Unpopular Opinions Thread

[Americana]

I don't use covers in Grand Theft Auto IV, I always crouch. 

[B Dawg]

13 hours ago, H-G said:

Lance's character in VC so "meh" it can kill insomnia. If you're unable to sleep at night, just play VC and look at him on the screen for two seconds straight.

 

My unpopular opinion: The concept of the "cover system" feature in IV and V feels slightly... "redundant"-ish. Like, if you wanna take cover around walls\pillars\corners just stand behind them and shoot, why bother making a complex animation system etc. when you can just crouch behind a bunch of boxes like in VC and take out enemies easily? This kinda baffles me a bit sometimes.

It's there primarily for the AI to use, but if it works for them, there's no reason to lock the player out of it. Tho sadly they removed crouching in V.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, B Dawg said:

Tho sadly they removed crouching in V.

What, you didn't like the "stealth mode"? Thank god RDR2 brought crouching back.

[psxdriverplayer]

Unpopular opinion / fact:

- Older GTA games were meant to be enjoyed in 4:3, clearly.

 

OK so you may be asking how so? Proofs:

- #1: Look at old ass GTA's, old ass Windows and DOS. 4:3 screens all over, not necessarily 4:3 resolutions all over, but they all were meant to be seen stretched to 4:3 back then.

- #2: All PS2 GTA's crop top and bottom when you tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON".

- #3: Just look at all that cutscene visual composition and framing in III and VC, if you tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON", with these two games, there's still black bars during them - and as a result, heads are cut off constantly (Keep Your Friends Close... is a good example). (With SA and Stories games, it simply stretches the letterboxed scene so there is no black bars, but the full screen gameplay also loses top and bottom, so it's a "lose" -situation anyway.)

- #4: Even with PC versions of III, VC and SA, there's a separate "WIDESCREEN" toggle, which crops top and bottom kek.

- #5: Widescreen resolutions in the original 2002 disc release of Vice City are simply the same area you'd see with 4:3, just stretched (same result as if you'd have a 4:3 resolution and you stretch it to 16:9) - also ticking "WIDESCREEN" to "ON" still loses top and bottom. (<- At least with me setup, all this happens.)

- #6: I have no idea how widescreen resolutions in original 2005 disc release of San Andreas look as me v1.0 doesn't give me any (I've also heard that v1.01 patches them in), but I'd think it's the same effect as if you'd tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON" while having a 4:3 resolution and then stretching it manually to 16:9, knowing horror stories about how resolutions work in that game.

 

So clearly, 4:3 is superior and ZE aspect which is meant to be used. This has probably changed from GTA IV and onwards kek.

Edited February 20 by psxdriverplayer

[H-G]

On 2/20/2022 at 6:36 AM, psxdriverplayer said:

Unpopular opinion / fact:

- Older GTA games were meant to be enjoyed in 4:3, clearly.

 

OK so you may be asking how so? Proofs:

- #1: Look at old ass GTA's, old ass Windows and DOS. 4:3 screens all over, not necessarily 4:3 resolutions all over, but they all were meant to be seen stretched to 4:3 back then.

- #2: All PS2 GTA's crop top and bottom when you tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON".

- #3: Just look at all that cutscene visual composition and framing in III and VC, if you tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON", with these two games, there's still black bars during them - and as a result, heads are cut off constantly (Keep Your Friends Close... is a good example). (With SA and Stories games, it simply stretches the letterboxed scene so there is no black bars, but the full screen gameplay also loses top and bottom, so it's a "lose" -situation anyway.)

- #4: Even with PC versions of III, VC and SA, there's a separate "WIDESCREEN" toggle, which crops top and bottom kek.

- #5: Widescreen resolutions in the original 2002 disc release of Vice City are simply the same area you'd see with 4:3, just stretched (same result as if you'd have a 4:3 resolution and you stretch it to 16:9) - also ticking "WIDESCREEN" to "ON" still loses top and bottom. (<- At least with me setup, all this happens.)

