Unpopular opinions! V2: I Don't like half life edition.
17,782 replies, posted
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;43898991]Really? I distinctly remember people bashing IV's car physics/handling earlier on in the thread.[/QUOTE]
no, the gta megathread was a circlejerk of people who praised iv's handling
I have a samsung galaxy s4 but my work phone is an iphone 5s
The iphone is more reliable
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43899428]no, the gta megathread was a circlejerk of people who praised iv's handling[/QUOTE]
Really? I've only seen people complaining about it being too floaty (which is a legitimate complaint at times)
I'd like to think that the problem with GTAV's car physics is that Rockstar put realism as a higher priority than gameplay.
[QUOTE=flashn00b;43899677]I'd like to think that the problem with GTAV's car physics is that Rockstar put realism as a higher priority than gameplay.[/QUOTE]
you mean gta iv?
if we had gta v's handling and gta iv's vehicle damage it'd be fine by me
i still do not understand why gta IV's vehicle damage was removed. it was a bit squishy but it was more realistic than the cars-made-of-diamond shit we had in GTA V.
[editline]13th February 2014[/editline]
that said, I did not enjoy playing GTA IV.
I find turn based combat ridiculous. Your character just sit there, waiting for the enemy to attack/heal itself/do a thing and vice versa. Feels monotonous, un-immersive and boring as fuck.
[QUOTE=StoneRabbit;43900894]I find turn based combat ridiculous. Your character just sit there, waiting for the enemy to attack/heal itself/do a thing and vice versa. Feels monotonous, un-immersive and boring as fuck.[/QUOTE]
It isn't combat, IMO, it's fucking war themed chess.
I think the Tribes series is awful and that its predecessor, Starsiege, is the best mech game there is. I only wish it worked properly on Win7.
[editline]13th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=StoneRabbit;43900894]I find turn based combat ridiculous. Your character just sit there, waiting for the enemy to attack/heal itself/do a thing and vice versa. Feels monotonous, un-immersive and boring as fuck.[/QUOTE]
Like Mbbrid said, it's more like Chess. Which is the way it's intended to be. It's meant to let you plan things out a lot better than something that's realtime.
What bothers me about Turn Based strategy is that tactics aren't so impressive or nearly as interesting if you're specifically given that time to think and analyze. Maybe 2/3 of good leadership is seeing through the fog of war and making decisions under pressure and turn based games remove half of the former and all of the latter.
Large strategic scale games are exempt from this so long as individual units consist of large amounts of "units". For example, Civilization games are an absolutely perfect example of what not to do in a strategy game, while turn based tactics in XCOM were relatively good, as games on that scale are indeed difficult (read: impossible outside of multiplayer in games like arma) to do in real time without stop-start based combat, which only dodges half of the problem.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;43901009]What bothers me about Turn Based strategy is that tactics aren't so impressive or nearly as interesting if you're specifically given that time to think and analyze. Maybe 2/3 of good leadership is seeing through the fog of war and making decisions under pressure and turn based games remove half of the former and all of the latter.
Large strategic scale games are exempt from this so long as individual units consist of large amounts of "units". For example, Civilization games are an absolutely perfect example of what not to do in a strategy game, while turn based tactics in XCOM were relatively good, as games on that scale are indeed difficult (read: impossible outside of multiplayer in games like arma) to do in real time without stop-start based combat, which only dodges half of the problem.[/QUOTE]
What did you just say about Civilization boy.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;43889332]That's the regular price for games here. Always funny to hear Americans complaining about the price of games. Or oil.[/QUOTE]
Most Steam games are around $60 on release from what I've seen, which is somewhere between 30 and 45 GBP if I'm calculating this correctly. Are console titles more expensive than that on release?
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;43902991]Most Steam games are around $60 on release from what I've seen[/QUOTE]
What? This is only true if you're looking at AAA titles. If you go by all games released on Steam then $30-40 is about average. Maybe even a bit less than that.
TF2 hats are a good way of promoting your charity, if Special Effect and the Japan Flood Relief are of any indication.
Additionally, Fight for the Future should learn from said charity promo hats, as this could help them with their goal of making people more aware of internet censorship.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43898156]Socialism and market economy are not incompatible.[/QUOTE]
Anyone in their right mind agrees that neither extreme is good, and thus it is necessary to combine both. Almost every western state does so, including the US, which has socialistic programs such as public schooling and food stamps.
