• Unpopular opinions! V2: I Don't like half life edition.
    17,782 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46833792]Golden guns in games are tacky as fuck[/QUOTE] Frying pans as weapons never get old though.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46833792]Golden guns in games are tacky as fuck[/QUOTE] Only exception is the GoldenEye: Source mod or any other James Bond game.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46829781]No. You don't fire a gun at someone without the intent to kill. Overall police accuracy in high pressure situations is about a third. The average citizen cannot (and should not, even if they claim to be a good shot) be trusted to non-fatally shoot someone reliably. Either shoot to kill or do not shoot.[/QUOTE] That... and warning shots and purposefully non-lethal shots in even the most Stand your ground states is considered illegal and assault with a deadly weapon/involuntary manslaughter/3rd Degree Murder status if the assailant dies, regardless of who's at fault.
I absolutely despise Nutella
Posting local gas prices should be bannable in SH just like speedtests. "I've got 45 mbits.""Look at my gigabit internet""look at my shitty dsl" "gas is 1.70$ here!""it's 2.08$ here!""I'm european and mine is 2$.....per liter."
aw man, Dishonored was SO, so so so fun, but the ending was so lackluster. I'm not a fan of the "pan to black and have a narrator read the ending to you" things in games.
[QUOTE=fudge blood;46838574]aw man, Dishonored was SO, so so so fun, but the ending was so lackluster. I'm not a fan of the "pan to black and have a narrator read the ending to you" things in games.[/QUOTE] I'm more of a fan of the whole "freeze-frames of each character celebrating and telling you in text what happens to them over the next few years while cheesy 80s music plays"
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46830940]This is what people don't get about self defense. Shooting someone in your house before they've even shown to have a weapon is really iffy. Once they have a weapon visible, that's when you know your life could be at risk.[/QUOTE] To say this about that - what if it's dark? What if the person charges you unarmed or simply freezes up, but you still can't tell? Handguns are small, are you sure the intruder simply isn't holding something he stole from you? The concept of a weapon is sketchy at best. I'm not saying you should bust out of your bedroom at the first window-break, guns a' blazing and read to mow down anything that moves, but confronting a trespasser in your own home, especially if you're just awoken to do so, is an extremely tense situation and all concepts like "just shoot him in the leg," "see if they have a weapon" and "try to talk them down" go out the window. I wouldn't want to shoot a home intruder, but neither do I want to get shot. I don't like the opinion a few people have where every gun owner is just itching for the first home robbery so they can bust out a machine gun and turn someone into Swiss cheese. I'm sure those people exist, but I'd like to assume most people would like to go without home invasions in their life. :v:
[QUOTE=Deng;46818913]The most surprising thing I've found is how much importance has been placed on it. People keep telling me about XYZ has happened or been done, why it's important. I get linked to inane and boring streams of idiots jerking each other off about gamergate. Even the facepunch thread on it has hundreds of pages, and that's the type of dedication you don't see everyday. But in all honesty it's just a fucking boring [B]inconsequential[/B] thing. Nothing has happened. It's just a pile of boring shit garbage that I honestly couldn't care for because it's the stupidest internet movement possible. Half of it is tweets and blogs and the other half is edit wars on encyclopedia pages.[/QUOTE] I don't really support GG all that much but to say it is inconsequential is pretty misinformed, the FTC has changed some of its guidelines as a direct result and AFAIK there is a federal investigation going on right now (the actually good[?] things to come out of it). The only problem I have with GamerGate is that the majority of its supporters are all people who vehemently oppose progressiveness while at the same time opposing corruption.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;46838959]I don't really support GG all that much but to say it is inconsequential is pretty misinformed, the FTC has changed some of its guidelines as a direct result and AFAIK there is a federal investigation going on right now (the actually good[?] things to come out of it). The only problem I have with GamerGate is that the majority of its supporters are all people who vehemently oppose progressiveness while at the same time opposing corruption.[/QUOTE] It is inconsequential. That is my unpopular opinion. It is one of the most inconsequential things I have ever seen. Never before have I seen a topic that covers so little yet warrants so much attention (a federal investigation? Wow, call me when that goes somewhere). I mean [b]ethics in games journalism[/b]? Get some priorities lmfao.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;46838959]I don't really support GG all that much but to say it is inconsequential is pretty misinformed, the FTC has changed some of its guidelines as a direct result and AFAIK there is a federal investigation going on right now (the actually good[?] things to come out of it). [b]The only problem I have with GamerGate is that the majority of its supporters are all people who vehemently oppose progressiveness[/b] while at the same time opposing corruption.[/QUOTE] I am legitimately curious as to what gives you this impression
