What is a POSITIVE controversial gaming opinion you hold

Zilnad wrote:It probably has a lot to do with it running Wii games and then its best titles being ported to the Switch. Poor U is just a forgettable stepping stone.

Devil's Third isn't on Switch yet?

Devil's Turd

I feel that Miiverse was, by far, the best form of community interaction available on consoles. You could be friends with people and send messages (text and drawn), post comments (text and drawn) to dedicated communities for every game, and create your own threads within those communities (I posted a complete screen-shot record of my Sonic Boom journey!). In World Cup 2014 I even joined threads where we posted funny/celebratory drawings of the football action whilst we were watching the matches... totes silly but great fun!

It was amazing. Probably a complete nightmare to moderate (Nintendo were red hot on this; they're probably glad the U sold relatively poorly ) but also completely brilliant. Incredible to think that Nintendo went from those heights of community interactive options for the U to literally nothing on Switch.

Trouble is, most of its best titles are now available on Switch, where due to portability they’re mostly objectively better. I complimented the Wii U earlier in the topic, but I think ‘brilliant’ is stretching it in this day and age where it has only a handful of unsurpassed exclusives.

...oh, I missed a page. Miiverse and indeed the overall feeling of a console with character are the two major things the Switch is missing from the previous generation in my opinion.

Miiverse was literally unusable though. I dread to think how many hours jawa must have spent on loading screens

OrangeRKN wrote:Miiverse was literally unusable though. I dread to think how many hours jawa must have spent on loading screens

It wasn't that bad! Yeah, you needed a bit of patience when accessing it from within a game, but the overall feel of the place made it worth it. I spent many, many hours chatting / drawing on Miiverse and using the web browser on the U... far more than on actual games .

Yeah I liked Miiverse. It tied gaming into a social media-style landscape quite nicely. I think it would have taken off had it been on a more popular console, though it was made for the gamepad really.

Would have been nice to see it carry over to the Switch. I find the Switch's UI to be workable, but it's missing a bit compared to its predecessor.

I liked PlayStation Home.

Oh that triggers a good one for me: The Switch UI is perfect and is the best out of the current consoles.

I love how quick and streamlined everything is, it's a fast and efficient gateway to the things I actually care about: the games. The additional features that it offers work well and do what I need them to - see what friends are doing, join their games, share pics and videos to twitter etc. And it does it all with a slickness and just enough dash of quirky charm to make me smile - the cute animation on entering the eShop, the classic Switch 'click' and (colour co-ordinated) animation on docking a joy con into the unit etc.

In comparison the UI on something like the PS4 is ugly, slow and bloated. Stuff loading in at all different speeds, pages and buttons jostling around as it does so, so many options and features that are unnecessary and just get in the way, annoying notifications, settings buried under menu after menu of poorly named pages etc.

It's one of the absolutely core things that have made me love the Switch - it's a strawberry floating great games console!

"Perfect" is controversial, but I think a lot of people would agree with "best out of the current consoles". Folders would be my most wanted improvement, and then removing the weird constraints on viewing playtime (make it more granular, don't make me wait 10 days to see it, show all games and not just the 20 last played)

Cumberdanes wrote:I liked PlayStation Home.

+1

I think the Switch UI is great. As OR says, it needs folders. That's about it for me. I hope they don't clutter it up with stupid crap that will slow it down.

This is something that I've been thinking about lately while playing Pokemon Sword. It's a joy to play a game where you aren't getting bombarded with long loading screens. Things like this make a huge difference to my overall enjoyment of gaming.

Sega ditching the Dreamcast and hardware was the best decision they had made in years. In the face of the oncoming PS2, Nintendo and new competition in the shape of Microsoft they didn't stand a chance. Hobbling along with the Dreamcast or trying to bring out new hardware against them would have destroyed the company and they would be just a legacy brand like Atari at this point.

Squinty wrote:I think the Switch UI is great. As OR says, it needs folders. That's about it for me. I hope they don't clutter it up with stupid crap that will slow it down.

I want my background tune God damn it.

Season passes on DLC are completely fine, and like anything, should only be purchased if you're sure you'll enjoy everything or are willing to roll the dice. If you're unhappy about companies putting out season pass DLC without finalising the exact specifics of it, then just don't buy it.

But if I buy a season pass and they say "You'll get 5 new characters" and I get 5 characters, that's fine. Who cares if 4 of them are Goku? That's not an issue with the season pass, that's an issue with the game in general.

Maybe this mindset comes from fighting games and MMOs where you're expected to have complete rosters even if they're released later, or it's understood you're buying into a 2 year development cycle each expansion, but overall the issue seems blown way out of proportion.

