Unpopular Opinions V6 You know maybe fascism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be
5,009 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50045178]why?[/QUOTE]
Because for one, you don't get the same feel for your car when it comes to self-maintenance if it's an electric, and I highly doubt a company like Tesla would even let you fix your car yourself if something breaks on one of their cars. I mean, why else would I be taking Motive Power Technician (another way of saying Auto Mechanic, basically)? That and imo electrics don't have the same kind of personality ICE cars can have.
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;50051328]Fallout 4 is simply and objectively better gameplay wise, but New Vegas still holds the princely crown of writing and immersion for me, even with the graphics[/QUOTE]
I'd also say Fallout 4's art direction is [I]impeccable[/I].
[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;50051444]Because for one, you don't get the same feel for your car when it comes to self-maintenance if it's an electric, and I highly doubt a company like Tesla would even let you fix your car yourself if something breaks on one of their cars. I mean, why else would I be taking Motive Power Technician (another way of saying Auto Mechanic, basically)? That and imo electrics don't have the same kind of personality ICE cars can have.[/QUOTE]
Electric cars are a million light years ahead of ICE automobiles when it comes to maintenance; you don't self-maintain an electric car because when something goes wrong it's generally an incredibly rare battery or software issue.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;50050796]April fools jokes made by corporations are fucking lame[/QUOTE]
Social media accounts from corporations are generally lame
[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;50051444]Because for one, you don't get the same feel for your car when it comes to self-maintenance if it's an electric, and I highly doubt a company like Tesla would even let you fix your car yourself if something breaks on one of their cars. I mean, why else would I be taking Motive Power Technician (another way of saying Auto Mechanic, basically)? That and imo electrics don't have the same kind of personality ICE cars can have.[/QUOTE]
So basically, your gripes are either subjective or unfounded, and when we are talking about something that has such a huge impact on the environment and the economy like vehicles, "personality" should be a very low priority.
I think people who hate April Fools are just [I]very[/I] upset that they can't see a ruse coming.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50051717]Electric cars are a million light years ahead of ICE automobiles when it comes to maintenance; you don't self-maintain an electric car because when something goes wrong it's generally an incredibly rare battery or software issue.[/QUOTE]
It's not just that though, you can't really do the sort of modifications you can with an ICE car with a full-electric. You can't do an engine swap on an electric, you can't modify the suspension, you can't put a turbocharger in it, you can't do anything. Electrics are likely going to end up like Apple computers in regards to not being able to do anything with them because of the majority of components being embedded into the chassis so they can't be tampered with. Like I said, i'm not taking MPT in college for kicks, i'm taking it so I know how to properly modify and maintain the car I choose to drive. I don't see cars just as something to get me from point A to point B in a timely fashion, I see them (and many others do as well) as a symbol of personal freedom and individuality.
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;50051328]Fallout 4 is simply and objectively better gameplay wise, but New Vegas still holds the princely crown of writing and immersion for me, even with the graphics[/QUOTE]
Fallout 4 has better shooting mechanics than most SP shooters I've played. Despite the late-game balance issues and the overabundance of stupid pipe weapons, weapons have generally good sound and visual design with a good amount of kick to them. Enemies have a lot of variety and react to being shot pretty well, especially robots and feral ghouls, which will have chunks and limbs come off them in real-time and will continue to fight anyway. The weapons themselves have a decent (not great, but all bases are covered at least) variety, and using big weapons feels appropriately visceral especially with how well power armour works.
A huge step up from the incredibly clunky combat of 3/NV that necessitated VATS on enemies that didn't stand still. Automatic weapons felt almost unusable in those games, felt like enemies weren't taking damage at all.
I couldn't get into NV because everything looked so god damn bland. The Mojave does not lend itself for a good setting. I really tried to get into it but I just couldnt, believe me.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;50043640]Why? I didn't think it was great. But it had one key advantage: it was actually competent.[/QUOTE]
Was it? It was filled with so many moments of 'ah, yeah, stop, I see you've dragged X from the originals, and now you're doing a scene to clarify that you've dragged X from the prequels (only bigger/aged/whatever) and it was just painful to watch. The spotlight they put on harrison ford was horrific, especially when it was so painfully obvious that he just hates being there.
