Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

You can't just say that things are false because you say so.
Chris McGill claims it's completely the other way. That the world is wicked and bad and that gaming isn't the causation of the things that are happening and so removing gaming wouldn't remove the problem. You're saying that it's the other way around. The world is irrelevant, it's the persons fault and they would apparently fail no matter what existed in the world.

You guys should be arguing with each other but you're arguing with me because I'm suggesting that the thing in the middle could be influencing or enabling it regardless to if its the person or society that is ultimately more or less responsible.

What ever man.


And again you're back at talking about how much money someone has, I dont care dude. My entire point earlier was that people with more than enough money delude themselves completely.

Your earlier sophomore libertarian arguments about "people can spend their money as they please" are neither here nor there.
 
Last edited:
Are you projecting now Foxtrot? I never said anything to that affect. It's you and others like you who keep talking about "Losers" and "My doctor is my Gaming buddy" and what not to somehow imply that social status has any impact on it.
No, dumbass, you've absolutely said that. Just phrased in a way that you can try (like you are now) to deny being an insulting little faggot.
I'm saying it's worse that a person with a family and especially children (if young, even more so) sits and plays fucking Eve Online if he does it at anything close to what it requires from an active player. That's why I'm calling you and your father out, though I did so more politely before.
How would you know what playing EVE Online requires? Have you played it before?
We are accepting a lowering of our relative standards of living and abilities to do things in real life (both in financial terms but also practical, legal) because we are allowed a surrogate experience in the virtual world.
You might be, but don't pretend that applies to the rest of us.
You guys should be arguing with each other but you're arguing with me because I'm suggesting that the thing in the middle could be influencing or enabling it regardless to if its the person or society that is ultimately more or less responsible.
"violent movies are making kids go crazy!", "the video games made me a loser!"

Same mindset, different object of blame. Could you at least try and enjoy life instead of going on a pointless crusade that will begin and end with you impotently trying to shame other people for enjoying a hobby?
 
You guys should be arguing with each other but you're arguing with me because I'm suggesting that the thing in the middle could be influencing or enabling it regardless to if its the person or society that is ultimately more or less responsible.
I take not one issue with what @LORD IMPERATOR said. Me saying that economic opportunities are shrinking due to meddling from the owner class and him saying that life in the 90s is materially more comfortable for the average person than nearly any other point on history are not mutually exclusive ideas in the slightest. I can decide for myself who to argue with, but I'll take your suggestion under advisement.
 
You can't just say that things are false because you say so.
Yes I can. I've seen enough of the world to be able to call out your BS.

Chris McGill claims it's completely the other way. That the world is wicked and bad and that gaming isn't the causation of the things that are happening and so removing gaming wouldn't remove the problem. You're saying that it's the other way around. The world is irrelevant, it's the persons fault and they would apparently fail no matter what existed in the world.
No, the world is both good and bad, and gaming is just another facet of the world. Gaming addiction, like addiction towards other forms of entertainment, is the fault of the person, not the game. It's like blaming meat for people having gout.

You guys should be arguing with each other but you're arguing with me because I'm suggesting that the thing in the middle could be influencing or enabling it regardless to if its the person or society that is ultimately more or less responsible.
It could be the person or the society. It depends on the circumstances.

What ever man.

And again you're back at talking about how much money someone has, I dont care dude. My entire point earlier was that people with more than enough money delude themselves completely.
Depends. Some people actually work hard for their money.

Your earlier sophomore libertarian arguments about "people can spend their money as they please" are neither here nor there.
Except that is the case. And yes, there are people well over the age of 40 who can play video games without being imbalanced psychologically.

I take not one issue with what @LORD IMPERATOR said. Me saying that economic opportunities are shrinking due to meddling from the owner class and him saying that life in the 90s is materially more comfortable for the average person than nearly any other point on history are not mutually exclusive ideas in the slightest. I can decide for myself who to argue with, but I'll take your suggestion under advisement.
Exactly. Economic opportunities are shrinking NOW, in the 2020s. The 1990s were a different decade altogether; there were opportunities in that decade that many people do not have today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Foxtrot
I take not one issue with what @LORD IMPERATOR said. Me saying that economic opportunities are shrinking due to meddling from the owner class and him saying that life in the 90s is materially more comfortable for the average person than nearly any other point on history are not mutually exclusive ideas in the slightest. I can decide for myself who to argue with, but I'll take your suggestion under advisement.

