Do You Have Any Unpopular Gaming Opinions?

[Exhuminator]

FYI...In the last issue of Game Informer, the highest-rated game (and the magazine's game of the month), is Undertale, an indie-PC game styled like a retro-RPG

Game Informer... haven't read that in a very long time. The last Game Informer I read had Kane & Lynch 2 on its cover, so that's how long its been.

Well I see that on October 1st, Game Informer gave Undertale a 9.5/10. I also see recently Game Informer gave run of the mill AAA games like Rise of the Tomb Raider a 9.5/10, Black Ops III a 9/10, and Assassin's Creed Syndicate a 9/10. So it looks like they're still towing the payola line after all.

As far as innovation goes, the retro aesthetic look Undertale uses is nothing new, par for the course in indie land. I see that in combat you can choose to attack enemies or befriend them, which is a clever idea that Megami Tensei had back in 1987. Also I see that bullet hell was added to Undertale's RPG combat. Knights in the Nightmare already did that in 2008. People say it's innovative 'cause you can beat Undertale without killing a single enemy. But you can do that in other RPGs, such as Fantasy Life for 3DS, except that came out three years before Undertale. Sorry, I can't say I see any truly new ideas in Undertale. But I'm glad people enjoy it! I'd rather folks play it then the latest AAA total rehash.

[BogusMeatFactory]

FYI...In the last issue of Game Informer, the highest-rated game (and the magazine's game of the month), is Undertale, an indie-PC game styled like a retro-RPG

Game Informer... haven't read that in a very long time. The last Game Informer I read had Kane & Lynch 2 on its cover, so that's how long its been.

Well I see that on October 1st, Game Informer gave Undertale a 9.5/10. I also see recently Game Informer gave run of the mill AAA games like Rise of the Tomb Raider a 9.5/10, Black Ops III a 9/10, and Assassin's Creed Syndicate a 9/10. So it looks like they're still towing the payola line after all.

As far as innovation goes, the retro aesthetic look Undertale uses is nothing new, par for the course in indie land. I see that in combat you can choose to attack enemies or befriend them, which is a clever idea that Megami Tensei had back in 1987. Also I see that bullet hell was added to Undertale's RPG combat. Knights in the Nightmare already did that in 2008. People say it's innovative 'cause you can beat Undertale without killing a single enemy. But you can do that in other RPGs, such as Fantasy Life for 3DS, except that came out three years before Undertale. Sorry, I can't say I see any truly new ideas in Undertale. But I'm glad people enjoy it! I'd rather folks play it then the latest AAA total rehash.

It is actually a lot more than that. The combat isn't really bullet hell and more like puzzle. enemy attacks have very unique patterns and styles and can range from being pure bullet hell, to being tricky mazes and even puzzle oriented like collecting green attacks while avoiding normal ones. There are also blue attacks that you must stay stationary when they touch you. There are different approaches to enemies and diffusing situations. What makes the game interesting is that the decisions you make can leave an irrevocable mark on the game, even after replaying it. There are three different paths in the game and each is startlingly different.

I have only played for about an hour and have found the characters to be incredibly endearing, heartwarming and genuinely funny. There is an earnest tone to the game and from what I hear, there is a certain path you can take that is incredibly difficult to do emotionally as a player.

I haven't spoiled the game for myself, because Ir eally wanted an honest experience of the game and let me tell you, so far, it is very deserving of those scores.

[Exhuminator]

it is very deserving of those scores.

It probably is. I was attempting to be facetious above, emulating a snootier critic than I actually am. Being facetious doesn't work well in text though unfortunately.

On a serious note, I'll have to check Undertale out sometime. It's in good company with other unique indie RPGs like Unemployment Quest, Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden, and Always Sometimes Monsters that really are trying to do something different with the genre.

[BoneSnapDeez]

There are some really great cheap 2D indie JRPGs..............

................on Steam.

[BogusMeatFactory]

it is very deserving of those scores.

It probably is. I was attempting to be facetious above, emulating a snootier critic than I actually am. Being facetious doesn't work well in text though unfortunately.

