Unpopular opinions! V2: I Don't like half life edition.
17,782 replies, posted
I like new Family Guy more than old Family Guy.
And even then, I still think it's terrible compared to American Dad.
I think Seth Mcfarlane's normal voice is sexy
I like winter
Fallout 3 and New Vegas aren't that good
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42733062]Fallout 3 and New Vegas aren't that good[/QUOTE]
Is this from the perspective of a guy who enjoyed the early fallouts or a guy who just doesn't like them as games, because I love NV but I guess it's up to the beholder(??)
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;42733094]Is this from the perspective of a guy who enjoyed the early fallouts or a guy who just doesn't like them as games, because I love NV but I guess it's up to the beholder(??)[/QUOTE]
Personal opinion, I can understand why other people enjoy it, I just can't seem to have fun with it.
Either I'm not interested in it or I'm terrible at it.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42733178]Personal opinion, I can understand why other people enjoy it, I just can't seem to have fun with it.
Either I'm not interested in it or I'm terrible at it.[/QUOTE]
Aw
Fair enough
USA and Canada are the best countries in the world hands down.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42713080]Well given that individualism has had a long and deep history in philosophy with it being most of the basis behind the concept of freedom and in turn being heavily influential in the development of human rights I wouldn't exactly say it's a pox on humanity. That's just shitting on thousands of years of intellectual thought and humanism.[/QUOTE]
But it shouldn't have been taken to the extreme as it is now. One man cannot build a city, one man cannot build an Empire. Like it or not, we rely on other people, but also on ourselves. Humanity has to maintain a fine balance of individualism and collectivism to keep a stable world. Although you can argue for all the thought and philosophy individualism has brought us, you can also argue for the feats of engineering, charity, patriotism, and comraderie collectivism has given us.
And don't think that collectivism immediately means conformity or an absence of free thought. It is about teamwork and quality, but that doesn't mean it becomes downright authoritarian. Working together and living equally does not infringe on human rights. Hell, I would argue it helps them far more. If you have an absence of food, work, shelter, e.t.c, that equality is there to fill the gap. Everyone pitches in to help. Individualism doesn't inherently take that away but it doesn't really promote it either. If you get stuck in a shitty situation, the idea is to get yourself out of it through your own hard work and not to be reliant on others to help. This can be beneficial for the other parties as it allows them to not have to sacrifice their possessions to that individual, but not everybody is equipped physically or mentally to handle every situation.
And that right there represents my point as a whole. Sadly, in this world, not all men are created equal. Some are born poor, some are born blind, some are born dumb. I am not trying to say you should let your inhibitions dominate you and not try to overcome them on your individual basis, because you should do everything in your power to. But I will say that individualism cannot be an excuse to turn away from those in need and refuse to help because of our own sacrifices. Humans need to work together, not to make an equal world, for that is impossible, but to try and make a fair world. Just because something is impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't continuously strive for it and improve our world along the way.
Yet I would argue we are steadily going the other direction. A small percentage of the world owns a large percentage of its wealth, while many others live poverty stricken. While we cannot ever fully alleviate poverty, that doesn't justify doing nothing. Furthermore, our philosophy of individualism, while also leading to great things like freedom and liberty, has also led to an increase it greed, lust, and desire, just as collectivism can give equality and cooperation but also give authoritarianism, close mindedness, and even oppression. Swinging too far either way leads to very bad things, and we have gone to far to the side of individualism just as past societies have swung to far towards collectivism.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;42735166]big post[/QUOTE]
No I was just refuting his idea that individualism is a pox on humanity. His post implies that the entire concept of individualism itself is negative.
I was trying to refer to the extremist individualism you see in objectivism and similar ideologies but I was drunk so forgive me somewhat.
The first Bioshock is a masterpiece.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42738677]The first Bioshock is a masterpiece.[/QUOTE] this isn't unpopular
Bioshock anything is fucking boring.
Steak doesn't taste that great. Even as med-rare it's pretty meh.
I think you're thinking of the hook. I don't think I've ever heard a rap song with a real chorus. I'd like to hear an example though.