I was't referring to that part about the 90's but the part about the individual who watches Football 24/7 or reads books all day long.
That it's the failure of the side of the person and not of society. That those people stuck in self destructive loops have only themselves to blame.

Do you agree with that or not?

Regardless I'm neither here nor there, I just think that different factors influence both us and society in certain aspects. Access and promotion of things enables or enhances the effects of what ever negative consequence we may be discussing, as well as positive.


Except that is the case. And yes, there are people well over the age of 40 who can play video games without being imbalanced psychologically.

What does someones access to money and the ability to spend it have to do with whether or not they are imbalanced psychologically? Are you not able to discern that these two are completely different things, not related to each other at all?
A wealthy heroin addict can spend all his money on heroin and have some kind of "libertarian" right to do it. It has no bearing on his mental well being or the effects of that drug or that the effect of addictions on society.

Obviously people can play games and not be imbalanced psychologically. Where did I say that playing games above the age of 30 or 40 automatically makes you psychologically imbalanced?

I said playing them actively fills a void.
 
Last edited:
That it's the failure of the side of the person and not of society. That those people stuck in self destructive loops have only themselves to blame.
That is the truth. Anyone can be addicted to anything, be it sports, tobacco, alcohol, meat, video games, or sex. Which has more to do with a person's way of dealing with things rather than those things themselves.

Regardless I'm neither here nor there, I just think that different factors influence both us and society in certain aspects. Access and promotion of things enables or enhances the effects of what ever negative consequence we may be discussing, as well as positive.
False. A person can choose to deny what he has access to or imbibe upon it in controlled doses. For example, I've got booze in my place. Does that mean I'll become an alcoholic? If I get drunk too much, yes, but I choose not to, and I only drink booze on special occasions. So no, just because I've got alcoholic drinks in my place, doesn't mean I'll become an automatic drunkard.

What does someones access to money and the ability to spend it have to do with whether or not they are imbalanced psychologically? Are you not able to discern that these two are completely different things, not related to each other at all?
A wealthy heroin addict can spend all his money on heroin and have some kind of "libertarian" right to do it. It has no bearing on his mental well being or the effects of that drug or that the effect of addictions on society.
Or, a wealthy man can imbibe in all sorts of pleasures in moderate amounts, and not be an addict. He can have some booze one day, play video games the next, smoke tobacco the next day, and yet still have no addiction. It's a person's capability to self-control is what determines whether or not he'll be an addict.

For example, I'm a gamer, but I avoid most video games that have lootbox mechanics in them. I prefer video games with a linear start-to-finish trajectory. I play few games with lootbox mechanics, and I avoid paying real money as much as I can, and I balance playing such games with playing single-player RPGs and older titles with no lootboxes.

Obviously people can play games and not be imbalanced psychologically. Where did I say that playing games above the age of 30 or 40 automatically makes you psychologically imbalanced?
If that is the case, then it's perfectly fine for people of that age to play video games.

I said playing them actively fills a void.
Which used to be filled by things like reading comics and novels, watching plays and movies, watching TV and cartoons. Video games are just the newer version of an entertainment system that has roots in things that are centuries old. If Ancient Rome had our technology, they'd be making video games too, just ones that celebrate their conquests and stories. Augustus would sure as hell commission a fantasy game based on the Aeneid, while he'd commission Creative Assembly to create a war game based on his predecessor Caesar's conquests.
 
Look man, these kind of opinions are not that radical.
Here are some other people discussing what I'm discussing. SSJ and Ugh also contributed some thoughts and all of you on the other side ignored them for some reason because it's easier to bash one person.

I disagree that books or plays or movies are the same, but they indeed have aspects of this. Games take this even further, Virtual reality + AI will take it to 11 and its gonna get even worse with robotics.

Enjoy your gaming.
If this doesn't apply to you at all, then great for you.
 