[sp] Kylo ren surviving. Let's think of the bridge seen- Would have made common sense to just shoot him a couple of times more to make him dead, rather than let the boss character regen[/sp] Also, this guy isn't just saved by a lack of sense, this character is saved by an act of god [sp] when the character has the earth split in front of him. Just fall in, you've had your character arc. I don't care about you. Why couldn't the earth open a little to the left? [/sp]
The female lead had zero personality but had more tallent than god in too many things. Master engineer, Master pilot, kung fu expert, that other thing. She just wasn't likeable enough for this to be wish fulfillment. You grew up poor in a desolate desert, lady, you should have nothing.
There's other minor stuff like [sp]
'in atmosphere'
'The order being unchecked'
'Going for a superweapon when you don't have a fleet to back it up
Not being completely dead when the cable didn't unattach
That one stormtrooper that got out his melee weapon rather than blaster
[/sp]
In comparison, the prequels didn't do many good things, but they never really did anything outrageously dumb (low quality racism aside)
[QUOTE=The Jack;50053884]The spotlight they put on harrison ford was horrific, especially when it was so painfully obvious that he just hates being there.
[/QUOTE]
Im going to work and dont have time to respond to your entire post but lmao what. This is one of the best roles Harrison has ever done, if you want to see him hating being there, just watch Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Harrison blew it out of the water for this, it's quite obvious he enjoyed his time making TFA.
[QUOTE=The Jack;50053884]Was it? It was filled with so many moments of 'ah, yeah, stop, I see you've dragged X from the originals, and now you're doing a scene to clarify that you've dragged X from the prequels (only bigger/aged/whatever) and it was just painful to watch. The spotlight they put on harrison ford was horrific, especially when it was so painfully obvious that he just hates being there.
[sp] Kylo ren surviving. Let's think of the bridge seen- Would have made common sense to just shoot him a couple of times more to make him dead, rather than let the boss character regen[/sp] Also, this guy isn't just saved by a lack of sense, this character is saved by an act of god [sp] when the character has the earth split in front of him. Just fall in, you've had your character arc. I don't care about you. Why couldn't the earth open a little to the left? [/sp]
The female lead had zero personality but had more tallent than god in too many things. Master engineer, Master pilot, kung fu expert, that other thing. She just wasn't likeable enough for this to be wish fulfillment. You grew up poor in a desolate desert, lady, you should have nothing.
There's other minor stuff like [sp]
'in atmosphere'
'The order being unchecked'
'Going for a superweapon when you don't have a fleet to back it up
Not being completely dead when the cable didn't unattach
That one stormtrooper that got out his melee weapon rather than blaster
[/sp]
In comparison, the prequels didn't do many good things, but they never really did anything outrageously dumb (low quality racism aside)[/QUOTE]
Kylo Ren shouldn't have died, that's an awful idea. Ep7 introduced and developed interesting characters that 8 can build upon, including an antagonist. It would be terrible to throw him away and start over with a new villain.
Pretty much every flaw episode 7 can be found in the prequels. Anakin is good at everything like Rey despite being a 10 year old slave, there's a lot of stuff from the originals that is painfully hamfisted in there, etc.
[QUOTE=The Jack;50053884][sp]Just fall in, you've had your character arc.[/sp][/QUOTE]
I think it's readily apparent to even a casual viewer that his character arc is nowhere near finished.
[QUOTE=The Jack;50053884]Was it? It was filled with so many moments of 'ah, yeah, stop, I see you've dragged X from the originals, and now you're doing a scene to clarify that you've dragged X from the prequels (only bigger/aged/whatever) and it was just painful to watch. The spotlight they put on harrison ford was horrific, especially when it was so painfully obvious that he just hates being there.
