Unpopular opinion: The 2d GTAs were better than the 3d ones. Can't speak for V since I haven't played that one but while the 3d ones are fun I always enjoyed the 2d ones far more.
[QUOTE=Clovis;52791308]GTAIV was my first gta so i didnt really see any flaws in it cause i had nothing to compare it to, i thought it was great[/QUOTE]
It's a good game in its own right, but holy [B]fuck[/B] the driving, of which there is a [B]ton[/B], is really imprecise and overly difficult. The guns, while behaving perfectly fine, feel really weak to shoot because of the sounds and lack of movement when firing. The game released in the era of gray and brown, so it was really desaturated, and, if you were unlucky enough to play the PC port, you got one of the worst high-profile ports in recent history.
This was also the game right after San Andreas, which had jetpacks and planes and bikes and character building RPG elements and shit, then this comes out and you've got none of that.
[QUOTE=gk99;52791376]It's a good game in its own right, but holy [B]fuck[/B] the driving, of which there is a [B]ton[/B], is really imprecise and overly difficult.[/QUOTE]
I tried replaying GTA 4 a while ago and I just can't get over the fact that every single fucking car handles like there's an anvil in the trunk, it's fucking awful. I can't for the life of me understand people who prefer its handling over GTA 5's car handling.
I liked the way driving worked in GTA IV, and I wish it was like that in GTA 5, where the city is a bit more wild and there's more opportunities to pull off sick maneuvers.
On the topic of GTA, I've played San Andreas, IV, and V, and I hold them in equal regard and can't really rank one as better or worse than the other. In the end, they all have bits I thought they did really well, and bits they could've done better.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52791605]I tried replaying GTA 4 a while ago and I just can't get over the fact that every single fucking car handles like there's an anvil in the trunk, it's fucking awful. I can't for the life of me understand people who prefer its handling over GTA 5's car handling.[/QUOTE]
I can't speak for GTA V's handling but IV's handling was actually for the most part more realistic for your average car. The previous games had been a fair bit more arcadey in general.
I prefer GTA SA and GTA IV in terms of driving mechanics. The cars have actual weight and realism to their physics, and the bikes aren't on rails fake boring shits. Bikes used to be my favorite vehicle, GTA V ruined it by removing all the physics and making it extremely on rails and fake. Plus a heavy realistic car is much easier to drive in games than an overly tight arcadey twitch mobile
Another unpopular opinion of mine, I really really dislike dogs.
Scientific facts are social constructions
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52783800]PUBG sounds kind of boring. I like a lot of the concepts but it seems like every single game plays out roughly the same and ends roughly the same; snooping around in some buildings then hiding in grass before either shooting or getting shot by someone 8 miles away.
Also the loot box early access shenanigans puts me off completely.[/QUOTE]
PUBG only strengthens my wish for sniper rifles to be removed from shooter games.
I love both, but I like Morty a bit more than Rick.
[QUOTE=Shakma;52791934]Scientific facts are social constructions[/QUOTE]
I mean... Kind of? But they're as solid as it gets
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52791747]I can't speak for GTA V's handling but IV's handling was actually for the most part more realistic for your average car. The previous games had been a fair bit more arcadey in general.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=INH;52791760]I prefer GTA SA and GTA IV in terms of driving mechanics. The cars have actual weight and realism to their physics, and the bikes aren't on rails fake boring shits. Bikes used to be my favorite vehicle, GTA V ruined it by removing all the physics and making it extremely on rails and fake. Plus a heavy realistic car is much easier to drive in games than an overly tight arcadey twitch mobile
Another unpopular opinion of mine, I really really dislike dogs.[/QUOTE]
More realistic =/= realistic.
San Andreas's driving was fine, it's not totally accurate but it's inaccurate in the direction that makes it at least better for gameplay. GTAIV's driving is so far off the mark for how a car really feels to drive, in the opposite direction so that it makes driving more difficult, that it's not even good in the sense that the game is a great world simulation, it's just bad for everything unless you want to simulate what it's like to drive on loose soil.
My mom's 2007 minivan can take a left turn in a city intersection without screeching the tires and tilting like the ones in GTAIV
I don't at all understand the 'ugly art style' criticism of cartoons. Why does everything have to be pretty??