[QUOTE=Al Bundy;42740603]I think you're thinking of the hook. I don't think I've ever heard a rap song with a real chorus. I'd like to hear an example though.[/QUOTE]
"Boyfriend" by Justin Bieber
While I do agree that it's an interesting concept, the Steam Controller lacks the precision of a mouse, and lacks the comfort of a traditional controller, so I don't see why anyone would want to use it for more than trying it out.
I think the entire Halo franchise is extremely overrated. It just feels like Call of Duty with Mass Effect technology, despite my love for all things Mass Effect (and yes, I'm fully aware Halo came before Mass Effect. I just don't find it intriguing or revolutionary in the slightest).
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;42742991]I think the entire Halo franchise is extremely overrated. It just feels like Call of Duty with Mass Effect technology, despite my love for all things Mass Effect (and yes, I'm fully aware Halo came before Mass Effect. I just don't find it intriguing or revolutionary in the slightest).[/QUOTE]
The first three halo games played nothing like call of duty. The only thing that'd give you a point here is that the elites are shaped like the geth.
[QUOTE=The golden;42744183]Or the gut-retching price they charge for albums when sometimes only a handful of songs on it are actually good.[/QUOTE]
And when said handful of songs are album-exclusives. Can't buy them individually.
iTunes is run by monsters.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;42742991]I think the entire Halo franchise is extremely overrated. It just feels like Call of Duty with Mass Effect technology, despite my love for all things Mass Effect (and yes, I'm fully aware Halo came before Mass Effect. I just don't find it intriguing or revolutionary in the slightest).[/QUOTE]
Well, Halo introduced a unique system of health where you have an unlimited shield that needs to recharge and an underlying hitpoint system, where in previous games like DooM (and even the first Call of Duty later on) had you running around with limited amounts of HP and required you to constantly be on the lookout for health pickups.
Not to mention that I'm pretty sure Halo 2/ Halo 3's dual wield systems are the unopposed best dual wielding system in the first person genre.
Also, it had a god tier soundtrack (I think it was also one of the early games to have a dynamic music system)
Counter Strike is the best Multiplayer FPS Franchise of all time
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;42743030]I think $1 a song, or even .50 cents a song is way too overpriced for music.[/QUOTE]
It's hard to say, it depends on much you really enjoy the artist and particular song. I bought whole albums only because I liked on particular song. Although usually I start digging all the tracks that are on the album.
Well, let's dredge up Ye Olde Overrated Games List.
[B]Halo Franchise.[/B] The whole reason I am posting is because of what Lord George said. I agree in the sense that Halo is overrated, but not for those reasons. My biggest gripe has nothing to do with gameplay or visuals or anything with he games themselves, its the fact that they have (or had) a fairly generic plot that people frothed in the mouth over like it was fucking Shakespeare. The plot got the job done but it wasn't terribly original and it didn't expand much on the "Scary Aliens invade Earf" stuff that we have seen time and time again. They tried to fit in a backstory about some precursor civilization that ruled the known galaxy and was mysteriously wiped out yadda yadda, but even that isn't very original or exciting. Basically, the plot was boring and fairly cliched. I do like the characters though (like the Arbiter, the Prophets, and Sergeant Johnson) but Spartan 117 is a shitty character because he isn't a character at all. He is like Gordon Freeman, a blank slate for the player to project, but everybody got a huge boner for him and now he gets crammed in all kinds of extended universe bullshit. He isn't an interesting character and the plot isn't particularly interesting, and all the "Expanded Universe" shit killed it for me like it killed Star Wars for me.
[B]Battlefield.[/B] I will never understand the internet's profound fascination with this series. The first few games were just alright in my opinion, kind of fun with all their vehicles and stuff but nothing I ever got that excited about. But the third installment seemed almost carbon-copied from Modern Warfare, a game everyone seems to hate. And yes, I know, Battlefield's concepts pre-dated Call of Duty by a longshot, but it felt like the mechanics got changed even more to make the game feel like its competitor. Saying that is guaranteed to stir up a shitstorm, but this [I]is[/I] the Unpopular Opinions thread (a fact many people seem to forget because actually unpopular opinions tend to get flamed or rated dumb like every other thread). I just don't get it. The 3rd game feels even more tacticool bullshit than Modern Warfare did, and the games are practically identical. Both have shitty tacked on singleplayers as well. It feels like you can take a few less bullets in Battlefield, which says a lot because in Modern Warfare you go down very easily. It just adds to my hatred of the "who sees who first wins" style of gameplay that more and more FPSs like Red Orchestra 2, Modern Warfare, and Battlefield are leaning towards.
