Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media Politics & World
General Spirituality & Philosophy Worldbuilding Creative Forum
The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum Sexuality
Community feedback needed: add_comment New add_comment New request

Video Games

What is your unpopular opinion?

Posted 1 Week ago by Panty Tight Kitten

Mine is that the Wii was a good system. I know a lot of serious gamers didn’t like it, but I liked the games that were released on it (I also liked 360, but my brother wouldn’t let me play games on his and the Wii is all I can afford at the time). I also liked The Umbrella chronicle games.

There are 14 Replies


Sony's exclusive story games have been awful since the start of gen 8. The Last of Us 1 was the last of the greats.

1 Week ago
I killed Mufasa
 

Is it true that fans hated the second game? I haven’t played the game but heard fans are angry over the sequels

1 Week ago
Panty Tight Kitten
 

Cuck is a funny word. It establishes the quality of #85's character immediately.

As for TLOU2 - mechanically and visually it was great. More fun to play than the first one from a gameplay perspective. But the narrative and writing fell off a cliff and it had no reason to exist.

1 Week ago
I killed Mufasa
 

I think OOT was better than MM and MM was overall overrated -- these seem to be pretty unpopular opinions lately.

1 Week ago
Riven
 

Sony has become a shell of its former self as they've adopted a policy of censoring Japanese games (which their Jpaanese library was thedir only really selling point for me)

1 Week ago
tnu
 

Mine is that the Wii was a good system. I know a lot of serious gamers didn’t like it, but I liked the games that were released on it ...


I don’t think anyone thought it wasn’t a good system and didn’t have good games. But it not being able to hit atleast 720p didn’t help it and neither did the fact that quality 3rd party games were rare and generally didn’t sell well.

Mine would be that the PS5 and Xbox Series X/S didn’t need to come out yet. Both the PS4 and X1 could have remained current for a couple more years.

1 Week ago
Q
 

I think OOT was better than MM and MM was overall overrated -- these seem to be pretty unpopular opinions lately.


Oh wow. Yeah. I remember the first time someone told me they thought MM is better than OoT, I was actually like “…what?” - like I didn’t even realize this was a thing. Then I heard it from more and more people and just have no idea where it comes from. I think OoT is way better than MM. I think it’s more memorable, looks better, feels like more game, and doesn’t feel like a hodgepodge of random creepy ideas thrown into a Zelda game. And I get its place in the timeline. Just don’t enjoy it lol

1 Week ago
Weird Occurance
 

As for an unpopular opinion, I think Harry Potter sucks. For everyone who knows me, you've undoubtedly heard me ramble about this before, but here goes anyway...

JK Rowling's writing, at least as it pertains to the core 7 books, has no nuance or complexity. Sure, it's aimed at kids, but I don't know how adults have reread it and still think it's a great work of art. Nostalgia aside, it's just written in a very weak way.

As for the worldbuilding, there's not much to speak of. The originality ends at wizarding schools. Every other bit of lore is borrowed from the likes of Tolkien and bastardized into whatever she needs for plot convenience. (Can anyone tell me if phoenix tears actually have healing magic or was this a Rowlingification for the second book to create tension that amounts to nothing?)

As for the books themselves, books 1-3 follow the exact same plot:
Snape must be evil. Oh wait, he's not. It's Voldemort and / or Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor so-and-so.
Book 4's not far off from this same plot, but with the added benefit of a massive wizarding tournament that gets students killed and is still a tradition....
Book 5 Rowling realized she needed an overarching plot so she fell back on the laziest plot device: prophecy. And one that doesn't even make sense.
'and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives…'