- #6: I have no idea how widescreen resolutions in original 2005 disc release of San Andreas look as me v1.0 doesn't give me any (I've also heard that v1.01 patches them in), but I'd think it's the same effect as if you'd tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON" while having a 4:3 resolution and then stretching it manually to 16:9, knowing horror stories about how resolutions work in that game.

 

So clearly, 4:3 is superior and ZE aspect which is meant to be used. This has probably changed from GTA IV and onwards kek.

That actually needs to be a popular opinion. Good one.

 

But, y'know, some people may prefer bigger aspect ratios, with bigger FOVs, smaller and "sideswept"-ish HUDs and what-not that would scale to their PC's display screens properly. So there's that.

 

EDIT:

 

My unpopular opinion is that Vice City's map looks very unnervingly awkward without any kind or sort of land connection to the rest of the USA. Like, seriously, somebody built a bunch of skyscrapers on huge stray\lone rocks in the middle of the open ocean? What are the people living in there gonna do if someone swipes all the aircraft and watercraft from the city? C'mon...

Edited February 23 by H-G

[Americana]

I understand it as that none of these maps are disconnected from the mainland.

[psxdriverplayer]

1 hour ago, H-G said:

That actually needs to be a popular opinion. Good one.

Thank you, thank you. I knew you'd understand.

 

1 hour ago, H-G said:

But, y'know, some people may prefer bigger aspect ratios, with bigger FOVs, smaller and "sideswept"-ish HUDs and what-not that would scale to their PC's display screens properly. So there's that.

Hmm. Les see here:

*Bigger aspect ratio - put 16:9 and 4:3 side by side and you'd see that when they are the same width, 4:3 has more screen space with it being bigger due to its height (and if people give me that damn eye argument, let's go for 16:10, that's quite close to that eye aspect ratio we all have)

*Bigger FOV - that's their problem if 4:3 isn't enough, as you also imply

*Smaller HUD - this is an illusion, there's more pixels spread to the same area, and icons and stuff stays the same size, so it gives an illusion of them being smaller, if people'd see the resolutions unscaled to their monitor they'd see that more clearly (talking about HUD, I recall only Stories games on PS2 modify the HUD a bit as well when you choose to crop top and bottom)

*Scaling properly - what, as if seeing a 4:3 resolution on a 16:9 display with black areas on the sides would not be PROPER, that's how it should be as it's not 16:9 - that's like saying a movie in 2.35:1 on a 16:9 isn't properly seen as it doesn't fill the screen real estate completely

Other than these, perhaps.

Edited February 23 by psxdriverplayer
Added a D to fix a tyop

[psxdriverplayer]

OK some moar.

VCS haz better mall muzak (have I mentioned this before, methinks me haz).

 

Then. If yer keyboard und mouse is so great und superior why recommended PC specs mention a controller (shocking twist below)?

Look at that image and look where me fingers hit the orange - top one is at "Recommended specs" and the bottom one is at "PAD-CONTROLLER (USB- OR GAME CONTROLLER PORT)" which is mentioned BEFORE "KEYBOARD" and "MOUSE". Translate that yerself if ye don't believe me (set translating from Finnish to English).

[boomboom5950]

On 2/19/2022 at 8:36 PM, psxdriverplayer said:

Unpopular opinion / fact:

- Older GTA games were meant to be enjoyed in 4:3, clearly.

 

OK so you may be asking how so? Proofs:

- #1: Look at old ass GTA's, old ass Windows and DOS. 4:3 screens all over, not necessarily 4:3 resolutions all over, but they all were meant to be seen stretched to 4:3 back then.

- #2: All PS2 GTA's crop top and bottom when you tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON".

- #3: Just look at all that cutscene visual composition and framing in III and VC, if you tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON", with these two games, there's still black bars during them - and as a result, heads are cut off constantly (Keep Your Friends Close... is a good example). (With SA and Stories games, it simply stretches the letterboxed scene so there is no black bars, but the full screen gameplay also loses top and bottom, so it's a "lose" -situation anyway.)

