This thread is obviously designed for controversial opinions, but any semblance of further explanation or effort might foster better discussion to the affirmative or otherwise.
Your controversial gaming opinions?
- Thread starter tgrfawcett
- Start date
This thread is obviously designed for controversial opinions, but any semblance of further explanation or effort might foster better discussion to the affirmative or otherwise.
Those who want ever increasing realism for violence and gore in games are a bit effed in the head
I don't want to see it in every game. It fits great for TLOU and what they want to do with it, but I don't need every game to be that. Even doom is still to an extent more cartoonishly violent, mortal kombat style.
Twilight Princess is not the best game in The Legend of Zelda series. Snowpeak Ruins is probably the only dungeon I enjoyed from an aesthetic and design point of view in Twilight Princess (plus Snowpeak Ruins had one of the best items in Twilight Princess).
RDR2 is very different to most modern games though. Rockstar still go by their own template, and don't follow what everyone else is doing.
Can that be seen as a controversial opinion when people lashes out agaisnt Twilight Princess constantly for the most menial reasons?
I've heard many people here and other places say that Twilight Princess is their favourite game and/or the best game in The Legend of Zelda series.
I'm one of them and i stand by my opinion (Well, was. BotW took the throne)
I want to be clear that I don't hate Twilight Princess. I just don't think it's the best The Legend of Zelda game.
Nothing wrong with that, mate
I just don't think it's really a controversial opinion, given how much shit TP usually gets.
I will weigh in on the negativity towards most modern games. Modern AAA games are only long for the sake of it, stuff games with RPG mechanics, excessive loot, menus and unnecessary systems.
They say that in threads like the one you're in now, because it's not the prevailing opinion. Twilight Princess being called the best Zelda game is no doubt something said by many people in this very thread. Including me at some point I'm sure. Because it is a controversial opinion.
I find it pretty meaningless to compare and rank games that have very little in common just because they are from the same year or any other arbitrary grouping for that matter.
Also much like review scores I hate seeing people become way too invested in this process. To the point where they can not only just enjoy what they prefer but have to go to great lengths to downplay any titles they see as as a threat to that crown at every possible opportunity even before the damn things are released.
Yea, just like me saying botw is the worst 3d zelda.
As someone who questioned if Rockstar has ever looked up the definition of the word 'fun' whilst I was playing Red Dead Redemption 2, I was pleased to see God of War take the honours that year, but generally, I care little for those awards outside of being a worthwhile way of finding some hidden gems.
If it wasn't for the annual Game of the Year roll call, I would have missed out on lots of decent games, like Florence, Gato Roboto, Ibb & Obb, Katana Zero, Minit, Return of the Obra Dinn, Superliminal and so on and on.
Anyhoo, my current controversial opinion is...
Super Mario Odyssey is the least enjoyable 3D Super Mario game, especially so after I had returned back to the game for the first time since I completed it and thinking, 'am I actually enjoying this?'.
Halo 3 is the worst of the Bungie Halo games. The game looks terrible on 360, character models are horrendous. Worst thing though, is the game is 6 hours long and it has two of the worst levels of any big budget game.
As i am feeling brave, I also don't think any of the Halo sequels lived up to the expectations that Halo CE set. Feels like a series that has always been held back by technical limitations, hopefully Infinite will address this.
Feeling really brave now, the new RE games have lost the magic of the old games. I enjoyed RE7 and RE2 but I don't feel like i will ever replay them, there is definitely something missing for me. Also, DMCV was a disappointment, bad story, boring looking environments and playing as V was awful.
Death Stranding was the best game of 2019.
As i am feeling brave, I also don't think any of the Halo sequels lived up to the expectations that Halo CE set. Feels like a series that has always been held back by technical limitations, hopefully Infinite will address this.
Feeling really brave now, the new RE games have lost the magic of the old games. I enjoyed RE7 and RE2 but I don't feel like i will ever replay them, there is definitely something missing for me. Also, DMCV was a disappointment, bad story, boring looking environments and playing as V was awful.
Death Stranding was the best game of 2019.
Despite coming around a bit and being overall "neutral" with the story, in the end I just wish The Last of Us Part II didn't exist.
At least not as a sequel. The gameplay and presentation are phenomenal and should have been used for some other type of game.
At least not as a sequel. The gameplay and presentation are phenomenal and should have been used for some other type of game.
I feel that Mario Odyssey is a genuine experiment with the 3D Mario formula, and it suffers from some crucial design issues that aren't as apparent on the first playthrough. Every Mario game has always been designed for replayability - an arcade game. Odyssey is built like a more typical "one and done", linear action game. The fact that it has a post-game involving collecting extra moons does not mean it's inherently replayable.
So if someone isn't experiencing a certain kind of fun on even their first playthrough and feels something is missing, I think that is the reason why. By designing it in a way similar to non-Mario games, Odyssey can do some new things previous 3D Mario games haven't done. The tradeoff is pretty severe however; it loses a lot.