The first part of the prophecy implies that one must kill the other
But the second part, linguistically, says if one survives, neither can live - as in - they both must die. And I'm not even nitpicking the semantics. Originally, Rowling *did* intend to kill Harry. And changed her mind because she feared the fans' reaction. Which just, killed the prophecy she introduced to add an overarching plot to books 5-7.
Which, oh boy, let's talk about wand lore. The wand chooses the wizard, and a wand that doesn't choose the wizard is supposed to do nothing. Yet, Malfoy uses Narcissa's wand and in book 6, Ron finds random wizard's wands (not specified if he disarmed them) and was able to use them. And it's like this all the time with every bit of lore - Rowling writes herself into a corner and then works out of it in some contrived way.
Another example: Voldemort can't touch Harry in Book 1. It's a huge huge plot point.
But come book 4, she realizes she needs a retcon for this because Harry's too OP, so they take some of his blood for a potion to bring Voldemort back... I have a lot of linguistics to tear apart with this potion and its ingredients, but I won't get into that.
Just, wow. I hate this series. I hate it *a lot*. I know it's fantasy, so nothing has to work according to rationality or anything but, some things that just annoy the crap out of me logically are:
1) In book 1, it's specified the stone can only be acquired by someone who wants it, but doesn't want to use it for themselves. Quirrel wanted it, for Voldemort. Not himself. But didn't get the stone.
2) In book 2, the basilisk is in the pipes. Those pipes must be *huge* - and what, it just comes out into the halls every now and then somehow? in the middle of the corridor? what. Also, the school wasn't closed when it was revealed that the basilisk was nearly killing students? And WHERE was the basilisk in book 1? Hibernating?
3) In book 3, Peter Pettigrew is on the map. Why did nobody notice he was sleeping with Ron every night? Or every Weasley brother before Ron, for that matter?
4) In book 4, a truth-telling potion is introduced. This seems like it could solve EVERY problem in the whole series, doesn't it? "Harry, how did Cedric die?" "Snape, are you a death eater?" "Lucius, are you still a Death Eater? Did you bring Voldemort back?" And, how on *EARTH* was Peter Pettigrew milking a snake? Basic anatomy be damned, I guess.
5) In book 5, WHY is there a veil between this world and the afterlife in the Ministry of Magic? Just... why does that exist? How? Is it explained?

So on and so forth. It's just a bad series. It's just so bad.

1 Week ago
Weird Occurance
 

@W.O. the Harry Potter series isnt perfect but that is the case for most things Pop Culture. Look at the travesty that is Star Wars for instance.

I will try and answer some things. While I do agree the series isnt perfect, it is rather good if you turn off your brain a bit. The story is all over the place but the characters are easy to get attached to and when people start getting killed it does hit you in the feels. I dont recommend reading the series as an adult as it is a timesink, but I do recommend listening to the series on Audible.

The major difference between Harry Potter and LOTR is...well there is two. LOTR I have been told is infinitely better but it is much harder to pick up (especially for kids) and two the Harry Potter series turned influenced a whole generation of kids to pick up books and start reading. I myself had never read a book more than 40 pages before reading the Chamber of Secrets (I started with the second book after skimming through the first book/ watching the first movie) and I was immediately hooked. A thick book in the backpack of a 9 year old mexican-american kid from the ghettos of one of the most poverty stricken cities in California is a rather odd sight. Said sight was the case for me and a lot of kids during that era.

I have heard LOTR is good and I loved the movies. But I never read the books. I tried to get into them but I found them to be quite a drag. They are not as easily accessible imo.

Anywho:

Book 4's not far off from this same plot, but with the added benefit of a massive wizarding tournament that gets students killed and is still a tradition....

Well to be fair Voldemort aside they explained multiple times that the participants were never in any real danger from the start. The Cup had not been hosted for years and it is Explained that Dumbledore only okayed it under the condition that the proper precautions could be taken. Unfortunately one of those precautions turned out to be one of Voldemorts most loyal supporters. That caught everyone by surprise.

1) In book 1, it's specified the stone can only be acquired by someone who wants it, but doesn't want to use it for themselves. Quirrel wanted it, for Voldemort. Not himself. But didn't get the stone.

I would imagine he would still have to drink it as voldemort was a part of him at that point and sharing the same vessel. But good catch. But it is explained that Dumbledore but extra enchantments on the mirror. So uh....Magic?

2) In book 2, the basilisk is in the pipes. Those pipes must be *huge* - and what, it just comes out into the halls every now and then somehow? in the middle of the corridor? what. Also, the school wasn't closed when it was revealed that the basilisk was nearly killing students? And WHERE was the basilisk in book 1? Hibernating?

I always wondered what the size of Basilisk was. In the Movie version it is huge but in the book version I would imagine it was slightly larger than an anaconda. I would imaggine that the Basilisk can squeeze into any place just like a normal skin could. As for where it was did you not read the second book? It is clearly explained that Voldemorts Diary was the key to opening the Chamber of secrets. If you are asking why Voldemort in book one didnt open it.....well that would cause chaos and result in the Stone from the first book to be moved once again.