- #4: Even with PC versions of III, VC and SA, there's a separate "WIDESCREEN" toggle, which crops top and bottom kek.

- #5: Widescreen resolutions in the original 2002 disc release of Vice City are simply the same area you'd see with 4:3, just stretched (same result as if you'd have a 4:3 resolution and you stretch it to 16:9) - also ticking "WIDESCREEN" to "ON" still loses top and bottom. (<- At least with me setup, all this happens.)

- #6: I have no idea how widescreen resolutions in original 2005 disc release of San Andreas look as me v1.0 doesn't give me any (I've also heard that v1.01 patches them in), but I'd think it's the same effect as if you'd tick "WIDESCREEN" to "ON" while having a 4:3 resolution and then stretching it manually to 16:9, knowing horror stories about how resolutions work in that game.

 

So clearly, 4:3 is superior and ZE aspect which is meant to be used. This has probably changed from GTA IV and onwards kek.

sure, maybe in 2001 but not in 2022. Thats like asking someone to use a flip phone today. Same goes with the fps, sure the original trilogy was meant to be played 4:3, 25 fps but is that an enjoyable experience today? No. Especially since there are plenty of mods that fix widescreens and fix all 60+ fps bugs in the original game, its not like your taking away from the experience by playing them in an acceptable resolution and framerate
 

edit: before people bring up that "mods ruin the original experience" or "mods dont count" or a similar arguement, just remember on many modern pcs you cant even open the exe for these old games without mods, so modding to some extent is almost required

Edited February 26 by boomboom5950

[psxdriverplayer]

7 minutes ago, boomboom5950 said:

sure, maybe in 2001 but not in 2022. Thats like asking someone to use a flip phone today. Same goes with the fps, sure the original trilogy was meant to be played 4:3, 25 fps but is that an enjoyable experience today? No. Especially since there are plenty of mods that fix widescreens and fix all 60+ fps bugs in the original game, its not like your taking away from the experience by playing them in an acceptable resolution and framerate
 

edit: before people bring up that "mods ruin the original experience" or "mods dont count" or a similar arguement, just remember on many modern pcs you cant even open the exe for these old games without mods, so modding to some extent is almost required

Mefeels that's like saying watching old (OLD) ass movies in their original form with "jumpy framerate" below 24 fps and Black & White image is somehow unacceptable today, and to watch them, they must be hacked to have color and 60 frames per second, because who is gonna bother with them in their original form today, right?

[boomboom5950]

7 minutes ago, psxdriverplayer said:

Mefeels that's like saying watching old (OLD) ass movies in their original form with "jumpy framerate" below 24 fps and Black & White image is somehow unacceptable today, and to watch them, they must be hacked to have color and 60 frames per second, because who is gonna bother with them in their original form today, right?

thats different though, watching and playing are two different things, I can totally watch content in framerates like 24 or below, but i can not play them in an fps below 60 (with a mouse and keyboard). It feels choppy and unresponsive because you are controling it and gaming makes use of reflexes and quick movements, movies dont have such inputs from the consumer so it doesnt matter. Playing any game at 30 fps today to me feels horrible and makes me just not want to play it at all

 

and as for the widescreen, why settle for black bars or an ugly stretched image when you can just view it natively

Edited February 27 by boomboom5950

[psxdriverplayer]

1 minute ago, boomboom5950 said:

thats different though, watching and playing are two different things, I can totally watch content in framerates like 24 or below, but i can not play them in an fps below 60 (with a mouse and keyboard). It feels choppy and unresponsive because you are controling it and gaming makes use of reflexes and quick movements, movies dont have such inputs from the consumer so it doesnt matter. Playing any game at 30 fps today to me feels horrible and makes me just not want to play it at all

I'm gonna have an example heres:

If it's old and made for 4:3 screens with framerate of whatever, in the future people may want to use their 16:9 screens and whatever higher framerate for it for some reason, but it doesn't change the fact that it still is made for 4:3 screens in mind and having that whatever framerate, time going on doesn't change that. Grabbing an old GTA game means it's 4:3, in some cases 16:9 through a crop and framerate differs with platforms. One can possibly hax0r it to "proper" 16:9 and to a higher framerate but it doesn't change the fact that it's old and made in those 4:3 times and intended to be played with such screens for the most part.

