Unpopular Opinions v. "this might get a lot of disagrees BUT..."
179 replies, posted
But then again why would you wanna be friends with terrible people
It mostly come from games like Donkey Kong 64 which just ruined the idea for many people. Though DK64 was particularly bad because you could only collect certain things with certain characters, so you had to replay every level 4 times to 100% the game, and none of the characters added anything new to the game they just had different abilities.
Aiming down sights, in many games and as it's usually implemented, is detrimental to gameplay. The sights tend to be less precise and far more obstructive than 2D crosshairs, the player is forced to zoom in to shoot accurately whether they want to or not (scopes having this tradeoff is justified, but usually iron sights and 1x optics still inexplicably zoom in), twitch aim speed is limited by the delay in gaining accuracy from ADS, and the reward for being able to react to and read strafes is minimized because you can't move quickly while shooting anyways.
In some more realistic games, this all makes sense (except for 1x optics having zoom), but many games have ADS just because it's popular when it doesn't make sense for the game. Titanfall is one of the biggest examples of this. The defining aspect of the pilot gameplay is the parkour, and ADS works against it by reducing your awareness of the map's geometry with zoom+visual obstruction and reducing your air acceleration. Titanfall 2 had weapons with no hip fire penalty, and I used them almost exclusively because the game felt far better that way. It's also not justified by the setting because you play as a super soldier with an actual HUD.
The one game that does ADS perfectly is Arma 3. ADS obviously makes sense for a milsim, it has no effect on the weapon's accuracy, it doesn't arbitrarily prevent you from walking at full speed (good luck aiming like that though), and zoom is controlled separately with non-magnifying sights. Bullets go where the weapon is physically pointed and the weapon moves from sway and recoil, so the ability to hipfire and shoot while moving is realistically limited without taking any control away from the player. This isn't suitable for every game, but those games probably don't need ADS in the first place.
Did you just get done with a game of factorio
With a post like that, I'd love to see his factory. And how he setup his oil refineries.
Anyway, I don't know how unpopular this one is, but those Ted movies were absolutely, painfully stupid, but I still managed to laugh at few of the jokes anyway.
i understand that people like hatsune miku and minecraft, but like... its getting a bit much, lets be honest and give proper dues. minecraft wouldn't have been shit without c418's touch
Just started playing Minecraft again after ages. I remember the original music being great, but the Nether music blew me away:
https://youtu.be/Z1cofbLvbkM?t=65
No, terrible people would become worse without counteracting social influences, which are lost when we taqfir people for mere association, leaving them to either recede into lonesomeness or find company in fellow wackjobs, both leading to a degenerating spiral.
The best disinfectant is sunlight, diologue and reason is the best way to resolve problems, and society and personal matters are not machiavellian political games. Fuck that and anyone who thinks that way.
If I can't make someone see reason or decency, then I'm not going to waste my time throwing my words into the void. I neither want to spend my precious, finite hours in a terrible person's company, nor do I want to look the other way for behaviour I wouldn't accept from anyone else.
CS wouldnt be CS with ADS and sprint. The simple movement and lack of ADS is central to its methodical, tactical gameplay. It's total lack of frills and simplicity is why I much prefer it over R6 Siege.
aim down sights is fucking trash and a borderline indefensible game mechanic. I've seen 2 games do aim down sights well: Arma and Dirty Bomb. Arma because its a milsim, aiming the sights makes sense for simulation reasons. Dirty Bomb because its an exchange of speed for 100% accuracy, you use it when your gun's spread is too inaccurate at the end of a duel with a guy, or when supporting at long range. For every other game, aim down sights usually does one of two things: adds an extra click before shooting a guy and makes it even more about who clicks faster rather than skill, or it just slows the game down to a crawl like Escape from Tarkov. Why not just use that precious keybind for something like an alt fire, running, jumping, or something else? Even the best tactical shooter ever made (don't @ me) Ghost Recon didn't need an aim down sights key. Yes it had a key for zooming, but you didn't need to aim down the damn sights manually for every single damn russian you needed to blast. Aim down sights is fucking ass and needs to go away. Either that or devs need to provide actual incentive and meaning for its existence instead of slapping it in and going YUP WE'RE INDUSTRY STANDARD NOW. Being standard sucks.
Headshots in games
Feels like 9/10 of them are just from random spread/spraynpray
Sounds like you guys need to come play some Quake Champions with me. No aim down sights, most weapons are perfectly accurate, and there's no headshot damage multiplier.
None of that bullshit, just bouncing sideways at 40 miles per hour.
https://i.imgur.com/0H80vIp.png
(sips monster in Canadian) hmu bucko shits on my profile
also while I'm still mad at really benign things in video games, space is the best crouch key okay I can feel my blood pressure settling now
Another video game opinion, Siege's total lack of jumping in favor of context-sensitive vaulting through windows and chest-high cover is totally fine considering the type of game it is.
BUT - it's not perfect for every game. Especially considering how obvious it is that Siege's implementation took a TON of effort to get working as well as it does.
Don't know if this is unpopular but... Playtonic Games should make a first-person shooter.
Psyonix should make a new Twisted Metal and I am actually deadly serious about this
The accuracy on hipfired weapons is a major reason why I thought shooting in Titanfall 2 felt way better than in Titanfall 1, even though when compared on all merits I find the first one to be a superior game.