3) In book 3, Peter Pettigrew is on the map. Why did nobody notice he was sleeping with Ron every night? Or every Weasley brother before Ron, for that matter?

This is what I always wondered. But Fred and George did say they had no need for the map when they gave it to Harry. So either they stopped checking the map all together once they mastered the passages or they didnt kink shame Ron when they saw him sleeping with another person on the same bed.

4) In book 4, a truth-telling potion is introduced. This seems like it could solve EVERY problem in the whole series, doesn't it? "Harry, how did Cedric die?" "Snape, are you a death eater?" "Lucius, are you still a Death Eater? Did you bring Voldemort back?" And, how on *EARTH* was Peter Pettigrew milking a snake? Basic anatomy be damned, I guess.

You got to understand that the Minister of Magic was terrified of the prospect of Voldemort returning that he was going to do everything in his power to prevent that reality. I am not sure why that is so hard to understand we literally have a large percentage of Americans who believe that Trump is still president/ won the election. And did everything in their power to prevent that reality (Insurrection)

I believe they were milking the venom of the snake.

I will say the part that confuses me is that in the 3rd book they were hell bent in catching sirius black because they feared he would aid voldemort. And uh in the 4th book the very same Minister of Magic just doesnt believe the possibility of Voldemort coming back. At this point if Dumbledore would have said "Sirius black brought him back" I dont think the Minister of Magic would believe him.

5) In book 5, WHY is there a veil between this world and the afterlife in the Ministry of Magic? Just... why does that exist? How? Is it explained?

Well it is housed in the DEPARTMENT OF MYSTERIES. I am assuming they were analyzing the its magical properties. I would imagine that everything in that department was creating by ancient more powerful wizards/ magical beings and modern day wizards are analyzing their magical properties to get a better understanding of them. I will say the magical tentacles brains freaked me the fuck out.

6 Days ago
S.O.H.
 

Oh wow. Yeah. I remember the first time someone told me they thought MM is better than OoT, I was actually like “…what?” - like I didn’t even realize this was a thing. Then I heard it from more and more people and just have no idea where it comes from.


I think it might have to do with younger people who grew up with MM instead of OOT. MM does also have a more interesting storyline and explores some really adult themes for a kid's game. That said OOT is about perfect and has way more dungeons.

As for the worldbuilding, there's not much to speak of. The originality ends at wizarding schools. Every other bit of lore is borrowed from the likes of Tolkien and bastardized into whatever she needs for plot convenience.


Have to disagree on that -- there was so much lore it spawned off an entire book series about it (which turned into a second set of movies somehow). Like yeah, the monsters are lifted from myth, but that's true for tolkien as well. How the wizarding world came together was pretty in-depth and very unique -- I like its use of magic as technology.

Can anyone tell me if phoenix tears actually have healing magic


Phoenixes were never actual physical creatures so no. Even in ancient myths they were very definitely metaphorical.

I know it's fantasy, so nothing has to work according to rationality or anything but


Yeah I tend to have issues with fantasy that contradicts itself to get out of sticky situations too. Or sci-fi (which is worse). Just because you have wizards doesn't mean you can just go "well, a wizard did it".

Quirrel wanted it, for Voldemort. Not himself. But didn't get the stone.


Quirrel was voldemort though -- they were attached at the hip basically.

And WHERE was the basilisk in book 1? Hibernating?


It needed the ghost of tom riddle to call it out.

In book 3, Peter Pettigrew is on the map. Why did nobody notice he was sleeping with Ron every night? Or every Weasley brother before Ron, for that matter?


Fair.

4) In book 4, a truth-telling potion is introduced.


Wasn't it some banned dark arts thing though?

And, how on *EARTH* was Peter Pettigrew milking a snake?


With snakes, "milking" refers to harvesting their venom.

and I was immediately hooked. A thick book in the backpack of a 9 year old mexican-american kid from the ghettos of one of the most poverty stricken cities in California is a rather odd sight. Said sight was the case for me and a lot of kids during that era.


