Widely-Held Misconceptions About Specific Games


What are some misconceptions you find that a significant number of people have about some specific games or game types you like?

I would rather not make this a thing about misconceptions people who don’t play games have about games in general; I feel that ground has been tread and is going to end up being a little harsh.

I was listening to the Giant Beastcast today and got a little frustrated by hearing NieR: Automata once again described as having “multiple playthroughs”. I’m literally just making this thread because I am so tired of this description being applied to a game that is essentially linear, 30 or so hours all told, interrupted by good-ass credit sequences, and has a little bit of repeat content. It clearly turns people off immediately upon hearing it and I don’t know why people who seem to earnestly want others to play are still throwing around “playthroughs” as the term. It may be a hold-over from the original NieR, which does have a lot of pretty painful repeating content. It may be because the credit sequences are called “Endings”, but chapters have endings. Acts have endings. Eh.

Try to explain why you think the misconception could have come about, and explain why it’s not true.

Maybe through this thread, some of us who hold misconceptions about games will be able to learn from others who really like the games.


This is kinda general, but it irks me when people claim that a game is too easy or shallow because they aren’t willing to nudge up the difficulty setting. Seems like it should be the more experienced players who should be expected to change a default setting rather than new players who are typically going to stick with the default. So many Dragon Age II complaints would have been avoided if folks who played the first had just nudged up the difficulty setting one notch.
A similar one (and this is a misconception I had) is that Ranked or Competitive modes are for competitive people. In both R6:Siege and Overwatch, the casual-mode leads me into wildly unbalanced matches that just frustrate everyone. But once placed in ranked I end up having great matches frequently. I don’t play those games with teamchat on or super seriously, but now that I’m placed I feel like I’m performing relatively well and enjoying the lecel of skill of other players on both sides.


Ditto (was it last week’s Beastcast also with the discussion of default difficulty as the reviewer’s “duty”?) - if you are experienced at playing games to the point of being an expert who weighs in on the range of them released each year and with years of experience in them then no, the default difficulty is probably not for you.

If we are going to have fixed difficulties (which I think are a bad idea and dynamic difficulty is the actual answer, especially from an a11y perspective)… The default should be an easy setting that allows people who are relatively new to enjoy the game without feeling like a roadblock has been put in front of them - a setting on which to learn systems mastery and the mechanical depth of the basic systems. The very easy below that should accommodate people who have to learn the genre conventions from scratch, who have no idea how to even play such a game, or who may not be able to manipulate the controller quickly. Then you typically have a setting for people who are very familiar with the genre and wish to be challenged by the game to display some mastery. Finally, there is the top difficulty which demands constant mastery to progress and is considered a challenge to even players who have the combo of fast reaction times, extreme genre familiarity, and any other minor advantage (low latency screen, surround audio cues, etc).

Every game reviewer, more or less, clearly falls into the second-highest category. If the devs have tweaked them to this template, the default is not what reviewers should be using to engage with the systems on the games. Most of the people who seek out enthusiast reviews are also not going to be playing with that setting either.

Ideally we get rid of the entire concept of difficulty being a few granular things you pick from. But when using this legacy of 4 tiers that have been around since at least the early '90s, people should use them based on this template. Nine times out of ten, it is how the game was balanced. Also devs who don’t let you change difficulty during the game should be denied Twinkies: bad developer!


BlazBlue is not only a legitimate fighting game but one of the best in the past decade. To me, it’s a fighting game fans’ game, it’s not overly complicated but each character has a wholly unique style of play that takes practice. I think anime fighters in general get a bad rap as bottom tier fighting games, and yes there probably are a lot of crap ones, but Arc System games have balanced and unique, non-clone characters. Also, Blazblue had one of the deepest story modes (regardless of whether or not it makes sense) besides NetherRealm.


Kingdom Hearts does not have a particularly complex narrative. Like any long-running story, it has many twists and turns and introductions of new elements as it goes along. The same could be said for Game of Thrones, Dragon Ball, Metal Gear, Lord of the Rings, etc. It’s just a big thing that can’t be wholly summed up in a bite sized form.

I suspect that a lot of people keep getting this impression because they try to look up hour long lore dump videos, and it ends up overwhelming them and feeling incomprehensible. But like any long-running story, if taken piece by piece in it’s intended form, it’s easily understood - no wikis necessary.

The 1.5 + 2.5 Collection is available on PS4 and contains most of the series at 60fps. If you finish those games and are interested in continuing, Kingdom Hearts 2.8 is the only other thing until Kingdom Hearts 3.


