Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

What beloved developers or franchises do you have an unpopularly low opinion of?

2»

Comments

  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 3,930
    edited November 2019
    Rockstar for me. I don’t hate them but they seem very arrogant to me. Its irrational since I dont know any of them personally, but there it is.

    I also dislike EA and Activision but that’s neither unpopular nor irrational.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,421
    I hate them all equally except for CDPR and Brace Yourself Games where my son works :)
    OG_Zorvan
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,960
    I only despise NCSoft. 

    Their games are made for cheaters, bots, hackers and they lie to my face that they care. Total BS. I refuse to play a game associated with them. 


    I dislike for a specific reason:
    I think Blizzard is unoriginal, doesn't take chances, and is money grubbing, but they do make kick ass games, just high quality unoriginal shit . . . kind of like Hollywood. I have no problems playing blizzard games but their lack of creativity taking chances irks the shit out of me. 

    MLB gameday series because they are PS4 exclusive, no other reason, i just wish they were on xbox. 

    Madden series because they have no competition. 

    NBA games because they waste your time with highlights in the flow of the game and blah blah. 

    Most developers based out of east Asia because their games are shallow games with shitty mechanics, schemes, and lolli graphics. 

    Destiny series because i hate it when companies make sequels as a money grab when there's no need to make a sequel. It was only a few years, no point for a sequel. Madden is kind of similar.  
    Palebane
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 5,945
    edited November 2019
    Nyctelios said:
    Aeander said:
    Nyctelios said:
    I don't have an unpopular dislike towards an entire series. I'm not the only one who dislikes all Fifas or NBA's for their lack of innovation and release state, also throwing rocks at EA is a very common thing to do these days.

    With one weird exception...

    The "Warriors" series. (Dinasty warriors and such).

    I don't "hate" those games. I just don't see the appeal. And I have to make effort to even talk with people who like it because to me those games are brain dead: only press 1 button and lights, flashes, things dies, brain dead AI, and the game pats on your shoulder "good boy/girl, you did good". The series is everything I don't like in games in general.

    One could argue they are meant as an entry level for certain types of players, but the issue is that's not the case: hardcore fans defend them as if they are challenging or something. So I just stay really far away from that series and their fandom.

    I have unpopular dislike for certain famously well received titles tho; For example, I don't like FF7.
    I don't like the story, I think the characters are boring and the game takes too long to go anywhere meaningful. I don't hate it, I don't think it's a bad game either... It's just... *points at FF6* it's a step back, I'm sorry.

    And despite being a Pokémon fan from long time... I agree with you now, OP. From some years already I just don't care about them anymore. I mean, Pokkén Tournament was the only fresh step moving the series forward in terms of gameplay... And now they release another turn based with bare bones animations that follows the same routine... sigh.

    But the deal is: Pokémon is not meant for us. So there is that.
    As a Dynasty Warriors fan (moreso a fan of the spinoffs), I don't defend them as "challenging." In fact, I wouldn't enjoy them if they were.

    What they are is stress killers. They make you feel empowered, and they give you hundreds of hours of content, while being one of the last remaining bastions of split screen co-op. 

    There are legitimate criticisms to be made of the series. For example, the mainline entries recycle a LOT of assets, and their tendency to make XTreme Legends editions of every game is not consumer friendly. But lack of difficulty is not one of those valid criticisms; it's not the point.
    Same could be said about pokémon :shrugs:
    Hardly. But even so, we're talking about a very niche franchise for a small but dedicated audience versus the literal biggest entertainment IP in the world. One should have higher expectations than the other.


    As for your criticism of the combat, it is factually inaccurate that the game is a one button game. I cannot stand that argument, because it's incredibly disingenuous and comes across as something one might parrot from a review they read from a particularly lazy journalist, rather than hands-on experience.

    My entry of choice, the Fire Emblem spinoff, has 6 combos for each character. Light x 6, Light ×1 and Heavy, Light x 2 and Heavy, Light x 3 and Heavy, Light x 4 and Heavy, and Light x 5 and Heavy. Each combo has different functions. Some are better for crowd clearing. Some reveal stun bars for dueling captains. Some pack a great deal of forward momentum. Some are great for stunning the foe after the stun bar has been revealed. Point is, they all have different functions. You could just spam Light x6, but you won't be dealing good damage, you won't be revealing stun gauges on neutral or disadvantaged match ups, and you won't be anywhere near efficient.