[QUOTE=RobL;52796163]I don't at all understand the 'ugly art style' criticism of cartoons. Why does everything have to be pretty??[/QUOTE]
good art style =/= beauty
if the entire comic just looks repulsive then why would someone want to look at that
[QUOTE=Bathtub;52796208]good art style =/= beauty
if the entire comic just looks repulsive then why would someone want to look at that[/QUOTE]
Because it creates a unique feel and atmosphere that may or may not be more fitting to the themes of the show. Cartoons all adopt the same clean look these days.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdaHaNRMKg&list=PLBJPnuGmJNch9MrNpYZL7q2hXl5VBeKBI[/media]
I fucking love Soviet animation
Life Is Strange doesn't look good to me because the characters seem entirely one dimensional
[QUOTE=RobL;52796224]Because it creates a unique feel and atmosphere that may or may not be more fitting to the themes of the show. Cartoons all adopt the same clean look these days.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdaHaNRMKg&list=PLBJPnuGmJNch9MrNpYZL7q2hXl5VBeKBI[/media]
I fucking love Soviet animation[/QUOTE]
this is honestly a good art style, even if it is kinda ugly. i think people are talking about shit like this
[IMG]https://imgur.com/oeIF8Js.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bathtub;52796600]this is honestly a good art style, even if it is kinda ugly. i think people are talking about shit like this
[IMG]https://imgur.com/oeIF8Js.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I see what you mean but people always say 'ugly' rather than 'lazy' which are completely different things
Ugly art styles can be great. Look at the 2D Fallouts. Horribly ugly but an amazing style.
parents-to-be should take a crash course in the ethical implications of bringing a new person into the world and have the chance to really consider that even if all lives are worth living some lives are simply not worth starting no matter how much happiness it would bring you personally, i'm being nice about this now but once i am dictator licences to make babies will be very hard to get you have been warned
edit: nazis are too 'reals > feels' (realpolitik) and commies are the other way around (hypernormalisation) and anything in between is a useful idiot that is a pretty edgy opinion i bet
[QUOTE=idiot;52796833]edit: nazis are too 'reals > feels' (realpolitik)[/QUOTE]
This is factually incorrect though
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52796996]This is factually incorrect though[/QUOTE]
i mean in terms of ideology, obviously political extremism of any kind is the definition of 'feels > reals' and realpolitik is just a propaganda tool, i just wanted to make a slick joke but i guess i forgot to make it funny or insightful
edit: was that dumb rating for not specifying that it was a prop. tool for nazis specifically because i thought it was implied unless there is still a glaring factual error i am making
Both Fascism and Communism have objective "reals" advantages and subjective "feels" advantages. Of course, most people'll be happy to be entitled dickheads and go with "we're thinking, they're feeling" and'll do their best to look at the worst of their enemy and the best of their friends, whilst ignoring their worst and the enemy's best.
Still, liberalism's shit, and communism and fascism literally exist as a reaction to liberal shortcomings.
(which has the unfortunate effect of first attracting the people that do the worst in the liberal environment, IE misfits that can't properly communicate/fully understand the ideas)
Windows XP, despite general plasticky ugliness, was the pinnacle of desktop UI design. My ideal version of Windows has XP's interface, 10's visual theme, window decorations and window management, and 7's start menu and search. And 64-bit and DX12 and all that jazz. That would make me a very happy boy.
Whenever I go back to use XP I find its interface horribly lacking feature-wise as well as very unintuitive and annoying tbh. And I grew up with the damn thing.
[QUOTE=Clovis;52800249]Im confused what you want from XP than 7 onwards doesnt have? The taskbar just functions way better on 8/10 and also those have search bars in the start menu which xp to my recollection did not have, not sure if it ever got one but i remember it not having one
I used xp for way longer than I should have and loved it but id feel pretty held back without a search bar and the older task bar functionality with programs[/QUOTE]
7s interface is fine too but there's a little bit too much empty space in some menus.
I think that original Hellsing series is just as good in it's own ways as OVA.
Woody Allen stuff is just uninteresting shit, and people act like they are intellectuals because they seen his films, its usually just him being in love with the main chick of the film, or think he's like reminiscing the old times of romance.
VICE is getting terrible, their articles are just getting reposted, and its always the same themes about drugs, why this is terrible, etc.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;52805676]VICE is getting terrible, their articles are just getting reposted, and its always the same themes about drugs, why this is terrible, etc.[/QUOTE]
Same for VOX
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Unpopular opinions V8 Flat IS NOTHING
