Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

[Pop-Tart]

War thunder is shit and it causes autistic memelord faggots to think they're "Military history experts" when they all seem to think the role of a tank is to deathmatch on a flat plain. WW2 tank autists in general annoy me.

No one hates wehraboos more then people that have to play games with them.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

The warthunder forums can get pretty damn autistic.

 

[ZehnBoat]

I'm replaying the Silent Hill games and 3 > 2, not even close imo. Better story, gameplay, graphics, voice acting and it's scarier. Where 2 is essentially an isolated side story, 3 is a direct sequel that's meaningfully and creatively connected to 1 and 2. Heather is the best protagonist of the series. It has a haunted house with evil Vincent Price narration. It is a great fucking game. I don't understand why 2 gets all the love.

Spoiler

(This is also the best corny line of the series)
View attachment 619541

personally 3=2
they're both so different within the series i'd rather not compare them

although i've been seeing 3 getting shit on recently for reasons i can't fathom
and that's bullshit... yeah it's not as dark and deep in the emo way 2 was but it was still very dark in it's own way
it was still silent hill
i mean the only bad thing i can think of 3 is the good ending

 

[Slap47]

and add to that, random crits aren't bad; and people who usually bitch about them are manchildren

All games need random elements to be good.

 

[Rand /pol/]

All games need random elements to be good.

No

 

[ZehnBoat]

All games need random elements to be good.

lol no

 

[Slap47]

lol no

No

A good example is Eu4 and Eu3.

One is a map painting simulator and the other has you actually governing over empires with rebellious cultures and religions. One has battles where you know one side is obviously going to win and the other has battles where a miracle can change history. One has rebellions that actually can cause a problem and the other has basically no rebellions because of how easily rebels can be managed and prepared for.

 

[Rand /pol/]

A good example is Eu4 and Eu3.

One is a map painting simulator and the other has you actually governing over empires with rebellious cultures and religions. One has battles where you know one side is obviously going to win and the other has battles where a miracle can change history. One has rebellions that actually can cause a problem and the other has basically no rebellions because of how easily rebels can be managed and prepared for.

Or, how about in HOI4 when I outnumbered the enemy 20:1, have every advantage possible, and still end up losing the battle and taking more casualties because of RnD even though it gave me a 99 percent chance of victory.

 

[Slap47]

Or, how about in HOI4 when I outnumbered the enemy 20:1, have every advantage possible, and still end up losing the battle and taking more casualties because of RnD even though it gave me a 99 percent chance of victory.

Just play Darkest Hour lol.

 

[Antique Rice]

I actually enjoyed Dead Rising 4 more than 1. Dead Rising 4 is considered the black sheep of the series and I don't really get it.

 

[Vault Boy]

From what I played so far, Fallout 76 is no where near as bad as people make it out to be.

Don't get me wrong, it does feel unpolished and the lack of NPCs leaves something to be desired, but the exploration has been fulfilling, the stories that I've encountered have been interesting, and the game is perfectly playable solo outside of certain events (really, I'm taken aback by how much it feels like a normal Fallout game). In fact, I'm finding the game entertainable enough to see what the developers have in store for 2019.

The game is not going to top the previous Fallout games, but I've expected something much worse than what I got.

 

[Desire Lines]

The game is not going to top the previous Fallout games, but I've expected something much worse than what I got

this is the kind of thinking that made bethesda what it is today, with each new release people were like "oh it's not as bad as I thought!" which in turn made them stop caring and just shove half-cooked releases out the door, as a consumer you should NOT tolerate it

 

[SJ 485]

From what I played so far, Fallout 76 is no where near as bad as people make it out to be.

Don't get me wrong, it does feel unpolished and the lack of NPCs leaves something to be desired, but the exploration has been fulfilling, the stories that I've encountered have been interesting, and the game is perfectly playable solo outside of certain events (really, I'm taken aback by how much it feels like a normal Fallout game). In fact, I'm finding the game entertainable enough to see what the developers have in store for 2019.

