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

Battle royale gameplay sucks though. I like competitive games but spending 15 minutes in empty buildings looting, then 4 minutes running from shots that I can’t tell where they’re from, then 30 seconds in a firefight only to die and have to wait for the rest of my teammates to die before I can play again… that’s objectively boring af.

When I get time to spend playing video games, I want to actually play, not spend the whole time just picking up items and guns I never get to use.

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.

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.

I've stopped advocating for PC gaming after about 15 years of being a PC enthusiast. It's just too expensive these days. I think the Steam Deck is a good entry point, but not everyone wants a handheld console. I can 100% respect anyone who looks at the price of a gaming PC and just picks up a Playstation/Xbox for $500 instead.

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.

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.

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.

People overestimate what a healthy population for a game should be.

You don't need that 19 million people are playing the same mmo as you are when you are.

I don't like open world games. Give me levels to explore or the illusion of an open world and I'm perfectly happy.

I played Dark Souls 1 for the first time about a year ago and it was a miserable experience. I legitimately cannot understand what people enjoy about it. It was slow, clunky, and frustrating. The game was designed to be irritating. The only enjoyable boss in the main game was Ornstein and Smough (although the DLC bosses were all fantastic, with a special shout out to Artorias). The rest were either garbage or Crapra Demon, which deserves it's own special level in hell.

Prior to that, I had beaten every other Souls game other than DS 2 (and platinumed Bloodborne, Elden Ring, and Sekiro), so I know it's not cause I don't like Souls games.

I think if I had played DS 1 as my first, it would have turned me off of the entire genre. I don't even think it's because I had played more recent games first, because I love Demon's Souls.

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.

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.

Lots of people complain when some product they like is no longer available in favor of a 'new and improved' product. Remember 'New Coke'? Patches and updates to games are the same thing, especially ones that significantly change the gameplay.

I, for example, liked Overwatch during certain time periods. That game is no longer available. There's certainly people who play League of Legends or DOTA that feel the same way, though I wouldn't know - the game they liked was at a certain point in its development, and since then changes have made it no longer the game they like. Same applies to a lot of MMOs - I liked Ultima Online, EverQuest, World of Warcraft, and others, but the games I like no longer exist even though the games technically exist.

The problem isn't easily solved either - no updates may make some people happy but others will not be happy. The resources probably don't exist to continue splitting the game and maintaining a stable version of an online game at each iteration, and even if they did, the player base would become too diffuse to be able to actually keep the game enjoyable with sufficient players. But it might be a fair criticism to say that updates come too fast for some of these games, and we need more time between them, or various other things. And there's nothing wrong with people just griping, even if it's something that can't reasonably be stopped.

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.

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.

I'd rather play Paper Mario than any of the newer 3D ones.

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 don't know if this counts but Assassin's Creed Origins sucked and its story was cringe. It could be fun at times but generally wasn't great, I'd prefer the original two games.

Also, Final Fantasy 7 Remake should have not deviated from the story of the original FF7 and it's taken way too long to be developed/released. I bought Part 1 during presale and picked it up Day 1 and even bought my PS4 to play it but I don't know if I'll bother getting the others much less playing them. But I haven't even played Part 1 because I was waiting for all Parts to be released and play all at once, then I heard about the changes to the story and was disgusted. I don't even care to play it anymore. I think the original FF7 is the greatest game of all time.

I enjoy battle royales and have hundreds of hours in Apex, but what I really don't like about them is that they change all the time. Maybe it's just me, but it's kind of annoying to put a game down for a year and come back to a completely different experience. You don't even get the choice, in Apex especially I know they rotate through the maps that are available, so the one I prefer might be impossible to play on for 6 months straight. For this reason, Apex can never be as good of a game to me as Titanfall 2 still is to this day.

Plus, when the official servers are taken down a decade from now, there will be literally no way to revisit the experience. The only things left of the game will be recordings and memories. This is yet another thing that is better with more traditional games, where players can make their own custom servers (like Northstar for Titanfall 2).

I played fallout 3 a lot, was my favorite game for a long minute.

I could never get into fallout new vegas. I tried many times but it just never grabbed me. It just didnt feel right.

I wouldn't mind the issues of live service games as much, the ones you describe anyway, if it didn't replace old content or have most of its content timed. Huge sense of FOMO that I just don't need to have, so I go nowhere near those games.