Unpopular Opinions V5: "I still don't like Half Life 2." - General

Gays should be able to donate blood. This isn't the 80's where nobody knows how to find HIV in blood almost instantly Working organs should be donated to hospitals and non-working organs should be donated to science once you die by default, of course with the option of opting out for some stupid reason.

[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;49295129]I watched it for the first time as a fully-grown adult and found it to be one of the most boring experiences of my life. I understand other people enjoyed the film, but it's my personal opinion that 2001: A Space Odyssey may be the worst film of all time.[/QUOTE] I get not liking a movie but worst film of all time? Get serious.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49295804]Gays should be able to donate blood. This isn't the 80's where nobody knows how to find HIV in blood almost instantly[/QUOTE] No. It's still like this, you can't find the HIV Virus in blood if the person who donated didn't infect some time (minimum 2 months) ago. I guess you know the ban has statistical reasons about that. However your opinion isn't unpopular. Also in Germany your banned for lifetime as a gay. But I think it should be okay if the person didn't have sex with other men for the last year.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;49292254]I can't put any merit in your opinion of New Vegas if you think it's a "fallout-themed mod for Oblivion"[/QUOTE]It is though. From a technical standpoint it isn't a new game, it's just Oblivion but in Fallout packaging. I mean shit, I can take Fallout 3 assets and stuff them into Oblivion without a single fucking issue and vice versa. If you look inside of Fallout 3 you can even see reused Oblivion assets, so I really don't give a fuck if you put stock in my opinion or not; you clearly don't know what's going on anyway. [QUOTE=The mouse;49294321]I just saw 2001: A space odyssey for the first time. That film is actually pretty awful.[/QUOTE]To this day I say the same thing, and that's in spite of completely understanding the fine nuances of the plot. I get what all the symbolism is but I just think it's a dumb, boring movie.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49296707]I mean shit, I can take Fallout 3 assets and stuff them into Oblivion without a single fucking issue and vice versa. If you look inside of Fallout 3 you can even see reused Oblivion assets,[/QUOTE] oh, is it that simple? I guess these screenshots come from the same game, then. [t]http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2005/09/lost_coast_benchmark/eyecandy1.jpg[/t] [t]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4s8LTCz824/maxresdefault.jpg[/t] [sp]you don't know what you're talking about[/sp]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49296707]It is though. From a technical standpoint it isn't a new game, it's just Oblivion but in Fallout packaging. I mean shit, I can take Fallout 3 assets and stuff them into Oblivion without a single fucking issue and vice versa. If you look inside of Fallout 3 you can even see reused Oblivion assets, so I really don't give a fuck if you put stock in my opinion or not; you clearly don't know what's going on anyway.[/QUOTE] Saying New Vegas is a repackaged Oblivion mod is a pretty big step further than missing the forest for the trees. Not only that, your line of logic isn't terribly solid. "From a technical standpoint, it isn't a new game". A lot of games reuse engines which are re-tooled from previous work that studio has done. Call of Duty has literally been constantly re-tooling an engine that they used in the first Call of Duty game. Battlefield did the same when they changed their engine in 2008 with Bad Company. GTA4, Max Payne 3, and GTA5 all run on the same engine. How much does it take to become "a new game", exactly? A new engine, from the ground up, every time? That's simply not feasible. But perhaps that line of reasoning isn't what you were really talking about. Your point was something like the game being too similar to Oblivion. While I think that holds some merit for FO3, for New Vegas, that is balls. New Vegas was something a lot more than the sporadic encounters and various bad-guy dungeons that Bethesda games have. It had an entire cohesive world where everything was there that needed to be there. It managed to avoid the binary morality of FO3 almost entirely, and instead had an elaborate weave of connections and factions and motivations. For the base game, there are over 27 different ending slides that all change based on what you did and did not do, and they managed that because they managed to make New Vegas a world, an actual immersive one, rather than use the existing lore as inspiration for setpieces and leave everything else shallow like Bethesda does. The developers thought about everything, and it shows because New Vegas is the kind of game you get when your development team is composed entirely of experienced and passionate people who have been developing RPGs for a while.

