• Unpopular opinions! V2: I Don't like half life edition.
    17,782 replies, posted
If you look at competitive Starcraft matches you will see that positioning units and manoeuvers are absolutely vital, some players are really good at putting units in the right spot to get a maximum amount of damage. Very often the amount of units isn't as important because you can loose quite a lot of units by simply ordering them at the enemy. A smart enemy can outsmart you with tactical maneouvers and annhilate you. Starcraft does require a lot of strategy and tactics but it's also a game of coordination and quick reaction. In professional matches, you will never see players just clashing armies together or else it wouldn't be so popular.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;42740461]The only good part of a rap song is the chorus.[/QUOTE] it seems every page someone comes in with some kind of ignorant opinion about music
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;42747925]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.[/QUOTE] And how much have you actually played Starcraft As someone who has been playing Starcraft and watching the professional circuit for years I can tell you that all the things you think don't matter much in the game definitely matter. Whether or not a zerg player sets up a flank against a protoss can decide a game easily. Micromanagement can decide the game depending on the type of engagement. Games are often won by small harassment group well controlled and never even make it to large army confrontations. This is especially true back in Brood War. And I don't see why there's no merit to economics in a strategy game. A lot goes into determining how late-game focused your strategy is going to be, how quickly you're going to try to establish your economy, and how fast your opponent is establishing his. Just not liking the genre is fine, but I think your justifications are thin. [editline]3rd November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=junker154;42747960]If you look at competitive Starcraft matches you will see that positioning units and manoeuvers are absolutely vital, some players are really good at putting units in the right spot to get a maximum amount of damage. Very often the amount of units isn't as important because you can loose quite a lot of units by simply ordering them at the enemy. A smart enemy can outsmart you with tactical maneouvers and annhilate you. Starcraft does require a lot of strategy and tactics but it's also a game of coordination and quick reaction. In professional matches, you will never see players just clashing armies together or else it wouldn't be so popular.[/QUOTE] See, and this is coming from someone who said they couldn't get into the game. Not liking it is different than not seeing the depth in it.
While this is probably not unpopular here, I think it is in a general sense of the gaming world. Garry's Mod far exceeds Minecraft in terms of sandbox building and customization (such as mods), it leaves it to bite the fucking dust. This is almost an objective fact. Yet in many places I see people claim that Minecraft has more possibilities in both fields, which is completely false. idk, this just annoys me.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;42748039] See, and this is coming from someone who said they couldn't get into the game. Not liking it is different than not seeing the depth in it.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, whenever I played Starcraft I always just spammed units and I wasn't good at all. Still, seeing some good matches is absolutely amazing at times. There is much skill and strategy involved, it's far more in-depth than on the first glance. Thanks for your compliment.
I don't see the appeal of cumshots. Aside from reducing the chance of unwanted pregnancy.
I don't see the appeal of porn edit: Why the funnies? I'm serious.
[QUOTE=Hat-Wearing Man;42749007]I don't see the appeal of cumshots. Aside from reducing the chance of unwanted pregnancy.[/QUOTE] They're hot.
[QUOTE=Magic Scrumpy;42749076]I don't see the appeal of porn[/QUOTE] porn makes my weewee go funny
[QUOTE=The golden;42749369]They're not really comparable games. They may both be sandboxes but that is where the similarities end.[/QUOTE] Yes but it annoys me that when people do compare them, they falsely state that Minecraft has better building and mods. I know you shouldn't compare them but that's what people do.
I think Mojang should've stopped updating Minecraft at Beta 1.7.3 and called it the full game. Then do nothing but tweaks and bugfixes for the rest of its life.
brushing your teeth while showering is the best thing ever
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;42748039]Micromanagement can decide the game depending on the type of engagement.[/QUOTE] Micromanaging in games annoys the hell out of me. It's not fun, just tedious. [QUOTE=BFG9000;42748806]While this is probably not unpopular here, I think it is in a general sense of the gaming world. Garry's Mod far exceeds Minecraft in terms of sandbox building and customization (such as mods), it leaves it to bite the fucking dust. This is almost an objective fact. Yet in many places I see people claim that Minecraft has more possibilities in both fields, which is completely false. idk, this just annoys me.[/QUOTE] The biggest issue I remember building things in Gmod (it has been a very long time, last time I actually really played was around the time I joined FP) was getting them to stay together worth a damn. Welds seemed really finicky at best.
I'm not a big fan of bf4
I can't stand Bastion. Boring gameplay and great aesthetics.