[sp] Kylo ren surviving. Let's think of the bridge seen- Would have made common sense to just shoot him a couple of times more to make him dead, rather than let the boss character regen[/sp] Also, this guy isn't just saved by a lack of sense, this character is saved by an act of god [sp] when the character has the earth split in front of him. Just fall in, you've had your character arc. I don't care about you. Why couldn't the earth open a little to the left? [/sp]
The female lead had zero personality but had more tallent than god in too many things. Master engineer, Master pilot, kung fu expert, that other thing. She just wasn't likeable enough for this to be wish fulfillment. You grew up poor in a desolate desert, lady, you should have nothing.
There's other minor stuff like [sp]
'in atmosphere'
'The order being unchecked'
'Going for a superweapon when you don't have a fleet to back it up
Not being completely dead when the cable didn't unattach
That one stormtrooper that got out his melee weapon rather than blaster
[/sp]
In comparison, the prequels didn't do many good things, but they never really did anything outrageously dumb (low quality racism aside)[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but this just feels incredibly nit-picky. Not to mention some of this gripe genuinely makes zero sense. And although it's already said, what makes you think that character arc is anywhere even close to done? Literally what?
I thought it had been explained like 700 times why Rey could do the things she could do.
On the topic of Star Wars, I tried so hard to like Battlefront, I really did, but I genuinely feel that it just isn't a good game. Every time I try to play it I just get frustrated and don't have any fun. I don't know how unpopular that actually is around here, I've seen opinions go both ways of the street. I'm glad at least that I didn't pay full price for it.
[QUOTE=Hypoxide;50055163]I thought it had been explained like 700 times why Rey could do the things she could do.[/QUOTE]
To be fair there being explanations doesn't automatically make it good character writing. Especially when some of those explanations aren't even in the film.
I don't find Batman vs. Superman to be outright 0/10, -10/10 garbage, but it's pretty.....ehhhh where do I start? Lengthy post incoming.
+Ben Affleck is a great Batman. Torn on Jeremy Irons for Alfred despite the actor. I like Caine's movie Alfred better.
+Henry Cavill is an okay Superman.
-Jesse Eisenberg is an...interesting choice for Luthor. He's way too hammy to be the "psychotic businessman" that he was going for. His ending dialogue is the icing on the awfulness.
+Most of the fight scenes are well done and the lengths for all of them are even and never drawn out.
-The main event [sp]felt a tad short and didn't feel like it ended properly. At least end with an uppercut or something.[/sp]
-[sp]Save...Martha...[/sp]
+The political touch at the beginning on the subject is interesting to watch. It's nice to see what the general public and the governments think about people like Superman.
-[sp]Said political intrigue lasted nearly half the film. It stretched on toooo long and ended abruptly at the Congress explosion.[/sp]
-[sp]Most of the humor felt way too forced, almost trying to replicate the cheeky humor from the Marvel movies while trying to be a gritty film.[/sp]
+The music for this film is amazing. I thought Hans Zimmer couldn't top his previous Dark Knight Trilogy OST, but then he did with Junkie XL.
+[sp]Wonder Woman MADE the last ~20 minutes of the film. Seeing her fight Doomsday was pure action eye-candy. When here theme song kicked in the audience went nuts! At the same time I'm hyped for the solo WW film.[/sp]
-[sp]Superman's "death." Like they would pull that card THIS early in their supposed DC cinematic universe.[/sp]
-[sp]Doomsday being played out felt way too early. They could have saved him for Man of Steel 3 or something.[/sp]
-[sp] HOW DARE YOU KILL JIMMY OLSEN!![/sp]
-The Jesus symbolism was more overblown than Man of Steel.
[B]6/10.[/B] I'm glad that I saw it in theaters at least once. It was either this or skip it for Arby's and Hookahs.
[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;50055818]I don't find Batman vs. Superman to be outright 0/10, -10/10 garbage, but it's pretty.....ehhhh where do I start? Lengthy post incoming.
+Ben Affleck is a great Batman. Torn on Jeremy Irons for Alfred despite the actor. I like Caine's movie Alfred better.
+Henry Cavill is an okay Superman.
-Jesse Eisenberg is an...interesting choice for Luthor. He's way too hammy to be the "psychotic businessman" that he was going for. His ending dialogue is the icing on the awfulness.
