What are some of your UNpopular video game opinions? (real ones, not just ones for the sake of trolling or something)

[Sumez | 2,968]

8 hours ago, Estil said:

How could the SNES (I'm presuming you mean the hardware itself right?) realistically have been better?

You're right in that it would probably be notably more expensive as well, but there are definitely a few things it could have done. The CPU it used was already nearly 10 years old at the time, and although the graphics chip itself is actually incredibly impressive for the time, it's very limited in terms of memory and the way it's accessed.

If they'd afforded the connections necessary to map video memory through the cartridge like the NES did, we would have been able to see absolutely extraordinary stuff on the SNES that would be able to completely blow the lid off it. Even existing games like Starfox would probably have been able to run at 60fps.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Sumez

[Estil | 1,265]

38 minutes ago, Sumez said:

You're right in that it would probably be notably more expensive as well, but there are definitely a few things it could have done. The CPU it used was already nearly 10 years old at the time, and although the graphics chip itself is actually incredibly impressive for the time, it's very limited in terms of memory and the way it's accessed.

If they'd afforded the connections necessary to map video memory through the cartridge like the NES did, we would have been able to see absolutely extraordinary stuff on the SNES that would be able to completely blow the lid off it. Even existing games like Starfox would probably have been able to run at 60fps.

Good thing just like with the NES, a lot of the SNES games had "helper chips" such as the Super FX (and a sequel) and C4 among others!

[Estil | 1,265]

43 minutes ago, Sumez said:

7 is probably one of the most divisive DQ games, really, but then so are 2 and 6 for some reason.

Is it just me, or was DQ7 (the original PS1 version) super tough and needed a LOT of grinding?  Or do I just suck?  

[Robot_Ninjutsu | 122]

Unpopular video game opinion?

The 1990's was a terrible decade for Nintendo.  They entered 1990 being #1 in the market, and by the end they were getting their asses handed to them by inferior hardware.

It isn't that Nintendo put out terrible games, they just made really terrible decisions that cost them their status as leaders.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

On 7/6/2021 at 10:33 AM, Strange said:

The majority of people don’t care enough about video games to build a gaming PC. The simplicity of buying a box, plugging it in, and it working right away without having to troubleshoot is the allure of consoles. To reiterate: the majority of people don’t care enough about video games to build a gaming PC. It will likely always be this way and the vocal PC gamers that are bent out of shape over it and harassing people about consoles need to cope and just enjoy their PC.

And the average PC gamer isn't on the ball enough to realize that you don't really need to build a gaming specific PC anymore to play most AAA games at decent, if not very good settings.  Really, you just need to pick up a reasonably equipped pre-built PC from anywhere within the last 6-7 years and do some minor upgrades (bumping RAM and adding a decent video card are necessities, although changing out the HDD for an SSD is also a fantastic upgrade) and you're in business.  I do almost all of my non-console gaming on a pre-built Dell business desktop from 7 years ago that's got all three minor upgrades installed and will play stuff in up to 4K resolution at 30-60fps without breaking a sweat.  I think Cyberpunk 2077 is really the only title to come out in years that it would have any issues with, but even then I'm still at or very slightly above the minimum specs for it, so I can still technically play it if I want.

Here's an unpopular opinion related to this particular thread:  Most gamers aren't technically minded enough to really know (or understand) what they're getting, and, as such, don't really have the knowledge to make an actually informed decision regarding console gaming, PC gaming, one versus the other, etc.  Anymore, most just read whatever sound bites the mainstream or gaming media puts out in regard to those things, does zero checking on any of it (to verify or explore benchmarks, performance claims, etc.) and picks out whatever just-click-the-button box will play the game(s) that appeal to them the most (out of whatever's in heavy advertisement rotation at the time) as well as makes the least impact on their wallet.  If you want examples of this in effect, look at how many people bought then complained about not being able to play Cyberpunk on the PS4 even after it was revealed that the game didn't really, actually work on the platform.