I felt the same way after finishing The Last of Us Part II, and questioned buying PS5. But then I thought of Ratchet & Clank, Gran Turismo 7, playing Until Dawn on PS5, and it went away.
Haven't bothered beating Red Read Redemption 2 yet, that game is such a slog and controls are terrible.
Fuck Part II though, I should change my avatar.
replying to add, it also looks better than pCARS 2, more realistic. There, I said it!
Join the indieapocalypse.
Just this week Hardspace Shipbreaker released, which is one of the most refreshing things i've seen in years
yeah, the idea that hyper realistic gore should be the standard is so gross
Not sure how controversial this is to say, but Super Mario 64's influence on games is fuckin' grossly overstated and the other early 3D console classics of 96 like Resident Evil, Crash Bandicoot, Nights Into Dreams, and Tombraider don't get nearly enough praise and credit for their ambition, execution, and contributions to the medium.
I'm not sure about overall influence, but in terms of quality, I agree SM 64 is pretty overrated and I'd rather play Crash any day.
I mean, same.
Crash was basically Super Mario Bros 3/Super Mario World in 3D (streamlined, fast-paced, rhythmic, dense with obstacles, etc.) while SM64 was some weirdo action-adventure-ish spin-off thing that only exists because N64 cartridge space was woefully limited and Mr. Miyamoto for all his brilliance couldn't figure out what two 20 somethings from the east coast could.
Last edited:
I... don't understand this statement. Mario 64 is so much more ambitious than Crash Bandicoot is. Hell, Bubsy 3D is more ambitious than Crash Bandicoot. I like the original Crash game but it's really limited. Super Mario 64 has so much more life and wonder in each of its levels than Crash does in the entire game. I say this as someone who played the original Crash Bandicoot over and over as a kid.
Those games definitely get tonnes of praise and recognition though...
You must be out yo goddamn mind!
Bubsy fucking 3D more ambitious than Crash Bandicoot? Now that's a controversial (and tremendously stupid) gaming opinion. Bruh, the only thing that's "ambitious" about Bubsy 3D was the devs baffling decision to prioritize a "high resolution" image over smart game design and an appealing artistic direction.
Seriously, man, I implore you to take some time out of your day to watch this Ars Technica interview with Andy Gavin (The brilliant programmer who co-founded Naughty Dog and helped bring Crash into the world):
I'd also highly reccomend reading his "Making Crash Bandicoot" blog series as well.
Saying that Mario was "more ambitious" is absolutely ignorant and dismissive of how much passion, intelligence, love, and care went into making the first Crash game.
Hard disagree. Crash's world feels so much more alive that Mario 64's flat, blocky sterile early 3D sandboxes. I mean, Wet-Dry World, are you kiddin' me? Looks more like BelongsInAlpha World if you ask me, pitiful.
Like, just look at Crash's lush jungle levels with their colorful foliage, fluttering butterflies, god rays shining through the thick canopy, and mysterious ruins scattered about. Look at a level like "The Great Gate" with its towering wooden wall adorned with colorful tribal patterns, contextualized platforms that are actually a part of the structure, and little peaks at the lush jungle on the other side of it and Cortex Island waiting for you in the distance. Look at the red rusted factories with peeling paint, steam shooting out of red hot pipes, and toxic green sludge oozing oozing from the end of sewage lines. Crash's levels feel like a captivating and believable cartoon world, and when they first showed it off at E3 people couldn't believe that it was running on a retail PlayStation.
Mario 64 has this plodding level design centered around solving super simplistic puzzles or completing repetitive task in these large mostly empty maps where jumping is rarely required to get around and enemies have very little influence on anything. Crash on the other hand is a fast-paced action-packed pure platforming game with a rhythmic flow and satisfyingly dense level design with smart enemy placement and a streamlined structure that prioritizes challenge over choice. Its brilliant, and I love it. It's like the Rosetta Stone of 2D to 3D platforming design.
Last edited:
Hey now, I didn't say Bubsy 3D was a great game. It's a mess but they were trying things that were high minded even if they didn't have the chops for it. It didn't work out but they wanted to make something that no one else had seen. I will always go to bat for the attempts they made with Bubsy 3D and it's nowhere near as bad as the internet has made it out to be.
I like Crash Bandicoot. I think it's a good game. Mario 64 is a better game and I say this as someone who didn't own Mario 64 in 1996. Mario 64 isn't trying to be Mario 3 or Super Mario World in 3D either. It was trying to be something NEW and it did that extraordinarily well. I will not be shamed into thinking Mario 64 is a worse game because you're a passionate fan of a specific series. Naughty Dog did some technically brilliant things on the PS1 and I remember the big deal that Crash was when it came out. I think it's pretty obvious which game was more influential on the genre immediately after release and which game the others tried to copy.
I think you're out of your mind if you think Mario 64's levels are sterile. How in the world is that game "sterile?" I think you want Mario 64 to be something that it's not and it's clouding your judgment.