Look man, these kind of opinions are not that radical.
Yes, and prior to that, meaning was filled by things like being in a sports team, being a part of an afterschool club, being a part of a political group, being a fan of a book or comic series. I mean, come on, look at how some Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or Star Trek fans made that their life, way before video games were a thing.

It just shows me that people like you and those who agree with you are historically ignorant when it comes to nerd shit.

I disagree that books or plays or movies are the same, but they indeed have aspects of this. Games take this even further, Virtual reality + AI will take it to 11 and its gonna get even worse with robotics.
Except there's things that video games can't do. Like say, give you the challenge of a real-world sports game where video game mechanics don't exist. Or how speech and debate teams can give you the challenge of arguing with someone on a professional level that video games can't do. Or let your imagination fill you, like with people who read novels and prefer that to comics and TV shows since it allows their mind to fill in the blanks.
 
Yes, and prior to that, meaning was filled by things like being in a sports team, being a part of an afterschool club, being a part of a political group, being a fan of a book or comic series. I mean, come on, look at how some Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or Star Trek fans made that their life, way before video games were a thing.

It just shows me that people like you and those who agree with you are historically ignorant when it comes to nerd shit.


Except there's things that video games can't do. Like say, give you the challenge of a real-world sports game where video game mechanics don't exist. Or how speech and debate teams can give you the challenge of arguing with someone on a professional level that video games can't do. Or let your imagination fill you, like with people who read novels and prefer that to comics and TV shows since it allows their mind to fill in the blanks.

You don't get it, you're not addressing anything that was said in the video. This has nothing to do with "nerd shit", but yes, people who refer to and live within the world of comics in their 50's are relentlessly mocked, for example take a look in the "most autistic thing you've seen"-thread. Games make this far more compelling for far more people (nerds and not nerds), it's a stronger "drug" in a world where it's ever more difficult to find meaning and purpose. Either you're completely unable to have introspection and/or empathize with my concerns and the concerns of people like me or you're simply not at all in this position and so it feels very alien to you.

In the case of the latter, again, congratulations.

In the case of the former, I dont think we have anything else to say to each other.
 
Last edited:
You don't get it, you're not addressing anything that was said in the video. This has nothing to do with "nerd shit", but yes, people who refer to and live within the world of comics in their 50's are relentlessly mocked, for example take a look in the "most autistic thing you've seen". Games make this far more compelling for far more people (nerds and not nerds), it's a stronger "drug" in a world where it's ever more difficult to find meaning and purpose. Either you're completely unable to have introspection and empathize with my concerns and the concerns of people like me or you're simply not at all in this position and so it feels very alien to you.

In the case of the latter, again, congratulations.

In the case of the former, I dont think we have anything else to say to each other.
So your meaning in life is arguing with randos on a forum, and saying that their bonding time with their dad is stupid?

You just want to seem superior to everyone else on this thread, saying you're looking for meaning and all that jazz. Meanwhile, you could've started any shopclass style project (woodworking, metal working, whittling), went fishing, started a fermentation project (hot sauce, wine, beer, mead).

You're looking at video games as a curse, instead of another medium to tell stories, which is what we as people, have done for thousands of years. And you constantly call out games as being a drug, yet social media is the far scarier drug out there.
 
You don't get it, you're not addressing anything that was said in the video. This has nothing to do with "nerd shit",
This has everything to do with nerd shit. Video games are just the newest iteration of it. We've had Trekkies, Warsies, pothead LOTR fans, comic book fans, fans of movies and cartoons, and now video games are just the new thing.

but yes, people who refer to and live within the world of comics in their 50's are relentlessly mocked, for example take a look in the "most autistic thing you've seen"-thread.
And yet there are fans of older things like classic poetry, Lord of the Rings, and other older stuff that are held in high regard, and nobody bothers them.

Games make this far more compelling for far more people (nerds and not nerds), it's a stronger "drug" in a world where it's ever more difficult to find meaning and purpose.
False. Gaming only appeals to a certain type of person. Others are not so easily impressed since it doesn't have enough physical input, whereas people who want more freedom to make up their own adventures either have to learn how to mod shit or they don't use video games, they use pen and paper to make up their own DnD campaigns. Also, there's other people who find their meaning and purpose by doing things like joining religious groups or political movements. We have a shit ton of people who nowadays find their meaning by following Social Justice, Feminism, or Trump. Few people find their meaning in video games; most people who imbibe in video games use it as a pressure release before they go back to do their real thing, like attending their religious or political group meetings, or doing their jobs.