GTA V was nothing but an utter disappointment to me. I really was amazed at how absolutely uninteresting the "story" was and how they had 3 characters and made them all unbearable assholes. There's like 10 songs per station, the car customization is ridiculously inconsistent, they decided that instead of a few fun activities they would just litter the map with dozens of fucking tennis courts, the map is like a third of the actual SA and retconned everything else about it. There's like 3 or 4 pieces of property a character can own around the entire game and they generate such a tiny amount of money that it would take months to see a fraction of your money return. The best part of the game is the stranger missions and in world events, two of the very few things I enjoyed. I also purchased the game a month after release so I had hoped to avoid problems online, and after 1 deathmatch followed by 45 minutes spent hopping lobbies desperately hoping to get to another match I gave up and just knocked over a couple liquor stores and left the online as resoundingly disappointed as I was with everything else. I eventually beat the game on the 30th and remembered the iFruit app, so I hop on my smartphone as instructed only to find out still after a month and a half it wasnt intended for us lowly Android users, and I give up. A nice final fuck you arrived from Rockstar to neatly wrap up all that disappointment when I find out that they released it the day after I finally decided to put that piece of crap away and forget about it. Everyone I know is still talking about this game and its incomprehensible amazingness.
Speaking of GTA, I didn't like San Andreas. At all. It shoved too much down your throat too fast and expected you to keep up with it all - most of that stuff wasn't even fun, just annoying and tedious. Like I just want to ride this bike, why should I memorize sixty different controls? Also I like Duke Nukem: Forever. Yeah, it was a let down. Yeah there were a lot of things that didn't feel very Duke-like. But it was fun and it had me laughing and I enjoyed it. And the singleplayer DLC made up for all the failures of the main game.
[QUOTE=JDscar;42747914]The 2D and 2.5D Mario games is a more stagnate franchise than Call of Duty.[/QUOTE] Nintendo is the only company allowed to make games the exact same way over and over again. According to the Internet anyway.
I never watched Game of Thrones nor Walking Dead and I dont think I will either.
[QUOTE=Oizen;42751101]Nintendo is the only company allowed to make games the exact same way over and over again. According to the Internet anyway.[/QUOTE] Well Activision and Square Enix...
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42751244]Well Activision and Square Enix...[/QUOTE] FF11 and FF14 are MMOs FF15 seems to be radically different Not sure about Activision, but Nintendo is the only company who is openly praised for making the same game over and over again. I mean, I can count the difference between pokemon versions on one hand.
[QUOTE=Oizen;42751537]but Nintendo is the only company who is openly praised for making the same game over and over again.[/QUOTE] This has been discussed before, in this very thread I believe. The New SMB series is fairly consistent but past that there's quite a lot of change between the games. The only repetitive thing in the majority of them are the base mechanics and the storyline which is more an excuse for the gameplay anyways more than anything.
[QUOTE=Oizen;42751537]FF11 and FF14 are MMOs FF15 seems to be radically different Not sure about Activision, but Nintendo is the only company who is openly praised for making the same game over and over again. I mean, I can count the difference between pokemon versions on one hand.[/QUOTE] You seriously need to get over the Pokemon thing already, we've been over this three times already, and each time someone actually tells you how many changes Nintendo's made to Pokemon you say "those don't count because I say so". Also, Valve got plenty of praise for re-releasing Counter-Strike for the third time. [editline]4th November 2013[/editline] Just to humor you: Player genders Double Battles Triple Battles Horde battles Steel type Fairy type TM re-usability Weather Pokemon natures Pokemon contests 6 completely different environments About 550 additional Pokemon since gen1 Thousands of additional moves Mega-evolution That's just off the top of my head and I already need some seriously weird limbs to be able to count that "on one hand".
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42751636]Steel type Fairy type[/QUOTE] Dark type too. And wasn't there another type in addition to fairy? (I may be mistaken on that one though, I pay little attention to the franchise anymore.) Also pokemon abilities as well.
