What are controversial gaming opinions you have?

[Ford Prefect]

Controversial gaming opinion: video games are good.

 

[Flare]

"Win before your opponent wins" describes literally every deck, including control. "Make them win slower" is still winning before your opponent wins.

Click to shrink...

@Cosar got what I was trying to say. The worst experience in a TCG is basically having two people playing Solitaire, with the fastest one winning.

Honestly, the issue with control in Magic isn't that it exists, but that it's mostly all in one colour. Spreading the bits of the archetype out gives players ways to wrest control of the board from their opponent without as much ability to hammer things into boredom so easily. Pretty sure there's a quote from one of the designers saying that Blue's slice of the colour pie was a mistake, even if it's not something they can take back now.

Click to shrink...

At the beginning this would be correct. Nowadays, while Blue still has a majority of the permission cards, the idea of control has spread to most of the other colors (except Red, and even then burn spells can and have been used in control strategies).

 

[Zeful]

So your issue is that there's interaction in a versus game? Because, at a basic level, that's what you're opposed to. The fact that the other player can stop whatever you do. Without that, why have a versus game? Really the concept of invalidating what the opponent is playing is a huge part of almost every strategy. Even suicidal Agro or burn is about that, they're just coming at it from a different angle: they don't care what you can get down, because their goal is to race faster than what you can play. So why play a game?

The presumable answer is that while the goal is to prevent the opponent from playing, reaching that goal is fun and challenging, and the fact that different decks will have different means to do that is also engaging. But since you've outright stated that this is not the case, can you provide a different reason?

Click to shrink...

No, my problem isn't with interaction, my problem is with control not being interactive. In the vast majority of cases, due to idiotic design, control is often playing on another level that you can't actually impact without playing control yourself. This is interaction in the same sense as trying to talk to a girl who clearly wants nothing to do with you and calling it a conversation, not at all. Interaction in card games is responding to an effect with its opposite; forced to sacrifice something- make a token, don't want to loose a creature to burn- pump it so it'll survive, etc. This is not the kind of interaction people that play control mean when they say control is interactive. They treat things like counterspells and cantriping removal as "interaction" despite those things being "reaction".

And strong reactive decks are boring to play and infuriating to play against, because the deck's strategy is just to masturbate for a couple of minutes and then just jizz all over their opponent.

 

[Cosar]

No, my problem isn't with interaction, my problem is with control not being interactive. In the vast majority of cases, due to idiotic design, control is often playing on another level that you can't actually impact without playing control yourself. This is interaction in the same sense as trying to talk to a girl who clearly wants nothing to do with you and calling it a conversation, not at all. Interaction in card games is responding to an effect with its opposite; forced to sacrifice something- make a token, don't want to loose a creature to burn- pump it so it'll survive, etc. This is not the kind of interaction people that play control mean when they say control is interactive. They treat things like counterspells and cantriping removal as "interaction" despite those things being "reaction".

And strong reactive decks are boring to play and infuriating to play against, because the deck's strategy is just to masturbate for a couple of minutes and then just jizz all over their opponent.

Click to shrink...

Ah, so playing a spell that kills a creature you don't want to face is interaction that has counter play, but playing a spell to counter a creature you don't want to face is just masturbation/reaction and has absolutely no counterplay. Because why have logic when you can just label stuff as masturbation and declare it bad.

 

[Nobody]

So there's only one way to play: win bofore your opponent wins?

Welcome to modern YGO I guess.

Click to shrink...

I used to love using decks based around Macro Cosmos in Yugioh as the game kept getting more powercreeped to the point its at now. It was hilarious seeing how salty people got when they couldn't use the graveyard as a second hand anymore and actually permanently lost the cards they used instead of being able to use their entire hand and get another five or six cards in the same turn.

 

[Zeful]

Ah, so playing a spell that kills a creature you don't want to face is interaction that has counter play, but playing a spell to counter a creature you don't want to face is just masturbation/reaction and has absolutely no counterplay. Because why have logic when you can just label stuff as masturbation and declare it bad.

Click to shrink...

I wasn't aware this was the "strawman people you don't agree with thread", and instead thought this was a thread about controversial opinions.

 

[Cosar]

I wasn't aware this was the "strawman people you don't agree with thread", and instead thought this was a thread about controversial opinions.

Click to shrink...

If you disagree with the words you wrote you're free to disavow them rather. But you are the one saying that removal is part of interaction while counterspells are not part of interaction because.... well at the point you really haven't given much reasoning that isn't circular or based on preference.

 

[Drascin]

Also, removal is kind of a control staple. Like, Red/White control was a huge thing for a while, and that was basically about killing/arresting/pacifisming your mans in beneficial trades until you ran out of steam before bringing in the killer angel to smash your face when you had no resources left. Monoblack control has historically been all about killing fucking everything and drawing more than the dude in front of you so you can keep going when they run out of everything. Diabolic Edict was a staple control card for the best part of forever.