I don't like unlocks in rogue lites. I want all the cards when i play a deck builder rogue lite from the get go so i'm not gimped out of obvious archetypes, i want all the relics/weapons in twin stick shooter ones, I want my characters to be as strong as they should be from the get go instead of getting more and more powerful until they basically reach their normal potential, I'm tired of the progression meme in games in general really unless it's 100% cosmetic, it just feels like i'm being locked out of content at random because otherwise people would complain they aren't getting anything from playing.
To add to this debate, baring a short run of a demo back in the day my first experience of Crash Bandicoot platformers was with playing the remade trilogy last year and yes I genuinely preferred playing all of them to Mario 64. The more open style of 3D platformer that Mario started and inspired never clicked with me.
It's sad that this is considered a controversial opinion. What a great console.
Why do you wanna go to bat for a game that thought it was a good idea to move the camera over the main character's head whenever he jumps? lol
Seems like a waste of time to me.
Crash pioneered level streaming, and also inspired plenty derivative copycats like "Bomberman Hero", "Super Magnetic Neo", and "Donald Duck: Goin' Quackers" and also timeless classics like "Rayman 2: The Great Escape". Crash was more impactful than you give it credit for. Watch the video in my post that you quoted (The shorter more streamlined cut not the extended video I accidentally posted), its really good.
Mario 64's influence, as I stated above, is grossly overstated and mostly seen in a handful of other collectethons like Banjo-Kazooie, Spyro the Dragon, and Jak & Daxter; I'd argue that OoT is a lot more influential, with it's legacy still being seen in the likes of Assassin's Creed Odyssey, God of War (2018), and The Last of Us Part II (which btw, is a game that also owes it's existence to all those signature Naughty Dog staples pioneered by Crash Bandicoot)
It's flat, its blocky, it's plodding, it's repetitive, it's sparse, and everything just feels like an assembly of random assets that solely exist to serve a mundane functional purpose. Imo it has very little energy to it, and it's videogame-y in all the wrong ways.
And btw I love Mario platformers just as much as I love the Classic Crash games, I have no bias against Mario.
In my top 5 list of platformers Super Mario Galaxy 2 and 3D World are my #1 and #2, respectively.
And I respect SM64's place in the medium's history; the atmosphere, control, and sense of exploration was really well-executed for the time. I do not deny that.
Last edited:
Tbf, I feel like this also applies to most people's complaints about Crash Bandicoot. It always seems to revolve around the game not being "open" but that isn't the point of it. It's more about being like a platforming obstacle course.
PS4 is a huge disappointment due to lack of multiplayer exclusives and it shouldn't be praised. I have less hours on my PS4 Pro than my Xbox and PC combined.
Because I don't think it should be dismissed just because it's bad. Look at what they tried to do in a time where 3D platformers barely existed on consoles. It's a bold attempt and it just didn't work. I appreciate them trying.
Yes, Crash had an influence. I never denied that, did I? It's a good game and I never called it bad. Though look at the games you call Crash copycats and the collectathons you mention. As much as I dislike Banjo-Kazooie personally, it's clearly a much more loved game than Super Magnetic Neo is. There is a clearly different caliber of game in both of those lists. I'm not sure why Ocarina of Time (I assume that's what OoT is here in the context) is being brought up in a conversation about 3D platformers either.
I completely disagree with this statement but I guess to each their own. The worlds of Mario 64 feel purposefully constructed. I also find it odd that you want to complain about the video-game-y-ness of it while praising Mario 3 and Super Mario World. I don't know how the complaint doesn't apply to those as well.
I never said you called Crash bad.
I also mentioned Rayman 2, an absolute classic just as beloved as Banjo-Kazooie, in the category of games inspired by and structured like Crash. Regardless I don't think the quality of the games I listed really matters to this particular discussion, what matters is that they were the product of influential pioneering ambitious experiences. Of which Crash definitely was.
"video game-y in all the wrong ways", being video game-y isn't an inherently bad thing imo. Skyward Sword's dungeon-like overworld structure is video game-y as fuck, and I still think it's one of the best things that was ever done with series and wish it would come back in a new game.
I'll admit that I'm ignorant on Rayman 2. I have only played the 2D games in that series (though I think I also played like 30 minutes of Rayman 3 a while back) but I don't really hear people talk about Rayman 2 in the same breath of the Rare platformers on N64 or even Spyro. Is Rayman 2 really considered a classic? This is honestly the first time I've heard someone say that about the game. Quality absolutely matters to this discussion too. If the majority of successful and well-remembered games and series follow the Mario template and influence, what does that say about the broader influence of Crash Bandicoot on 3D platformers? More budget-tier games like Super Magnetic Neo or Donald Duck follow the Crash path while more prestigious titles go for the Mario route.
And yeah, I'm sorry, I'm not sure why I thought you said I thought Crash was bad. I thought I read that in there but I think I read into something that wasn't there. I apologize for that.
Well what does that mean then? What are the wrong ways it does it?
Rayman 2 is the best 3D platformer of its generation. There's a reason it got ported so many times.
Aren't there two distinct versions of the game and they're not all straight ports?