I don't think Valve is a bad game dev simply because they're focusing on new ventures [I]in addition to[/I] game development. They got this massive platform and they wanna see what they can do with it, they also have the money and resources to explore hardware which isn't something any company should pass up given the opportunity.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;49297766]Not only that, your line of logic isn't terribly solid. "From a technical standpoint, it isn't a new game". A lot of games reuse engines which are re-tooled from previous work that studio has done. Call of Duty has literally been constantly re-tooling an engine that they used in the first Call of Duty game. Battlefield did the same when they changed their engine in 2008 with Bad Company. GTA4, Max Payne 3, and GTA5 all run on the same engine. How much does it take to become "a new game", exactly? A new engine, from the ground up, every time? That's simply not feasible.[/QUOTE]Well, honestly, I'm not talking about just the engine; but the engine used for Oblivion really doesn't lend well to an FPS game like Fallout 3 and their RadiantAI is clunky and dumb to begin with. Yeah, I do wish they had tweaked the engine a bit rather than shoehorn an FPS environment on to an RPG's engine. [QUOTE=Samiam22;49297766]But perhaps that line of reasoning isn't what you were really talking about. Your point was something like the game being too similar to Oblivion. While I think that holds some merit for FO3, for New Vegas, that is balls.[/QUOTE]No, I'm saying that Fallout 3 and New Vegas both suffer for their decision to use the same engine without modification. That doesn't make Fallout 3 or New Vegas bad games, it just makes them bad developers. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I actually dislike all these Bethesda games I've spent countless hours... days, actually, modifying and fixing when that's not true at all. I can be critical of something and still enjoy it, and I can be critical of the creator even more and still enjoy the work. [QUOTE=Samiam22;49297766]For the base game, there are over 27 different ending slides that all change based on what you did and did not do, and they managed that because they managed to make New Vegas a world, an actual immersive one, rather than use the existing lore as inspiration for setpieces and leave everything else shallow like Bethesda does. The developers thought about everything, and it shows because New Vegas is the kind of game you get when your development team is composed entirely of experienced and passionate people who have been developing RPGs for a while.[/QUOTE]I absolutely agree, New Vegas was much more put together and it shows that time was put into it and at the end they didn't look at bugs and say, "oh I guess we can leave that for the modding community." Look at the unofficial patches for Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas and compare what they fix and what they change, you will see that Fallout: New Vegas does not have the issues like the others on the same iteration of that engine. That doesn't change the fact that New Vegas could have been better if the engine had been tweaked and fixed up. I guess they could have at least gotten rid of the potato faces, but... you know, that didn't happen. [editline]11th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;49297012]oh, is it that simple? I guess these screenshots come from the same game, then.[/QUOTE]Great job, you've managed miss the point completely.

So what's your opinion, exactly? That there's better engines for games?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49298267]That doesn't change the fact that New Vegas could have been better if the engine had been tweaked and fixed up. I guess they could have at least gotten rid of the potato faces, but... you know, that didn't happen.[/QUOTE] I actually read a lot on New Vegas' development, and some of the head figures have stated that there were going to be much more sweeping changes to the game's mechanics. You can see some of them (DT, weapon maintenance, gambling etc), but there was also things planned like some unarmed weapons having to require energy cells, as well as a retool of the map to prevent invisible walls. It's perhaps a bit strange to think about, but New Vegas was developed in under a year.

Having sympathy and compassion for the most cruel and selfish of people is a rare virtue that should be encouraged by society; though obviously not at the expense of their victims.

[QUOTE=Cyanlime;49299018]Having sympathy and compassion for the most cruel and selfish of people is a rare virtue that should be encouraged by society; though obviously not at the expense of their victims.[/QUOTE] I dunno depends on the circumstances. Personally I believe that there are definitely people that simply deserve to die and have little to no chance of redeeming themselves. Problem is I don't trust society with the death penalty as it ends up becoming an expensive revenge tool rather then a practical problem solver. It usually lends up being either too expensive and rigorous to be useful or too easy to apply the death penalty in which case it becomes a governing tool (death for those who oppose the party) and innocents get killed.

On the note of 2001: When people think of Kubrick's big definitive war film they immediately tend to jump to Full Metal Jacket. And, while don't get me wrong, FMJ is a great film that is jam packed with memorable scenes, it tends to overshadow Paths of Glory, which I don't think gets enough mention. The story is gripping, the ending devastating, the acting convincing and moving (looking at Kirk Douglas here especially), and the film has its fair share of very well shot and memorable scenes too such as these harrowing track-shots (spoilers ahead obviously, particularly the second example): [video=youtube;0gyyGHHXfck]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gyyGHHXfck[/video] [video=youtube;Dt37sGBqtEg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt37sGBqtEg[/video] It's hard to pit the two movies together, but I personally find myself leaning in preference towards Paths of Glory, if not by just a bit. Hell, I might even go as far as to say it's my favorite Kubrick film, closely rivaled by Dr.Strangelove.