[QUOTE=Sitkero;46839165]I am legitimately curious as to what gives you this impression[/QUOTE] Any dissent is treated with "hah SARKEESIAN" or "HAH SJW" scapegoating. And the fact that subtle (and not so subtle) misogyny/ableism/etc is pretty common. [editline]2nd January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Deng;46839112]It is inconsequential. That is my unpopular opinion. It is one of the most inconsequential things I have ever seen. Never before have I seen a topic that covers so little yet warrants so much attention (a federal investigation? Wow, call me when that goes somewhere). I mean [b]ethics in games journalism[/b]? Get some priorities lmfao.[/QUOTE] regardless of your opinion on it, to say its inconsequential because it resulted in nothing notable to [i]you[/I] is misguided.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;46839512]Any dissent is treated with "hah SARKEESIAN" or "HAH SJW" scapegoating. [/QUOTE] Or absurd conspiracy theories that make it obvious that the people involved don't even think the issue is significant enough for them to keep going without making new ones up.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46829781]No. You don't fire a gun at someone without the intent to kill. Overall police accuracy in high pressure situations is about a third. The average citizen cannot (and should not, even if they claim to be a good shot) be trusted to non-fatally shoot someone reliably. Either shoot to kill or do not shoot.[/QUOTE] there is no argument behind "if you shoot you shoot to kill" isn't it WAY better to just shoot someone in the leg so you're no murderer?
[QUOTE=Evi.tf;46840678]there is no argument behind "if you shoot you shoot to kill" isn't it WAY better to just shoot someone in the leg so you're no murderer?[/QUOTE] No, it isn't. Now, I'm no gun expert or anything like it, but I don't think I gotta be. First of all, this ain't hollywood. You got shit in your legs too, and lethal injuries [I]can[/I] result from injuries to your leg. Second of all, even if you [I]did[/I] shoot someone in the leg, they don't have to just crumple over incapacitated. They are still a threat. Third of all, to address it plainly, it's just a stupid idea to try and fire at limbs for the most part anyway. Legs, arms, head, they're all smaller, thinner targets than someone's torso. And, since people have a tendency to move, it is far more difficult to accurately hit someone at any kind of distance in the leg. Put this in a house situation where someone could be at some kind of distance, [I]and[/I] it's likely to be dark in your own home, it would be an absolutely stupid idea to go for a non-lethal leg shot. Basically shooting at people's limbs can be a very, very fucking stupid idea and might end up with you dead. If it wasn't a stupid idea, cops wouldn't be shooting to kill now, would they? [editline]e[/editline] I'm sick of people who think every fucking fight can be non-lethal. The fact is that there's guns, and strangers, and fighting. Chances are someone's just plain going to have to fucking die, deal with it.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46840695]No, it isn't. Now, I'm no gun expert or anything like it, but I don't think I gotta be. First of all, this ain't hollywood. You got shit in your legs too, and lethal injuries [I]can[/I] result from injuries to your leg. Second of all, even if you [I]did[/I] shoot someone in the leg, they don't have to just crumple over incapacitated. They are still a threat. Third of all, to address it plainly, it's just a stupid idea to try and fire at limbs for the most part anyway. Legs, arms, head, they're all smaller, thinner targets than someone's torso. And, since people have a tendency to move, it is far more difficult to accurately hit someone at any kind of distance in the leg. Put this in a house situation where someone could be at some kind of distance, [I]and[/I] it's likely to be dark in your own home, it would be an absolutely stupid idea to go for a non-lethal leg shot. Basically shooting at people's limbs can be a very, very fucking stupid idea and might end up with you dead. If it wasn't a stupid idea, cops wouldn't be shooting to kill now, would they? [editline]e[/editline] I'm sick of people who think every fucking fight can be non-lethal. The fact is that there's guns, and strangers, and fighting. Chances are someone's just plain going to have to fucking die, deal with it.[/QUOTE] its way better to not kill someone than it is to kill someone. and i'd way rather shoot someone in a limb than in their face/chest because then they can at least survive. and no, if someone has been shot they're not a threat.
