Unpopular Opinion

6393 readers

214 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Nintendo’s aggressive legal tactics and pricing strategy ultimately protect the quality and value of their games. (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Nintendo, while aggressively litigious, do so to maintain the value and exclusivity of their IP.

Their games also never go on sale, and all sell really well over time, unlike many releases from other publishers.

The result is that Nintendo are able to release a solid cadence of high quality, first party games free of other forms of aggressive monetisation, maintaining the value of the games as art.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GhiLA 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Tears was mid and not only did it ignore series lore, it ignored lore in a game it's a direct sequel to, that and both games feel like "design by intern" when it comes to puzzles and direction.

Odyssey was... O.K. Not as tight as a Galaxy, but also not as enjoyable as the usual Mario linearity for every objective as Nintendo has more control over every experience the player has.

Samus Returns was good fun. Dread.... Wasn't a Metroid game.

Splattoon and Pokemon both fall into the categories of games they could tweak slightly and rerelease for $70 under a new title, as they do.

Other than that, what do we have to talk about, Animal Crossing? The 3DS version was better and had more to do.

...and... Then there's Kirby. What do we even do with him!?

A+ work. They've never made a bad Kirby game. Bad and Kirby doesn't exist. It's like they could try and it would still be fun.

They did, it was canvas curse, and somehow it was still fun.

No one has any idea why.