Fallout 4 fucking sucks. I've played for 9 hours, waiting for something interesting to happen and so far it's been a snooze fest. The story sucks, the combat is more tedious than FO3/NV. The concept of legendaries fucking suck. Oh boy, I sure love kiting a legendary fucking bloatfly for 10 minutes, using up all my resources because it can heal mid-battle. Pipe guns fucking suck and it's 90% of the weapons in game. Contemplating cutting my losses and just uninstalling it and pretending like it never existed. Town building is a shitty gimmick and I couldn't give less of a fuck, considering the rest of the game is a big pile of shit.

[QUOTE=Toy_Soldier;49300156]Fallout 4 fucking sucks. I've played for 9 hours, waiting for something interesting to happen and so far it's been a snooze fest. The story sucks, the combat is more tedious than FO3/NV. The concept of legendaries fucking suck. Oh boy, I sure love kiting a legendary fucking bloatfly for 10 minutes, using up all my resources because it can heal mid-battle. Pipe guns fucking suck and it's 90% of the weapons in game. Contemplating cutting my losses and just uninstalling it and pretending like it never existed. Town building is a shitty gimmick and I couldn't give less of a fuck, considering the rest of the game is a big pile of shit.[/QUOTE] you might be able to get a refund on steam if you ask'em real nice

[QUOTE=Toy_Soldier;49300156]The story sucks[/quote] Fair enough [quote]the combat is more tedious than FO3/NV.[/quote] Don't know what FO3/NV you played. [quote]The concept of legendaries fucking suck.[/quote] Fair enough. [quote]Oh boy, I sure love kiting a legendary fucking bloatfly for 10 minutes, using up all my resources because it can heal mid-battle.[/quote] Have you tried actually hitting it? Legendary bloatflies do not have that much health. And they can't heal? First time I've heard of it. [quote]Pipe guns fucking suck and it's 90% of the weapons in game.[/quote] No they aren't, not even close. They compose the weapons you get for the early stages but that's about it. [quote]Town building is a shitty gimmick and I couldn't give less of a fuck[/quote] Fair enough, though town building mods were insanely popular for 3/NV. I'm not sure what you were expecting with 4, though. If you weren't expecting 3++, then I'm not sure what to say. And don't tell me you liked 3 more, because I will assume you are lying.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;49300361]Fair enough Don't know what FO3/NV you played. Fair enough. Have you tried actually hitting it? Legendary bloatflies do not have that much health. And they can't heal? First time I've heard of it. No they aren't, not even close. They compose the weapons you get for the early stages but that's about it. Fair enough, though town building mods were insanely popular for 3/NV. I'm not sure what you were expecting with 4, though. If you weren't expecting 3++, then I'm not sure what to say. And don't tell me you liked 3 more, because I will assume you are lying.[/QUOTE] every legendary I've fought ~mutated~ mid-combat and gained their health back and started attacking more rapidly with more damage. lol The 10 minutes was an exaggeration for legendary bloatflies. My point was it just took normal enemies, gave them an annoying stat boost and dragged out what would have been a much shorter fight for absolutely garbage loot. Legendaries are just resource sinks.

I never liked Star Wars, neither [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/?ref_=tt_rec_tt"]the original trilogy[/URL] nor [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120915/?ref_=tt_rec_tt"]the prequels[/URL], and I don't understand why is it considered a classic. I mean, fair enough, to each their own, I understand that not everybody has the same taste for movies. But there's a lot of movies that explore Star Wars themes a lot better. Wanna see a epic, antagonistic, good X evil story? [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"]Lord of the Rings[/URL]. Fantasy movie suited for children? [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/?ref_=nv_sr_1"]Harry Potter[/URL]. Adventure movie filled with action? [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097576/?ref_=nv_sr_1"]Indiana Jones[/URL]. To me, the only redeeming things about Star Wars are the trio of main actors ([URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000148/?ref_=nv_sr_1"]Harrison Ford[/URL], [URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000402/?ref_=nv_sr_1"]Carrie Fisher[/URL] and [URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000434/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1"]Mark Hamill[/URL]), and the score by [URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002354/?ref_=nv_sr_1"]John Williams[/URL]. Everything else just felt mediocre.