The game is not going to top the previous Fallout games, but I've expected something much worse than what I got.

Hi, Todd

 

[ZehnBoat]

Hi, Todd

 

[Vault Boy]

Hi, Todd

What can I say? It just works for me.

 

[Burned Man]

I actually enjoyed Dead Rising 4 more than 1. Dead Rising 4 is considered the black sheep of the series and I don't really get it.

A lot of it just irked me for wahtever reason. The mall for example is a lot of hallways with a few stores you can go in rather then a complete mall like DR 1. The manics were ok but I don't think competed with the psychos from Dead Rising 1 because they got even less screen time. Frank was just kind of a dumb asshole and bad attempt at comedic relief when his character was generally serious before that. I also felt there wasn't too much to do outside of just killing zombies in the game since survivors tended to just be people standing on things waiting for you kill zombies.

I'm also a supporter of the timer of the first games since it encouraged replayability because you couldn't do everything in one run. It made it so you had to learn the mall, where items were, how to get around, the survivor schedule, where zombies tended to group up, and who was going to be where so as not to break the 8 survivor rule. I never had to put that amount of thought into DR 4.

 

[frozenrunner]

A lot of it just irked me for wahtever reason. The mall for example is a lot of hallways with a few stores you can go in rather then a complete mall like DR 1. The manics were ok but I don't think competed with the psychos from Dead Rising 1 because they got even less screen time. Frank was just kind of a dumb asshole and bad attempt at comedic relief when his character was generally serious before that. I also felt there wasn't too much to do outside of just killing zombies in the game since survivors tended to just be people standing on things waiting for you kill zombies.

I'm also a supporter of the timer of the first games since it encouraged replayability because you couldn't do everything in one run. It made it so you had to learn the mall, where items were, how to get around, the survivor schedule, where zombies tended to group up, and who was going to be where so as not to break the 8 survivor rule. I never had to put that amount of thought into DR 4.

How similar to DR3 is 4? Because I liked 3 a lot, but it was a step down for the series in terms of design, and from everything I've seen it looks like they emulated 3's design for 4.

 

[Slap47]

From what I played so far, Fallout 76 is no where near as bad as people make it out to be.

Don't get me wrong, it does feel unpolished and the lack of NPCs leaves something to be desired, but the exploration has been fulfilling, the stories that I've encountered have been interesting, and the game is perfectly playable solo outside of certain events (really, I'm taken aback by how much it feels like a normal Fallout game). In fact, I'm finding the game entertainable enough to see what the developers have in store for 2019.

The game is not going to top the previous Fallout games, but I've expected something much worse than what I got.

The lore of Fallout 76 is poorly written garbage. Even by Bethesda standards, it doesn't hold up.

Seems like quantity is all some people care about with lore.

 

[Pompey]

I like the original combat system of Gothic 1 and 2. The combat system of Gothic 3 and the Risen series is bad and a step down.

 

[shartshooter]

personally 3=2
they're both so different within the series i'd rather not compare them

although i've been seeing 3 getting shit on recently for reasons i can't fathom
and that's bullshit... yeah it's not as dark and deep in the emo way 2 was but it was still very dark in it's own way
it was still silent hill
i mean the only bad thing i can think of 3 is the good ending

True, the ending is not so good, especially compared to some of 2's endings. SH2 is rightfully a classic, but its narrative is so hyped that 3's reputation gets the inverse effect of not living up. At least that is my take. I've seen people talking about 3 like it's as flawed as 4 which is just not true at all.

From what I played so far, Fallout 76 is no where near as bad as people make it out to be.

Don't get me wrong, it does feel unpolished and the lack of NPCs leaves something to be desired, but the exploration has been fulfilling, the stories that I've encountered have been interesting, and the game is perfectly playable solo outside of certain events (really, I'm taken aback by how much it feels like a normal Fallout game). In fact, I'm finding the game entertainable enough to see what the developers have in store for 2019.

The game is not going to top the previous Fallout games, but I've expected something much worse than what I got.

Hey, an actual unpopular opinion