this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Patient Gamers

16858 readers
375 users here now

A gaming community free from the hype and oversaturation of current releases, catering to gamers who wait at least 12 months after release to play a game. Whether it's price, waiting for bugs/issues to be patched, DLC to be released, don't meet the system requirements, or just haven't had the time to keep up with the latest releases.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Share your unfiltered, unpopular gaming opinions and let's dive into some real discussions. If you come across a view you disagree with, feel free to (respectfully) defend your perspective. I don't want to see anyone say stuff like "we're all entitled to our own opinions." Let's pretend like gaming is a science and we are all award winning scientists.

My Unpopular Opinion:

I believe the criticism against battle royales is often unwarranted. Most complaints revolve around constant content updates, microtransactions, and toxic player communities

Many criticize the frequent content updates, often cosmetic, as overwhelming. However, it's optional, and no other industry receives flak for releasing more. I've never seen anyone complain about too many Lays or coke flavors.

Pay-to-win concerns are mostly outdated; microtransactions are often for cosmetics. If you don't have the self control to not buy a purple glittery gun, then I'm glad you don't play the games anymore, but I don't think it makes the game bad.

The annoying player bases is the one I understand the most. I don't really have a point against this except that it's better to play with friends.

Overall I think battle royale games are pretty fun and rewarding. Some of my favorite gaming memories were playing stuff like apex legends late at night with friends or even playing minecraft hunger games with my cousins like 10 years ago. A long time ago I heard in a news segment that toy companies found out that people are willing to invest a lot of time and energy into winning ,if they know there will be a big reward at the end, and battle royales tap into that side of my brain.

This is just my opinion

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I couldn't care less about owning games physically. I'm way more likely to lose/damage them then lose access to their download.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The price of modern games is often justified. I don't buy many at release, but the ones I do buy have been more than worth the money.

[–] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago

The massive amount of work that goes into a modern AAA title is truly mind blowing. It's gross that so little money goes to the people who actually make the games but certainly the effort is astounding even in titles that fall short of expectations.

[–] Ashtear@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I don't like 3D platforming. I haven't liked it since it really kicked off in 1996. Even all these years later with Super Mario Odyssey, I feel like I'm constantly fiddling with the camera, and something in my brain struggles with judging distances in 3D space at times. I used to love platforming. Yoshi's Island is one of my all-time favorite games.

If I were in a bubble, I'd say the camera and the floaty controls that are in a lot of these games need an overhaul, but Mario's as popular as ever. Between that and Mario games still being at the top of metascores, it's probably only me and five other people grumpy about it.

[–] Sigh_Bafanada@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah I love 2D platformers, but can't get into 3D. I did enjoy Super Mario 64 when it came out, but on replay I find it's often finicky and hard to control, simply because of the 3D format.

Give me some Celeste any day though

[–] domi@lemmy.secnd.me 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Did you ever try A Hat in Time? Out of all 3D platformers I played I still think it has the tightest controls and also a lot of camera settings.

But I agree, 3D platformers never really reached the fluidity and tightness of 2D platformers. I still love both but for different reasons.

I've played a lot of good 3D platformers, but I've never played one where I thought 3D added something that 2D couldn't do better. In almost all cases, locking me to a 2D view for platforming sequences is better.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, I completely agree. It's even worse when the platforming is forced in a game that's not about platforming.

2D platforming is way better. Far less frustration, and there's a lot games can do with it.

[–] SlikPikker@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Refunded doom eternal ovrr this after loving 2016

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have no issue with battle royales.

I have a huge issue with literally all microtransactions in every context. Cosmetics are not a justification. The only valid way to unlock cosmetics is to earn them with gameplay.

If you have microtransactions in any format in your game, you are a bad human being. There is no scenario where it is forgivable. If you have lootboxes, you should go to prison for the blatant unregulated gambling operation you are running.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh, well, I understand this sentiment but I’d ask everyone here to reevaluate why you hate them and then listen to these points to consider.

  1. Cosmetic items are created mostly by artists. Artists are only needed during certain time of development. So this is a way to keep them on a project consistently or to salary them.

  2. Most cosmetics are optional and add nothing to the game. In a single player game, just don’t pay for it. Evaluate each games value on the inclusions or exclusion of micro transactions. It’s not necessary to say “if it has them, it’s a worse game” because I’ve been ignoring them for awhile and my games are fine. Just evaluate the game as if they didn’t exist or as if they’re part of the price.