[QUOTE=flashn00b;43899677]I'd like to think that the problem with GTAV's car physics is that Rockstar put realism as a higher priority than gameplay.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i can roll my car down a hill on it's sides and it will be perfectly fine, yeah GTA 5 is very realistic.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;43902991]Most Steam games are around $60 on release from what I've seen, which is somewhere between 30 and 45 GBP if I'm calculating this correctly. Are console titles more expensive than that on release?[/QUOTE]
It depends on the game. In Ireland most games are €50-€60, console games tend toward €60, PC games tend toward €50. Some places are trying to charge €70 for XBone and PS4 games but they can go fuck themselves.
There are outliers, I've only seen Battlefield 4 as the 'Premium Edition' which comes with the first map pack for €65, and I pre ordered Dark Souls 2 on 360 for €50.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;43902991]Most Steam games are around $60 on release from what I've seen, which is somewhere between 30 and 45 GBP if I'm calculating this correctly. Are console titles more expensive than that on release?[/QUOTE]
Sometimes true, but I can think of a lot of games that had a starting price of 30$ on PC and 50$ on Consoles.
[QUOTE=The golden;43898138]
And on the topic of OHK's - The non-sniper might still kill me pretty quick but you see I can actually see him and have a chance to retaliate. I might only get one bullet off before I die but hey, better than nothing. Being instantly dropped dead by someone on the other side of the map that I cannot even see is, personally, the complete antithesis of fun to me. It just completely robs the victim of the chance to use their skills and abilities to react. It's just bang dead, what the fuck are they gonna do about it? It's highly frustrating and I don't enjoy its presence in FPS games. You might disagree and hey that's fine too, but that's just how I view it.[/QUOTE]
What about when an enemy comes up behind you can kills you before you can react? What about when you get killed by a claymore that was hidden around a corner? What about when a grenade comes in and blows you up? You can't fight against any of these things if you don't know they're coming, why are snipers so offensive that they should be removed but not these other things? They are at least as "cheap" as a one hit kill from a bolt action sniper rifle.
What about larger games like Battlefield? An infantryman has no chance in a head on fight with a tank. Should the tank be removed? A tank stands little chance against a helicopter, and a helicopter is fodder for a jet. The entire concept of balance is not to water everything into one-on-one duels, but to create a system where each option is more or less viable when in different situations.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;43903169]Yeah i can roll my car down a hill on it's sides and it will be perfectly fine, yeah GTA 5 is very realistic.[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this makes whatever efforts at being realistic with your cars pointless, hence why I firmly believe that vehicle physics should be made with gameplay as a much bigger priority than realism.
I wouldn't exactly call Saints Row 2 or 3's vehicle physics realistic, but they were still more fun to drive than GTA cars.
Don't get me wrong on what I'm about to say: I don't mind joking a bit about fedorable neckbeards, I find it rather funny, but saying "you have different taste in hats and that makes you autistic" is not any sort of ultimate trump-card in an argument, it's not an argument of any kind, it's just childish to try and actually use that in a debate.
I actually miss Yawnman.
Game of Thrones sucks.
Sorry, just never saw what was so boner enraging about it
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;43905523]Game of Thrones sucks.
Sorry, just never saw what was so boner enraging about it[/QUOTE]
Lesbian incest orgies I think
People who complain about people who aren't [I]REAL GAMERS[/I] and bullshit like that are the worst people on the internet.
If somebody needs to pass a test in order for them to be a part of your stupid community, [I]YOU'RE[/I] the problem, not them.
[editline]13th February 2014[/editline]
Like, this is how I see it: Millions of people play them, yet some of those people are not deemed REAL gamers. The fuck kind of logic is that? Where is the guidebook that says if somebody's a real gamer or not? The only reason people bring up this dumb "REAL GAMER" bullshit is to just put down other people based on stupid shit like "hurp glrugh they play bad games" or "they're just doing it for attention!"
It should be up [I]to the other person,[/I] not you, to decide who and who is not a gamer.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43905896]People who complain about people who aren't [I]REAL GAMERS[/I] and bullshit like that are the worst people on the internet.[/QUOTE]
Well if you play games...
I saw something earlier about too many tattoos, well I guess this would be unpopular, but sleeves and stuff like that are a huge turn on for me.
Tornado IDS' are amazing in Wargame: Airland Battle
two of them can fuck up a full squad of T-80s from the front in one bombing run and get the fuck out while avoiding a shitload of AA because they're so fast
There needs to be competition in the gamification scene, because we need viable alternatives to HabitRPG, which in turn would give the HabitRPG developers incentive to improve their website.
When it comes to multiplayer, Games with super high player counts (like 64) are not fun. Games with super low player counts (1v1) are not fun.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.