[QUOTE=Evi.tf;46840724]its way better to not kill someone than it is to kill someone. and i'd way rather shoot someone in a limb than in their face/chest because then they can at least survive. and no, if someone has been shot they're not a threat.[/QUOTE] So you'd rather massively increase your chances of getting shot and killed by taking a massively risky move that has a strong probability of killing said person anyway, assuming they don't just up and shoot you back, or you just fucking miss? Well, that's your prerogative. Just hope it doesn't happen and you end up getting other people dead as a result of your actions. Oh, and yes, if someone has been shot, they are still a threat. I'm going to put this pretty plainly, and I'm not going to debate it; unless a person has been disarmed, rendered unconscious, or completely immobilized (which a bullet to the leg will NOT do) or of course killed, they are still a threat. Shoot someone in a leg, great, assuming they fall to the floor, they still have a working spine, arms, and a gun, meaning they can still shoot at you. Maybe they won't be able to work past the pain, maybe they will. There are hundreds of cases of people being able to take [I]several[/I] bullets before dying or at least stopping their attack.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46840759]So you'd rather massively increase your chances of getting shot and killed by taking a massively risky move that has a strong probability of killing said person anyway, assuming they don't just up and shoot you back, or you just fucking miss? Well, that's your prerogative. Just hope it doesn't happen and you end up getting other people dead as a result of your stupid actions. Oh, and yes, if someone has been shot, they are still a threat. I'm going to put this pretty plainly, and I'm not going to debate it; unless a person has been disarmed, rendered unconscious, or completely immobilized (which a bullet to the leg will NOT do) or of course killed, they are still a threat. Shoot someone in a leg, great, assuming they fall to the floor, they still have a working spine, arms, and a gun, meaning they can still shoot at you. Maybe they won't be able to work past the pain, maybe they will. There are hundreds of cases of people being able to take [I]several[/I] bullets before dying or at least stopping their attack.[/QUOTE] well if the other person has a gun you may as well kill him. What i've been trying to say is that you shouldn't kill some one for breaking into your house or stealing something but you may shoot them so they don't get away. You shouldn't always shoot to kill, that's just some shit made up in the USA
[QUOTE=Evi.tf;46840797]well if the other person has a gun you may as well kill him. What i've been trying to say is that you shouldn't kill some one for breaking into your house or stealing something but you may shoot them so they don't get away. You shouldn't always shoot to kill, that's just some shit made up in the USA[/QUOTE] Tell me then, how are you supposed to know if someone has a gun? I mean besides the obvious fact that if you're encountering a robber it's likely gonna be in the dark, guns are very concealable. Even if you can see that their hands are empty, that's not a guarantee that their pockets or pants aren't. Of course, if you can get the drop on someone they aren't likely to go for their gun, but you still don't necessarily know that they won't, or that they're the only one in the home, or that they're not going to brandish a gun or knife or some shit and charge you, or whatever. There are very few circumstances in which it is not far riskier to try to take a home invader alive than to simply shoot them. Oh, and if 'Paranoid always shooting to kill' was invented in the USA, vast over-optimism and idealism about home invaders and other criminals was invented in Europe.