Seriously, control is not synonimous with counterspells. One of the most obnoxious control decks to ever live, Astral Slide, had zero counterspells, and boy howdy was it a huge pain.

 

[Gitaxian]

Honestly the control decks you seem to be speaking of the win condition isn't the really card they're going to use to win the game. That's just a victory lap. The win condition is setting up the conditions so that they can find and use the win con.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and that's awful game design. A 10 minute "victory lap" is incredibly unfun and ruins the other player's enjoyment.

If you disagree with the words you wrote you're free to disavow them rather. But you are the one saying that removal is part of interaction while counterspells are not part of interaction because.... well at the point you really haven't given much reasoning that isn't circular or based on preference.

Click to shrink...

You keep insisting "I don't like control" is the same as saying "I don't like interaction." It's not. Counterspells and removal are fine, a deck that's entirely counters and removal isn't.

Against a control deck, if you aren't yourself playing control, the game is the exact kind of "race to zero" people complain about. You have no way to interact with counterspells and nothing for your own removal to interact with.

 

[Zeful]

If you disagree with the words you wrote you're free to disavow them rather. But you are the one saying that removal is part of interaction while counterspells are not part of interaction because.... well at the point you really haven't given much reasoning that isn't circular or based on preference.

Click to shrink...

Except I did, you just misinterpreted the statement to be about something else, as I have never mentioned counterspells, nor am I referring to control in MTG.

My rules for defining interaction is relating the situation to conversation, where the definition of the word becomes very clear. What we are doing is interacting, and if a game played out like our conversation, it would be fine, a little too anime for my liking (I can think of 3 episodes of Yugioh that have duels match the cadence of our argument, as those were interesting duels to watch) but fine.

Control as an archetype, can be compared to one of two things I would hesitate to call a conversation: in the first you have the scenario I posted when talking about control being uninteractive, you trying to chat up a girl that refuses to respond to you whatsoever. Yes this is a bad example, but it's how I feel when playing opposite control and getting locked out. A vastly better example using my rules would be a conversation where one party just yammers on and on about themselves and no matter what you try to do to move the topic, they twist it to continue talking about themselves.

Yes counterspells are annoying and I'd like to see them be less prevelent in games altogether, and there are situations where they aren't super interactive, but that's bias from being a green mage in MTG where I'm not allowed good answers to things that aren't artifacts or enchantments (which are almost never large enough parts of formats to be anything more than sideboard fodder) and my enemy colors are allowed good answers to stuff they are good at killing, which are always relevant. I don't think that counters ruin otherwise good games, that would be dumb.

 

[Cosar]

Except I did, you just misinterpreted the statement to be about something else, as I have never mentioned counterspells, nor am I referring to control in MTG.

My rules for defining interaction is relating the situation to conversation, where the definition of the word becomes very clear. What we are doing is interacting, and if a game played out like our conversation, it would be fine, a little too anime for my liking (I can think of 3 episodes of Yugioh that have duels match the cadence of our argument, as those were interesting duels to watch) but fine.

Control as an archetype, can be compared to one of two things I would hesitate to call a conversation: in the first you have the scenario I posted when talking about control being uninteractive, you trying to chat up a girl that refuses to respond to you whatsoever. Yes this is a bad example, but it's how I feel when playing opposite control and getting locked out. A vastly better example using my rules would be a conversation where one party just yammers on and on about themselves and no matter what you try to do to move the topic, they twist it to continue talking about themselves.

Yes counterspells are annoying and I'd like to see them be less prevelent in games altogether, and there are situations where they aren't super interactive, but that's bias from being a green mage in MTG where I'm not allowed good answers to things that aren't artifacts or enchantments (which are almost never large enough parts of formats to be anything more than sideboard fodder) and my enemy colors are allowed good answers to stuff they are good at killing, which are always relevant. I don't think that counters ruin otherwise good games, that would be dumb.

Click to shrink...

Never mentioned counterspells?

No, my problem isn't with interaction, my problem is with control not being interactive. In the vast majority of cases, due to idiotic design, control is often playing on another level that you can't actually impact without playing control yourself. This is interaction in the same sense as trying to talk to a girl who clearly wants nothing to do with you and calling it a conversation, not at all. Interaction in card games is responding to an effect with its opposite; forced to sacrifice something- make a token, don't want to loose a creature to burn- pump it so it'll survive, etc. This is not the kind of interaction people that play control mean when they say control is interactive. They treat things like counterspells and cantriping removal as "interaction" despite those things being "reaction".

Click to shrink...

They treat things like counterspells and cantriping removal

Click to shrink...