    In addition, each character has a special mechanic on their Heavy 1. This could be a duration damage buff, a grab combo, a dash, a divebomb, or other mechanic.

    Then you have the resource skills - the Musuo heavy crowd clear, the pair up Musuo (which requires both characters to have a full Musuo bar), and the Awakening duration buff (which increases all stats, grants universal weapon triangle advantage, and makes one immune to flinching/knockback for a short time).

    Then there are other mechanics to consider. Pair up lets you combine two characters to gain extra stats, a defensive cooldown, and an attack cooldown in exchange for having one less character to defend/take objectives. The weapon triangle is a rock-paper-scissors mechanic for providing advantages and disadvantages for certain opponents. Swords beat axes, which beat lances, which beat swords. There are also effective damage bonuses that allow you to equip yourself to be more effective against armored foes, flying foes, mounted foes, or dragons.

    And these effiency mechanics matter, because the purpose of these games is efficiency, not the difficulty of one on one encounters. Generally speaking, that means clearing objectives fast enough to achieve 2,000 KOs and beat the map within 15 minutes, while defending your own base and allies. The game is less about what you are doing than it is about when and where you are doing it.

    And while I'm not going to pretend that it's "literally Dark Souls" for even a second (and I would hate it if it was), it's also got enough going for it to be engaging for hours on end. It's like the 3rd person equivalent of Diablo. Easy encounters with a great deal of power fantasy and a goal of efficiency and progression. The only thing I'd say really needs major improvement is the gear system to match. Dynasty Warriors with a Diablo-esque gear system would be something great for its niche crowd indeed.
    Post edited by Aeander on
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,620
    Gorwe said:
    Rockstar and Larian. Rockstar just deals with the stuff I'd rather avoid(tbh) + they mostly produce meaningless open worlds and Larian...it's almost like they're from another planet - I do not get why the hype and everything about D:OS.

    Though I don't really get FIFA etc either. If you want to play soccer, go and play soccer? /shrug
    Not really about playing soccer. It's about playing a soccer themed "game."

    Kind of like saying to people who play wargames "why not just enlist?" Of course not.


    CryomatrixPalebane
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,960
    edited November 2019
    Gorwe said:
    Rockstar and Larian. Rockstar just deals with the stuff I'd rather avoid(tbh) + they mostly produce meaningless open worlds and Larian...it's almost like they're from another planet - I do not get why the hype and everything about D:OS.

    Though I don't really get FIFA etc either. If you want to play soccer, go and play soccer? /shrug
    I kind of played War Thunder for a bit which I actually really liked but I prefer to shoot down pixels controlled by other people than real people. I also prefer not to be blown up. 

    Some of us are big fans of sports games but it's not like, in our current life, we can go get a pickup game of baseball or american football or whatever. There are adult leagues and such, but some of us have crappy health, no time, and what not. 

    I would however, be a wizard or some magical character fighting monsters as long as there were instaheal potions and such, i'd go enlist in that for sure. I may die, but it would be fun as hell to slaughter demons en masse (Path of Exile style). 

    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 5,945
    Sovrath said:
    Gorwe said:
    Rockstar and Larian. Rockstar just deals with the stuff I'd rather avoid(tbh) + they mostly produce meaningless open worlds and Larian...it's almost like they're from another planet - I do not get why the hype and everything about D:OS.

    Though I don't really get FIFA etc either. If you want to play soccer, go and play soccer? /shrug
    Not really about playing soccer. It's about playing a soccer themed "game."

    Kind of like saying to people who play wargames "why not just enlist?" Of course not.


    The "why not just" argument can get pretty funny if you apply it to everything. (Caugh Grand Theft Auto).
    Sovrath
  • TillerTiller Member EpicPosts: 8,876
    Pretty much everything everyone has already mentioned in this thread as I have experience with all these franchises and developers. Thing is I would have nothing to play if I let my thoughts get the best of me, so I just deal.
    SovrathPalebane
    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter

  • ArteriusArterius Member EpicPosts: 2,840
    I actually thought of another developer other from Rockstar and I can't believe it slipped my mind. Bethesda. Morrowwind is one of my favorite games of all time and even though Fallout 76 is terrible I still have a lot of fun with.