 

10 hours ago, Estil said:

Is it just me, or was DQ7 (the original PS1 version) super tough and needed a LOT of grinding?  Or do I just suck?  

I think most DW/DQ games enter a period where a ton of grinding is needed unless you just hit the lottery luck-wise.  I hit that period about what I believe is 2/3 of the way through DW2 and haven't gotten through the game yet simply due to not having the time or desire to spend hours and hours mindlessly grinding to cross the finish line.  I'll get there eventually, but only a little bit at a time versus any sort of reasonable timetable that you'd expect or experience from other, similar RPGs.  (That's not to say that most RPGs don't have periods where you'll need to do some grinding, just that DW/DQ's seem to get ridiculous compared to other games/entries in the genre.)

Edited July 8, 2021 by darkchylde28

[T-Pac | 7,560]

21 hours ago, Estil said:

How could the SNES realistically have been better? 

Blast-processing and built-in turbo. Duh!

-CasualCart

[Tanooki | 4,939]

Ahhh kill it with fire!

[WhyNotZoidberg | 585]

 

58 minutes ago, CasualCart said:

Blast-processing and built-in turbo. Duh!

-CasualCart

 

And the CD add-on plays PSX games.

Edited July 8, 2021 by WhyNotZoidberg

[DarkTone | 986]

Clicking on a video about rare games, and one of them is earthbound. 

[CMR | 521]

SNES should have had a faster main processor.  It's video chip was great, but was gimped by the slow processor.  If the SA1 chip had shipped built into the SNES from the beginning, the Sega Genesis would never have stood a chance.

Edited July 12, 2021 by CMR

[mbd39 | 2,026]

1 hour ago, CMR said:

NES should have had a faster main processor.  It's video chip was great, but was gimped by the slow processor.  If the SA1 chip had shipped built into the SNES from the beginning, the Sega Genesis would never have stood a chance.

This 100%.

The worst slowdown was in the earlier games though. I don't notice a horrendous amount of lag when playing something like Donkey Kong Country and I don't think it even uses any special chips.

[Tanooki | 4,939]

5 hours ago, mbd39 said:

This 100%.

The worst slowdown was in the earlier games though. I don't notice a horrendous amount of lag when playing something like Donkey Kong Country and I don't think it even uses any special chips.

It doesn't, it's standard.  Of their own stuff, Mario RPG used the SA1 with Kirbys Dreamland 3 and Super Star.  There were the obvious FX branded titles, and some earlier stuff to deal with it used DSP like Mario Kart and Pilotwings.  Largely across the board people learned to deal with it in various ways not needing chips.  Yet even they in the case of Konami using the same style of game came full circle from Gradius III/Parodius to  Parodius 2 far smoother no chip to Parodius 3 with SA1 to handle it.

[Sumez | 2,968]

While I don't doubt a stock built-in SA1 or similar coprocessor would have given the SNES an edge against its competitors, the fact that it's terribly slow compared to the MegaDrive is also kind of a bunch of hogwash.

Yeah, on most benchmarks, the SNES would probably come out a bit slower, but not to any amount that really matters, and it's definitely not something that held back its potential when compared to Sega's console. It's not a race car, but it's not really that slow either.

It's really unfortunate that the SNES had a bunch of poorly programmed games coming out early on, plagued by slowdown, because it clearly gave people the impression that it was the console's fault, an impression that's obviously persisting until today.

To be honest, the one single thing that acts as the biggest bottleneck in SNES performance, is probably the stupid top bit part of the sprite memory table, where data from four different sprites is compressed into a single byte, and I wouldn't be surprised if several of the more notably slow games on SNES did nothing to speed up or bypass handling of those bits.

[Estil | 1,265]

11 hours ago, CMR said:

NES should have had a faster main processor.  It's video chip was great, but was gimped by the slow processor.  If the SA1 chip had shipped built into the SNES from the beginning, the Sega Genesis would never have stood a chance.

You guys do know these added features will make the console cost added money right?  And yes I'll once again cite the nagging killjoy parents who didn't like how much the SNES cost as it was but also don't forget examples what can happen when a console or other electronic tech does too much, too soon, and by extention too high cost.  Apple Newton, 3DO, CDI anyone?