Either you're completely unable to have introspection and/or empathize with my concerns and the concerns of people like me or you're simply not at all in this position and so it feels very alien to you.
No. I'm actually capable of introspection and empathy. I'm also capable of calling out bullshit when I see it.
 
What the hell happened to this thread? :\
Nobody left to actually stay on topic.

Im fresh out of unpopular gaming opinions. I cant think of a worse, actually gaming related opinion I have than "I like being sniped from things completely outside of my field of view with no warning" (Which I already posted several pages ago)
 
So your meaning in life is arguing with randos on a forum, and saying that their bonding time with their dad is stupid?

You just want to seem superior to everyone else on this thread, saying you're looking for meaning and all that jazz. Meanwhile, you could've started any shopclass style project (woodworking, metal working, whittling), went fishing, started a fermentation project (hot sauce, wine, beer, mead).

You're looking at video games as a curse, instead of another medium to tell stories, which is what we as people, have done for thousands of years. And you constantly call out games as being a drug, yet social media is the far scarier drug out there.


I don't use social media, but is your point that we should disregard games because there are in your opinion stronger drugs out there? There's tons of legitimate critique against social media out there. That's great! I know some kids today have apps that show their location constantly to not only their parents but all their friends. Constantly keeping track of each other. In a way it connects them to each other, in an other way it completely destroys privacy. But maybe its a solution to the problem I've been talking about, a worthy sacrifice?

If you can listen to social media, can you listen to this critique of gaming?

Foxtrot was being hostile throughout the entire engagement with me from A to Z, so he got hostility back. He was and is completely incapable of empathizing or acknowledging the other side of the coin.

I'm trying to engage with people. I took up some classes, I'm keeping in touch with my family and friends more than before, I'm actively investing and keeping track of societal issues. But in this globalized, disconnected, post-modernist world where everything is deconstructed, where people move about everywhere and have no roots anymore....I question what meaning even is.

That video I posted said 80% of people say their lives are meaningless.
A quick google search gives the figure of 90% of young people in the UK.
These are alarming figures, and its clear that virtual spaces can fill these voids with surrogate realities.

Sucking that teat though means we become passive to resolving the underlying issues.
 
That video I posted said 80% of people say their lives are meaningless.
A quick google search gives the figure of 90% of young people in the UK.
These are alarming figures, and its clear that virtual spaces can fill these voids with surrogate realities.
That's because of the political climate in the UK. The politicians don't give a flying shit about the people, but anyone who raises a red flag about it are called racists/sexists/homophobes and they get un-personed. So of course, they'd turn to things like comics and video games for a release from a hell that they can't escape from.

I'm trying to engage with people. I took up some classes, I'm keeping in touch with my family and friends more than before, I'm actively investing and keeping track of societal issues. But in this globalized, disconnected, post-modernist world where everything is deconstructed, where people move about everywhere and have no roots anymore....I question what meaning even is.
That has more to do with the shit world you live in today rather than video games. I lived in the 90s when times were good and video games were hitting their stride. Gaming didn't make the world worse; it just became better as the times were good and people were willing to experiment on how to make better games.

I don't use social media, but is your point that we should disregard games because there are in your opinion stronger drugs out there? There's tons of legitimate critique against social media out there. That's great! I know some kids today have apps that show their location constantly to not only their parents but all their friends. Constantly keeping track of each other. In a way it connects them to each other, in an other way it completely destroys privacy. But maybe its a solution to the problem I've been talking about, a worthy sacrifice?
That doesn't mean social media is bad. It's how you use it. I know people who just use social media to keep in touch. Just because some dimwits use social media in the wrong fashion, doesn't mean social media should be thrown out.

This is what people call ''throwing the baby out with the bathwater''.

Nobody left to actually stay on topic.

Im fresh out of unpopular gaming opinions. I cant think of a worse, actually gaming related opinion I have than "I like being sniped from things completely outside of my field of view with no warning" (Which I already posted several pages ago)
Fuck it, I'll start.