+Most of the fight scenes are well done and the lengths for all of them are even and never drawn out.
-The main event [sp]felt a tad short and didn't feel like it ended properly. At least end with an uppercut or something.[/sp]
-[sp]Save...Martha...[/sp]
+The political touch at the beginning on the subject is interesting to watch. It's nice to see what the general public and the governments think about people like Superman.
-[sp]Said political intrigue lasted nearly half the film. It stretched on toooo long and ended abruptly at the Congress explosion.[/sp]
-[sp]Most of the humor felt way too forced, almost trying to replicate the cheeky humor from the Marvel movies while trying to be a gritty film.[/sp]
+The music for this film is amazing. I thought Hans Zimmer couldn't top his previous Dark Knight Trilogy OST, but then he did with Junkie XL.
+[sp]Wonder Woman MADE the last ~20 minutes of the film. Seeing her fight Doomsday was pure action eye-candy. When here theme song kicked in the audience went nuts! At the same time I'm hyped for the solo WW film.[/sp]
-[sp]Superman's "death." Like they would pull that card THIS early in their supposed DC cinematic universe.[/sp]
-[sp]Doomsday being played out felt way too early. They could have saved him for Man of Steel 3 or something.[/sp]
-[sp] HOW DARE YOU KILL JIMMY OLSEN!![/sp]
-The Jesus symbolism was more overblown than Man of Steel.
[B]6/10.[/B] I'm glad that I saw it in theaters at least once. It was either this or skip it for Arby's and Hookahs.[/QUOTE]
Agree with most of this. To add some more, they should have cut about 95% of whatever Lois Lane was doing because it was insanely boring and amounted to nothing, give Laurence Fishburne some more comedy because he's great, give Batman more detective stuff to do (as well as give a more explicit reason for him to [sp]slaughter people[/sp] than just a vague hint), and COMPLETELY restructure Lex to give him a more obvious motive to do whatever he's doing and how he managed to make a giant monster all of sudden to give the movie a climax. And completely remove the infamous email scene.
Speaking of The Force Awakens I thought Rey and Finn were pretty boring. The real main character was BB-8
In my opinion, the United States use of atomic weapons on Japan in 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an unnecessary war crime. Japan was not so hardcore that they would resist down to the last man, woman and child. That is propaganda. The Japanese government surrendered because their last hope for a brokered peace had been shattered. The bombs were not so devastating that they would compel the government to surrender. The use of Atomic Bombs was cruel and unusual in a way unparalleled in human history.
The population of the Japanese home islands were not going to be treated like the villagers on the small islands the U.S had conquered with its island-hopping policy. But because the US had only experienced apparently indoctrinated colonists, they believed the population of the home islands would resist just as much. This is a gross assumption that shows the lack of experience with Japanese culture, especially when compared to the western front. It also has fundamentally incorrect assumption as to how Japan was still able to continue the war. It was not because their civilian population was loyal to the end. It was because they had the resources from Manchuko and Korea to resist the Allies island-hopping campaign. and that changed in 1945.
The Japanese believed that the Soviet Union, who had been at peace with them for the entirety of the war, would be a neutral third party for negotiations between the other Allies and Japan. However, the USSR had already agreed to attack Japan after Germany had been defeated. This culminated in 1945 with Operation August Storm, which overran all of Manchuko and North Korea. The timing is important, because the Soviet Union declared war between the dropping of the bombs and the attack occurred on the same day as the second atomic bombing. After the Soviet victory, the Japanese called for a ceasefire and surrendered.
Atomic weapons didn't make Japan surrender. Although horrifying, the destruction of a city was not a new phenomenon at this stage in the war. While we now know the long-term consequences of fallout, the firebombing raids had killed more people and were perhaps just as cruel in terms of contemporary death and devastation. Most of Japan's cities had already been destroyed, and the destruction of two more was not enough to end Japan's capacity to resist. The loss of massive holdings in China and Korea was what instigated surrender. Without these territories and their resources, Japan's war effort was over.