On a serious note, I'll have to check Undertale out sometime. It's in good company with other unique indie RPGs like Unemployment Quest, Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden, and Always Sometimes Monsters that really are trying to do something different with the genre.

Haha I totally understand. A lot gets lost in text. I am not joking though when I day this game is on a different level. So few games can make you care about characters and a world right from the start andbut does so in a eay that feels fresh. The game is not revolutionary by any means, but it is still very powerful. It really is special and I can't wait to complete it.

[prfsnl_gmr]

As far as innovation goes, the retro aesthetic look Undertale uses is nothing new, par for the course in indie land. I see that in combat you can choose to attack enemies or befriend them, which is a clever idea that Megami Tensei had back in 1987. Also I see that bullet hell was added to Undertale's RPG combat. Knights in the Nightmare already did that in 2008. People say it's innovative 'cause you can beat Undertale without killing a single enemy. But you can do that in other RPGs, such as Fantasy Life for 3DS, except that came out three years before Undertale. Sorry, I can't say I see any truly new ideas in Undertale.

As far as innovation goes, glass is nothing new, and people have been making it for hundreds of years. Cleverly, we have also been using candles and torches to light our dwellings since the dawn of civilization. Electricity also existed since the beginning of the universe, and people have been harnessing both electricity and vacuums for decades. Nothing new there. Sorry, I can't say I see any truly new ideas in this so-called electric light bulb.

[Exhuminator]

Sorry, I can't say I see any truly new ideas in this so-called electric light bulb.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Sorry, I can't say I see any truly new ideas in this so-called electric light bulb.

Lord Exhuminator of the Nineteenth Century is the best!

[nullPointer]

So I've been rolling this idea around in my head for a while, and as usual I've thought about it long enough that any of the following comments are bordering on obsolete in terms of thread progression. Sorry about that!

I would actually contend that in order for one to enjoy retro gaming there has to be some concession made that old ideas in gaming are still interesting and valid. Playing older games allows us to revisit ideas from the past through the lens of modernity. What we're referring to as "comfort food" was the new hotness at one point in time, but that time is long past. Does that mean that the games of yore are no longer valid since they are no longer innovative? In saying that innovation is more important than iterating on older ideas, I feel like we rob those ideas of their historical relevance.

I think it's an overstatement to say that it's a simple minded pursuit to enjoy the same magic trick over and over again. Sure we know how the trick works, we've seen the mechanics, and know the history of the trick; we've broken the trick down to it's irreducible components, but at the end of the day it's still a good trick. I would say that the ability to enjoy the same old magic trick, to see the value of it, is part of the mission statement of retro gaming.

OTOH, I do understand the need for innovation in modern development. That's what drives the hobby forward. But one position is every bit as valid as the other IMO. Both concepts can co-exist peacefully.

[Exhuminator]

Does that mean that the games of yore are no longer valid since they are no longer innovative?

Not at all. A game that utilized a new idea first still retains its credibility for doing so. To rob a past game of its creditable innovations because many other games since aped its ideas is revisionist history.

In saying that innovation is more important than iterating on older ideas, I feel like we rob those ideas of their historical relevance.

"Iterating upon old ideas" would still be a form of innovation though, being an evolution of an existing principle. That's not the same thing as rehashed comfort food. That's more like warming up leftovers but adding some fresh spices on top to change the taste.

I would say that the ability to enjoy the same old magic trick, to see the value of it, is part of the mission statement of retro gaming.

If you're actually retro gaming though, you're going back and enjoying the original magicians doing the original tricks. Nothing wrong with that. But when a new magician comes by but does those same old tricks, and then people act like those self same tricks are still amazing and fresh, that's just willful ignorance on their behalf. A spade's a spade, even if it's gold plated.

Both concepts can co-exist peacefully.

I suppose they do. The fact is that most people are afraid of new concepts, or at least uncomfortable with them. Most people instinctively seek out familiar experiences because those are safe and known commodities. On the other hand, someone like myself feels like they are wasting their time when they are playing a game that is just a straight aping of a previous experience. Is either approach better? Well that boils down to what each individual gamer is seeking from their gameplay experience.