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Sega ditching the Dreamcast and hardware was the best decision they had made in years. In the face of the oncoming PS2, Nintendo and new competition in the shape of Microsoft they didn't stand a chance. Hobbling along with the Dreamcast or trying to bring out new hardware against them would have destroyed the company and they would be just a legacy brand like Atari at this point.

Not sure I agree with this one. I don't think hobbling on was even an option at the point they were at so suggesting that was the alternative doesn't seem right. While they've been fairly consistent on the publishing front, I think we and probably them, would have been better served if they'd done something like a THQ sell off of their catalogue and either consolidated all their development talent into one local team or binned it off altogether to focus on other things. How many Sega hits would we have missed if they'd done that and what might we have gained with still fresh Sega mascots and franchises been split between Nintendo, Capcom, Konami etc.

That said I'm a bit foggy on what the breakdown of publishing/developing support is from Sega post DC so I could be way off.

It's not perfect but Assassin's Creed III is a really good game. Ambushing red coats in the wilds never gets old, building up the homestead is like an 18th century Animal Crossing and Connor is actually a decent protagonist. I like the love he obviously hides for Achilles despite his youth and impetuousness. The lack of health upgrades means you really have to pick your fights and the historical backdrop is really interesting.

Captain Kinopio wrote:

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Sega ditching the Dreamcast and hardware was the best decision they had made in years. In the face of the oncoming PS2, Nintendo and new competition in the shape of Microsoft they didn't stand a chance. Hobbling along with the Dreamcast or trying to bring out new hardware against them would have destroyed the company and they would be just a legacy brand like Atari at this point.

Not sure I agree with this one. I don't think hobbling on was even an option at the point they were at so suggesting that was the alternative doesn't seem right. While they've been fairly consistent on the publishing front, I think we and probably them, would have been better served if they'd done something like a THQ sell off of their catalogue and either consolidated all their development talent into one local team or binned it off altogether to focus on other things. How many Sega hits would we have missed if they'd done that and what might we have gained with still fresh Sega mascots and franchises been split between Nintendo, Capcom, Konami etc.

That said I'm a bit foggy on what the breakdown of publishing/developing support is from Sega post DC so I could be way off.

I'm still convinced to this day that Sony paid shops like GAME and EB to ditch the Dreamcast, seemingly overnight they reduced its in store visibility and started advising potential buyers to wait for the PS2 months before it launched.

The Dreamcast should have been a success as it was a great console (as was the Saturn) but I guess it was a victim of Sony's success with the PS1.

Ironhide wrote:

Captain Kinopio wrote:

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Sega ditching the Dreamcast and hardware was the best decision they had made in years. In the face of the oncoming PS2, Nintendo and new competition in the shape of Microsoft they didn't stand a chance. Hobbling along with the Dreamcast or trying to bring out new hardware against them would have destroyed the company and they would be just a legacy brand like Atari at this point.

Not sure I agree with this one. I don't think hobbling on was even an option at the point they were at so suggesting that was the alternative doesn't seem right. While they've been fairly consistent on the publishing front, I think we and probably them, would have been better served if they'd done something like a THQ sell off of their catalogue and either consolidated all their development talent into one local team or binned it off altogether to focus on other things. How many Sega hits would we have missed if they'd done that and what might we have gained with still fresh Sega mascots and franchises been split between Nintendo, Capcom, Konami etc.

That said I'm a bit foggy on what the breakdown of publishing/developing support is from Sega post DC so I could be way off.

I'm still convinced to this day that Sony paid shops like GAME and EB to ditch the Dreamcast, seemingly overnight they reduced its in store visibility and started advising potential buyers to wait for the PS2 months before it launched.

The Dreamcast should have been a success as it was a great console (as was the Saturn) but I guess it was a victim of Sony's success with the PS1.

The PS2 represented a slice of the future whereas the Dreamcast had one foot firmly in the past. The PS2 had a DVD player, USB ports, a memory card that used proper data terms rather than abstract 'blocks', an optical out and that monolithic, 2001esque design. It also had Gran Turismo 3 with its proper reflections and GTA3 which represented the future of gaming.

Despite the most creative software lineup ever featured on a home console Sega shot themselves in the foot: the world wasn't ready for mass adoption of online gaming, the VMU was expensive and the controller leads about 6" long. Also being able to just burn ROMs to CD made piracy too tempting to refuse.

To sum it up, the Dreamcast was a bit weird and the PlayStation was cool.

DVD player definitely made a big difference. As did third party support-I don’t think EA released a single game for it did they?

i dont find navi annoying, is that the sort of thing?