Another example:

Even if let's say I make something in modern times and make it for 4:3 screens for whatever reason, that's that, even if people hax0r it to 16:9 just because, is still made 4:3 in mind. Even if we were to get those overhyped 21:9 screens.

 

And what does...

23 minutes ago, boomboom5950 said:

acceptable resolution

...even mean. If it's [CURRENT STANDARD GOES HERE] then OOF. Must be fun when these change all the time and everything that doesn't reach the most current one must be hacked to be that. And all that and more when it changes to a different one again. Where are all the games supporting 1440x1080 for 4:3 anyway? Though 1280x960 is acceptable to me.

[boomboom5950]

1 minute ago, psxdriverplayer said:

I'm gonna have an example heres:

If it's old and made for 4:3 screens with framerate of whatever, in the future people may want to use their 16:9 screens and whatever higher framerate for it for some reason, but it doesn't change the fact that it still is made for 4:3 screens in mind and having that whatever framerate, time going on doesn't change that. Grabbing an old GTA game means it's 4:3, in some cases 16:9 through a crop and framerate differs with platforms. One can possibly hax0r it to "proper" 16:9 and to a higher framerate but it doesn't change the fact that it's old and made in those 4:3 times and intended to be played with such screens for the most part.

Another example:

Even if let's say I make something in modern times and make it for 4:3 screens for whatever reason, that's that, even if people hax0r it to 16:9 just because, is still made 4:3 in mind. Even if we were to get those overhyped 21:9 screens.

I would understand if modding the game to support 16:9 would cause immersion breaking issues, but it doesnt, so the fact that it was made for 4:3 doesnt really matter. Why settle for consuming the games in a sub par manner when you can just experience them in 16:9 and have no downsides whatsoever. 

 

Standards change all the time and the old stuff come and go, eventually 21:9 might be the norm as 16:9 is now, and if someone is used to the new thing, why force yourself to consume it the "classic way" but gain no benefit from doing so? Nowadays people only ever use 4:3 resolutions for competitive advantages in fps games, or those who are really stubborn and dont want to let go of the old way

[psxdriverplayer]

4 minutes ago, boomboom5950 said:

I would understand if modding the game to support 16:9 would cause immersion breaking issues, but it doesnt, so the fact that it was made for 4:3 doesnt really matter. Why settle for consuming the games in a sub par manner when you can just experience them in 16:9 and have no downsides whatsoever. 

 

Standards change all the time and the old stuff come and go, eventually 21:9 might be the norm as 16:9 is now, and if someone is used to the new thing, why force yourself to consume it the "classic way" but gain no benefit from doing so? Nowadays people only ever use 4:3 resolutions for competitive advantages in fps games, or those who are really stubborn and dont want to let go of the old way

Call me unpopular but if something is intended for 16:9 I can live with it and if something is made for 4:3 then so be it, it stays that way on my end.

 

Let me guess, ye can consume 4:3 video content but with games that is unacceptable, just like 30 FPS is?

[boomboom5950]

1 minute ago, psxdriverplayer said:

Call me unpopular but if something is intended for 16:9 I can live with it and if something is made for 4:3 then so be it, it stays that way on my end.

 

Let me guess, ye can consume 4:3 video content but with games that is unacceptable, just like 30 FPS is?

I grew up in a time where 4:3 was the norm, but if 4:3 is my only option, so be it. But if i have the choice between 4:3 or 16:9 i would pick 16:9 any day.

[psxdriverplayer]

38 minutes ago, boomboom5950 said:

I grew up in a time where 4:3 was the norm, but if 4:3 is my only option, so be it. But if i have the choice between 4:3 or 16:9 i would pick 16:9 any day.

