Unpopular Opinions Thread

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

Characters can't all be measured up by how characterized or developed they are. Some characters need it, and some characters just don't.

No, not really. If the character is poorly developed, then it's poorly developed. There really isn't any justification for a paper-thin character with no development whatsoever.

In the case of a video game, character development/plot might not be the focus, and in that case, we shouldn't really be talking about how great the character development/whatnot is in the first place and instead talking about how fun the game is.

I think that in context of the story, OoT Ganondorf actually comes off better, given his role in the story and his actions thereafter.

He comes off as an archetype that has existed in media long before, an archetype that has been executed better, and an archetype that has been done better long before.

OoT's Ganondorf doesn't really aid the plot at all; he just doesn't hinder it, because Ocarina of Time doesn't have much of a plot to begin with. If Ocarina of Time had a better, more complete script, OoT's Ganondorf would become a more apparent flaw.

Who cares if it's difficult to make a deep character? That still doesn't mean it's better, just that they had to put more effort into it to make it work.

The point I'm making is that it's lousy writing. Sure, if Ocarina of Time was one of the first pieces of media you've experienced with a character like that, then you may think he was pretty memorable. When you're exposed to more and more media, however, and realize how many "Ganondorfs" other works have, you would realize how unoriginal he is.

Sure, if a character comes to you easily, then that doesn't necessarily make him bad. If you more or less copy/paste a character from another work, though, then it's lazy and bad.

In OoT, Ganondorf grew as a villain not because he was just evil but because he acted in accordance to what Link was doing. Staying ahead of the hero is a classic villain trait, and if played correctly can be a great way to build the villain's threat as opposed to feeling like a complete cop-out (Aizen from Bleach for those who want a reference).

Again, threat has nothing to do with making a great villain. Mary from the film Precious didn't conquer kingdoms or anything like that, but she was a far greater villain than those found in most modern films.

A villain who is really, really, really evil whose threat escalates over the course of the story to the point where he has the power to destroy the universe poses a far greater threat than Ganondorf ever did, but if that's all you know about him, then he's a pretty crappy villain.

- The villain was just said to be evil. In OoT, there's no-one there to write "he was very very evil" to you. He's described as a dark man by the Deku Tree, but even before that you had already seen him in a dream, and that he was no good man was established already then. But after hearing the Deku Tree talk about him, or even seeing him with your own eyes in Hyrule Castle, it wasn't as though you'd seen all there was to see of him.

Irrelevant. The game makes it so obviously clear that he's evil from the start without questioning it, from the perpetual "dastardly" look on his face, the armor, hs actions from the start, and whatnot. Sure, the game didn't flat out say "WELL THIS GUY'S EVIL," but communication does not exist through words alone.

- The end was snti-climatic to the point of ruining any redeeming qualities of your cardboard villain. The entire point of Ganondorf has been to act as a barrier to the player. If he was invincible, or if he blew up the world, he'd be a piss poor villain. It's useless to try and judge the character by what they accomplish - poor characters are usually the ones that accomplish too much (Mary Sue is a very popular term for those). To illustrate my point, I'll refer to how he is defeated. Using the Triforce of Power, going on a rampage, transforming into a dual-wielding monster and ends up only being subdued by the hero and the combined powers of seven sages.

You're talking about relations between characters, though, not the qualities of Ganondorf himself (And even then, when you try to illustrate your point, you mention something that Ganondorf accomplished--using the tri-force of power to go on a rampage--instead of demonstrating character depth).

But those two statements contradict each other. If I can feel sorry for the villain then he's a better villain than the one I can't feel sorry for, yet being humane (which is how you feel sorry for the villain in the first place) isn't always the best route to go? I mean, I agree on the second part, but that just confuses me.

There is no contradiction. See, you're conflating "acting humane" with a character's "humanity" (Not "humanity" in the sense of being humane, but in the sense of being human). A villain can very well act brutal--without ever doing a "humane" thing to other individuals--but a work of media can show his humanity--how it's tearing him up psychologically on the inside, and how ****ty of a condition he must be living in that he must do these evil things--and thus you can feel sorry for him.