Yeah those books were crazy addictive -- I remember going through the sixth (or was it fifth?) book in a few days in the summer due to not being able to put it down.

6 Days ago
Riven
 

Yeah those books were crazy addictive -- I remember going through the sixth (or was it fifth?) book in a few days in the summer due to not being able to put it down.


Yea I would read the series each summer in preparation for the newest release. I think when the 7th book came out it took me 4-5 days to read through books 1-6. I was 13!!!!

6 Days ago
S.O.H.
 

I find most zelda games to be pretty boring.

6 Days ago
Cutter Creighton
 

@Riveen, Re: MM vs OOT
I think it might have to do with younger people who grew up with MM instead of OOT. MM does also have a more interesting storyline and explores some really adult themes for a kid's game. That said OOT is about perfect and has way more dungeons.


Shockingly no. I know someone who knows OOT inside and out, can play it blindfolded and has played it since it first came out. He's not *as* familiar with MM, but still prefers it to OOT. I can appreciate the darker themes of MM, but that's kind of where my interest in it ends. I echo your perspective on OOT.

@Riven and SOH, Re: Harry Potter (was easier to respond to both your points at once, especially because some were similar)

Have to disagree on that -- there was so much lore it spawned off an entire book series about it (which turned into a second set of movies somehow).


Oh, you mean the shameless cash grab Rowling performed when she realized she needed to try to captivate a new audience because her books after Harry Potter weren't selling as well as Harry Potter? And the clumsy scripts she turned them into to create really horrible movies? And the absolute joke of a plot that is Cursed Child? The Fantastic Beasts series was really nothing to call home about and a lot of it broke the lore or introduced plot holes in the previous series. Call me a cynic, but there was no heart to them.

Like yeah, the monsters are lifted from myth, but that's true for tolkien as well.


This is going to sound cheap, but at least Tolkien was graceful about it.
And lifted his from various lore and compiled them all into his umbrella instead of taking 90% of everything from another established author.

How the wizarding world came together was pretty in-depth and very unique

In-depth? Citation needed :)

I like its use of magic as technology.

Was going to press for an example, but I guess I could see several examples (restricted books requiring a spell to be read, girl / boy dormitory being an enchantment, portraits that accept passwords to get you into each house's common area, and spells to unlock doors / light the tip of a wand etc), but all of those seem incredibly mundane.

the Harry Potter series isnt perfect but that is the case for most things Pop Culture. Look at the travesty that is Star Wars for instance.


I think Harry Potter and Star Wars are two of the most overrated series of all times. I appreciate Star Wars more for its contributions to film / media. I don't feel like Harry Potter's inspired much outside of merch, tourist traps, and fanfic. These have their place, but they're *different*.

it is rather good if you turn off your brain a bit


. . . this is kind of my key problem with it. It doesn't feel like it's completely thought out and the writing is really just lacking in quality.

To clarify; I have no problems with quick-reads. I have problems with stories that kind of write themselves into a trap and have to have some really contrived plot device to get out of them.

he characters are easy to get attached to and when people start getting killed it does hit you in the feels


Disagree. I remember reading book 5 when I was a kid and getting to Sirius' death (he was my favorite character) and I reread the scene like 5 times. And just was like "... what is this? that's how he died? mmkay.." Kind of same as I felt for Cedric in book 4 and basically every other character in the series. In my opinion, there was no emotional impact at all.

LOTR I have been told is infinitely better but it is much harder to pick up (especially for kids) and two the Harry Potter series turned influenced a whole generation of kids to pick up books and start reading.


Not discounting this value at all. I just find it really *weird* when I see adults who are like "oh my god I have replicas of all the character's wands and know every detail of the stories by heart and still reread them every year!" - it's not even that it's cringy, I just don't see the appeal.

Well to be fair Voldemort aside they explained multiple times that the participants were never in any real danger from the start. The Cup had not been hosted for years and it is Explained that Dumbledore only okayed it under the condition that the proper precautions could be taken. Unfortunately one of those precautions turned out to be one of Voldemorts most loyal supporters. That caught everyone by surprise.


So people died during the tradition in the past but this time there were no stakes until the Ministry had their head too far up their ass to accept Voldemort was back, even despite the very clear resurgence of Death Eaters in the very start of the whole story?

