Do You Have Any Unpopular Gaming Opinions?

[Sarge]

Oh, also, Chex Quest was pretty rockin'.

[Xeogred]

Definitely the greatest cereal pack in ever. Chex Quest ruled.

[Tanooki]

Noah's Ark 3D SNES was terrible too, but a hilarious novelty.

It is on Steam.

Yup that's the contract deal with Piko Interactive. There's other emulated titles like Jim Power (Buck Rogers) up there as well...not sure if any other wisdom tree stuff is there yet but there are other 16bit titles. I've helped out Piko off and on for some years now, friend of his.


I should dig and see if I still have that, also had this nice build of Dune 2 from PC as well that got pulled a few years back because EA got pissed only after the dude started trying to charge for it, they let it alone before that point.

[Exhuminator]

Shining Soul is actually kinda fun.

[ElkinFencer10]

Noah's Ark 3D SNES was terrible too, but a hilarious novelty.

It is on Steam.

It's in one of Bundle Stars bundles. I now have both the SNES cartridge as well as the game on Steam. lelelel

[MrEco]

It's depressing to admit, but there's a few opinions I have that seem to be very unpopular. I use to think that any reasonable person would agree, or at least see my point, but I continually have my expectations of the human race lowered.


For one, I don't believe there is any such thing as an objectively good/bad game. Same goes for movies, music, books, and any other form of art. Everyone enjoys different things, art is entirely subjective. There have even been games that are fundamentally broken to the point of being almost unplayable that still have small groups of people who think they're fun.

And speaking of which, the second thing is that I believe video games are art. I don't think this opinion will be particularly unpopular here on this forum, but it still surprises me when I continually find people who think video games are not and cannot be art.

And thirdly, I full believe that games which are low on gameplay, often have zero challenge, and are all about story are in fact still video games. Typically people use the term "walking simulator" to mock these sorts of games, and also as a way of distancing them from the term video game (Even though "simulator" is actually a term used to describe several genre's of video games, a simple fact that often escapes these people). My own personal term for these games' genre is "narrative exploration game." That's the one common theme all of these games have, they're heavy on narrative and their main form of interaction often has to do with exploring the in-game environment. I just don't understand how people can say they aren't video games just because they focus more on story rather than gameplay. There's nothing wrong with a game like Tetris which focuses entirely on gameplay and has zero story, why does the opposite get so derided? I've heard every excuse in existence and none of them make sense.

[Exhuminator]

why does the opposite get so derided? I've heard every excuse in existence and none of them make sense.

Well sir, it's because with contemplative, reflective, exploratory type games, the player must seek out their own enjoyment from within them. It takes a little time and effort. That method doesn't sit well with most gamers, because most gamers just want games that constantly spew instant gratification at the player, with utmost urgency, at all times.

As for good/bad games, I like to think that no matter how much I might hate a game, it's still somebody somewhere's all time favorite.

[Sarge]

Oh, I dunno, a broken, buggy, horribly-designed mess of a game is an objectively bad game. I absolutely believe there are objective elements to gaming that can be judged, and they factor in, for sure. That being said, you can technically derive a lot of enjoyment from a really bad game, mostly from derisive laughter... but it doesn't change that it's a bad game. So one can subjectively enjoy objectively bad things.

Agreed on the second point, although I'm loath to admit it in some cases. I think the hangup is that most games aren't created to be "art", and as such are not treated as art, even though they clearly have art elements to them. It's kind of like playing a sport like basketball. There are elements of beauty and art within the game, but it's not the goal of the game to necessarily be beautiful or artistic. (This might be a terrible analogy, though.)

The last point I think we can all agree on, but everyone I think has their own opinion on what constitutes gameplay, and how complex it needs to be to actually be properly engaging. I have no issue with "walking sims", although I don't choose to play them. A game like Snatcher is barely a "game", it's a visual novel with some rudimentary gunplay tacked on. I mean, really, most of the game boils down to a bunch of decision trees! (And it's still awesome.)

[Exhuminator]

I think the hangup is that most games aren't created to be "art", and as such are not treated as art, even though they clearly have art elements to them. (This might be a terrible analogy, though.)

I don't think it's a terrible analogy. I mean, many movies, albums, books, etc. are not created objectively to be art, but rather consumable potboiler entertainment. But no one is going to say movies, albums, books, etc. are not art because of that. It's just a stupid double standard that affects video games. As older generations of people die off and more and more grow up with the ever evolving gaming medium, this old "games vs art" debate will seem silly and antiquated. As it already is, really.

[Snatch1414]

Art is such a broad term. Sure why not. There are museums with mirrors being hung as works of art. Anything can be construed as a work of art. I don't really know why people care though. This is like the old argument about whether or not golf is a sport. Who cares? Just enjoy yourself.