[Reed Rothchild | 9,549]

But @Sumez, blast processing! Gradius 3! Loud noises!

[cj_robot | 544]

My unpopular opinion: PS1 graphics have aged just fine.

Yeah, the bad games are still gonna look bad, but IMHO the good games still look good. There's a bunch of mid-to-late era games that I simply enjoy just looking at, like Ace Combat 3, Tekken 3, Ridge Racer 4, Omega Boost, Wipeout 3, Colony Wars games, etc.

I never understood how people can go so gaga over old, low-res 2D sprites, but have such a huge problem with old, low-res 3D polygons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not to mention all the awesome looking 2D games that are on PS1.

[TDIRunner | 2,744]

4 minutes ago, cj_robot said:

My unpopular opinion: PS1 graphics have aged just fine.

Yeah, the bad games are still gonna look bad, but IMHO the good games still look good. There's a bunch of mid-to-late era games that I simply enjoy just looking at, like Ace Combat 3, Tekken 3, Ridge Racer 4, Omega Boost, Wipeout 3, Colony Wars games, etc.

I never understood how people can go so gaga over old, low-res 2D sprites, but have such a huge problem with old, low-res 3D polygons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not to mention all the awesome looking 2D games that are on PS1.

I agree with most of this.  Lot's of games that didn't use textures, (or at least didn't use many textures), still look great today.  I would add the Crash Bandicoot games to the list of games that still look great today. 

Unfortunately, games like Tomb Raider really don't look that great today.  However, Tomb Raider's gameplay, level design, and sound make up for any downsides in the visuals.  

[Strange | 1,700]

Wait, why are we talking shit about the Mega Drive/Genesis in a unpopular opinion thread? It’s all Nintendo-centric dudes ever do is be mad that Genesis exists

[Reed Rothchild | 9,549]

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

Wait, why are we talking shit about the Mega Drive/Genesis in a unpopular opinion thread? It’s all Nintendo-centric dudes ever do is be mad that Genesis exists

Sega fans have weird insecurities 

[Strange | 1,700]

2 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Sega fans have weird insecurities 

Lol the majority of what I play and collect is Nintendo, I just also enjoy Sega. As someone who was around during the 16 bit console war (and was on team SNES) it’s so weird to me that people still get defensive over Nintendo 30 years later. Especially when you can play both like a normal person.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,549]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Lol the majority of what I play and collect is Nintendo, I just also enjoy Sega. As someone who was around during the 16 bit console war (and was on team SNES) it’s so weird to me that people still get defensive over Nintendo 30 years later. Especially when you can play both like a normal person.

Hmm?  Seems the poll says we (mostly) all deeply love it.

As opposed to, say, cringe incarnate 

https://www.sega-16.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-27184.html

[Strange | 1,700]

11 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Hmm?  Seems the poll says we (mostly) all deeply love it.

As opposed to, say, cringe incarnate 

https://www.sega-16.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-27184.html

I’ve been in a lot of retro gaming spaces that make claims like “Sega was never good” which is more what I was poking fun at in my initial comment, not so much the people here.

As for Sega-16, yikes. I’ve never heard much good about that forum.

I want to be known as a video game collector, not a *company* collector.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,549]

Here's a new one, since I just finished it...

Spirit Tracks is fun.  Flame away.

[ZeldaFreak | 3,600]

9 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Here's a new one, since I just finished it...

Spirit Tracks is fun.  Flame away.

I love Spirit Tracks. I also love Phantom Hourglass, but Spirit Tracks is definitely better I'd say.

[Brickman | 3,995]

9 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Here's a new one, since I just finished it...

Spirit Tracks is fun.  Flame away.

yes someone else that enjoys it! I have to hide this fact because so many people hated it. Sure it's not up there with the great Zelda games but I thought it wasn't a bad game and I've definitely played worse in popular franchises. I also enjoyed phantom hourglass but a lot hate that one.