Doesn't this go back to turning your brain off a bit?

I would imagine he would still have to drink it as voldemort was a part of him at that point and sharing the same vessel. But good catch. But it is explained that Dumbledore but extra enchantments on the mirror. So uh....Magic?


Quirrel was voldemort though -- they were attached at the hip basically.


They were *basically* conjoined twins. Still individuals by strictest sense of the word, with two separate brains and wants. I'm going to argue my logic still holds. lol

Also, was Quirrel hosting Voldemort when he was drinking unicorn blood in the Forbidden Forest? If so, who was drinking? Quirrel? Voldemort? Same case would be for the elixir / using the stone, no?

As for where it was did you not read the second book? It is clearly explained that Voldemorts Diary was the key to opening the Chamber of secrets.


It needed the ghost of tom riddle to call it out.


Forgot the Basilisk was linked to the diary / Tom calling it out.

I know it was in the Chamber of Secrets. My question was why it wasn't wandering the halls before the second book, but Xhin's answered this.

You got to understand that the Minister of Magic was terrified of the prospect of Voldemort returning that he was going to do everything in his power to prevent that reality. I am not sure why that is so hard to understand we literally have a large percentage of Americans who believe that Trump is still president/ won the election. And did everything in their power to prevent that reality (Insurrection)


I don't care how terrified the minister of magic was about Voldemort returning. It happened. They could've intervened WAYYY early with the truth potion by constantly interrogating death eaters about their plans and cut them off ahead of the game instead of burying their head in the sand and hoping Voldemort doesn't come back. If you're terrified of a certain reality, and have a means of ascertaining whether or not someone's trying to bring it to fruition, you'll do what you can to make sure you stay on top of it, no?

Wasn't it some banned dark arts thing though?


Was it? Because they use it on Cho Chang to find the Room of Requirement and Dumbledore's Army in book 5... and I think there was another case in the series where they also used it. It's sloppy writing to solve a problem several books into a series and not clear up to the reader *why* this was not used in other more critical situations.

I believe they were milking the venom of the snake.

With snakes, "milking" refers to harvesting their venom.


Oh I know what it means in terms of snakes.
So Voldemort was literally drinking snake venom? Because, reasons? That was more my point.

Well it is housed in the DEPARTMENT OF MYSTERIES. I am assuming they were analyzing the its magical properties. I would imagine that everything in that department was creating by ancient more powerful wizards/ magical beings and modern day wizards are analyzing their magical properties to get a better understanding of them.


So a wizard literally created a veil between life and death? Just, because? For fun, I guess? Or something?

Phoenixes were never actual physical creatures so no. Even in ancient myths they were very definitely metaphorical.


. . . I meant ancient myths / lorewise. Has anyone before Rowling ever depicted them as having healing powers? Or was this just another contrived plot device?

6 Days ago
Weird Occurance
 

I think Harry Potter and Star Wars are two of the most overrated series of all times. I appreciate Star Wars more for its contributions to film / media. I don't feel like Harry Potter's inspired much outside of merch, tourist traps, and fanfic. These have their place, but they're *different*.

I mean it did spawn the creation of an iconic musical score. And star wars also spawned a crapload of those things listed. I guess Harry Potter spawned the era of young adult books to movies. None of which were successful. Granted Hunger Games and Twilight did come close but both are worse than the HP franchise.

Not discounting this value at all. I just find it really *weird* when I see adults who are like "oh my god I have replicas of all the character's wands and know every detail of the stories by heart and still reread them every year!" - it's not even that it's cringy, I just don't see the appeal.

I feel like those are three different people. Ultrafans exist for every fandom. But would it really be that weird/cringy for me to be able to answer 90% of trivia by heart? I did grow up with these books and movies. And while I dont read them every year, I did listen to them last summer during COVID.

So people died during the tradition in the past but this time there were no stakes until the Ministry had their head too far up their ass to accept Voldemort was back, even despite the very clear resurgence of Death Eaters in the very start of the whole story?

Doesn't this go back to turning your brain off a bit?

I believe that it is explained that if the death eaters were actually dangerous they would have not scrambled when the Death Mark appeared. And like I said Dumbledore took all the precautions he could and even brought in the ex-auror who had filled half the cells in Azkaban to help oversee the tournament.

