Unpopular opinions! V2: I Don't like half life edition.
17,782 replies, posted
The US shouldn't be bombing ISIS and sending ground troops into Iraq.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;45938376]I think it has quite a negative effect and has the downside of defocusing development as devs start just putting in was many things they can that the community wants until the money well runs dry and they release an unfocused mess. And even then, most games on early access make most of their sales on early access, meaning the game has been played and then left behind by the time it actually gets 'finished'. What incentive is there to make sure the finished product is quality when you've already made all your cash before it's done?
But anyway that's a lengthy argument on it's own, [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1417807&p=45703907&viewfull=1#post45703907]that I already wrote a big ass rant for anyway[/url] and has [url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8681-Early-Access]already been[/url] talked about [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyGbbIB5eaM]in length[/url] by [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmLz00L6CmY]a whole bunch of different people.[/url][/QUOTE]
Devs who actually care about their games realize you can't just put whatever shit the community wants in. They realize that yes, listening to the community can be helpful, however you can't just bend over and do what the community wants 100%. A good game will continue to sell, even after it's out of Early Access.
And chances are, if a dev turns a game into an unfocused mess, it would most likely have ended up that way because that's, at least to me, a quality that shows that they can't decide what to cut or keep. That's not a symptom of Early Access, that's a symptom of bad developers.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;45937989]I don't like Valve anymore, really. In fact, I'm starting to dislike them.[/QUOTE]
I don't like Valve as much as I used to. My interest in Valve now compared to when I first got excited for episode 2 are such extreme opposites that I'm not even sure any news on Half-Life 3's existence could fix that.
[QUOTE=TAU!;45938750]I don't like Valve as much as I used to. My interest in Valve now compared to when I first got excited for episode 2 are such extreme opposites that I'm not even sure any news on Half-Life 3's existence could fix that.[/QUOTE]
yep. they took too long. the best meal in the world isn't worth waiting a fortnight at the table hungry for.
[QUOTE=Ridley;45937288]
Demon Souls was a one-hit wonder, as it had everything of the two later games combined, without the requirement of expansion packs to be better.[/QUOTE]
Demon's Souls is the worst in the series. Needlessly complicated upgrade paths with stupidly rare materials. A system that makes the game harder for bad players and easier for good players. NPCs that do fucking nothing for the entire game in the Nexus. The horrible item burden stat. Enemy characters don't follow the same rules as the player. The animations are terrible compared to the later games. Climbing ladders takes forever. Only half of the areas have any lore and most of the lore is incredibly bare bones. None of the lore from areas intersects making every area feel like a little boxed in world. Most of the bosses are terrible. The game favours pure strength and pure magic above other builds. The World Tendency system is a load of shit. The economy was FUCKED, everything cost too much and you had to grind to get souls. It also relied on chanting way too much, practically every boss had some kind of chanting in the music.
Sure, some of the characters in Dark Souls are similar to the ones in Demon's Souls, but they're also better done, more fleshed out characters than their Demon's Souls counterparts. Most of the bosses in Dark Souls were better too, largely because they didn't rely on bullshit like instant AoE spells and huge lunging attacks. The area designs and enemy placement was also much better, you were no longer forced down narrow corridors all the time.
Demon's Souls is good but it is outclassed by both Dark Souls games in practically every area.
mgs 2 raiden is a better character than solid snake was in mgs1. mgs2 is the best mgs game, closely followed by mgs3. despite this, i feel mgs3 is the better stealth game. mgs2 has a better story than mgs3. mgs4 was equal to mgs3 in terms of gameplay. mgs4's story wasn't really that bad beyond all the fucking retcons
[editline]9th September 2014[/editline]
dark souls 2 is more bullshit than dark souls 1. oblivion is a more fun game than morrowind (but morrowind has better everything else). far cry 2 was good. dwarf fortress adventure mode is usually more fun than fortress mode. greenlight isn't really that bad.
[editline]9th September 2014[/editline]
pepsi and coca cola, while having different flavors, are both entirely equal. diet coke and diet pepsi are nowhere near the same flavor as their name suggest, but are almost as good as their namesakes for different reasons
Requiem For a Dream really wasn't that great a film. It's definitely not a bad film, though.
