I know this particular argument is between you and Cat but I'm jumping in on this one

Are you suggesting this guy was impaled from behind with a sword, then somehow could have caught a flying jar, written a message on it, then let it drop to the floor? That's insane even for this series

---

"When I went to my office, I found Lana there. Apparently she had already... "arranged" the crime scene."
He wouldn't have even needed to bring up the cloth or the fragment. His word along with his "deductions" would have been enough.

A vest with a piece cut out is hardly enough evidence to both reopen the investigation and be sure new evidence would implicate Gant.

She had also suppressed the memory of knocking the man with the knife over, so all she would have had were the two images without the full context.

I'd agree if I hadn't seen that it was meant to be two separate events on my first playthrough. And I was hardly paying attention then.

She remembered the first image was after she had been knocked to the floor, and drew it as such.

My point is that Lana, or anyone, couldn't have known the jar went flying during the investigation.

---

Saying that would be admitting he knew Lana altered the scene but didn't do anything about it until then, which would be considered covering it up


I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're talking about Lana, I didn't say the missing piece would specifically implicate Gant, I said it should have tipped her off that something was fishy about the crime scene.


"I figured it out so I don't see why it's a problem" isn't an argument


That still doesn't even remotely answer my question. Why would she have drawn the second thing to happen at the top of the page? Any normal person would have drawn the fight at the top and the jar at the bottom, or better yet, side by side (assuming there was only one piece of paper available.) And if the jar image is supposed to be separate from the fight image, what do the black outlines on the jar half mean? I can't see it as anything but the top of the window frame.


Then how would it have broken?


This is getting really off-topic so I'll just say I feel like 1-5 suffers story-wise in much the same way the story in Fire Emblem: Fates does; it felt like the writers knew what they wanted/needed to happen to tell the story they wanted, but specific events and character actions within had to be forced to fit the story to the point of it feeling contrived.

---

He'd feign ignorance and claim he only deduced it after rehecking he initial autopsy report. Worst he'd get is a salary cut.

I mean that "something fishy" is still too much of a gamble to reopen the investigation and hope it doesn't just lead back to Ema.

I didn't "figure it out", I went by what was directly stated. Ema only stated "this was exactly what I saw" in reference to the stabbing, before she remembered the jar silhouette. Once she remembers, she clearly states there was another flash of lightning.

Answer me this: why should that mean that the two events happened at the same time? How is a traumatized teenager trying to make sense of a bizarre image supposed to indicate that the two events happened at the same time?
Given that she passed out soon after shoving away the man with the knife, she would have been looking up as she tried to resist collapsing. From there, it would be easy to see the top of the window frame.


And by accidentally let it fall, I meant fall off the chest it was on.

Okay. I'm not here to change opinions, I'm here to clear up vague plot points with what I've wasted the past five years thinking about.

---

We're being honest,there's been so many logic holes that have been pointed out in every final case that it's ridiculous to compare them all. My top five is all over the place due to this

---

I hate WASD as keys. Gimme the arrow keys or QAOP (Which was both mine and my Dad's default keys for games on the ZX Spectrum).

What I will say about WASD - It's probably better than those Spectrum games that insisted on using 5678.

---

Here's something really controversial-I hate the term 'gamer'. It sounds so pandering and pretentious and gives off a strong sense of narcissism. Not to say that all gamers are like this,but that's just the feeling it gives off. It also makes no sense to me-why does it exist? Just call then video game players! That's like calling board game players 'boarders'.


Once again,no offence intended to actual gamers. I'm speaking only about the term,not the people.

---

Agreed though I dislike all labels really, this is just one of the ones I've thought about more. It separates us from just being people, it throws up barriers and build fences around us as a community. Instead of being "Oh I like games" we're "Gamers" which conjures up a lot of negative connotations of sweaty, angry people shouting down microphones at other gamers. Don't get me wrong, those people exist, but it's made it a bit of a taboo. Why should we be defined by one hobby?

Video games can already be quite an isolationist hobby, we don't need a label to isolate ourselves further from society at large.

---

I just finished Pac Man World 2 for the first time, and I have to say, I absolutely hated it! The first couple worlds were okay, but eventually the game descends into a pile of bullshit game design desicions and terrible hitboxing. I actually had to turn up the brightness on my tv just to see what I was doing in the last level. And don't get me started on the underwater levels! There are so many moments in those levels where it was nearly impossible not to get hit, especially from those damn electric eels! The bosses are also crap! Take the volcano boss, for instance. The only way I could beat the boss was exploiting a hit box issue where his projectiles often miss you as long as you stay still. The game overall was not fun, and I got my parents upset from yelling at the game. I have anger issues, okay?