It isn't as simple as "if a villain is a nice guy with good intentions, we can feel sorry for him, and if he's a bad guy with bad intentions, we can't feel sorry for him." Sinestro is a good example of this, as well as Atrocitus in Blackest Night; sure, Atrocitus is an evil demonic monstrosity who wants to kill all of the good guys and grind them in to a bloody mess, but it demonstrated the deep sorrow he has for the loss of his home sector due to the massacre by the Manhunters and whatnot. You couldn't help but feel sorry for him.

In addition, many of the best stories about revenge demonstrate the humanity behind the vengeful; revenge is never a good intention and it certainly isn't humane, but you can feel sorry for how the pursuit of revenge is tearing a person up and making their life **** and whatnot.

But it's far from established truth that a villain to feel sorry for is better in terms of quality. At best it's something that can be applied differently to any individual villain.

Yes, but that wasn't exactly my point; I was just using "feeling sorry for a villain" as a way in which a villain can be well developed. A villain doesn't necessarily have to make you feel sorry for him to be well-developed; a villain could make you question the nature of the universe, or re-evaluate your moral standing, or whatnot.

Ganondorf, being as cliche and under-developed as he is, doesn't really do any of that.

When talking about video game villains, however, there's the simple question of "how can I best make use of this villain to enhance the player's experience?"

Then the quality of the villain is irrelevant in that case; it's no longer about creating a good, memorable villain, but a good, memorable gameplay experience using a villain. Ganondorf wasn't a good villain, then; he was just used in a way that the overall experience was fantastic.

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

Originally Posted by AdspA

Because really, if I can feel sorry for someone, then I wouldn't want to defeat them.

Bad argument.

You can feel sorry for a villain who was brutally ass-raped by his father because of what he went through and how it ****ed up his life, but you would still want to defeat him if he wants to blow up the universe because of it and has the means to do it (Because we'd all be dead otherwise).

Feeling sorry for a villain != not wanting to smack him in the face. So yeah; bad argument, and as-of-now poorly-justified opinion.

Originally Posted by AdspA

IMO, you're wrong.

Hows that for an unpopular opinion?

Because really, if I can feel sorry for someone, then I wouldn't want to defeat them.

Have you played a game where the villain is by some felt sorry for?
I'm not trying to challenge your stance on this, I just want to possibly compare on this.

Originally Posted by Andross

Bad argument.

You can feel sorry for a villain who was brutally ass-raped by his father because of what he went through and how it ****ed up his life, but you would still want to defeat him if he wants to blow up the universe because of it and has the means to do it (Because we'd all be dead otherwise).

Feeling sorry for a villain != not wanting to smack him in the face. So yeah; bad argument, and as-of-now poorly-justified opinion.

As a selfish bastard, my own survival overrides my feelings for others (in videogames, at least). If said villain who was brutally ass-raped by his father is threatening to blow up MY universe, I wouldn't feel sorry for him in the slightest.

WW had a villain that justified his actions and even showed an emotional side. He even offered to spare Link. I never understood WHY Link had to kill him, he really didn't seem like a bad guy (merely "misunderstood). In fact, I suppose it was only the game's progression that forced me into combat with Ganondorf. In the end, I felt somewhat sorry for him because Link unjustifiably engaged him in combat, when his survival wasn't even at stake.

I love the Superman Returns game.

Originally Posted by AdspA

As a selfish bastard,

Well, that explains it.

Being a "selfish bastard" isn't really a good thing to be (And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't present yourself as a selfish bastard in any and all circumstances; I highly doubt that a "selfish bastard" is everything that you are).

my own survival overrides my feelings for others

...yes, which is why I said that "feeling sorry for someone != not wanting to smack someone in the face."

Your survival instincts will definitely force you in to stopping the villain, but even if they took priority over your feelings for others, that doesn't mean those feelings do not exist.