I actually preferred The Room. It had a better red dress.
wolfenstein the new order is a better game in every sense than return to castle wolfenstein, and is also the greatest fps game released in the past 7 years. robocop would destroy the terminator. judge dredd is the best comic series in the western world. 2pac, while an important cultural icon, was nowhere near as good as the notorious B.I.G. and i am a fan of west coast rap. steve buscemi is my favorite actor. every genre of music is good as long as you find the good in it. public urination should not be a crime that can make you a registered sex offender.
We need to implement a global two child policy. 7 billion people is a lot of people, but I believe this number can be sustainable, with a ever so slight increase over the years, as we adapt.
Of course, this would not be a "your child will die if you have it", there would be some marginal increase (say a flat 10%) on your tax for every child after two.
I've been thinking about it, and having a child by itself is NOT a bad thing, but people having families of 4 or more are seriously damaging the world.
probably my most unpopular opinion but it goes alomg with the above post: we need more abortions
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;45939196]probably my most unpopular opinion but it goes alomg with the above post: we need more abortions[/QUOTE]
I mostly agree, we need to legalize abortion worldwide. If you look at a map of fertility rates in comparison to the legality of abortion, there is an (incredibly unsurprising) correlation.
[thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png[/thumb]
[thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Abortion_Laws.svg/1000px-Abortion_Laws.svg.png[/thumb]
OH yeah one last one: csgo is better than css
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45939180]We need to implement a global two child policy. 7 billion people is a lot of people, but I believe this number can be sustainable, with a ever so slight increase over the years, as we adapt.
Of course, this would not be a "your child will die if you have it", there would be some marginal increase (say a flat 10%) on your tax for every child after two.
I've been thinking about it, and having a child by itself is NOT a bad thing, but people having families of 4 or more are seriously damaging the world.[/QUOTE]
The problem is entrenched traditions and mindsets mainly - especially in developing nations. Families consider children to be assets, especially male children, and try to have as many as possible in order for there to be, say, more hands to do the work. Also this tends to encourage such behavior as female foeticide or infanticide because more than one or two girl children (or even a single girl child) may be construed as being a financial burden on an already strapped household, especially in the matter of such things as a dowry having to be provided.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45939224]The problem is entrenched traditions and mindsets mainly - especially in developing nations. Families consider children to be assets, especially male children, and try to have as many as possible in order for there to be, say, more hands to do the work. Also this tends to encourage such behavior as female foeticide or infanticide because more than one or two girl children (or even a single girl child) may be construed as being a financial burden on an already strapped household, especially in the matter of such things as a dowry having to be provided.[/QUOTE]
Well, that would be more with a one child society, a two child society could avoid that in many ways. First off, if your firstborn is a female, then you can still have your second child, which very well could be a male.
Then, if the second child is born, and it is a female, you will have already been raising a girl for at least a year, so there would already be an sympathetic link with this child.
It seems a little bit like leaps of logic, but people do not naturally go 'oh, its a girl, better kill it!', they will look for ways to get out of that situation, unless they are a complete psychopath.
And moreover, we should not put the fate of humanity on what a few incredibly ignorant people might hypothetically do.
[quote]It seems a little bit like leaps of logic, but people do not naturally go 'oh, its a girl, better kill it!', they will look for ways to get out of that situation, unless they are a complete psychopath.[/quote]
Well, several families with unwanted girl children do sometimes try to sell them to childless households for money, or abandon them to be taken care of somebody else, or heaven forbid, even try to replace another woman's boy child with an unwanted girl. It isn't so much a one child society I'm talking about, it's about what we're already stuck with at present though :v: If you try and explain why such a thing is necessary to many of those people who still carry the same belief at present, they won't ask you anything beyond 'but why should we subject ourselves to this'? They simply can't understand, or won't accept a requirement that feels arbitrary to them. Education will help to tide over this kind of crisis though. The more you educate people, the better their understanding of the state of the world will become, and also it'll help to dispel the worse of the ingrained traditions bit by bit. However, there's always going to be a bunch of die-hard traditionalists left over no matter what or where - to them any form of change is going to be pretty much anathema, though you see less in the way of younger generations accepting such things for the present.
It's a good idea though, I'm just pointing out that there's a slight niggle with the more ignorant in our world's populations.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45939345]It's a good idea though, I'm just pointing out that there's a slight niggle with the more ignorant in our world's populations.[/QUOTE]
And coincidentally, it is exactly the same people who will benefit the most from a two child system.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45939180]We need to implement a global two child policy. 7 billion people is a lot of people, but I believe this number can be sustainable, with a ever so slight increase over the years, as we adapt.[/QUOTE]
We need to reduce child mortality and educate people all over the globe. Prosperity nowadays reduces population for some reason.