    However, every game they have made since Morrowwind the RPG elements have been dumbed down in some way. Oblivion I dropped after a dozen hours or so and I only started playing Skyrim a month ago. Only to drop it after eight hours. I have never played the Fallout games as Fallout 1 and 2 are some of my favorite video games so I refuse to play 3 or 4.


    Currently playing: Outer Worlds (Xbox One X)

    Currently Reading: Skaven Slayer (Gotrek and Felix Book 2)

    Currently Writing: Champions of Legend Book 1 (3rd Draft)

    Currently Watching: Oz (Season 4), Soprano's (Season 1)


  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,379
    Sovrath said:
    Gorwe said:
    Rockstar and Larian. Rockstar just deals with the stuff I'd rather avoid(tbh) + they mostly produce meaningless open worlds and Larian...it's almost like they're from another planet - I do not get why the hype and everything about D:OS.

    Though I don't really get FIFA etc either. If you want to play soccer, go and play soccer? /shrug
    Not really about playing soccer. It's about playing a soccer themed "game."

    Kind of like saying to people who play wargames "why not just enlist?" Of course not.


    kinda not the same, you can play soccer or any sport just for fun, and taht would bring a benefit for your health.

    war games is not only enlist, you can't kill people for fun, or having the advantage of using any gear you want, or infinite lifes (the most important) to keep returning to the battle, if we kill others for fun, we kinda have a name for that and society don't like it much, when if you kick a ball with others in the street no one would care
    Gorwe
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 5,945
    Arterius said:
    I actually thought of another developer other from Rockstar and I can't believe it slipped my mind. Bethesda. Morrowwind is one of my favorite games of all time and even though Fallout 76 is terrible I still have a lot of fun with.

    However, every game they have made since Morrowwind the RPG elements have been dumbed down in some way. Oblivion I dropped after a dozen hours or so and I only started playing Skyrim a month ago. Only to drop it after eight hours. I have never played the Fallout games as Fallout 1 and 2 are some of my favorite video games so I refuse to play 3 or 4.


    Shocking answer from you, and I appreciate the honesty.

    Sometimes, a little contempt for the developers we used to love is the way to fix them. I could, like some, list Arenanet in this category because they also dumbed down their games' RPG mechanics and lost respect for the intelligence of their dedicated players.

    However, supporting that developer financially ensures that they won't reverse course. Buying Fallout First subscriptions and purchasing every port of Skyrim only endorses the bad direction.
  • Kayo83Kayo83 Member UncommonPosts: 399
    edited November 2019
    Not really beloved but I actively try to avoid EA, Ubisoft, or Activision games. I did get Fallen Order though but only because Respawn deserves the coin and they specifically said no microtransactions or even post development DLC. Also EA surprisingly got out of the way.

    Oh and NCSoft.
    Post edited by Kayo83 on
  • HarikenHariken Member EpicPosts: 2,510
    For me it's a really close tie between Electronic Arts and Derek Smart.

    Close second is John Smedley.
    What has Derek Smart done lately that still has you pissed off? Or is this still about what he said years ago?
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,606
    I have found that it takes a long time for me to develop a dislike for an actual development studio. There are, obviously, plenty of games that I think are rubbish or just not my cup of tea but that doesn't necessarily translate into dislike of the studio.

    I think my dislikes tend to come when I see a studio doing something directly negative, but the thing that always winds me up the most and generates negativity is when I see studios repeating too many mistakes or just stagnating.

    1) EA
    This isn't a beloved brand, plenty of us dislike them, yet clearly a hell of a lot of people do love them as they keep selling games and making large amounts of money. Part of my dislike is their habit of buying out studios and raping the IPs. That said, it is a very successful business tactic so I can't really fault them.

    My main cause for dislike of EA is that they don't make good games. Obviously, "good" is subjective. What I mean is that every EA game I've ever played seemed to have a solid core gameplay loop, but the games lacked depth and creativity. Every time I'd play an EA game, I'd feel like I was just starting to get into it, just learning all the mechanics etc but then the game would end. I would always feel like I'd just played an extended tutorial then just as the game was about to start properly, it'd be over. After the debacle that was SWTOR, I started boycotting EA to ensure I didn't waste any more time or money.


    2) Blizzard
    I have yet to enjoy a game developed by Blizzard. They don't seem to be very good developers. Their business tactic seems to be to look around at what is popular or experiencing an upsurge, then copy what others have done and add a load of polish. They are great at making games accessible to a wider audience, but they don't seem good at designing something new.