Fallout 76 is a better game than Fallout 4.
Both games fail miserably at writing and narrative, and pretty much every mechanic apart from shooting is badly designed or outright broken including the tacked on settlement system.
Where 76 triumphs over 4 is the exploration, with more distinct and interesting places to discover and occasionally an actual story about what happened there, even if that story is usually "Oh no, the scorched are here". Each location adds to the player's understanding of the world and helps it to feel like a place that people once lived in, unlike the playground of the Commonwealth.
Add to that a more atmospheric soundtrack, better sound design and nicer graphics and I'd argue that what 4 did well, 76 does better and everything else is about on par. The only thing it's missing is the cardboard cutout NPCs, but I found that none of the good moments from 4 involved interacting with them anyway.
I forced to actually use the gravity gun in half-life 2 for once while replaying it, maybe to see why some people like it so much, and is not that good or fun.
it's slow since you need to pick shit up, and not always there's good props to pick up so end up using shoes and cardboard boxes to do fuck all damage, it feels almost random how well the prop is going to fly at your target, doesn't work at all in tight spaces because the props gets stuck everywhere.
Fuck this gimmicky piece of bullshit.
I still love half-life a lot please don't kill me
Feel like I'm gonna get shit on for this. I know this is all about unpopular opinions but up until now it's been mostly smaller things like guilty pleasure video game stuff.
(sigh) but here it goes.
I'm against abortion. There's just something about it that really twists my stomach. It doesn't feel right. I mean, why is it that the same "tissue" that people think its okay to throw away only counts as a human being if the woman wants it to be? If you can't afford to have a kid then it's probably not a good idea to be having sex. I think it's perfectly fine for some hospitals to not perform the procedure if they don't agree with it for their own reasons.
Now, I do feel that there are some grey zones. When the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, I still feel queasy but I understand why they feel it's necessary. It still feels like shit, though, and I put the blame on whoever forced the woman into that situation in the first place.
I also don't agree with those that show the grisly images of aborted babies as a means of protest. That's terrible no matter how you slice it. I don't feel its right for people on my side of the issue to harass women who go into the procedure, either.
But I also feel that Planned Parenthood etc. are just another big business preying on vulnerable people-pregnant women, in this case, that pressure them to do the more expensive procedure rather then present them with all the options possible. This is only based on what I've heard, though, and I wish I could get more information about it from a less biased source. (Something that's extremely difficult given how polarizing the subject matter is, from both sides of the issue.)
If there was a way to extract the fetus from a woman's body and cryogenically freeze it so that another compatible woman willing to bring the baby to term could take them, I'd be all for it. I understand that it would be expensive though. I don't know how exactly they'd go about doing it, it's just something I wish was an option.
"I'm not in the mood to be called out for my terrible opinion" is probably a more accurate way of stating this.
The fact that you only consider how disgusted you feel about it instead of how a woman might feel says it all, despite your attempts to justify yourself through saying that woman are being manipulated by Planned Parenthood, as though they couldn't possibly come to the rational conclusion that bringing that pregnancy to term might not be in the best interests of themselves or the fetus.
You can't even offer an explanation for your opinion other than your own disgust, and by your own admission you are ignorant on the subject because both sides are apparently equally "biased".
Why don't you get an unwanted pregnancy, carry it to term and deal with the pain of the delivery, get postpartum depression and then struggle to raise it for 18 years on a minimum wage as a single mother, and also spend those years resenting it for being born, and then your opinion on the subject will matter.
Until then, your opinion is entirely self-absorbed and irrational.
Should the government force women to carry through with a pregnancy? Oh right you have the anti-response shield set up so I guess this question is pointless
You are free to call my opinion terrible. I know a lot of people think it is, but this thread IS about unpopular opinions.
I think it's a bigger mistake to live without learning to have your opinions challenged
I'm okay with being proven wrong on occasion. Sometimes I'm just ill-informed, I admit.
I kind of feel claustrophobic when a game doesn't let me jump
The long an short of it is: abortion isn't a happy occasion. But what is the alternative? Criminalizing abortion is essentially making a woman's body government-owned. It's telling her to put a stop to whatever direction she wanted for her life, because the state mandates it's baby-raising time. The end result of taking away an 18 year-sized chunk out of someone's life is not pretty, it often involves a gimped (if not destroyed) career path, which in turn comes with crippling financial instability, not to mention the depression and a possibly abusive household, turning one "saved" life into two or more ruined ones.
You're uncomfortable with the idea on a personal level? That's fine, I get it, you're not necessarily talking law here. But your reasoning is the same as those who do, and you should keep that in mind. Just know there's people who love the idea of sexual abstinence ('just don't have sex lol') as actual legislative policy - it does not work, as this CDC study of 23 different abstinence-only programs should tell you. It's a simple-minded proposal with no regard for the real world, and the findings indicate abstinence programs (ironically) do fuck-all.
Naturally, no, I wouldn't want them to kill a fully formed baby. I just consider that conception is the moment that "ball of cells" becomes a future human. If you want to prevent there from being a baby in the first place the prevention should go a little further back then that.
And yes, I recognize that abstinence programs don't work and end up doing more harm then good, too. Just, you know, don't cause pregnancy if you don't want it.
What makes this extra painful is that some not-so-wise politicians will say something like "even a baby gotten from a rape is still a gift from God! :)", including that of incestuous rape.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.