If said villain who was brutally ass-raped by his father is threatening to blow up MY universe, I wouldn't feel sorry for him in the slightest.

Why should one aspect of a character--wanting to blow up the universe--prevent you from feeling sorry for something that is generally something that you should feel sorry for (Being brutally ass-raped definitely isn't a trivial event, and only a monster would not show compassion toward someone who was a victim of such a deed)?

People--and characters, which are fictional people--aren't "one-note" entities. A person who murders another individual isn't defined by that murder; there are many, many, many more things that define that person as a whole (Which is one of the reasons why I think the death penalty is silly).

I never understood WHY Link had to kill him, he really didn't seem like a bad guy (merely "misunderstood).

I thought Link had to kill him because he would have destroyed the current world in pursuit of bringing back the old world?

The Legend of Zelda and characterization cannot exist together.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

The Legend of Zelda and characterization cannot exist together.

Which is why we should quit kidding ourselves in to believing that Ganondorf is an awesome villain and Link is an awesome hero and whatnot.

If they are awesome, then it has to do with their iconic status resulting from being associated with a very well-made video game series; not because they are innately good characters.

Originally Posted by Andross

Which is why we should quit kidding ourselves in to believing that Ganondorf is an awesome villain and Link is an awesome hero and whatnot.

If they are awesome, then it has to do with their iconic status resulting from being associated with a very well-made video game series; not because they are innately good characters.

Most likely.

I've always felt like I have relatively acceptable opinions as far as gaming goes. Then I wrote a top 15 games of all time list. Then people were like "WHAT THE **** MAN THIS SO WRONG".

Originally Posted by Andross

Why should one aspect of a character--wanting to blow up the universe--prevent you from feeling sorry for something that is generally something that you should feel sorry for (Being brutally ass-raped definitely isn't a trivial event, and only a monster would not show compassion toward someone who was a victim of such a deed)?

I tend to adopt different attitudes in my gaming than in real life sometimes, especially when my survival is on the line. Whether or not I'm a monster is irrelevant. And in any circumstances, it's hard for pity to be a prominent emotion for me toward someone who is directly threatening my survival or the survival of someone close.

I thought Link had to kill him because he would have destroyed the current world in pursuit of bringing back the old world?

Really now? Do tell.

Originally Posted by Andross

No, not really. If the character is poorly developed, then it's poorly developed. There really isn't any justification for a paper-thin character with no development whatsoever.

Paper-thin implies that there's no emotion or ambition, which is clearly not what we're talking about here. No development, however, is something else entirely.

Character development means that said character goes from one stage to another through the course of the story. There's good character development, where a character grows better as a person. Bad (not poor) character development, where a person grows more flawed and/or "evil". There are several kinds of ways that a character can grow or progress, all depending on the story that's being told. So "no development" simply means that a character doesn't change (or develop) throughout the story. Technically OoT Ganondorf DID change and grow more powerful, but on a personal level I'd say he was pretty much equally evil all throughout the story. In comparison, WW Ganondorf didn't develop at all - he retained the same ambitions, the same goals and the same mindset throughout the entire game. So sure, paper thin characters are rarely ever justified, but a lack of character development isn't always neccessary - in fact, in certain contexts it's just best left alone.

In the case of a video game, character development/plot might not be the focus, and in that case, we shouldn't really be talking about how great the character development/whatnot is in the first place and instead talking about how fun the game is.

Sure but I haven't been talking about character development, I've just talked about Ganondorf's role in the story.

He comes off as an archetype that has existed in media long before, an archetype that has been executed better, and an archetype that has been done better long before.

In what way? I've played no game where I've seen an "archetype" just like Ganondorf, but done better. If you're talking movies or books, that's a whole different story (though I think those kinds of villains would make a piss-poor transition to video games).

OoT's Ganondorf doesn't really aid the plot at all; he just doesn't hinder it, because Ocarina of Time doesn't have much of a plot to begin with. If Ocarina of Time had a better, more complete script, OoT's Ganondorf would become a more apparent flaw.