I know it's been long ago since people stopped talking about this game, but I thought Bioshock Infinite was shit. I thought things like the story were [I]ok[/I] (though it had numerous plot holes), but the gameplay was so bad that like four hours in I was begging for it to end already, and I've never had that feeling before when playing a game, nor to this day with any other.

[QUOTE=Toy_Soldier;49300447]every legendary I've fought ~mutated~ mid-combat and gained their health back and started attacking more rapidly with more damage. lol The 10 minutes was an exaggeration for legendary bloatflies. My point was it just took normal enemies, gave them an annoying stat boost and dragged out what would have been a much shorter fight for absolutely garbage loot. Legendaries are just resource sinks.[/QUOTE] Well, I'll excuse your misinformation because you haven't played the game much. Not every legendary mutates (they might even lose their legendary status if you reload a save) and legendary weapons can completely trivialise combat if you get a good combination (such as bleeding on a high rate of fire weapon, or mighty on pretty much any commonly used gun) Legendary spawn is also dictated by difficulty. If it's such a serious problem for you, then turn down the difficulty.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49298267]I can be critical of something and still enjoy it, and I can be critical of the creator even more and still enjoy the work.[/QUOTE] Many people are actually more critical of things they care about/enjoy anyways.

You don't have to be mentally ill, psychopathic, or a sociopath or whatever to want to kill someone. You can still very much be just a normal human being and want to kill someone else for some reason, even if it's not a 'good' reason. I'm not saying that it's ok, but people should stop trying to separate those who kill others in to separate boxes when a lot of them are just normal people, not good people, but not psychopaths or 'animals'. The fucked up thing is yeah, normal people can just be [I]like that.[/I]

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49300889]This one is just [B]objectively[/B] false. When is the last time you played F3 or NV? Have you even played them before?[/QUOTE] I hate when people say shit like this. Yeah IMO Fallout 4 has better combat, but that is not objectively true. Unless you're an egomaniac. [editline]12th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Samiam22;49300361]And don't tell me you liked 3 more, because I will assume you are lying.[/QUOTE] I like Fallout 1, 2 and NV way more than 4, am I lying?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;49301624]You don't have to be mentally ill, psychopathic, or a sociopath or whatever to want to kill someone. You can still very much be just a normal human being and want to kill someone else for some reason, even if it's not a 'good' reason. I'm not saying that it's ok, but people should stop trying to separate those who kill others in to separate boxes when a lot of them are just normal people, not good people, but not psychopaths or 'animals'. The fucked up thing is yeah, normal people can just be [I]like that.[/I][/QUOTE] Well obviously but this would involve most people imagining that almost everyone in their immediate vicinity is technically capable of murder if given the right circumstances. And people typically try to avoid painful thoughts as hard as they humanly can.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;49301624]You don't have to be mentally ill, psychopathic, or a sociopath or whatever to want to kill someone. You can still very much be just a normal human being and want to kill someone else for some reason, even if it's not a 'good' reason. I'm not saying that it's ok, but people should stop trying to separate those who kill others in to separate boxes when a lot of them are just normal people, not good people, but not psychopaths or 'animals'. The fucked up thing is yeah, normal people can just be [I]like that.[/I][/QUOTE] The only times where that's true would be during war or a police fight (before onset of ptsd), defending yourself from an attacker, or being part of a gang or something else due to a poor socioeconomic situation. If you kill someone because IM SO ANGRYYYY or because it would be fun is definitely mental illness

I give 0 fucks about Gwent in The Witcher 3.

Being offended should entitle you to nothing. If something offends you just [I]grow up[/I] and deal with it. At most criticize the person but society shouldn't cater to peoples sensibilities with its rules and regulations. (No, that doesn't mean your boss shouldn't punish you for saying nigger alot at work)

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49302629]Being offended should entitle you to nothing. If something offends you just [I]grow up[/I] and deal with it. At most criticize the person but society shouldn't cater to peoples sensibilities with its rules and regulations. (No, that doesn't mean your boss shouldn't punish you for saying nigger alot at work)[/QUOTE] hey this opinion really offends me, could you please snip your post please? if you dont ill have to report you to garry

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49302531]The only times where that's true would be during war or a police fight (before onset of ptsd), defending yourself from an attacker, or being part of a gang or something else due to a poor socioeconomic situation. If you kill someone because IM SO ANGRYYYY or because it would be fun is definitely mental illness[/QUOTE] regular people have breakdowns all the time

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49302907]regular people have breakdowns all the time[/QUOTE] Regular people have breakdowns and kill people all the time