Unpopular Opinion and Discussion thread

Is this poll pointless?

  • Total voters
    125
R.Graves said:
I shouldn't have to disprove it. It's a simple concept. With anything theres a way to do it well and a way to do it poorly.

The room is an awful movie regardless of whether or not you or anyone else enjoyed it.

Its objectivily bad and no amount of subjective opinions are going to magically turn it into a well made or well written piece of art.

At a certain point a person needs to change their stance from "no its actually good" to "I really liked it"

So saying "subjective" in response to being told you're wrong in some cases is just outright dumb and a little obnoxious.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Room is objectively the greatest film ever made, suck it shit libs!
 
AlphaPromethean said:
Technically, Bethesda's Fallout games being garbage is just an opinion and not a fact.
Click to expand...
I can tell you that technically FO3 (I don't mod FO4 so I can't say anything about that one) and FNV are awful games. FO3 and FNV have so many errors, mistakes, bad code and other missing stuff, that it's amazing how they worked at all.

We have been fixing all of that awfulness for almost 10 years now, and we're still scratching our heads on how bad it all is behind the scenes. For example, in FNV Obsidian broke the sound engine and the tree LOD (just to name a couple examples, or I would be here all day trying to remember and note all the stuff), in FO3 Bethesda broke the engine which would cause problems if players used around half the total plugin limit (limit is 255) and there are thousands of errors that prevent the game from playing tons of dialogue and characters do tons of their routine (again, just to name a couple examples).
Bethesda only fixed the plugin limit in later games.

Basically, FO3 is so technically awful that players can't experience how the game was supposed to be experienced because of dumb mistakes in the code just preventing those things from happening ingame. :roffle: While FNV is so technically awful, that they had to use crazy hacks to even make the game work, after they broke so much of the engine :roffle:.

So... Yes, not only is Bethesda's Fallout 3 technically awful, Obsidian's Fallout New Vegas is too. :lol:
 
R.Graves said:
I shouldn't have to disprove it. It's a simple concept. With anything theres a way to do it well and a way to do it poorly.

The room is an awful movie regardless of whether or not you or anyone else enjoyed it.

Its objectivily bad and no amount of subjective opinions are going to magically turn it into a well made or well written piece of art.

At a certain point a person needs to change their stance from "no its actually good" to "I really liked it"

So saying "subjective" in response to being told you're wrong in some cases is just outright dumb and a little obnoxious.
Click to expand...

And yet none of this applies to our conversation about DOOM.
 
Someone is talking about Doom? Like how the new Doom games are AAA retarded clownfests where you pop open demons to get pinata ammo and health? Go collect cute little dolls of Doom stuff! How fun! Jump and hookshot your way through Mario levels and hunt down THE LAST VESTIGES OF DOOM in the form of Pixels from the old game. Unlock more unlocks for your unlockable old school doom guy with DLC unlocks for your game that is not moddable.

Old school Doom 2020. I think the level design did improve in this new one compared to the last but the fact that people eat this shit up means they just never took Doom seriously like hardcore fans did. I liked military Doomguy. Not a Doomguy that talked like a comic book character. Either make him talk like a person or not at all.

7/10 NuDoom is mediocre garbage in a world filled with mediocre garbage that people eat up like pigs to the slaughter.
 
AlphaPromethean said:
And yet none of this applies to our conversation about DOOM.
Click to expand...
And yet, you're the one who brought up that the Bethesda Fallouts are not objectively bad, which is wrong. They are poorly made pieces of media and no amount of "muh opinion" is gonna change. You can enjoy them, but they are still poorly made.

Seriously, go to a game design class or art class and attempt to see this tired trope of "everything is subjective" and don't be surprised if you get laughed out of them. Not everything is subjective when it comes to how things are made.

When i'm claiming Bethesda Fallouts are objectively bad, i'm not touching atmosphere or liking the exploration. Those are subjective. The combat, level of writing, how the story is structured, the amount of RPG elements, how much sense the location placement makes? Those all can be analyzed objectively.
 
Last edited:
They aren't really bad. They are mediocre. You let your hate of Bethesda override good sense.
 
TorontoReign said:
They are mediocre.
Click to expand...
That's an insult to mediocre games. Specially fucking Fallout 76, jesus christ, if some people actually considered that mediocre.

The only reason a lot of people pushed the "everything is subjective" narrative so hard was because they don't like getting their feelings hurt. Because liking something that is less than well made somehow defines them as a person.

I can name several pieces of media that are objectively bad, but i still enjoy them regardless of quality. I love Sonic Adventure 1, but at least half of that game is poorly made and completely unfitting to the series. I laugh my ass off at The Room (mentioned here) and the Neil Breen movies and have a great time, but they are so poorly put together.
 