Huh. I'm seeing the word counterspells here. Are you absolutely sure you never mentioned them? Or do you want to retract your statements to that effect?

As for MTG I didn't explicitly mentioning it, at least not any more than you did. As you will recognize if you look at the above post, you referenced removal as being part of interaction(somewhat obliquely, but you mention both burn and effects that force you to sacrifice a creature, which are both ways to remove stuff, ie removal). These effects were both in the "this is the interaction I like" category. You then explicitly say that counterspells are not interaction. My point was that I disagreed with this categorization. And there are ways to play around counterspells: even hard counters have stuff that can't be countered, multiple cheap things can mean any individual counter is less worth it and makes soft counters easier to pay your way out of, etc.

Yes, and that's awful game design. A 10 minute "victory lap" is incredibly unfun and ruins the other player's enjoyment.

Click to shrink...

I mean, if it's litterally a victory lap then you can concede. Otherwise, if it's just a grinding attrition that they probably have locked down, well, some people do like that sort of thing.

You keep insisting "I don't like control" is the same as saying "I don't like interaction." It's not. Counterspells and removal are fine, a deck that's entirely counters and removal isn't.

Against a control deck, if you aren't yourself playing control, the game is the exact kind of "race to zero" people complain about. You have no way to interact with counterspells and nothing for your own removal to interact with.

Click to shrink...

Uh, no, the statement I was arguing against said the following:

They treat things like counterspells and cantriping removal as "interaction" despite those things being "reaction".

Click to shrink...

I took this to mean that he didn't think that counterspells are interaction, because, you know, that's what he fucking said. Hence my statement that was arguing that counterspells are interaction.

 

[The Englanderish]

... Can we all please dial back the hostility a touch, please?

 

[AKuz]

Ah, so playing a spell that kills a creature you don't want to face is interaction that has counter play, but playing a spell to counter a creature you don't want to face is just masturbation/reaction and has absolutely no counterplay. Because why have logic when you can just label stuff as masturbation and declare it bad.

Click to shrink...

You ever go up against a deck where you can only play one spell each turn and it's just straight countered?

I built that deck. It was not fun to play or play against.

 

[Zeful]

Hence my statement that was arguing that counterspells are interaction.

Click to shrink...

And where would that statement be exactly? Because if we look at the shit you've actually said, you actually don't present any fucking arguments.

Ah, so playing a spell that kills a creature you don't want to face is interaction that has counter play, but playing a spell to counter a creature you don't want to face is just masturbation/reaction and has absolutely no counterplay. Because why have logic when you can just label stuff as masturbation and declare it bad.

Click to shrink...

No argument here, just insulting people for your own inadequacies.

If you disagree with the words you wrote you're free to disavow them rather. But you are the one saying that removal is part of interaction while counterspells are not part of interaction because.... well at the point you really haven't given much reasoning that isn't circular or based on preference.

Click to shrink...

No argument here either, just more of the same.

So please enlighten me, where is this immaginary argument of yours? Since so far all you have done in this thread is anything but good faith debate, since you seem to focus on small errors and whatever your diseased imagination can create, rather than any of my actual statements in this thread that clarify my position.

... Can we all please dial back the hostility a touch, please?

Click to shrink...

No. One of the first thing I learned when dealing with bullies is that backing down only serves to intesify abuse.

 

[Chehrazad]

can we all please dial back the hostility a touch, please? Thread locked for staff review.

 

[Chehrazad]

now that you've all calmed down @Zeful and @Cosar will both receive a walking for marginal behaviour and a three-day threadban for strawmanning of their opponent's arguments and bad faith debating while Zeful will receive one for characterizing their opponent as a 'bully' and uttering them to be 'just insulting people for your own inadequacies.'

Please refrain from this in the future and have a good day.

 

[Nikkolas]

Gonna reiterate that I liked Fallout 3's Karma system and Karmic System-dependent companions. It actually made more sense than either New Vegas or 4.

Was it frustrating? Yes but so is making friends. Turns out you can't make friends with the bunny huggers when your favorite hobby is ripping off the heads of bunnies.

 

[Chloe Sullivan]

I don't care how good or bad the puzzles are, any inclusion of the Tower of Hanoi puzzle in a game post 2010 = autofail. Seriously, that horse is so dead and beaten it's paste.

Sunless Sea gets bonus points because it lets you just blow up the thing and it's not actually presented as a puzzle.

 

[Hykal94]

Gonna reiterate that I liked Fallout 3's Karma system and Karmic System-dependent companions. It actually made more sense than either New Vegas or 4.

Click to shrink...

Say what you will about NV butchering the Karma system, it's still leagues better over FO3's "give water to beggar despite nuking a town" or 4's ... wait it has a karma system?

