Unpopular opinions! V2: I Don't like half life edition.
17,782 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42578385]Nurgle is by and far the best Chaos god.
Khorne can go fuck himself.
Slaanesh will fuck him(her?)self.
Tzeentch is pretty cool I guess.
But good old Papa Nurgle is the best.[/QUOTE]
Flies for the Fly God! Pus for the pus throne! Papa gob all the way!
Gwyndolin > Gwynevere, because I like the moon. and (darksouls spoilers) [sp]Gwynevere's an illusion, so her boobs are fake.[/sp]
I love Saints Row to death but SRIV is the laziest most rushed sequels I've ever played, I don't even know if I can call it a sequel which the great big whopping fuckall that was added
Its not even a "don't fix what ain't broke" situation because all the bugs and horrible mechanics from 3 were still in there, Deep Silver pulled exactly the same shit with Dead Island, they rushed out exactly the same game in the same engine with the same problems and just slapped on a new story
Sucks so bad Saints Row had to be left with those jokers
I think what Sony is doing with the PS4 is too good to be true.
[QUOTE=Hunter-Spy;42579566]Gwyndolin > Gwynevere, because I like the moon. and (darksouls spoilers) [sp]Gwynevere's an illusion, so her boobs are fake.[/sp][/QUOTE]
[sp]There's a real Gwynevere, but she left from Anor Londo with the God of Fire or something like that[/sp]
But yes, Gwyndolin is the best. He's got tits, a dick AND tentacles. It's like everything you could ever want.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42578385]Nurgle is by and far the best Chaos god.
Khorne can go fuck himself.
Slaanesh will fuck him(her?)self.
Tzeentch is pretty cool I guess.
But good old Papa Nurgle is the best.[/QUOTE]
I promise you that your skull will be on the Skull Throne
Everyone on here acts like the Halo franchise was the second coming of Jesus or something.
I mean, I will admit, they were fantastic games in every regard. However, I see them the same way I saw Half-Life 2. They hit all the right notes, from story to gameplay, and hit them so well they became the basis of shooters for many years to come. They were genre-definers and trend setters, but they weren't "revolutions". They didn't necessarily push new boundaries, they just defined and accomplished the ones that already existed, and people built off of them from there.
So while they were very good and very important games, I think people need to calm down and stop acting like it was the greatest gift that was ever given to Man.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;42587690]Everyone on here acts like the Halo franchise was the second coming of Jesus or something.[/QUOTE]
People here hate Halo AFAIK, loads of users just see it as another generic shooter and don't hype it at all.
I hate Glee
[QUOTE=cody8295;42588206]I hate Glee[/QUOTE]
That's unpopular?
Not a Beatles fan, doesn't help I'm from Liverpool either so people have a go at you for not liking them even though all they'll know is Hey Jude or some shit and claim they're a fan.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;42588195]People here hate Halo AFAIK, loads of users just see it as another generic shooter and don't hype it at all.[/QUOTE]
Not really. There is maybe a handful that don't like the games, and than a shitload of users who love it too death.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;42588195]People here hate Halo AFAIK, loads of users just see it as another generic shooter and don't hype it at all.[/QUOTE]
Halo has a fairly positive following here. The only one that really doesn't is 4, and rightfully so.
[editline]20th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;42588408]That's unpopular?[/QUOTE]
It is in the real world. Not on Facepunch.
I don't like frappuccinos.
I don't really like coffee or alcohol.
Halo: Reach had better multiplayer than 3.
ESPECIALLY in terms of custom games. Throw in a vastly improved forge, firefight, the challenge system, and awesome spartan customization, it just made it so much more enjoyable over a long period of time. I got a lot more play time out of Reach than 3. The only thing I didn't care much for were the maps at launch, there weren't many that really stood out to me as [I]great[/I] or instant classics like in the previous. That said, the map packs had some great ones, and the flexibility of forge made up for it.
Gameplay holds far more influence than graphics in games, IMO. I would prefer my graphics to not be shit, of course, but I'm looking for a game I can play and have a decent time with. I don't give a crap how exquisitely rendered the wood enameling is on the floor in a game. I care if I can swing the sword right.
[QUOTE=cody8295;42588206]I hate Glee[/QUOTE]
There's a few things to like glee about though, they're pretty much responsible for us having songs like "somebody that i used to know", and a lot of others that pretty much have no place on the pop charts become popular.
I think people should stop talking about how awful miley cyrus is, if you look at her videos, there are more dislikes than likes, she'd be much easier to ignore if people wouldn't give her attention.
[QUOTE=Skyward;42590963]Halo: Reach had better multiplayer than 3.
ESPECIALLY in terms of custom games. Throw in a vastly improved forge, firefight, the challenge system, and awesome spartan customization, it just made it so much more enjoyable over a long period of time. I got a lot more play time out of Reach than 3. The only thing I didn't care much for were the maps at launch, there weren't many that really stood out to me as [I]great[/I] or instant classics like in the previous. That said, the map packs had some great ones, and the flexibility of forge made up for it.[/QUOTE]
in theory it shoulda been better, but pretty much all I found was a million mongoose chase games, for me halo 3 had a lot more variety. It's just my bad luck I'm hoping.
