 2D. The perspective may be in 3D, but you're still controlling your character on a 2D plane. A 3D game like OoT pointing you towards the enemy really isn't that different than the idea that a 2D game could, similarly, point you toward the enemy.

Furthermore, lock-on doesn't guarantee that you will successfully hit your target. All it does is focus the camera for you on one target to prepare for attacking the enemy.

It does more than just focus the camera on a target. It also faces your character towards that target. Unless you're too far away or the target dodges, your attack will land, all without requiring any aim on your part. I just think that aim should be important in 3D combat or else it's not really 3D combat. Z-targeting reduces 3D combat almost to 2D combat, since it takes away the challenge of facing the enemy, something which rarely was an issue in 2D games. That is, after all, essentially why it was invented: to make 3D combat simpler and more familiar to gamers who, at the time, were used to 2D combat.

It isn't a fun game or a fair challenge if the gamer has to spend just as much or more time fighting the camera and controls as opposed to enemies. Z-Targeting solved a gigantic problem in 3D games, and that is why some form of it is still used to this day.

The "gigantic problem" was not with 3D games, but with console controllers (at least the ones in the 90s and 00s). Z-targeting was never introduced or needed in PC games because PCs have always had separate controls for look (with the mouse) and movement (with the keyboard), making it much easier to play 3D games. More modern console controllers have incorporated dual analog sticks, which can achieve much of the same control, so z-targeting shouldn't be necessary any more. It's a feature that should've been retired at least a generation ago, IMO.

 

[Mikeaveli]

I think Z-targeting is very useful in making games less annoying. The Witcher 3's combat is infinitely superior to The Witcher 2's, mainly due to the changes made to the targeting system.

 

[X66]

For the Zelda debate, check this video.

Sequelitis - ZELDA: A Link to the Past vs. Ocarina of Time

Language is NSFW.

*Removed the link because I forgot how much swearing was in it.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

For the Zelda debate, check this video.

I love Arin but to be frank I think he just sucks at Ocarina of Time.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I, personally, think that something as basic as facing in the direction of the enemy should be part of the challenge. I can see why they removed it in the 90s, when people were only just playing 3D games for the first time and didn't really have the controllers to navigate in 3D well, but is facing the enemy really something that we need to be hand-held through in 2017?

It does more than just focus the camera on a target. It also faces your character towards that target. Unless you're too far away or the target dodges, your attack will land, all without requiring any aim on your part. I just think that aim should be important in 3D combat or else it's not really 3D combat. Z-targeting reduces 3D combat almost to 2D combat, since it takes away the challenge of facing the enemy, something which rarely was an issue in 2D games. That is, after all, essentially why it was invented: to make 3D combat simpler and more familiar to gamers who, at the time, were used to 2D combat.

But you just finished comparing it to megaman saying that you never needed it there, but you were always facing the enemy in megaman since you're on a 2d plane, how can you want the challenge of facing the direction of the enemy and at the same time not want it?

Z targeting doesn't just take away the obstacle of facing the enemy, it also introduced a new combat system of rolling to the side or backwards and then countering. I don't think dual analogs will be as much help as you think in those quick reflex scenarios. In fact a lot of the dark souls pros dont use z targeting and instead use insane glitchy techniques like running under an enemies armpit to glitch out area of attacks. That is insanely unappealing to me if thats what combat will be like without z targeting.

 

[tmurfin]

I, personally, think that something as basic as facing in the direction of the enemy should be part of the challenge. I can see why they removed it in the 90s, when people were only just playing 3D games for the first time and didn't really have the controllers to navigate in 3D well, but is facing the enemy really something that we need to be hand-held through in 2017?



I don't believe that there's as big of a difference as you think. Most of the time, in 3D games like OoT, you're attacking an enemy who's on the same plane as you (i.e. not above you or below you). That plane (usually, the ground) is 2D. The perspective may be in 3D, but you're still controlling your character on a 2D plane. A 3D game like OoT pointing you towards the enemy really isn't that different than the idea that a 2D game could, similarly, point you toward the enemy.



It does more than just focus the camera on a target. It also faces your character towards that target. Unless you're too far away or the target dodges, your attack will land, all without requiring any aim on your part. I just think that aim should be important in 3D combat or else it's not really 3D combat. Z-targeting reduces 3D combat almost to 2D combat, since it takes away the challenge of facing the enemy, something which rarely was an issue in 2D games. That is, after all, essentially why it was invented: to make 3D combat simpler and more familiar to gamers who, at the time, were used to 2D combat.



The "gigantic problem" was not with 3D games, but with console controllers (at least the ones in the 90s and 00s). Z-targeting was never introduced or needed in PC games because PCs have always had separate controls for look (with the mouse) and movement (with the keyboard), making it much easier to play 3D games. More modern console controllers have incorporated dual analog sticks, which can achieve much of the same control, so z-targeting shouldn't be necessary any more. It's a feature that should've been retired at least a generation ago, IMO.

It depends on what kind of game you're looking for. IMO, Open World RPG's, I can accept "dumbed down" simple fighting. The alternative would be running around swinging at air for 3-4 minutes trying to kill a low lvl NPC, or other parts of the game suffer (story, rpg elements, etc) because they poured so much resources into an intricate fighting system. I personally don't play those games for the fighting.