There's a few things I could add but dunno if I want to.

Mainly these:

If a video content is: Old ass stuff where 4:3 is the original. Modern release is against the original and is 16:9 with top/bottom cropped. Which one would be better. I'd see 16:9 as a disgrace. (With movies, it's the IAR that matters (yes, [sic]), I hate all the manglings, except open matte, that's fine.)

 

But I dunno about that games being in 4:3 is "sub par", I don't see what makes 16:9 better here so much that they must be modded to be so if there's no other way to have that. All I usually hear is "because is modern" which translates to me as "widescreen for the sake of widescreen". Then there's these people who are fine having bars in top and bottom, but heaven forbid if they're on the left and right (i.e. damn hypocrites)... And then there's those who can't stand those bars at all, which makes me question everything.

I'm in the video making business, I do me stuff in 4:3 since 16:9 doesn't bring anything to it, and since there's less area for the watcher to focus on and stuff can be visualized in a certain way, it works. If there's something that can't be done in any other way than having 16:9, sure I make the project in 16:9.

Edited February 27 by psxdriverplayer

[boomboom5950]

1 hour ago, psxdriverplayer said:

There's a few things I could add but dunno if I want to.

Mainly these:

If a video content is: Old ass stuff where 4:3 is the original. Modern release is against the original and is 16:9 with top/bottom cropped. Which one would be better. I'd see 16:9 as a disgrace. (With movies, it's the IAR that matters (yes, [sic]), I hate all the manglings, except open matte, that's fine.)

 

But I dunno about that games being in 4:3 is "sub par", I don't see what makes 16:9 better here so much that they must be modded to be so if there's no other way to have that. All I usually hear is "because is modern" which translates to me as "widescreen for the sake of widescreen". Then there's these people who are fine having bars in top and bottom, but heaven forbid if they're on the left and right (i.e. damn hypocrites)... And then there's those who can't stand those bars at all, which makes me question everything.

I'm in the video making business, I do me stuff in 4:3 since 16:9 doesn't bring anything to it, and since there's less area for the watcher to focus on and stuff can be visualized in a certain way, it works. If there's something that can't be done in any other way than having 16:9, sure I make the project in 16:9.

as for the first point, yea i totally agree. if the original video is captured in 4:3 but they cropped the bottom and top and zoomed it in so it can appear 16:9 but in reality you are losing a fraction of the image, yea, 4:3 is definitley better. 

 

but mods fix this, with mods 16:9 isnt just zoomed in and cropped. And considering again, you need mods to even open these games, then yea, i wouldnt consider modding an outrageous solution. I dont mind black bars for a small portion of gameplay, thats why in cutscenes i generally dont care about top and bottom black bars, but playing a whole game start to finish with black bars or stretched is an ugly experience

[psxdriverplayer]

56 minutes ago, boomboom5950 said:

And considering again, you need mods to even open these games, then yea, i wouldnt consider modding an outrageous solution.

I'm having a principle here, but dunno man, I've managed to install and boot Vice City and San Andreas from those original disc copies to a Windows 10 PC and boot them fine just like that (also Half-Life from a disc, but that game didn't work past those menus). But since the PC is a laptop, playing them is another issue. I'm still having a proper tower PC with Windows XP installed, despite having a 16:9 display with it I'm having a blast in 4:3 AR. Don't own III on PC side, so dunno how that would work.

 

1 hour ago, boomboom5950 said:

stretched

My display did this with every non-16:9 thing until I said "no" to it and switched the Aspect Control setting.

[boomboom5950]

58 minutes ago, psxdriverplayer said:

I'm having a principle here, but dunno man, I've managed to install and boot Vice City and San Andreas from those original disc copies to a Windows 10 PC and boot them fine just like that (also Half-Life from a disc, but that game didn't work past those menus). But since the PC is a laptop, playing them is another issue. I'm still having a proper tower PC with Windows XP installed, despite having a 16:9 display with it I'm having a blast in 4:3 AR. Don't own III on PC side, so dunno how that would work.