So if this campaign was enough to knock out the Japanese Army, why did the Americans feel the need to drop a bomb on Japan? Was it because they wanted to save American lives, or was it military pressure on the President to intimidate our new enemy, the Soviet Union?
The President in 1945 was Harry Truman an accidental President who ascended to power upon the death of FDR. In his first term as Vice President, no serious preparations had been made to inform him of Presidential affairs. President Truman only learned of the Manhattan Project after gaining office and was presented the bomb as a way to quickly end the war. He didn't fully understand the ramifications of the weapon. It's possible that he knew and didn't care, but I prefer to believe he was ignorant. It was also sold to him a way to intimidate the Soviets, which is a terrible reason to deploy an extremely powerful weapon on a civilian target.
The fact that the Americans chose to use this weapon on the Japanese was not only because the other Axis powers had been defeated. It was also because of the deep-seated dehumanization that permeation the American military in the East. Soldiers did things like collect Japanese bones and send the President a pen made out of a Japanese shin bone. We interned thousands of Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Then, when FDR died, an inexperienced businessman from Missouri was thrust into the ultimate responsibility for the war effort.
Harry Truman is usually depicted as being decisive for using atomic weapons to end the war and is credited with saving lives, but I reject that assertation. World War 2 was over. Japan had already been reduced to rubble. The United States grossly overestimated how necessary the invasion of the home islands would be and drew up extremely costly invasion plans. The fact that we printed so many purple hearts that we've been using the surplus of medals ever since shows how seriously they took the threat. Instead of carrying these plans out, however, we decided to do something to counteract the other threatening country in the region, the Soviet Union.
Truman wanted to intimidate the Soviet Union, and assert the United State's position as the new global superpower. The US needed to assert this, because the Soviets had quickly overran the Japanese territories and were poised to claim territory and influence from Tokyo to Berlin. The US government felt it needed to send a message to the Soviets that the United States was not to be underestimated or trifled with. This was effective only as far as it compelled the Soviet Union to steal atomic secrets and ramp up its military production to stand up to American capitalist dominance. The use of nuclear weapons was one of the many seeds planted in 1945 that grew into the cold war, and still affect our lives to the present day.
All Star is a good song.
Japan conducted widespread slaughter, mass rape, and horrifying human experimentation on a scale and in a manner that made Nazi Germany look conservative. Any level of destruction aimed at their nation would've been justifiable.
[QUOTE=Ghhostface;50064590]In my opinion, the United States use of atomic weapons on Japan in 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an unnecessary war crime. Japan was not so hardcore that they would resist down to the last man, woman and child. That is propaganda. The Japanese government surrendered because their last hope for a brokered peace had been shattered. The bombs were not so devastating that they would compel the government to surrender. The use of Atomic Bombs was cruel and unusual in a way unparalleled in human history. ETC.[/QUOTE]
I still disagree on the basis that Japan's military would have wholeheartedly conducted guerilla warfare if not for the Shock & Awe effect the dropping of the bombs caused. The attempted assassination on the Emperor of Japan when he was considering peace strengthens my notion. Whatever reason Truman may have had, the actual toll on American and Japanese forces would be near genocidal.
[editline]4th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50065017]Japan conducted widespread slaughter, mass rape, and horrifying human experimentation on a scale and in a manner that made Nazi Germany look conservative. Any level of destruction aimed at their nation would've been justifiable.[/QUOTE]
I also disagree with this because this is essentially just a revenge fuck in military form.
You shouldn't punish a country for killing and maiming civilians by nuking a fucking civilian city...
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50065118]I also disagree with this because this is essentially just a revenge fuck in military form.
You shouldn't punish a country for killing and maiming civilians by nuking a fucking civilian city...[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of hedging against casualties by using overwhelming force.
when you spend half a decade raping a continent, you don't get to cry foul when someone goes overboard taking you down. Furthermore, Japan's surrender was not, in fact, a certain thing; the terms of the surrender were deliberately mistranslated to warhawks in the Japanese government so that they would agree to them, and the entire ordeal was preceded by a failed violent coup just days before. (going off of memory here)
the use of nuclear weapons was justified from a strategic standpoint (to insure the correct outcome of a precarious situation, as well as to further attack Japanese industry) and from a moral standpoint as well (the nation of Japan had more than certainly earned everything it got.)