Last edited:
Actually with the update to Fallout 76 it looks better than Fallout 4. You need to keep shit in perspective. I mean it actually has skill checks. Not that I would buy it but you have to admit as a game it at least offers something to some people. Your personal opinion on if it is a good Fallout game or RPG aside.

I choose not to buy or support the games because of my principles not because I think the games have no redeemable value as entertainment. I could force enjoyment out of Fallout 4 like Mr Fish does for example but I won't give them my money ever again. Even to try a Doom game they publish.

That kind of dedication is why I have my worthless staff tag.

:brothernone:
 
Norzan said:
And yet, you're the one who brought up that the Bethesda Fallouts are not objectively bad, which is wrong. They are poorly made pieces of media and no amount of "muh opinion" is gonna change. You can enjoy them, but they are still poorly made.

Seriously, go to a game design class or art class and attempt to see this tired trope of "everything is subjective" and don't be surprised if you get laughed out of them. Not everything is subjective when it comes to how things are made.

When i'm claiming Bethesda Fallouts are objectively bad, i'm not touching atmosphere or liking the exploration. Those are subjective. The combat, level of writing, how the story is structured, the amount of RPG elements, how much sense the location placement makes? Those all can be analyzed objectively.
Click to expand...

Yeah here's the problem though. You got upset over me "declaring my opinion was fact" on a supremely subjective aspect of game design with regards to atmosphere. Hence why I said it was unnecessary for me to declare "In my opinion" beforehand because of course what I think of the atmosphere is in my opinion. Atmosphere is not objectively definable in the way that a game's stability or function of core mechanics are. If I said that DOOM is mechanically broken, it would be a discussion that could be judged objectively. When I said that I thought Marathon had better atmosphere than DOOM, I shouldn't have to preface it with "IN MY OPINION" because atmosphere is obviously subjective inherently. The only reason I'd have to is so that I don't upset you with my tone on something that you personally disagree with. Get over yourself.
 
AlphaPromethean said:
And yet none of this applies to our conversation about DOOM.
Click to expand...
Imagine thinking that because I didnt specifically mention the word doom that none of what I said applies to your opinion that doom didnt have atmosphere. Lmao. What's conversational context. Nah you should just waste my time by pretending to be an actual retard fucking christ.
 
R.Graves said:
Imagine thinking that because I didnt specifically mention the word doom that none of what I said applies to your opinion that doom didnt have atmosphere. Lmao. What's conversational context. Nah you should just waste my time by pretending to be an actual retard fucking christ.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was too dismissive

Firstly I never said DOOM didn't have atmosphere. I said it had barely present but overall pretty neat atmosphere because of its presentation, but by comparison Marathon had "actual" atmosphere because to me it created a much more immersive tone and investment in the mood/story. The music, visuals etc got me pulled into what was happening in Marathon more than DOOM where I was just having fun shooting Demons. Which is fine because I didn't think that atmosphere/tone or story were DOOMs pulls in the first place. Whereas Marathon is a gameplay wise inferior DOOM-clone but it has appeal because of its atmosphere and story.


Secondly atmosphere is a completely different realm to objective technical quality or function. Considering atmosphere (at least to my understanding of it in relation to games) describes something that is basically ethereal feeling when you're playing and not something that has to do with the technical competence of the game, would you not accept the idea that how much you like or feel atmosphere in a game is pretty much entirely subjective? The Fallout 3 comparison was a bad one on my part because the game fails on a lot of more objectively quantifiable levels but my original point was that judging the atmosphere of DOOM is pretty clearly something inherently subjective because of what atmosphere is, so I shouldn't have to preface it with "IN MY OPINION" beforehand so as not to upset people.
 
Everything even remotely RPG~ish in FO3 (and 4) is vestigial; they'd be rid of it if they could—and they are aggressively trying at it.

R.Graves said:
What's conversational context.
Click to expand...
It's a lost concept; an archaic relic word that old people use whenever they are obviously losing, and think they can save themselves by resorting to nonsense that nobody this century has ever heard of.
 
All people should say "In my opinion" in the opinion thread before stating opinions.
 
Aurelius Of Phoenix said:
Now you've confused me, is that In your opinion "That is." or is that In your opinion "In your opinion, that is."?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I wouldn't want to confuse anybody into thinking I was declaring a universal truth. In my opinion what I meant to say was that Toronts opinion that in the opinion thread you should have to say that it's your opinion first is in fact, his opinion. In my opinion, anyway.
 
41QMoVVHnEL._AC_SX425_.jpg
 
TorontoReign said:
All people should say "In my opinion" in the opinion thread before stating opinions.
Click to expand...
Goddamnit Toronto, now we're all confused. Are you claiming this as a fact or did you forget to say in your opinion? We need answers!
(You're also right about Bethesda games being mediocre. And I think 76 was a more honest Fallout 4, I'll die on that hill)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top