Unfortunately voldemort was far more clever than anyone gave him credit for and hoodwinked the smartest wizard of the time.

Disagree. I remember reading book 5 when I was a kid and getting to Sirius' death (he was my favorite character) and I reread the scene like 5 times. And just was like "... what is this? that's how he died? mmkay.." Kind of same as I felt for Cedric in book 4 and basically every other character in the series. In my opinion, there was no emotional impact at all.

And I disagree with this. While I agree Cedric and Sirius deaths were pretty unimpactful. The deaths of several other characters were impactful. Dumbledore, Dobby, Fred (or was it George?) etc etc. I mean even the death of Hedwig was pretty impactful.

Also, was Quirrel hosting Voldemort when he was drinking unicorn blood in the Forbidden Forest? If so, who was drinking? Quirrel? Voldemort? Same case would be for the elixir / using the stone, no?

I believe it is explained that Quirrel was drinking it.

Forgot the Basilisk was linked to the diary / Tom calling it out.

well it wasnt linked to the diary. It was linked to Voldemort as he was the only parseltongue that knew about it. I would imagine regular voldemort would have been able to open the chamber too but it wouldnt have made sense for him in the first book.

I don't care how terrified the minister of magic was about Voldemort returning. It happened. They could've intervened WAYYY early with the truth potion by constantly interrogating death eaters about their plans and cut them off ahead of the game instead of burying their head in the sand and hoping Voldemort doesn't come back. If you're terrified of a certain reality, and have a means of ascertaining whether or not someone's trying to bring it to fruition, you'll do what you can to make sure you stay on top of it, no?

it doesnt matter if you dont care how terrified the minister of magic was. People dont do the most rational things when they are scared or terrified. I mean we have seen exactly that play out here on Gametalk with all the nonsense drama between users. Uh who were they going to interrogate? You do realize that no death eaters were aware about the plans to bring back Voldemort right? Even Voldemort says "I wonder who is brave enough to come back" when he summons them. The only 3 people who knew about the plan were Voldemort, Barty Crouch Jr. who everyone thought died in Azkaban, and Wormtail who everyone presumed dead outside of the core characters who knew he was alive and had no idea where he was.

If he had used the potion on Luscious Malfoy it wouldnt have mattered because he didnt know about the plan at all.

Now using it after he was back wouldnt have worked either because the Ministry of Magic had no real reason to go after these individuals even if they were known Death Eaters. You have to remember their names were cleared and a lot of them made lots of contributions to Wizarding Society and the Ministry of Magic. All this minister had to go by were the words of a 14 year old boy who at that point had a flare for the dramatics. Of course he wasnt going to believe him. It doesnt help that the minister was cowardly, incompetent, and lacked any leadership experience. Again I am not sure how that is hard to believe considering:

*gestures to the Trump Administration*

Was it? Because they use it on Cho Chang to find the Room of Requirement and Dumbledore's Army in book 5... and I think there was another case in the series where they also used it. It's sloppy writing to solve a problem several books into a series and not clear up to the reader *why* this was not used in other more critical situations.

It wasnt banned. It was just difficult to create. And no you are wrong. It was never used in the series. Cho Chang's friend was a rat who gave up the location of the room of requirement and Dumbledore's Army.

So Voldemort was literally drinking snake venom? Because, reasons? That was more my point.

I mean unicorn blood somehow raises you from the dead because reasons? I would imagine the snake venom gives Voldemort strength because of his ties to Salazar Slytherin and snakes. It is also my understanding that Nagini was apparently a human woman? (I didnt watch the other series of movies) so uh there might be a different context in which milking can be used.

So a wizard literally created a veil between life and death? Just, because? For fun, I guess? Or something?

it doesnt necessarily have to be a wizard. There are other magical creatures on par with wizards. I mean humans erected stone hedge for reasons. Considering conquering death and immortality are reoccurring themes in the series I dont think it is too farfetched for a wizard/ magical being to create a veil between life and death.

wizards also created the philosphers stone to be immortal, horcuxes to be immortal, and the deathly hollows which were said when combined were able to master death.

Wizards just like regular humans have a strong fixation with death for better or worse.

6 Days ago
S.O.H.
 

Reply to: What is your unpopular opinion?

Username
Password