    As a result, every game of theirs that I've played has seemed very shallow to me, far too easy and boring. Reducing complexity and depth is certainly a good way to improve accessibility, but its the opposite to what I prefer. The only exception seems to be WoW which used to have a ton of depth and complexity, however, in comparison to it's competitors it was indeed shallower and easier to understand.


    3) Square Enix / Finaly Fantasy.
    I joined the FF series with FF7 and I still maintain it is one of the best games every made. I still play it through about once a year. However, I feel like each successive game in the series (outside of the mmos) has reduced the amount of actual gameplay and replaced it with cutscenes and story. Story is not gameplay, and I came to play a game! I recently played FF10 for the first time and something like 40% of my time was just watching conversations. I was soooo bored! FF13 was absolutely terrible for this too, as not only were there too many cutscenes but the combat itself had been dumbed down so much as to be trivial. As long as you had set up your synergies properly before entering combat, all you had to do was switch stances occasionally and ur characters would do everything else automatically.


    4) Bethesda.
    Morrowind was my first game from Bethesda and I loved it. Sure, the combat was as basic as it comes, but they created such a magical world for me to play in! However, since then I feel like each Elder Scrolls game has gotten progressively better at the combat, but at the expense of everything else. In particular, Im most disappointed with how boring their world design has gotten. Oblivion was just Middle Ages Europe. Skyrim was just Middles Ages Scandenavia. Where's the fantasy gone?! Where's the wonder and delight at encountering alien landscapes and peoples?

    Clearly, its a tactic that has worked for them and this boring style of world design appeals to the masses, but it's a disappointment to me. Especially as even though the combat has improved, it's still really bad compared to most other RPGs.

    I never got into the Fallout series. It seemed interesting but I don't like playing games where the world is so dreary. I understand it's post-apocalyptic and so it makes sense, but all those browns and greys in the landscape just feel depressing to me. Then, FO76 seemed to indicate they had given up and just trying to milk the IP with the current flavour-of-the-month game design of survival.



    To flip it around a bit (always good to inject some positivity into a negative post!), the studios I like are:

    1) Frontier - I'm a big fan of Planet Coaster and Planet Zoo, both worthy successors to the Tycoon series I loved as a teenager. Elite is also pretty good though I only play it single player, I still enjoy just flying around with HOTAS setup. Even Jurassic World: Evolution was a lot of fun, despite being very limited.

    2) Ubisoft - Ubi seems to be one of the few big publishers / devs that is still willing to take risks, and I applaud them for that. Some of the Assassins Creed series have been amazing. The Crew was a stab in the dark. Steep was a great winter sports game. The Division 2 (not played the first) was also a lot of fun to begin with. I know a lot of their stuff is pretty buggy, but I like that Ubi is pretty much the only AAA firm taking risks.

    3) Creative Assembly - basically, I love the Total War series. Some of the games (e.g. both Rome's) have been lacking in depth and some of their recent games do seem like cash grabs, but the majority of the series have been really solid. Also, they made two Warhammer Total War's, a game I'd been dreaming of since I played the first Shogun!

    4) Paradox Interactive - mostly, this is just because I love Cities: Skylines! However, they also seem to be one of the few "middle of the road" companies that still pumps out games. 20 years ago, most games companies were middle of the road, with just a few AAA and a few indies. 20 years has seen those AAA boys buyout most middle companies, plus the consumer demands for increasing graphics has made it even harder to compete. Today, it's mostly AAA or indie. I prefer these middle-of-the-road companies as they have much better quality than indies and much better gameplay than AAAs.
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,905
    If I really had to name someone, I'd probably say Sid Meier.  His games seem to be drifting away from the core principles they once had.  Civ 6 isn't as good as Civ 5, which isn't as good as Civ 4.  I think they are just adding new features to appease a very small portion of the customer base, much like MMORPGs designed for the hardcore raider.  This causes the casual, core gamer to become disenfranchised with the series.  He could do better, but doesn't.



    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 265
    blizzard/wow
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,620
    Mendel said:
    If I really had to name someone, I'd probably say Sid Meier.  His games seem to be drifting away from the core principles they once had.  Civ 6 isn't as good as Civ 5, which isn't as good as Civ 4.  I think they are just adding new features to appease a very small portion of the customer base, much like MMORPGs designed for the hardcore raider.  This causes the casual, core gamer to become disenfranchised with the series.  He could do better, but doesn't.