As to specific games:

DriveClub is a semi-sim (Forza etc) title with super-strong brakes to compress the braking lengths; the AI do not do the outdated driving thing of racing along lines and not steering out of the way of obstacles. The AI is actually perfectly modern and does a good job of being “moderate human without the aggression” including occasionally making big mistakes so they’re not just really slow but never mess up and lose time - this makes it interesting to race. I think quite a few reviews just came from people who didn’t enjoy the game and saw what they wanted to see - “oh bad on-rails AI is a thing we say about racing games we don’t like” and then people actually got their hands on the game and found that that’s not factually accurate. It’s not an amazing game but for a circuit semi-sim then it brought some fresh stuff (dynamic weather and accelerated dynamic time of day with tracks designed so the rising and setting Sun would cause significantly different experiences with vision during races) and little things like dynamic challenges even if you’re not focused on the race. The narrative due to the delays and PS+ stuff had already been written before anyone ever played it.

Mass Effect is still the best that series has ever been despite playing like an RPG (see also the first Deus Ex and Alpha Protocol for how RPG + guns = bad shooting until you level up as a core mechanic) not a shooter. The world and even story beats are just hard to compare with the far less expansive sequels. ME2 is still a very good game and has some great (and some terrible - it is Bioware) characters but it’s all falling apart as you reach the soft reset, sorry… as you reach the ending.


BlazBlue is…a bit more complicated than that, I’d say. To be perfectly honest, the first game and the first version of the second were total messes; both were dominated by characters who were almost unbeatable at competitive levels, and neither had good anti-turtling systems, among other things. It’s easy to dismiss people who still shit on it now (especially as anime fighters in general seem to be getting more recognition), but speaking as someone who’s played the series since Calamity Trigger’s console release, I can assure you it didn’t get legit until Continuum Shift II.


The obvious one is the whole “Dark Souls is hard” buisness, though that’s played to death so I’ll just drop the “There’s a billion things you can do at any given time to make things easier” line and leave it at that.

A less obvious one would be the way Borderlands 2 is made out to have really bad writing, when honestly it’s got some of the best character stuff in the buisness. Sure it’s got it’s low points, the meme-ery obviously dates it and isn’t exactly high art, but people way overstate how much of that there is. It’s not always subtle with it’s refreshingly positive worldview either, but I’ve never seen that as a bad thing. It’s all in keeping with the tone and there’s a real catharsis a lot of the missions where they play it up. And when it wants to tone down the silliness for serious drama, it does so in a way that doesn’t feel too jarring, and it’s genuinely fantastic at times when it comes to character development. And it’s damn funny too, I’m a fan of it’s very specific brand of slapstick.


I’ve also played since Calamity Trigger, and I remember the early Arakune days. I don’t disagree totally, but I wouldn’t call them a mess at all. When comparing those games to say Street Fighter V for the first 18 months, or all Mortal Kombat games until 9, they definitely don’t deserve to be disregarded the way they are.


Woof, I don’t know. What I’ve seen of Borderlands 2…

Tales from the Borderlands made me see the potential of the Borderlands universe for storytelling, but before that I just thought some of the gags from the first one were cute and it seems like they have a lot of Claptrap in that second one. I’m not fond of that Claptrap, not at all.


I disagree to this. This series even makes everything even more confusing by introducing time travel for a character that has 3 forms.

Square-Enix REALLY wanted fans to buy 3 to 4 handheld system by convincing them that the story in these spin-off games are important and mandatory. The only thing they succeeded in is to make the story an incomprehensible mess. I think even the mobile game has a canon storyline ?

In a way, you’re the one who is right, it’s not a complex narrative, it’s just obtuse.


Take a closer look at the way the post is formatted. @coltrane won this thread already :smiley:



Yeah, the mobile game is technically canon, but that story took place literally thousands of years before the events of the rest of the series and really holds no significant bearing to it. People really make too much of this kind of stuff. There’s a NieR stageplay that’s canon as well, but you don’t need to have seen it to play Nier: Automata. It’s just there and is technically part of the story.

And if you really want the story from the mobile game, they made a cutscene movie for it and put it in KH2.8


Crusader Kings 2 is exactly as complex as you think, the misconception is thinking you have to understand it. If you don’t worry about winning or losing you can watch a stream of somebody you like play a game to get the basic idea. Then you can easily hop into The Sims: Medieval Failure Simulator and have a good time.


(I feel really silly for not noticing anything about the formatting what’s going on)


Oh, it had a bunch of quotes of itself within itself and repeating, and I thought it was a joke but maybe it was an actual mistake.

Or maybe the fact that it’s edited now is just to further confound me.


As someone who is going through all the KH games right now. I think Square Enix does a fantastic job of catching new players up by releasing collections on PS3 and PS4 that have everything you need to see/play.


lol I was editing my post on my iPad (which I’m somewhat new to) and something went horribly wrong with the formatting.


Fallout 1, 2 and 3

Harold is not a ghoul despite looking a bit like one and having a ghoul’s Sprite in Fallout 1&2. He is a FEV mutant akin to The Master and he explains as much in Fallout 1 but everyone still calls him a ghoul.