Yeah but no that's simply not true. Ganondorf doesn't just aid the plot - he is the damn plot. Everything you do - everything that happens - revolves around Ganondorf. If OoT had a better and more complete script, as you said, Ganondorf as a villain would change and he might be better or worse.

The point I'm making is that it's lousy writing. Sure, if Ocarina of Time was one of the first pieces of media you've experienced with a character like that, then you may think he was pretty memorable. When you're exposed to more and more media, however, and realize how many "Ganondorfs" other works have, you would realize how unoriginal he is.

Unoriginal is not the same as lousy. You can argue as much as you want that it's been done before, but you said that your point was that it was lousy writing, and if unoriginal is all you got then I'll just go ahead and tell you that you need more than that to be convincing.

You should also consider that video games do story telling different from other media. A villain like Ganondorf would probably seem very clichéed and two-dimensional to a movie, but a movie isn't a game and can therefore focus on telling a story without any other qualms. A game goes differently about its business - this is why Bowser is still Mario's arch-nemesis and keeps being the end boss.

Sure, if a character comes to you easily, then that doesn't necessarily make him bad. If you more or less copy/paste a character from another work, though, then it's lazy and bad.

You described Ganondorf earlier as an archetype. Archetypes are described as such because they are often used in some way. Ergo, arguing that he's an archetype and then turning around and saying that he was copy-pasted from another piece of fiction is just... I dunno, redundant? I know that the evil sorcerer type has been done before by other pieces of work, but employing it as a video game villain isn't bad. You can argue that it's lazy as much as you want, but it isn't automatically bad for it.

Again, threat has nothing to do with making a great villain. Mary from the film Precious didn't conquer kingdoms or anything like that, but she was a far greater villain than those found in most modern films.

Threat has everything to do with making a good video game villain, particularly in an action-adventure like Zelda.

A villain who is really, really, really evil whose threat escalates over the course of the story to the point where he has the power to destroy the universe poses a far greater threat than Ganondorf ever did, but if that's all you know about him, then he's a pretty crappy villain.

Sure but who said that threat is the only thing to a villain? Consider it one of several important pieces to fit together. And I'm talking about video game villains, not those in films and books that abide by different rules (like, they don't need a final boss fight).

Irrelevant. The game makes it so obviously clear that he's evil from the start without questioning it, from the perpetual "dastardly" look on his face, the armor, hs actions from the start, and whatnot. Sure, the game didn't flat out say "WELL THIS GUY'S EVIL," but communication does not exist through words alone.

Which is very much my point. The case of "show, don't tell" is a very good way of establishing characters without having to say a word.

You're talking about relations between characters, though, not the qualities of Ganondorf himself (And even then, when you try to illustrate your point, you mention something that Ganondorf accomplished--using the tri-force of power to go on a rampage--instead of demonstrating character depth).

My "demonstration" wasn't about Ganondorf's accomplishments - it isn't exactly an accomplishment to lose, is it? It's how he loses. As for relations between characters, I wasn't talking about that. If I had I'd talked about other characters too.

There is no contradiction. See, you're conflating "acting humane" with a character's "humanity" (Not "humanity" in the sense of being humane, but in the sense of being human). A villain can very well act brutal--without ever doing a "humane" thing to other individuals--but a work of media can show his humanity--how it's tearing him up psychologically on the inside, and how ****ty of a condition he must be living in that he must do these evil things--and thus you can feel sorry for him.

You're arguing "doing" and "thinking". A hero can very well act brutal too, even doing things that can be considered evil too, but does that mean that he's an evil person?

Even then, this isn't even the kind of "depth" that WW Ganondorf shows. It's not remorse or humanity he shows, it's just explaining his ruthlessnes and ambition.