Sex is incredibly overrated.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;45939216]OH yeah one last one: csgo is better than css[/QUOTE]
Not really unpopular. Now if you said CS:GO is better than 1.6, there'd be blood.
CS:GO is better than 1.6.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45939180]We need to implement a global two child policy. 7 billion people is a lot of people, but I believe this number can be sustainable, with a ever so slight increase over the years, as we adapt.
Of course, this would not be a "your child will die if you have it", there would be some marginal increase (say a flat 10%) on your tax for every child after two.
I've been thinking about it, and having a child by itself is NOT a bad thing, but people having families of 4 or more are seriously damaging the world.[/QUOTE]
The developed world is fine, the third world should do what they can to keep their population in check (india china africa). Actually more people in europe, japan, and eventually the USA could stand to have 3 or more children to keep the birthrate sustainable. A system I'd be all for would be a tax reduction for having a second, third, and fourth child. However to receive the benefit from having a third or fourth child you would have to take in about 100k or so USD yearly to make sure people aren't just spitting out children into poverty just for the sake of tax breaks.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45939213]I mostly agree, we need to legalize abortion worldwide. If you look at a map of fertility rates in comparison to the legality of abortion, there is an (incredibly unsurprising) correlation.
[thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png[/thumb]
[thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Abortion_Laws.svg/1000px-Abortion_Laws.svg.png[/thumb][/QUOTE]
Abortion isn't the largest factor in this. Better health care, social security, and a modern very busy lifestyle are the big factors for reducing fertility rate. Back in rural society you used to need kids to take care of you so you could reach an old age when you retire, but not anymore. These days you don't need kids; in fact, they're a burden. There's no sign of this changing, and infact as the population declines women will be more pressured to grab time-intensive jobs, leaving even less time for children. Oh and there's also potentially [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-158463/Why-male-fertility-decline.html"]this[/URL].
And immigration as a magic import millions of people card won't last forever.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45939180]We need to implement a global two child policy. 7 billion people is a lot of people, but I believe this number can be sustainable, with a ever so slight increase over the years, as we adapt.
Of course, this would not be a "your child will die if you have it", there would be some marginal increase (say a flat 10%) on your tax for every child after two.
I've been thinking about it, and having a child by itself is NOT a bad thing, but people having families of 4 or more are seriously damaging the world.[/QUOTE]
The problem is people in the EU have to few children. If everybody had even two kids shit would be great.
I retract my earlier statement about hating CS:GO.
However, I will put forward that I find CS:GO to be incredibly tedious and unfun if you aren't playing with at least 2 friends, especially in competitive.
I don't like ironsights in games. A crosshair is enough. Even worse is when they force you to use ironssights, like in Killing floor.
India, not China, will be the next big power.
Unlike China, India has the right conditions to allow it to become a modern and wealthy country, as it already has democracy and rule of law. While it does have its own major problems (often violent), they are nowhere as bad as in China.
China by contrast, is already in a process of collapse.
[QUOTE=Lurker;45941057]I don't like ironsights in games. A crosshair is enough. Even worse is when they force you to use ironssights, like in Killing floor.[/QUOTE]
I personally prefer being able to use both but I have gotten so used to aiming in Killing Floor crosshairs would be redundant.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;45942203]I think we should be exploring the ocean more than space.
Not saying space isn't important, but we don't know that much about the ocean and it covers the majority of our planet.[/QUOTE]
For all we know aliens might be flourishing in hidden underwater bases, necessitating the need for X-Com. :tinfoil:
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45935824]Interesting, I haven't really thought of those reasons you provided as a reason for why one would think the 2010s has had the best music so far.[/QUOTE]
i like it because it sounds good to me and i'm growing up with it
I can't explain why I like certain music except for "it sounds good to me"
I feel like the only person who doesn't mind having the Microsoft Office assistants around. They keep me company while I'm working.
[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;45943154]I feel like the only person who doesn't mind having the Microsoft Office assistants around. They keep me company while I'm working.[/QUOTE]
I don't mind 'em either, I find them kind of pleasant to look at.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.