  3. Micro transactions support ongoing development. These offers keep projects going. I like playing games like Deep Rock Galactic and Hell Let Loose which are both smaller games by smaller studios. They keep their community alive with OPTIONAL content while producing free updates. It’s a great deal.

And lastly 4. People who buy plenty of these cosmetics and other transactions, often called whales, are subsidizing games for you. It’s cheap money for a development team for someone who wants to buy boosts or cosmetics or whatever. So why wouldn’t they do it?

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If there are different classes of people based on being stupid enough to waste money, it's by definition evil and exploitive. This model is designed for the sole purpose of breaking people's brains to spend more than they should.

There is no valid way to distribute any cosmetic that isn't earning it in game. The exact same game, with literally nothing changed but the addition of a purchase of a cosmetic, is worse for the mere existence of purchase bait. It's the same thing as taking a TV show I bought and injecting ads.

"Free" content supported by these extremely invasive ads is worse than not having those updates.

They're not subsidizing games for me. They're taking games away by making them unconditionally unplayable. Charge a fair price. You're worth it or you're not. "We need to be disgusting shitbags for our game to exist" is evidence that your game shouldn't exist, not that it's possible for your behavior to be acceptable.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Loot boxes break people’s brains. Micro transactions aren’t inherently exploitative. They’re just cheat products. It’s like saying movie theater drink prices are exploitative. They are a bit. But then you also don’t have to buy them.

And the second part, yes and no. A lot of games that use those systems are free to play. It’s more like ads in a YouTube video. But say you did pay, cool, consider if it’s worth it or not. In some games with ongoing development like the ones I mentioned, I gladly pay the cosmetics price because I know that’s how I can support the devs while also getting a cool costume. If that’s not worth it to you, cool, doesn’t hurt you at all and you often still get free content. You just don’t get a cool hat. Guess the game is ruined.

It’s just such a simplistic way to look at it. It’s like gamers who whine incessantly about DLC in games. Like cool, if the game isn’t worth it don’t buy it?

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No game project should be AAA. It's anti-creative, as developers must turn their game into something that appeals to the broadest audience, and it's unstable, as companies bet their entire next 3 years of revenue on a single title. I'd much rather everything become B or C-tier developments. The great games that come from this development style simply are not worth it for the damage they do to the medium.

[–] graymess@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I kind of wish all forms of popular media could just, like, agree to defund a bit. Just step things down a few notches. There's just too much money involved for anything truly unexpected to happen in these industries.

Agreed. I want creative games that take risks, yet the AAA gaming industry is all about eye candy and mass market appeal.

So I play a lot of indie and AA games instead.

[–] calypsopub@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Unpopular opinion: I play Candy Crush and that makes me a gamer.

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago

Now that's an unpopular opinion! With a game like that (which is specifically designed not to be fun but to extract money from users) I'd say you're not a gamer, you're an addict ;)

[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Office workers played Solitaire on their work PCs before smartphones even existed, would they have called themselves gamers? I think a certain minimum degree of investment in a hobby/culture is required before you can name yourself as a participant, and Candy Crush doesn't cut it imo.

[–] B0NK3RS@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't have a high opinion on the "game" but who's to say they don't have 10000+ hours in Candy Crush?

[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If you have 10000+ hours in Candy Crush and nothing else, is gaming your hobby or is Candy Crush your hobby?

[–] B0NK3RS@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Both options are true.

People can exclusively play what they like. iRacing, WoW or Candy Crush are all valid.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

That's 2.3 hours a day, every day, since release in 2012, at minimum

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

would they have called themselves gamers?

I would

a certain minimum degree of investment in a hobby/culture is required before you can name yourself as a participant

The particular games you choose isn't really relevant to this though. If you have 600 hours in Spider Solitaire, and you think it's important enough to you that you'll self identify as a "gamer", who am I to be a keeper of the gates?

[–] calypsopub@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Exactly my point

[–] Ilflish@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Probably very hot take for this community. The $1 for every hour of enjoyment is a stupid metric. People will spend upwards of $10 for a 2 hour movie or $5 for an hour-long album. Games have components of many pieces of media and many treat it's worth lower. I'm all for saving money but it's a different discussion regarding the value of the medium, especially when we just discuss it as the consumer-mindset of "hours of my life" vs. experience of enjoyment

I absolutely agree.

I do still use the metric, mostly to demonstrate that something that's expensive is still a good value. For example, I've spent hundreds on Paradox games, but I've gotten over a thousand hours from them, so I've gotten incredibly good value from it.