    But couldn't that be looked, at least using your example, that they are making the game they want to be making for a very specific audience? Too many developers seem to want to appease the widest audience they should (or would prefer?) to speak to a very specific group of players.


  • GutlardGutlard Member RarePosts: 1,019
    Any that use Micro-transactions/Paywalls/Day 1 DLC's/things to that nature, over delivering a good gaming experience.

    Gut Out!

    What, me worry?

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,905
    Sovrath said:
    Mendel said:
    If I really had to name someone, I'd probably say Sid Meier.  His games seem to be drifting away from the core principles they once had.  Civ 6 isn't as good as Civ 5, which isn't as good as Civ 4.  I think they are just adding new features to appease a very small portion of the customer base, much like MMORPGs designed for the hardcore raider.  This causes the casual, core gamer to become disenfranchised with the series.  He could do better, but doesn't.



    But couldn't that be looked, at least using your example, that they are making the game they want to be making for a very specific audience? Too many developers seem to want to appease the widest audience they should (or would prefer?) to speak to a very specific group of players.


    I doubt very seriously that even a tiny portion of the Civ 6 community was wanting a Battle Royal expansion.  At best it's a lark.  That's not even a niche of a niche of a niche of their fan base, but they got a major expansion.



    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • NarugNarug Member UncommonPosts: 755
    Bioware for the doctors surrendering to EA.  I'll leave Dragon Age 2 and Anthem as examples why not.

    Fortnite…….not only is it the only thing I would hear about at work but the battle royale infection has began its destruction of other games and companies.

    Fallout 76 was infected with this and to progress in that game you'll have to pvp as well.

    So its corrupting Bethesda with this and damaging that company.

    Zenimax for taking the Elder Scrolls franchise into an online game.  Yeah I know MMO players just love the fact there is an online game.  It should've stayed single player as it was from the outset.

    AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017

    Refugee of Auberean

    Refugee of Dereth

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,250
    Amathe said:

    Simutronics - for pretending to make Hero's Journey while just using the "game" as a product demo for an engine. Phony.

    I actually got into Simutronics volunteer staff. They were really making Hero's Journey, but there were issues with their production method and management. Coming from MUDS they wanted most of their content developed by community staff. This of course could be a problem since volunteers are flaky including myself.
    As far as engines go they had the best mmorpg engine available in 2006. I still rank it as the best even though it's graphics technology is dated.
    After they got licenses for Star Wars and Elder Scrolls, they shifted most of their focus towards the engine and let the game die. Then eventually just ran out of money.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,383
    Cleffy said:
    Amathe said:

    Simutronics - for pretending to make Hero's Journey while just using the "game" as a product demo for an engine. Phony.

    I actually got into Simutronics volunteer staff. They were really making Hero's Journey, but there were issues with their production method and management. Coming from MUDS they wanted most of their content developed by community staff. This of course could be a problem since volunteers are flaky including myself.
    As far as engines go they had the best mmorpg engine available in 2006. I still rank it as the best even though it's graphics technology is dated.
    After they got licenses for Star Wars and Elder Scrolls, they shifted most of their focus towards the engine and let the game die. Then eventually just ran out of money.
    I followed this game for years, and really wanted to play it. It took me a long time to figure out it was vaporeware. Now, Simu is a real company. And the engine is a real engine. That's not phoney. But for most of the time the game was. Still irritated about that.

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 10,643
    For starters, I don't think Pokemon has played it safe at all. They've had a lot of different iterations and not every single thing has been a success. Pokemon Snap was an interesting game that is now just a thing of the past.  Shadow Pokemon were interesting but they went away really fast and only recently got brought back.  The mobile titles Pokemon Shuffle and Pokemon Masters aren't exactly shooting up in popularity either.  There's a lot of different ways they've fed players pokemon and many of them haven't really worked out in the end. 

    But it's still a popular IP for good reason. 


    As for developers that have fallen, or games altogether....  BioWare is off the radar entirely for me now.  I can't stand by anything they've put out recently, and for me, Obsidian has taken their place.

    I also am not a fan of the Destiny or HALO franchises, though I'm more inclined to play HALO than destiny if I have to choose simply for nostalgia sake. 



Sign In or Register to comment.