Fallout 3's Enclave was much more fun to fight than FNV's Legion or NCR. The latter two only have jobbers or bullet sponges, while the Enclave is balanced; their guys aren't too strong, but they hit hard enough thanks to their plasma/flame weapons, and their loot looks cooler than either side in FNV. The only thing that can equal them in FNV is the Brotherhood, but that faction is too small and can be eradicated in less than an hour by a dedicated player. Whereas eradicating the Enclave takes a good 2-3 hours of gameplay with the endgame of FO3 and the Broken Steel DLC. The Brotherhood is too small, the NCR is too incompetent, and the Legion are primitive savages with assault rifles and football gear. The Enclave are next-level opponents with power armor, energy weapons, and orbital strike weapons that can destroy giant death robots. Sure, their leaders aren't all that great, you have an AI that you can talk into self-destructing and a colonel who's a weener you can fuck with, but hey, their troops are more badass than all the other factions in the next game. Heck, just look at how a small Enclave Remnant can fuck either side into oblivion if you recruit them in FNV.

Mass Effect 2 wasn't as bad as some people claim it to be. In fact, its story calls back to some of the more celebrated graphic novels when you look at some of the party member stories; and some loyalty missions that involve almost zero shooting contains some of the most compelling story content in the Mass Effect trilogy, like Samara and Thane's loyalty missions that deal with their rebellious offspring. A lot of people shit on ME2 for taking an axe to the RPG mechanics, but I will stand and defend that game because it was, in all essence, the height for the storytelling in the Mass Effect franchise.

Force Unleashed is better than the Jedi Survivor/Fallen Order games. Yes, that includes Force Unleashed 2. Basically, if you know how to fuck over Dark Souls, you know how to fuck over the new Jedi games, whereas Force Unleashed had a healthy mix of God of War and the telekinesis mechanics being a fun thing given that you can fuck around with the game world and send people flying or throw stuff at people. You can topple enemies, throw them around, make them grab each other, use them as lightning bombs, and in the second game, you can even mind-trick them into fighting each other. That was funny as hell. Oh, and punting Jawas and Ewoks in the DLC was fucking hilarious. Force Unleashed took the God of War formula and improved it with Star Wars powers. The new Jedi games had the chance to do it, but they didn't, especially since the telekinesis isn't as robust and you can't use the Dark Side powers outside of just a strength boost.
 
Last edited:
Sucking that teat though means we become passive to resolving the underlying issues.
Kind of an assumption to say someone's not doing anything to resolve the underlying issues.

What if I just came home from work after killing an Amazon deal? What if I recently just leveraged my real life position into propping up a regional alternative to the global credit rating structure?

All theoretical of course. There's no powerlevelling here.
 
This is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but there's no way there are that many people who prefer Fallen Order to Force Unleashed. Those have to be bots, there's no way.
There's people who claim that TFU is a bad power fantasy, there's people who prefer Cal more since he's not too OP, there's people who like the Souls formula more than the GoW formula, there's people who think that giving Vader a Sith apprentice violates the Rule of Two, even though the Rule is meant to be broken since you're supposed to challenge your master, preferably with an apprentice of your own. The list goes on and on.
 


There's people who prefer Cal more since he's not too OP
That is like, literally the only thing Cal has over Starkiller. Because otherwise he's literally just an everyguy yesman.
there's people who like the Souls formula more than the GoW formula,
My mental block is probably due to the fact that I just didnt like it as a souls clone. There are several dozen souls clones but most of them have something unique to them, even the buggy mess of Code Vein established God Eater tempo with soulslike controls.

The map layout in Fallen Order was a step above the likes of Nioh (1), but nowhere near actual From Souls standards. Combat was faster, but nowhere near Nioh speeds. Build variety felt more like a formality more than anything, etc.

Btw I have not played Jedi Survivor so I wont say anything about that.
 
That is like, literally the only thing Cal has over Starkiller. Because otherwise he's literally just an everyguy yesman.
Thing is, Starkiller is supposed to be OP. He's supposed to help Vader overthrow the Emperor, or at least inspire the Alliance. You'd need a pretty strong guy to do that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: anustart76
Back