Also I didn't really enjoy the graphics for some reason, I guess it felt less smooth than in halo 3 during gameplay, and I don't know if they're going at different FPS rates, or it's all the motion blur and other stuff like that.
games with a graphic styles like the original fallout (1&2) age much more gracefully (graphics wise) then games with graphic styles like thief 1
[QUOTE=_Vendetta_;42591141]Gameplay holds far more influence than graphics in games, IMO. I would prefer my graphics to not be shit, of course, but I'm looking for a game I can play and have a decent time with. I don't give a crap how exquisitely rendered the wood enameling is on the floor in a game. I care if I can swing the sword right.[/QUOTE]
such bravery
[editline]20th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=CatMcFlans;42588828]I don't like frappuccinos.[/QUOTE]
the bravest
[editline]20th October 2013[/editline]
here's an unpopular opinion:
i think breaking bad is pretty boring and HIMYM is terribly unfunny and rehashed to hell.
I feel like the only person in the world who's gonna say this
body hair is sexy as FUCK. [sp]not on women, imo[/sp] Manly men have body hair
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;42588195]People here hate Halo AFAIK, loads of users just see it as another generic shooter and don't hype it at all.[/QUOTE]
I just don't get how people buy new consoles only to play the Halo games, I have a friend who only wants to get the new Xbone because of the new Halo. Personally I think it's a decent shooter but definitely not worth to buy a console to solely play Halo.
It's not that good.
There are things i realy liked about reach, but i couldn't get into it as much as i could get into halo 3. It's obvious from reach that there are things that they could have done better. They could have made more ,simpler maps. They could have made the characters funnier and gave them better lines, they could have thrown Npc's into forge/custom games, they could have made the unlock system better (ranks AND money? No thanks) It's the little things.
If a game has a difficulty beyond 'hard', that difficulty is almost always not fun to play.
[QUOTE=_Vendetta_;42591141]Gameplay holds far more influence than graphics in games, IMO. I would prefer my graphics to not be shit, of course, but I'm looking for a game I can play and have a decent time with. I don't give a crap how exquisitely rendered the wood enameling is on the floor in a game. I care if I can swing the sword right.[/QUOTE]
I agree but there's most certainly a line that has to be drawn for graphics. Dwarf Fortress being below that line for me. Though that one is easily fixed with a tileset. (Though the game not being easy to actually accomplish anything in is another matter altogether. Shouldn't be a challenge simply to get a farm built and working...)
[QUOTE=The golden;42596694]It's 2013. There is no reason for games to not at least make an attempt at some decent graphics or a really good art-style. The amount of "retro" 8-bit games coming out is so absurd that I pretty much forget about most of them five minutes after hearing about them. Don't get me wrong, some of them are actually good games and worth playing - but holy shit would it hurt so much to try and use something a tad more modern? At the end of the day, these sorts of games choose their graphical style because it's much easier to work with. I think if they put in the extra effort and money into a higher fidelity graphical style then they would see a greater profit return in the long run because your game isn't doomed to be a Steam Sale game that people buy and never actually play.
/rant[/QUOTE]
I think it should be less graphical fidelity and more graphical choice. Like VVVVVV. Not very high fidelity graphics but a very fitting choice for the game. Minecraft on the flip side (or one of the thousands of games that emulate Minecraft) coming across more as lazy than a good choice. Nintendo's games are often a good example of decent art styles while not concentrating more than necessary for graphical fidelity.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;42596395]I agree but there's most certainly a line that has to be drawn for graphics. Dwarf Fortress being below that line for me. Though that one is easily fixed with a tileset. (Though the game not being easy to actually accomplish anything in is another matter altogether. Shouldn't be a challenge simply to get a farm built and working...)[/QUOTE]
most of the fun is how hard the game is
the games slogan is "losing is fun"
[QUOTE=Alice3173;42596395]I agree but there's most certainly a line that has to be drawn for graphics. Dwarf Fortress being below that line for me. Though that one is easily fixed with a tileset. (Though the game not being easy to actually accomplish anything in is another matter altogether. Shouldn't be a challenge simply to get a farm built and working...)[/QUOTE]
For me and a lot of my friends it wasn't difficult to play.. the UI is confusing for a few minutes, but if you find a tutorial it becomes much easier
[QUOTE=Extronic;42591838]I hate Zelda and don't think Morrowind is the best Elder Scrolls game.[/QUOTE]
Oblivion is the best TES game. Morrowind is fun but has aged badly and the stealth is pretty shitty.
[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;42598719]most of the fun is how hard the game is
the games slogan is "losing is fun"[/QUOTE]
You're completely misunderstanding what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how the controls are setup to make the game even harder. As in it's not remotely user friendly. That's called artificial difficulty. So dumping a healthy heaping of artificial difficulty on top of a legitimately difficult game tends to make it completely unfun to most.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;42601128]You're completely misunderstanding what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how the controls are setup to make the game even harder. As in it's not remotely user friendly. That's called artificial difficulty. So dumping a healthy heaping of artificial difficulty on top of a legitimately difficult game tends to make it completely unfun to most.[/QUOTE]
idk the ui makes sense to me, I've been playing for a while though
I don't see how the ui could be changed to be better
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.