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50065156]It's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of hedging against casualties by using overwhelming force.
when you spend half a decade raping a continent, you don't get to cry foul when someone goes overboard taking you down. Furthermore, Japan's surrender was not, in fact, a certain thing; the terms of the surrender were deliberately mistranslated to warhawks in the Japanese government so that they would agree to them, and the entire ordeal was preceded by a failed violent coup just days before. (going off of memory here)
the use of nuclear weapons was justified from a strategic standpoint (to insure the correct outcome of a precarious situation, as well as to further attack Japanese industry) and from a moral standpoint as well (the nation of Japan had more than certainly earned everything it got.)[/QUOTE]
Come on man, you don't need to condemn what the Americans did but please don't try to say that using nukes to obliterate thousands of innocent people is morally justified, it's absolutely fucked. Every side in WW2 did horrible things
[QUOTE=Ghhostface;50064590]In my opinion, the United States use of atomic weapons on Japan in 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an unnecessary war crime. Japan was not so hardcore that they would resist down to the last man, woman and child. That is propaganda. The Japanese government surrendered because their last hope for a brokered peace had been shattered. The bombs were not so devastating that they would compel the government to surrender. The use of Atomic Bombs was cruel and unusual in a way unparalleled in human history.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to say that the bombing was justified but it was effective for ending the war. The fact that the Japanese used kamikaze pilots on a large scale and that the two bombs alone weren't enough to get them to back off shows just how backwards they were with their honor and I think it was fair of the US to think they wouldn't stop until there was nothing left of them . It was the threat of the third bomb coupled with the fact that they were already beaten that made them surrender at last.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50065017]Japan conducted widespread slaughter, mass rape, and horrifying human experimentation on a scale and in a manner that made Nazi Germany look conservative. Any level of destruction aimed at their nation would've been justifiable.[/QUOTE]
i don't think committing genocide as punishment for genocide is a very good idea
the japanese nation wasn't solely composed of mass-murdering human experimenters that raped and slaughtered relentlessly. it was a nation much like any other, and americans could have quite easily (in fact a few of them did during the war) committed similar crimes on a similar scale.
most of the pacific war was a shitshow anyways. it started with the united states destroying the japanese navy and getting rid of the threat to the united states (itself reasonable and justified). the usa was thousands of kilometres away and could quite happily relax because japan had no ability to attack the US after that point
what i don't get, is why the USA wanted a "complete and total surrender" and that this required them to assault every single shitty islet in the pacific ocean at a great cost of casualties (most of those american soldiers lives were wasted). like, the amount of resources and lives wasted on shit like okinawa doesn't make sense and i don't see why the USA had to commit itself to such a grandiose project. i don't get why they had to arrest all of the japanese citizens (who posed literally no threat) and why they had to firebomb and then nuke half of japan when their warmachine was already falling to pieces. the gross waste of civilian life by japan (especially in china and korea) is in itself disgusting, but the actions of the united states seem to be painted as heroic or "necessary" when its pretty obvious that if japan won the war they'd be saying that unit 731 was neccessary
I like free 2 play games, F2P dont means its shit. If i ask my friends to play a f2p with me they laugh about me like im an poor dude....
Video games should be taken seriously. At least, as seriously as one would take movies, artwork, or any other medium of entertainment. There's a weird excuse put down to any complaint or negative feeling about games that one cannot "get mad over video games" or "take video games seriously" for no adequate reason other than "they're video games".
I mean, like it or not, it is a major industry worth billions of dollars, and also a major artistic medium that's in a very unique position in human history. It's very much worth taking seriously, or getting mad over when bullshit is going on.
For the record, I'm not talking about throwing temper tantrums because you lost in a game or killing everyone's fun because nO THIS GAMEI S SERIOUS FBLblfBL. I'm talking about them being taken seriously as an art form and as an industry being open to extreme critique. Be passionate about that shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.