It isn't as simple as "if a villain is a nice guy with good intentions, we can feel sorry for him, and if he's a bad guy with bad intentions, we can't feel sorry for him." Sinestro is a good example of this, as well as Atrocitus in Blackest Night; sure, Atrocitus is an evil demonic monstrosity who wants to kill all of the good guys and grind them in to a bloody mess, but it demonstrated the deep sorrow he has for the loss of his home sector due to the massacre by the Manhunters and whatnot. You couldn't help but feel sorry for him.

In addition, many of the best stories about revenge demonstrate the humanity behind the vengeful; revenge is never a good intention and it certainly isn't humane, but you can feel sorry for how the pursuit of revenge is tearing a person up and making their life **** and whatnot.

I do feel sorry for him. It's not an issue of what he should or shouldn't be or what I can or can't do, but simply a matter of what he offers the story and essentially how he affects it. Putting the spotlight on why he does what he does is, as I've said, a pretty good way to tell a story, but as a villain it dragged him down from what OoT Ganondorf was.

Yes, but that wasn't exactly my point; I was just using "feeling sorry for a villain" as a way in which a villain can be well developed. A villain doesn't necessarily have to make you feel sorry for him to be well-developed; a villain could make you question the nature of the universe, or re-evaluate your moral standing, or whatnot.

That's not development though, that's just character description. You don't necessarily have to see a villain develop those traits, and it's not development that they have those traits in the first place. It's just a part of their character. When something becomes a part of their character through the story, THAT's development.

Looking apart from that technicalty, I agree that great villains can act in different ways to evoke emotions, but some times it's just as simple as "he's so evil I wanna kick the snot out of him".

Ganondorf, being as cliche and under-developed as he is, doesn't really do any of that.

No, but he still ends up being a better video game villain than any such person. Why?

Context. A good villain isn't someone you can put in just any kind of story. You look at their individual qualities and judge them by that - how original are they, how interesting are they, what do they do, etc. But there is more to it than that, at least in my eyes. Ganondorf, if put into a different kind of story, could very well suck balls. I have no doubt that he would if you put him in a romantic comedy. But in an action-adventure high fantasy game?

You could have the most developed character in the world but if they don't help the story or perform their job then it's just a poor character, through and through.

[quote]Then the quality of the villain is irrelevant in that case; it's no longer about creating a good, memorable villain, but a good, memorable gameplay experience using a villain. Ganondorf wasn't a good villain, then; he was just used in a way that the overall experience was fantastic.[COLOR="Silver"]

But a villain that enhances the gameplay experience is a good villain, by gaming's context. If you don't judge a character by how it's used then how on earth can you judge a character at all?

As you go through this thread, you really see how diverse the gaming culture is. An opinion that we here on ZU consider to be controversial may actually be widely accepted in the greater gaming community, and vice versa.

Therefor, I'm going to list a bunch of my stances regarding video games, all of which are controversial in some crowd. I'm not going to distinguish among which audiences though, just figure it out for yourself where you think me saying it would be unpopular


1. Majora's Mask is a case of style over substance and, design-wise, a very flawed game.

2. Twilight Princess is, currently, the most polished, well-made Zelda entry.

3. God of War is a tasteless, overrated franchise that doesn't deserve anywhere near as much praise as its received.

4. Resistance 2 and Unreal Tournament 3 are the best FPS titles this generation.

5. WW2 games, in any genre, are still awesome,

6. Split-screen multiplayer > Online multiplayer.

7. Modern Warfare was already boring after the first game.

8. Japanese RPGs, at their best, are better than Western RPGs at their best.

9. Party games like Wii Party, Wii Sports, Kinect titles etc. are a blast, and it's great to be able to play games with friends of mine that never have before.

10. Playstation Move is a shameless imitation of Wii without a hint of imagination in it, at least Kinect required some creativity. But both Microsoft and Sony are disgusting for mocking motion control all gen and now creating their own products because they sell well.

11. I'm ****ing sick of gritty Western action games already.

Originally Posted by Ty

Have you played a game where the villain is by some felt sorry for?

I felt sorry for Bowser in Super Mario Galaxy 2 after beating him. He never got his cake.

