Halo Reach was great
Bioshock Infinite was great
Mass Effect is crap

RIGHT WHERE I BELONG, VERB.

Halo 3 is overrated.
Halo is overrated and mediocre.
Even with the changes in Halo 4 343 did a better job with that game than what Bungie did after Halo CE.
Half Life isn't that great. 
GTA only has one all around good game(San Andreas.).
Cod isn't that bad of a series.
Skyrim is overrated and only feels like a developed game with mods.
Fallout 3 is mediocre at best.

Lay off meth dood

Quote from: D4C on December 07, 2014, 10:19:19 PM

Spoiler

Hi Das, if you're still lurking

You didn't tell him? that's hilarious

He usually figures out who I am pretty quickly, so I didn't bother to tell him.

Halo Reach was great
Bioshock Infinite was great
Mass Effect is crap

Yes
Yes
and No

Modifying games, for any purpose, is stupid and unnecessary.

So how is modding a game like Skyrim to have new weapons, armors, areas, towns, cities, quests and adding a harder difficultly to it unnecessary? That stuff adds reply value to the game and it also fixes or adds things to the game Bethesda shouldn't have removed or changed. For Battlefield 1942 there's a 1918 mod which changes the game from a WW2 game to a WW1 game. With KoTOR 2 there's a restoration mod which adds in the content that was cut from the game. Some of the content that got cut is important to the story like the HK-50 factory. So no, mods are not stupid or unnecessary when they either add replay value to a game or they fix things. The only mods that are stupid or unnecessary would be something like nude mods.

Pokemon games are just the same

They add enough new stuff every game to stop it from becoming something like CoD.

So how is modding a game like Skyrim to have new weapons, armors, areas, towns, cities, quests and adding a harder difficultly to it unnecessary? That stuff adds reply value to the game and it also fixes or adds things to the game Bethesda shouldn't have removed or changed. For Battlefield 1942 there's a 1918 mod which changes the game from a WW2 game to a WW1 game. With KoTOR 2 there's a restoration mod which adds in the content that was cut from the game. Some of the content that got cut is important to the story like the HK-50 factory. So no, mods are not stupid or unnecessary when they either add replay value to a game or they fix things. The only mods that are stupid or unnecessary would be something like nude mods.

No. You don't wanna argue mods with me. You'll go insane. I'll reply just this once, and you probably won't even want to respond.

People talk about mods that are "lore-friendly". No, I don't think there exists such things. As far as I'm concerned, every last detail of the game in its vanilla state is "the lore", down to the lame textures, the invisible walls, the glitches, and even the backwards-flying dragons that were prevalent in Skyrim's PS3 port pre-patch. They're part of the fabric of the game's universe. To me, the only people who have any authority when it comes to their game is the developer's themselves. It doesn't matter if your mod is "lore friendly"--it wasn't a part of the game initially, so it breaks the lore by default, just by existing. If it didn't exist previously, it doesn't exist in the lore, and therefore, it shouldn't be there.

How can I justify backwards flying dragons? Easily. I just tell myself, "WELP. I guess that's just how dragons fly in this universe. I've seen weirder things." If the developers patch it up, that's fine, too. It's basically a retcon. It's the gods of the universe changing things within their universe. Nothing wrong with that.

"But what about mods that are developer supported?" Until the mod ascends to a real part of the game via a patch or official DLC, it doesn't matter. My Little Pony will never have a place in Skyrim until the leading developers say, "Yes, MLP is now part of the Skyrim canon."

"What about mods that enhance the game's graphics?" Breaks the lore. The graphics weren't that good initially, so they should remain that way until the developers decide to implement it. Which they won't.

"Why do you want the game to be worse just for the sake of lore?" Because I don't believe in this thing I like to call 'pissing on the Mona Lisa'. You may think her skin ought to be more yellow, but that doesn't give you the artistic right to do so. Not to me, anyway. I also don't believe in having the players essentially doing the developer's work for them. I think that's really fucked up.

I don't care if you use mods. Much. I still think it's an insult to the game you're playing to use mods, and if you're playing a modded game, you have no right to say things like, "I'm playing Skyrim right now." No, you're not. You're playing a hack of Skyrim. It may be more fun for you, but it's still a hack, and that's all it ever be.

As for me, I'll just continue to play games... you know. Properly. Correctly.

Half Life is overrated.

Halo CE, while revolutionary at the time, does not hold up to modern gaming standards and is really just a linear boring corridor shooter that many other games have taken and improved upon vastly. At this point it's just nostalgiafags that think it's the epitome of FPS's.

Halo 3 and ODST are the pinnacle of the Halo franchise. I even like 3's campaign too. Hell, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the gameplay aspect was better than CE's campaign. Although, admittedly the story is an entirely different matter.

I like Fable II.

Fallout 3's setting is better than NV.

Halo 4 is a good game. Not a great game, but not the horrible piece of shit it was made out to be by rabid Bungie fanboys.

AC Brotherhood was better than II.

The Battlefield franchise is awful.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on December 08, 2014, 09:46:05 AM

I like Fable II.

That's not an unpopular opinion though.

It is. Not many enjoyed the linear aspects and the pisspoor boss battles despite it being an RPG.