I don't know anyone who watches walking dead or reads the comics, and idk if this is unpopular but fuck Carl Grimes seriously ,fuck that little prick I hope he gets fucking eaten. Worst character on the show.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42751636]You seriously need to get over the Pokemon thing already, we've been over this three times already, and each time someone actually tells you how many changes Nintendo's made to Pokemon you say "those don't count because I [editline]4th November 2013[/editline][/QUOTE] But that's your Argument. What Im saying here is that Pokemon is as stale as Call of Duty or BattleField. The internet just has a massive hard on for nintendo. To me, Im going to group these for you. As in my eyes anyway, a lot of these things are the same thing. Unless each individual blade of grass you see is so radically different from the last. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;42751636] Mega-evolution Steel type Fairy type About 550 additional Pokemon since gen1 Thousands of additional moves [/quote] New types and attacks that do pretty much what the old things did. By your logic, each different type of gun is radically different content in Battle Field or Call of Duty. Thats essentially what these types are. They don't radically change anything. Just a different graphic, doing the same thing. Im not arguing that pokemon is bad, Im arguing that its just as stale as the FPS genre the internet loves to hate on now a days. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;42751636] Double Battles Triple Battles Horde battles [/quote] Different battle types are good, but how original is it going to be when they make a "quadruple battle". Also I remember tripple battles being incredibly awkward. As in they handled just like normal battles, except there were 4 more sprites on the screen, and turning the table to let another pokemon take the lead counted as a turn, so what was the point? [QUOTE=asteroidrules;42751636] Weather 6 completely different environments [/quote] Graphical updates. Okay. Graphics don't really make a game, but I agree thats a difference considering how horrendous the original sprites were. Thats my opinion anyway, Pokemon is just as stale as the FPS franchise. They're not bad games at all. I just think the series is rather stagnant. Gen 4 and 5 bored me to death. Gen 6 has been pretty good so far. But go ahead and rate dumb, it makes you look smarter. [B]To summarize my views. They're not bad games, I just get sick of all the people who harp on Battle Field or Call of Duty for being the exact same game, but go on to be complete hypocrites by liking series like these. Maybe they don't need to be radically different?[/B]
[QUOTE=Oizen;42751784]But that's your Argument. What Im saying here is that Pokemon is as stale as Call of Duty or BattleField. The internet just has a massive hard on for nintendo. To me, Im going to group these for you. As in my eyes anyway, a lot of these things are the same thing. Unless each individual blade of grass you see is so radically different from the last. [/quote] What's "my argument"? My argument is that you're ignoring the differences made, or saying they don't count for no established reason other than them contradicting your opinions. Either way, I'm going to do the same thing, only be less pointlessly condescending about it. [QUOTE=Oizen;42751784]New types and attacks that do pretty much what the old things did. By your logic, each different type of gun is radically different content in Battle Field or Call of Duty. Thats essentially what these types are. They don't radically change anything. Im not arguing that pokemon is bad, Im arguing that its just as stale as the FPS genre the internet loves to hate on now a days. [/quote] If you honestly think that the new types don't change anything significant then you just have no idea what you're even talking about, all three of the types added in since the beginning have shaken up the type-matches and altered the balance of the game, so when they change how pretty much all of the battle-matchups work they do not "do what the old things did". [QUOTE=Oizen;42751784]Different battle types are good, but how original is it going to be when they make a "quadruple battle". Also I remember tripple battles being incredibly awkward. As in they handled just like normal battles, except there were 4 more sprites on the screen, and turning the table to let another pokemon take the lead counted as a turn, so what was the point?[/quote] Since you completely ignored 2/3s of my statement there, I think I'll do the same. [QUOTE=Oizen;42751784]Graphical updates. Okay. Graphics don't really make a game, but I agree thats a difference considering how horrendous the original sprites were. Thats my opinion anyway, Pokemon is just as stale as the FPS franchise.[/QUOTE] That had nothing to do with graphics, if you don't know what I meant by [url=http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Weather]the weather system[/url] or [url=http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Region]regions[/url] then all I can say is: educate yourself with the links I have provided, those two are hardly "graphical updates" in fact I made no reference to graphics at any time during my statements. [QUOTE=Oizen;42751784]But go ahead and rate dumb, it makes you look smarter. [/QUOTE] I always find it funny when people are so self-centered that they make statements like this. You're being rated dumb because you're acting dumb, not because we're all blinded by your infinite wisdom.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42751825] I always find it funny when people are so self-centered that they make statements like this. You're being rated dumb because you're acting dumb, not because we're all blinded by your infinite wisdom.[/QUOTE] I must have read the title wrong. Is this the popular opinion thread? Where can I find the unpopular opinion thread? I'd like to post my unpopular opinions somewhere. Its not dumb, its my opinion. Im sorry I'm not into a game you like as much as you are.
[QUOTE=Oizen;42751880]I must have read the title wrong. Is this the popular opinion thread? Where can I find the unpopular opinion thread? I'd like to post my unpopular opinions somewhere. Its not dumb, its my opinion. Im sorry I'm not into a game you like as much as you are.[/QUOTE] You have every right to your opinion, but when you state that opinion people have just as much right to ask you to explain that opinion, and when your best attempt to explain said opinion is insulting people and directly contradicting and denying reality: people are going to call you out on it. That's what you're doing that's dumb, not having an opinion.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;42751897]You have every right to your opinion, but when you state that opinion people have just as much right to ask you to explain that opinion, and when your best attempt to explain said opinion is insulting people and directly contradicting and denying reality: people are going to call you out on it. That's what you're doing that's dumb, not having an opinion.[/QUOTE] Its not denying reality though. New attacks, new guns. New types, new vehicles. Im really not seeing the difference here. But you're arguing on the basis of making pokemon look good and innovative. Which its not. While Im arguing on the basis of it being just as repetitive as Call of Duty. My unpopular opinion for this is actually: "Nintendo fans who harp on First person shooters for being repetitive are massive hypocrites"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.