Also, King Dedede. He's thought of as a villain, but is misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Jeff

11. I'm ****ing sick of gritty Western action games already.

Out of curiosity, you mean made by western people or, like, cowboy stuff?

Just popping in to say some of these opinions need to be beefed up a bit more - as well as knowing what you think, why you think it would be appreciated too. I'm not going to delete stuff or anything, just sayin'.

As for mine? I think that Okami is an incredibly overrated game. The artstyle is pretty, I won't deny that, but I found the music general orchestral stuff. The gameplay is padded with an awful lot of filler - fetch quests are not and have never been enjoyable. The combat is clunky at best and downright irritating at worst. All in all, I can't say it made any great impression on me.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 PM ----------

Just popping in to say some of these opinions need to be beefed up a bit more - as well as knowing what you think, why you think it would be appreciated too. I'm not going to delete stuff or anything, just sayin'.

As for mine? I think that Okami is an incredibly overrated game. The artstyle is pretty, I won't deny that, but I found the music general orchestral stuff. The gameplay is padded with an awful lot of filler - fetch quests are not and have never been enjoyable. The combat is clunky at best and downright irritating at worst. All in all, I can't say it made any great impression on me.

Originally Posted by Jeff

9. Party games like Wii Party, Wii Sports, Kinect titles etc. are a blast, and it's great to be able to play games with friends of mine that never have before.

UNpopular opinions. Not clearly-popular ones.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

As for mine? I think that Okami is an incredibly overrated game. The artstyle is pretty, I won't deny that, but I found the music general orchestral stuff. The gameplay is padded with an awful lot of filler - fetch quests are not and have never been enjoyable. The combat is clunky at best and downright irritating at worst. All in all, I can't say it made any great impression on me.

It also has a crapton of cutscenes.

I will admit, the music and combat (not the bosses, the normal enemies) were somewhat better than most of what you'd see in modern Zelda.

Actually, I think peak modern Zelda combat and peak modern Zelda music are still better. Nothing in Okami really compares to the Zant or Grounded Aerolfos fights in Twilight Princess in terms of combat, and when Twilight Princess actually has new compositions instead of OoT remix no. 8348, it has some really amazing stuff (Zant's theme, for example). Okami was probably more consistent than Twilight Princess, but I actually did like Twilight Princess more because occasionally, just occasionally, there were parts of Twilight Princess that were fantastic, and you could really see what could have been (admittedly the rest of the time it's a soso game, but still). I never got that with Okami.

Originally Posted by Drew

It isn't. Which is unfortunate, because I played the hell out of Fallout 3 and New Vegas didn't really expand much on that universe, characters, or general storyline. You can get either one first, though IMHO, 3 is a better game.

Pretty much every fan of the original two Fallouts (at least those who hang out on No Mutants Allowed and RPG Codex) prefers to pretend Fallout 3 never ever happened. Unless for some reason you love really awful stories with terrible dialogue and nonsensical world and character design, there's no reason to ever mention Fallout 3, at least with respect to playing it, ever again.

Originally Posted by Jeff

4. Resistance 2 and Unreal Tournament 3 are the best FPS titles this generation.

Why is this? In my opinion, they're both inferior to games like Half Life 2, Halo: Reach, and Bioshock.

Originally Posted by AA

It also has a crapton of cutscenes.

Do you think that cutscenes are inheritly a bad thing? I could easily understand why one would think that, though. I know you tend to dislike them, but do you think they're never good? Cutscenes make Alan Wake the game it is, and without them it would just be an average third-person horror game with an interesting setting and control scheme. The story is told almost entirely in cutscenes, and they really improve the game. In my opinion, AAA games of every genre should have just as many or hopefully more (skippable) cutscenes as Okami or Alan Wake.

I was lucky enough to get a beta code for Resistance 2 a while back. I was so hyped about the game, but... but it turns out it wasn't for me. At all.
I couldn't actually figure out how to play the friggin game.