[QUOTE=Evi.tf;46840797]well if the other person has a gun you may as well kill him. What i've been trying to say is that you shouldn't kill some one for breaking into your house or stealing something but you may shoot them so they don't get away. You shouldn't always shoot to kill, that's just some shit made up in the USA[/QUOTE] You are missing one of the main points. If you shoot someone in the leg, THERE IS A LARGE CHANCE THAT IT WILL HIT AN ARTERY AND CAUSE THEM TO BLEED OUT AND DIE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SAFE WAY TO SHOOT SOMEONE. EVEN IN THE HAND OR FOOT THERE ARE LARGE BLOOD VESSELS THAT WILL BE RUPTURED, CAUSING MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS. SO UNLESS YOU ARE A GREAT SURGEON AND CAN TREAT THEM INSTANTLY ON THE SPOT, THEY WILL LIKELY SUFFER BLOOD LOSS AND RUN THE RISK OF DEATH. considering you just shot them, there is a large chance they will panic, and if they have a weapon they will attack you. It is seriously that simple.
People with autism are fucking annoying + I have it and I annoy myself
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;46843180] EVEN IN THE HAND OR FOOT THERE ARE LARGE BLOOD VESSELS THAT WILL BE RUPTURED, CAUSING MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS. SO UNLESS YOU ARE A GREAT SURGEON AND CAN TREAT THEM INSTANTLY ON THE SPOT, THEY WILL LIKELY SUFFER BLOOD LOSS AND RUN THE RISK OF DEATH. [/QUOTE] Also, unlike in movies, hands tend to fucking explode when they get shot. If you were to shoot someone in the hand, it's not some little thing someone can get checked out pretty quick, you'd be permanently disabling them for life.
I swear the Sonic series became like a cousin that always got you great presents when you were young but fell into hard drugs and now just comes around to steal money. I feel so bad for him and cling to the hope he'll recover in some way, but it looks like it'll just be the same old shit for a while.
[QUOTE=Xubs;46844741]Quake 1 is the best Quake, hands down best weapons, coolest atmosphere and theme, best singleplayer. The only thing it lacks is the railgun. The rest of the Quake games (for those unaware, Quake 2 and onward is actually technically a different game series, Quake 1 was never supposed to have a sequel but the only good game name they wanted for Quake 2 was already taken so they made it a in-name-only sequel) have a really stupid and generic scifi style that is basically just a repeat of Doom with a bit more gray.[/QUOTE] Even Doom was more original then Quake 2, at least that had you killing actual demons from actual hell Quake 2 is "I am grumpy hero soldier man i shoot evil aliens" Quake 1 has the awesome lovecraftian inspired architecture and monsters and stuff, it's so fucking cool
I think with Nintendo letting other devs have a small hand in other games (Capcom w/Zelda twice), Namco (2 or so Mario Kart Arcade games, Donkey Konga, helped with Smash 4) other devs should let Nintendo use their properties, obviously nothing as large as Mega Man, but just something tinier like Square Enix's Theatrhythm sub-series. (it's real, it isn't limited to Final Fantasy anymore, it's also Dragon Quest) Theatrhythm seems like it tries to sell DLC like microtransactions but the game is monotonous in terms of mechanics, Nintendo shown decent DLC pricing with Mario Kart 8 and helped fund Bayonetta 2. Nintendo arguably has a lot of potential lore to take advantage of with the Theatrhythm license; seriously they could remove FMV stages and implement the [I]Vanilla[/I] Theatrhythm modes like field stages as "music mode" whist the NSMB-like worlds would have stages set around specific Nintendo series complete with extra gimmicks like timing jumps (goomba stomps) and warp zones/shortcuts with extended/different riffs. Another slight qualm i have is that just about every Theatrhythm character is Human, they pretty much have the same artstyle, even with the whole interdimensional crisis, it feels like a shoddy way of neutralizing all the FF worlds. with that said, Nintendo just has so much songs to use from and the characters are much more recognizable to the general audience than lots of cast herds from the FF games (which might be worse with expanded universe, and MMOs). they could probably call it Nintendo Land: Theatrhythm. (Geno, Tempo, Villager and the Mario Sports White Mage are secret characters) game would have actual plot, go for the whole Cyborg Akuma route and just go with a generic Bowser plot who in turn was actually controlled by Gargan who was created from a (composite) Dream Stone/Dark Star-imbued Evil (seriously, the secret villain of Stafy 3 was called Evil/Aku, [sp]Oogura sacrificed himself to stop him[/sp]) I'd be surprised if they actually step it up and make Thretrhythm Dragon Quest much different than the 2 FF ones other than the classical non-visible characters in a 1st person (from the character's view) battle with 3/4 character HP/MP boxes with overpowered debuffs.