If only Vegas could reconcile its in-game Karma judgement with faction relations in a logical and thoughtful man- OH WAIT FALLOUT 2 DID THAT ALREADY.

But really though, everyone play the early Fallouts.

 

[Vindictus]

I honestly really liked the idea of the New Vegas reputation meters? It seemed like it could have been built on better- Like, it makes no sense to have a faction recognize you as the guy killing all their scouts when you've made a point of never leaving any survivors- but it was a pretty decent system at it's base.

Makes more sense than a Karma meter within the context of postapocalyptic tribal warfare to me, anyway.

 

[VolantRedX]

I think the Life is Strange games should get a lot more attention than they do because as far as I can tell they do something I haven't really seen in games. They're essentially the first real coming of age story in video games. Sure a lot of RPG games have that as a side note for the PC, but somehow watching someone grow up while slaying dragons is a bit harder to relate to than two high school kids going through life. I think the more games branch out into non-action, non-horror driven genres it will make for a healthier art form in the long run.

But really though, everyone play the early Fallouts.

Click to shrink...

Ok, but what if you don't like games that have aged like milk left in the summer sun for two weeks?

 

[Nikkolas]

Say what you will about NV butchering the Karma system, it's still leagues better over FO3's "give water to beggar despite nuking a town" or 4's ... wait it has a karma system?

Click to shrink...

No, NV and 4 just let anyone who wanted to trail along with you because that makes sense. I literally had Veronica help me massacre the Brotherhood of Steel for Caesar. She was a great help in shooting our way out of the bunker and then after it blew up and ensured the eradication of her little family, I chatted her up and she was like "I'm slightly miffed with you."

Also I think all this brought my BoS Reputation down to one of the lower levels of Infamy.

I personally think it makes more sense that Fawkes refuses to travel with the murderer, or Jericho has no interest in traveling with a saint.

The fact Boone is willing to rub elbows with Baby-Eater McRape as long as McRape isn't on good terms with the Legion is pretty shitty of Boone, I gotta say.

 

[Hykal94]

No, NV and 4 just let anyone who wanted to trail along with you because that makes sense. I literally had Veronica help me massacre the Brotherhood of Steel for Caesar. She was a great help in shooting our way out of the bunker and then after it blew up and ensured the eradication of her little family, I chatted her up and she was like "I'm slightly miffed with you."

Click to shrink...

Every time I hurt any BoS member, Veronica will always go hostile as long as she is in my party. I think that's a glitch.

The fact Boone is willing to rub elbows with Baby-Eater McRape as long as McRape isn't on good terms with the Legion is pretty shitty of Boone, I gotta say.

Click to shrink...

And if I got to Very Evil just by stealing a lot, that makes me the same as someone who murdered one old lady? Like, why is stealing a ton worse than killing an innocent? If I gave two dozen bottles of water to a beggar, is Fawkes gonna go "you may have literally exploded a nuclear device but at least you gave Bob outside some of your water."

Let's face it, Karma has never made the most sense in the FO series. This is true for each FO game with Karma in it.

Ok, but what if you don't like games that have aged like milk left in the summer sun for two weeks?

Click to shrink...

Then don't play the games, Volant. No one is forcing you too.

Here's my other controversial opinion: FO1 and FO2 are better games than FO4. Not even a better Fallout game, better games period. Its age is a drop in the bucket compared to its choices and variations.

If I wanted a game where I go to dungeons and shoot everyone, I'll play Borderlands 2 thanks.

 

[VolantRedX]

Then don't play the games, Volant. No one is forcing you too.

Click to shrink...

Except your post literally tells everyone to play the old Fallout games. Except if you want a game that wasn't programed on punch cards you really can't thus bringing them up in comparison to the actually mechanically functional and ascetically pleasing games in the series does nothing to debate the merits of those games. Whatever points in 1 and 2's favor the fact that they look like shit and somehow feel worse to play makes them not even worth bringing up.

 

[mothematics]

Lydia isn't that annoying She's just boring.

 

[Hykal94]

Except your post literally tells everyone to play the old Fallout games. Except if you want a game that wasn't programed on punch cards you really can't thus bringing them up in comparison to the actually mechanically functional and ascetically pleasing games in the series does nothing to debate the merits of those games. Whatever points in 1 and 2's favor the fact that they look like shit and somehow feel worse to play makes them not even worth bringing up.

Click to shrink...

Then don't listen to me, genius.

You can state the obvious sure, but it doesn't change the fact that Fallout 1 and 2 are considered classics and that FO4 is considered the black sheep of the series, financially successful or otherwise. Gameplay and story > graphics and sound. Has been true for RPGs since the 90s.

But you know what, I'm not gonna argue with you. You want to say FO4 is the best game in the series ever, go ahead. Just don't rope me into it.