[B]Mass Effect.[/B] This for the same reasons as Halo. It wasn't terribly original but I didn't even like the characters as much. Just another glowy space opera about evul aliens wanting to destroy the Federation and whatnot. I mean, it is deeper than that but that would be the gist of it with the Geth and all this bullshit. I am really get tired of the cookie cutter plot points with an all-benevolent Federation battling some all evil aliens who were either built by the generic ancient precursors or want to carry out their wishes. The way information in this game is portrayed just kills me. Rather than trying to fit the world and fluff material into the gameplay like Halo or Half Life 2, they just give you a fucking in-game wiki. That just seems lazy. As with all Bioware titles, the pacing is all over the place and relationships are boiled down into "I do nice things and get rewarded with sex" with no real depth or complexity beyond that. The whole thing just feels by the numbers, and the gameplay bored me to tears. Maybe it just isn't my genre, and that could very well be the case, but I wasn't a fan of this games story, which isn't very good because that is the game's main selling point.
[B]Starcraft and Strategy Games in general.[/B] I don't like strategy games. Starcraft is just an example. A boring, cookie cutter Starship Troopers plot about an alien swarm fighting guys in power armor. Been there, done that. But unlike Mass Effect, Starcraft isn't sold on plot or story but on gameplay. This is just personal preference to me, but I very heavily dislike Strategy games where you have the manage an economy and gather resources. It just bothers me because I feel like it limits the tactics I can do with my units and boils it down to simple things like "rushing". It also ruins any sense of immersion because there is no way you would gather resources, build weapons, and fight all in the same area in any scenario. Most people can get over that, I cannot.
Undoubtedly I am getting ripped apart because I just bashed FP's 3 favorite games in the same post, but that is just my opinion.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;42746208]Well, let's dredge up Ye Olde Overrated Games List.
[B]Starcraft and Strategy Games in general.[/B] I don't like strategy games. Starcraft is just an example. A boring, cookie cutter Starship Troopers plot about an alien swarm fighting guys in power armor. Been there, done that. But unlike Mass Effect, Starcraft isn't sold on plot or story but on gameplay. This is just personal preference to me, but I very heavily dislike Strategy games where you have the manage an economy and gather resources. It just bothers me because I feel like it limits the tactics I can do with my units and boils it down to simple things like "rushing". It also ruins any sense of immersion because there is no way you would gather resources, build weapons, and fight all in the same area in any scenario. Most people can get over that, I cannot.
[/QUOTE]
This so much. I'm tired of rts games like that.
I hate rts that have an emphasis on limited ressources, I could never get into Starcraft because you constantly had to worry about your ressources and expand as fast as possible, this takes a bit from the actual military strategic combat for me. I like games like AoE where you can create your own ressources and harves them indefinitly. Although I also dislike if an rts has so many ressources like AoE. It's just more annoying and hinders the gameflow.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;42746208]It just bothers me because I feel like it limits the tactics I can do with my units and boils it down to simple things like "rushing".[/QUOTE]
Starcraft is neither simple (though that's a pretty relative statement) nor is it nothing but rushing.
The 2D and 2.5D Mario games is a more stagnate franchise than Call of Duty.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;42747878]Starcraft is neither simple (though that's a pretty relative statement) nor is it nothing but rushing.[/QUOTE]
Rushing was an example. Don't twist words.
My point is, in traditional strategy games, it feels like there is less of a need for maneuvering, positioning, and general "tactics". There is a far greater emphasis on base building and gathering resources to out-produce the enemy rather than using the units you have in a tactical manner to destroy an enemy force. Thinks like flanking don't hold nearly as much importance as they should, and without a morale system it essentially boils down to "who has more and better units" as opposed to "who can use there units better."
You will disagree but from my experience playing traditional Strategy games like Starcraft, that was what I took from it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.