I'm patient because I hate buggy games, not strictly because of cost, though I'll buy something on a good sale if I notice it. If games released mostly bug free, I'd buy a lot more games closer to launch. I don't have a lot of friends who play games, so there's no pressure to buy things say 1, so I wait until the updates settle down.

[–] Secret300@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Consoles are for the rich and my mind can't be changed about that.

After all these years I found a ps3 getting thrown away so I picked it up and asked my cousin for a controller and it's really fun and convenient for gaming but damn back then I could never afford it. Now it's worse. You have to pay for online, games are more expensive, controllers are more expensive, and it's way more locked down. I remember my cousin and I were trying to watching a YouTube video and we couldn't because sony servers were down and you had to be logged in to watch a YouTube video.

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A lot of people I talk to think that PC is the best platform. I agree that it is versatile and has the most options. I can't stand playing games on my PC at this point, though. I spend all day fixing computers at work. I don't even want to look at a computer after clocking out. To be able to play games for PC, but not use a computer, I've decided to get a Steamdeck.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Huh, I'm a software engineer, and when I get home, I'm excited to do stuff on my computer. I even like building software at home for fun.

I'm not big into tinkering with game settings though, I am much more excited about playing or making games than tuning them. So maybe that's what you don't like? I find the Steam Deck's defaults to be extremely reasonable and it feels just like a console.

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't like using computers after work because it feels like work just turning it on. Idk why.

That's fair. I just don't have the same experience.

My hobbies are very similar to my day job (software engineer), but in a different tech stack (Python @ work, Rust @ home) and building different things (business logic @ work, distributed systems and games @ home).

Maybe it helps that I'm forced to use macOS at work (which I dislike), and I get to use Linux at home, so it really feels like separate things.

But then again, many of my coworkers don't have personal projects at home, so I'm probably just weird.

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As a book and video game enthusiast, my unpopular opinion is that the average video game is a much better entertainment value than the average book.

I've played a lot of games and read a lot of books. When measuring dollars for hours, I think video games win.

On the one hand, I've put massive numbers of hours into titles like Zelda, Metroid, Harvest Moon, and Pokemon.

On the other hand, I've only gotten two or three read-throughs out of even some of my very favorite books.

And then the video game classics really put up some big numbers: after decades, I'm still enjoying PacMan, Frogger, and Galaga and their kin.

And then there's the elephant in the room: Tetris.

If I had to pick - on a desert island - between an e-reader with every book ever printed, or one copy of Tetris on a Gameboy...it would be an agonizing choice.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is the line of reasoning I used with my parents as a kid. Dollar per hour entertained.

But I think differently about it these days. I'm looking for maximum value per hour, with an eye towards minimal hours, and with a definite end point if applicable.

And value in this sense could be raw entertainment, but it could be something else, like exposure to new ideas and novel perspectives on life etc.

But I suppose that's what happens when you get older and you've got less and less free time to fill.

I enjoy both books and games, and it's really hard to compare them directly. Even if we stick to the same genre, games provide interactivity that books just can't, while books provide so much more depth in story and often much better pacing.

It's the same idea as reading vs watching movies, the book will feel so much more satisfying, but it'll take days instead of hours to get through. Sometimes that's worth it, shows it's not.

These days I just don't enjoy movies much anymore because I'm either looking for the depth of a book or interaction of a game. I just wish there were more video game adaptations of movies.

[–] caut_R@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Have three unpopular opinions:

  1. Bethesda games are insanely overrated and absolutely carried by the modding community. Do I enjoy Skyrim? Hell yeah! …With 500 mods.

  2. Everything below 50-60 FPS is stuttery, unsmoooth, and unenjoyable no matter the genre.

  3. There‘s a place and time for „Ubisoft formula“ games (aka. tick off 500 icons on a map), cause sometimes I don‘t wanna think, I just wanna mindlessly walk around with semi-purpose and do stuff.

I love unpopular opinions.

[–] wearling0600@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

2&3 completely agree

On 1 though, I agree IF every other game embraced the modding community as much as Bathesda games do. GTA is the only other game I heavily mod, and in comparison it's such a pain in the ass, the game engine is not designed to support it so you get weird bugs, just overall a worst experience.

So I think it's fair to rate the base game highly for its support of mods. They've decided that providing a great experience for mods is a high priority for them. Maybe they can make the base game better if they don't have to make it compatible with whatever modders want to throw at it.