It is important to preserve all released versions (and perhaps even some unreleased versions) of video games, even if they have serious issues.

(For example, I am hoping that Skyrim 1.2, which had many bugs (like elemental resistances not working, and dragons flying backwards) that aren't in any other versions; that particular version, I believe, is actually significant in Steam's history (it's why they have a beta channel, something that would be good for GOG's offline installer (I believe Galaxy already has one)).)

Similarly, I am of the opinion that digital download services should offer all released versions, not just the newest one, for download (unless there are significant legal issues).

One other opinion: Places on the Internet where games can be illegally acquired are good for the industry as a whole, and particularly good for game preservation (I have heard of game companies actually downloading their own games from such places because they otherwise had lost the game they intended to rerelease).

Tbh I'd guess that 95% of all games are shit if you include everything out there.

And yeah,boob armor is pretty dumb.I don't even think that that's a particularly unpopular opinion.Still tolerable imo though so long as the character design doesn't lean too heavily on fanservice.

Here's one:

Secret of Mana is not a good RPG. (It is a good game, it just fails to qualify as an RPG.)

(I could also say that Super Mario World is not a good RPG, but that opinion is not likely to be disputed by anyone who actually understand what I am saying here.)

I tend to agree, because there are rare cases where the latest update is considered by some to be inferior to an earlier version. 7 years after Two Worlds 2 released, it received a marketplace update to sell an expansion and removed access to the game's console commands, and EA Sports have patched out players in the FIFA series who've committed criminal offences or failed drug tests (if that door widens... goodbye half the Legends roster in WWE games).

I did like the combat in senua and there was weight on the sword and impact but it got repetitive soon enough, other gameplay was walking slowly in a sand towards pretty empty places and some weird puzzles. Ending sucked.

Last of us started being good after starting to play with ellie (sounds bad but you did control her and I thought more interesting bits happened with her

Dragon age inquisition.. combat totally sucked and you almost win battles randomly without your precice control. I had to switch to easy to not to have people die with bad AI all the time. Also I didn't care for the story. Or the map thing where you did some decisions as inquisitor also I didn't really like most of the playable teammates. It's like mass effect andromeda single player.. You go random battles in a big map when trying to find a way with mako also the enemies.. so basic some ugly elephantman evil race comes shooting from the beginning and you were hoping some more varied stuff you start to hate yourself even when you try to like the game. That also has really bad AI in teammates they just basically die often or I'm not getting something. Multiplayer seemed more fun than pointless mako ride and battles maybe it gets better but haven't tried.

Well.. Nice to have that again off my chest.

In (J)RPG games with static, menu-based combat you often do the exact same thing though. There's hardly anything different or situational based there, when you keep pressing the same buttons until a battle is won and you already know that you will win it if you keep pressing the same buttons.

I was fine playing Joel -- even liked him -- but the control felt terrible and I general gameplay was frustrating (I find this with many Naughty Dog games).

Agree. The world looked pretty, but that was it. I hated the characters, the combat. the AI, the story, the art direction... the bugs... Only one thing I really liked... and that was one of the sidequests. Yeah, I hated pretty much all of it, but I completed it and all of the dlc. Think it was because I bought it for more than I wanted to and didn't want to feel like I lost all that money. Instead I just lost 100+ hours of my time on Earth. Ugh

Not always. Consider:
* If there's only a few enemies, you might not want to use your mass nukes, but if there are a lot, then it is time to bring out the big guns (or spells).
* Some enemies might be a pain to kill and not worth the XP. In this case, it might be time to run away!
* Some enemies are more dangerous than others.
* An enemy just got a critical hit and killed your front like fighter in one hit! Time to revive them as soon as possible (especially if the enemy in question is highly resistant to magic).
* An enemy will, if low on health, cast a spell that is guaranteed to wipe out your party. Better not let that happen! (This actually happens in Dragon Quest 2, for example (though at least there a party wipe is not that bad, unless you're playing the original Japanese release (the one with password saves).)

Of course not, I'm not saying that you always do the same things in combat in all of the games, I'm just saying that it's not true that it never happens in videogames that you can grind by doing exactly the same as before. These situations exist in some games, and saying that's not grinding is just arguing semantics.

West of Loathing for example has these spots where you know exactly what to expect when starting a fight over and over again and where you can make lots of XP just by tediously repeating the exact same clicks that you did before.

That sounds bad but with a good game it seems.. err.. not so bad. I played Yakuza 0 almost 100 hours and oh boy it was a ride first yakuza game I played and bought kiwamis after.. taking a bit of a break though.. 'cos they are pretty samey and my hands my hands can't handle so soon so many aggressive mobs.

You say true things but I still disagree on principle. If you would observe the timing of your keypresses you would notice significant differences. Its just that your brain juxtaposes this with a behavioral pattern so you believe you're doing the same thing, even though you still have to look at your screen.

The brain really is a funny thing, but its also painfully easy to fool it.

Yeah, naturally I'm not doing "exactly" the same things, but does it really matter? What matters is that it's repetitive and boring, and if you think "grinding" is the wrong word for it - although by that definition, I guess grinding doesn't exist in the real world either ;) - one could just make up a new word for it and nothing would change.

But it was just a thought. Since the thread is precisely for uttering opinions that others wouldn't agree with, it's kind of pointless to argue about it, sorry. :D

Hey its alright. I fully expected people saying whether or not the things I say are true or not, thats also important! Otherwise discussions or constructive criticism would seldom happen.

As long as people don't start degrading each other opinions its fine!

Here is another unpopular opinion of mine:

- I think that there is a huge market of "epic battle games" that most publishers and devs don't really look into. The Total War series for instance would be vastly more popular if you could jump inside the game as a general and fight enemies Mount and Blade style. The market of this specific genre is probably worth 400 or so million dollars alone yet noone seems to cater for that crowd. What we have are mostly the same breed to strategy games instead that people already know and love instead.

I consider it to be bad game design if the best way to level up is to do the same thing over and over again, and you don't need to do anything else to get strong.

(I could mention, by contrast, the SaGa 3 DS remake; here, doing the same thing over and over again might raise one stat and skill (mostly useful for getting multi-target healing), but it alone will likely not be enough to create strong characters without significant weaknesses.)