---

I'd like to think, as someone with plenty myself, I'd be able to respect unpopular opinions, but having such a short attention-span that you can only tolerate story segments in video games that are less than 5 minutes long and preferring Assassin's Creed to Metal Gear Solid is simply unfortunate.

But this redeemed you. Skyward Sword is so horribly underrated and I agree it is possibly my absolute favorite Zelda game.

That's not what spin-off means at all. Since your name has "Klonoa" in it, I'll use Klonoa as an example. While the game makes use of its 2.5D aesthetic, Klonoa is at heart a 2D platformer. "Klonoa - Empire of Dreams" and "Klonoa 2 - Dream Champ Tournament" are both 2D platformers, just like Door to Phantomile and Lunatea's veil, but they're spinoffs because of thematic, mechanic, or continuity distinctions. Kingdom Hearts currently has 2 core titles -- Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 -- and mechanically, the two are relatively consistent with one another, but DDD, Re;Coded, Birth by Sleep etc. all either don't belong to the same continuity, chronology or have thematic, contextual, mechanic or continuity distinctions that keep them from being apart of the core installments.

Another example is, well, Dai Gyakuten Saiban. Dai Gyakuten Saiban is the same genre as Ace Attorney and is mechanically damn near identical, but because of contextual and thematic distinctions, the game is not apart of the core continuity and is therefore a spinoff.

Eh actually to my knowledge all KH games, even non numbered ones are in the same continuity and important.

Chain of memories was so important it may as well have been Kingdom Hearts 2

Dream Drop Distance was so important it may as well have been Kingdom Hearts 3.

The only one I've not really played is Coded so I can't comment on that.

Other games like Days and Birth By Sleep are kind of self-contained stories but are still part of the continuity.

---

Unchained X (the mobile game) is the only one I'd call a spinoff. It's still technically part of the canon continuity but there's enough differences in the gameplay to qualify as one. It also helps that my phone refuses to run it.

---

I guess this is an unpopular opinion..?

I think Pillars of Eternity is so, so much better than Baldur's Gate.

Is it an unpopular opinion? It's made by nearly the same people...and I've only heard praise for it.

---

I don't see what it being made by the same people and people generally liking it have to do with anything. People still seem to generally prefer Baldur's Gate to Pillars of Eternity. Whether or not people like PoE independent of BG and who made PoE doesn't really change that does it?

This one's bound to cause some controversy.

Layton Brothers: Mystery Room is a great mystery game on the level of AA moreso than Danganronpa and it is by far the most enjoyable experience I've had with the Layton series due to the lack of puzzles which ruin the pace for me in mainline Layton games.

---

I don't mean to insult those who like the game, but Professor Layton = Boring. Fairly sure I only finished this game because I started it, and I don't like to let things I start unfinished. The puzzles are so simple. If I want to play a game because of puzzles like those, I can buy a crosswords magazine or open my "Math For Dummies" book.

There is no strong emotion in this game, the characters are completely emotionally sterile. There is no adrenaline rush. The main character is especially uninteresting/dull.

*I only played the first title, so I'm talking about it, especifically - the others can be better but somehow I doubt it. And I realize that what makes a good game for me, is not what makes a good game for others. But to my standards, it is totally boring, too simple, and the explanation forcone of the misteries is completely disappointing.

For better or worse, the scenarios/twists only get more ridiculous from there. People really like the one in the third game, but I had several issues with that one, even for the series' standards. So there's my unpopular opinion, the third Professor Layton game's twist/following climax was too ridiculous for its own standards.

---

Yeah, I feel the puzzles are more for breaking the pace than anything. Though they're actually easier in the newer games.

I feel as though the atmosphere of the Curious Village is pretty good, but yeah it becomes really silly at the end. I enjoyed it though. It felt like it was parodying itself all of a sudden.

And like sumguy said, the ending twists get even more ridiculous in the later games. Well, not really MM and LS, but they're still crazy.

The presentation is pretty good, but that's pretty much all the series has. I'd go for Mystery Room any day.

---

I have to agree with Thelema, I found Layton super boring. I only played part of Curious Village and got the game cause I was gonna be in the hospital and figured a game with puzzles would keep my brain working. Finding the puzzles was annoying because it resulted in "click one everything, to see if it 'reminds Layton of a puzzle' to do" and the plot seemed nonexistent. "You are here in this village because this dude died. ...hey, look! A puzzle!"

C-A

---

@sumguy28 @Southern Corn @CatMuto

Yeah, and in this case I particularly feel like the game has nothing to make up for the dumb plot twists. Like, AA has a lot of stupid things, but I can appreciate the game because I find the interactions between the characters rich (for the most part). Hotel Dusk was boring as well, but the game had parts where the mystery had a "WTF" effect on you. With Layton, I just felt most things were lacking. An exciting plot, good interactions between characters, intriguing mystery... I found none of these things in the game.