[QUOTE=Xubs;46847285]the problem is, if you let other devs use Nintendo's properties you end up with Metroid: Other M. A.k.a "the second biggest example behind the Star Wars prequels why sometimes bureaucratic oversight is a good idea"[/QUOTE] that's why i suggested Nintendo using other Devs properties, the Theatrhythm example is just stretching core gameplay mechanics but would be large enough to be distinct as its own entity. apparently Team Ninja was co-devs of Other M....who knows how it would've went if it was Retro instead, though the Prime Trilogy is okay. have to wonder if Retro knows what Nintendo fans want if Metroid/Donkey Kong is any indication. only slight problem of Nintendo using other Devs properties is that it would inevitably become Nintendo-exclusive which would make theoretical things like Mega Man 11 being Nintendo-only, but the Theatrhythm license is open-ended, the only case for that would be how much gameplay retention would Square Enix allow and how much mechanics can Nintendo influence, otherwise SE would just be loaning the gameplay mechanics. there's also financial stability though Nintendo has started to get on the ball if Mario Kart 8's DLC packs mean anything. (rather than having it stuck on disc for an exorbitant price) EDIT: Examples • Capcom helps Nintendo with the Oracles games, they're somewhat similar in engine to DX except with proper jump co-ordinates, they get credit for co-creation, but ultimately it's nintendo in formula. • Platinum Games has Bayonetta 2 funded by Nintendo, presumably they retained free will over the game production but Nintendo allows them to use some of their characters clothes as costumes, as well as having a Wii U version of Bayonetta. (this makes 2 Nintendo-exclusive) • The Other M case might have been purely outsourcing, it might have been possible that the gameplay was done by Team Ninja, but Nintendo only had control over characterization and script. • The Tetris Company and Nintendo joins together to produce Tetris DS which has a few new modes as well as classical Nintendo themes, Nintendo has the rights to this particular rendition of Tetris, but TCC has final say about releases...thus has to comply with Ubisoft. presumably Puyo Puyo Tetris still survives in Japan due to being less than 1 year old, thus probably had a X-year contract to keeping the game up. • Another company creates the source code for Donkey Kong, but Nintendo owns the characters and presumably themes/gameplay mechanics/music. they had to recreate the code in the NES release, to the extent that "Arcade" on the eShop was a modified NES rom. arguably...never played Other M, but it must be bad compared to other Metroid titles (even more so with Prime 1, 2 and 3) if the internet is anything to go by.
[QUOTE=Plucky;46847388] arguably...never played Other M, but it must be bad compared to other Metroid titles (even more so with Prime 1, 2 and 3) if the internet is anything to go by.[/QUOTE] I recommend watching this video. [video=youtube;31e7YSC-JgI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31e7YSC-JgI[/video]
Game Freak/Nintendo are just as bad as Infinity Ward/Activison at rehashing the same shit every year or so with only minor details added.
[QUOTE=Widow Engie;46849080]Game Freak/Nintendo are just as bad as Infinity Ward/Activison at rehashing the same shit every year or so with only minor details added.[/QUOTE] Really? I think most of nintendo's games do change enough to be worth buying, and at the very least they give some time before putting out another game in the series (not counting spinoffs. I'm talking main games). like main console zelda games have like 3-4 years between each, even if they didn't change much that's be enough time for the old game to be off my mind and just be happy about the new content.
In a somewhat related topic, I honestly don't care if a sequel doesn't really add any new mechanics, as long as it is fun I couldn't care less.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.