IMO, Master Xehanort is the worst thing to happen to the Kingdom Hearts franchise -- even with Leonard Nimoy (R.I.P.)'s nevertheless-epic performance.

I don't like the Metal Gear Solid series. I've started to come under the impression that Hideo Kojima doesn't actually want to be a game developer; he wants to be a film director. Hence why the MGS series is basically a series of cutscenes with some interactive portions sprinkled in. They get boring to me, when I play a game, I want to play a game, not watch a movie! Gameplay should always be the biggest focus in a game, a good story can make a game better, but if you have to put down the controller every 5 minutes of gameplay to watch a 15 minute to an hour cutscene, then you can barely call it a game at all!

---

You've stated as much in the past :p

---

Well y'know...you can murder them entirely in MGS as well.

Frankly I loathe it when a 'stealth' game goes too actiony. Assassin's Creed suffered from this when it just became endless swordfights in the streets as the games went on. Didn't feel like a cool Assassin.

Though I'd recommend Mark of the Ninja if you are looking for a good stealth game that's also got plenty of action.

---

I absolutely do not care for Breath of the Wild.
It has several mechanics or ideas that I enjoy and like... I just don't care for their execution. Especially since I feel like trying to retain the story-based plot they have done for Zelda for the past decades and trying to go back to the first game's open world exploration aspect... don't mesh well. You cannot make something open world, while also trying to tie it together with a story. Not in a way that it makes characters work.

The main problem I have is that the plot going on is not interesting at all. It's post-apocalyptic, but it doesn't really feel that way. Things feel too relaxed for being a Hyrule kingdom that was eradicated, even if it was 100 years ago. Too many NPCs hanging around. What I would have really liked, is if Link had been alone. I'm not sure if this still counts as a spoiler, but the old man disappears upon completing the 'tutorial' of the Great Plateau. That leaves the Great Plateau, even if you don't really have much left to do there, to feel isolated and lonely. Had this gone on for the rest of the world, I wouldn't have minded. Link walking around a post-Ganon-has-won Hyrule would have been interesting. Really let the player realize what Link's 'failure' had caused. Maybe have Impa be around for a minor guide role, but she disappears into light because it was only her soul remaining, or something like that, akin to Skyward Sword.
I suppose the Zora could be around, since they are long-lived. Maybe have them choose to seclude themselves in their kingdom. I don't mind them being there, as they are part of the 'past' and do give Link, and the player, a talking to because of his failing to protect the kingdom.

The other problem with the plot's boring aspect is that the interesting stuff all happened 100 years ago. The character development, the bonding between the Champions, even the supposed romance that started in Zelda's view of Link changing, are all there. I am missing a good reason for caring for these characters. This is especially bad with Zelda; I've said it before, it's nice that Zelda finally has a proper personality after 30 years in the series. But she's still not a proper character. She still retains her plot device role. Even with looking up the memories, I still have not been given enough reason to care for her. Especially since... Calamity Ganon does nothing. All he does is cause a Blood Moon, supposedly. There's no hurry to do anything. (You could say the same applies to, say, Ocarina of Time. True, you could focus on sidequests instead of plot events, but you still felt like what happened had consequences. The Gorons are starving; the people in Castle Town are talking about Ganondorf having betrayed the king; talking about Zelda missing; etc. And the adult section has you constantly be reminded what Ganondorf's actions have caused.)

Had they done the plot or exploration of BotW differently, I might like the game more.
As it is... I just want a prequel to the game, revolving purely around the events of 100 years ago. I don't care if it ends in a downer. Or even 10.000 years ago, with this advanced Hyrule working alongside the Sheikah to defeat Calamity Ganon back then. If anything, that would be a neat nod to the fact that Hyrule was once designed to be a futuristic location and Link would travel to an alternate world/past/timeline, where Hyrule was in a medieaval state.

---

Whoops, did not read the title properly.

To compensate, an actual unpopular opinion.

The Kingdom Hearts plot is perfectly fine and comprehensible. Yeah, it's somewhat convoluted, but it's very easy to memorize. (Except DDD, that's just one hell of a shark jump.)

Here's what I originally wrote even though it has nothing to do with video games.

---

That's a good point. I've played breath of the wild and beaten it the story was fine not quite as good as say skyward sword or ocarina of time and I agree with you on a couple things first calamity ganon is not much of a threat he just circles hyrule castle 24/7 that's all and second everywhere else
in hyrule is just fine say rito village.

---