 

My display did this with every non-16:9 thing until I said "no" to it and switched the Aspect Control setting.

my point is why settle for black bars when you can play 16:9 with no compromises. I own the original trilogy on steam and you literally can not boot up the games without silent patch

[psxdriverplayer]

9 hours ago, boomboom5950 said:

my point is why settle for black bars when you can play 16:9 with no compromises. I own the original trilogy on steam and you literally can not boot up the games without silent patch

Steam must suck kek (dunno never used it)

As for the other thing, that seriously sounds to me as "doing it for the sake of it" just because it can be done.

Meguesses I just go with whatever intentions there is and respect them plus I just don't care enough to change anything, is not a deal breaker. (I've made a few dumb showcases with GTA games through vidyas, especially how the widescreen works, and there's been those saying to me that "ye do know there's a mod to fix that, roit" and I say "yes, but I don't mind having the game in 4:3" and this is the point where they lose their minds for some reason.)

 

Reminds me of another unpopular opinion:

- Moddings made for a certain purpose (i.e. widening the view for whatever reason) shouldn't do anything else.

Reasoning: I've seen forum posts where people have been annoyed by the fact that when there's a mod advertised for doing just that it also "fixes" other things and bugs, thus making it enough different to play so it's annoying.

- Another option is to have toggles for all the sh*te, but rather I'd have all that as their own things.

And this comes from a person who doesn't use any.

[Leather Rebel]

First one:Channel X is a better radio station than Radio X from GTA SA.I personally cannot stand 90's alternative music,Hardcore Punk is amazing.

 

Second one:Metal/Hard Rock is neglected in GTA V,LS Rock Radio is an arena/power rock/ballad load,there should be separate Heavy/Speed/US Power Metal-Thrash/Tech Thrash-Black/Viking-Doom/Stoner/Sludge-Death metal radios in GTA VI.We always bash Cyberpunk 2077 but at least it had a proper Black Metal radio station lol.

[SteelStallion]

GTA IV handling > GTA V handling

[B Dawg]

Channel X is just a bad version of IV's LCHC. It's missing everything that made LCHC great: the energy, the aggression, the epic guitar solos. It's just boring low tier punk.

[Americana]

I've just watched some documentary videos on PlayStation 3 and how some games were to be revolutionary.

 

And then Grand Theft Auto IV shat on all these games.

 

Edited March 6 by Americana

[billiejoearmstrong8]

On 2/18/2022 at 10:12 PM, Americana said:

I don't use covers in Grand Theft Auto IV, I always crouch. 

 

On the other hand, I never use crouch in any GTA game. I always find it just slows me down more than it helps with cover.

[AkshayKumar]

I find crouching helps me be more accurate while shooting targets, and i seem to take less fire from enemies while crouching, particularly in San Andreas. In GTA IV though I prefer cover to crouch, it's much better in protecting you and makes the shootouts feel more immersive to me for some reason. Perhaps some may prefer the challenge of shootouts without taking cover

[H-G]

6 hours ago, AkshayKumar said:

I find crouching helps me be more accurate while shooting targets, and i seem to take less fire from enemies while crouching, particularly in San Andreas. In GTA IV though I prefer cover to crouch, it's much better in protecting you and makes the shootouts feel more immersive to me for some reason. Perhaps some may prefer the challenge of shootouts without taking cover

The fact that both GTA3 and GTA V are full-fledged proper GTA games and yet they both lack the crouching feature is extremely mentally deteriorating.

 

And don't say you wanted to make a simple game, R*, GTA3's design document clearly shows how ambitious your plans were with this game SMH...

Edited March 13 by H-G

[Americana]

Grand Theft Auto IV became what they wanted Grand Theft Auto III to be.

[B Dawg]

Kanye West - Flashing Lights should be on The Vibe instead of The Beat.

[Ryuichi]

GTA IV:

• Has the most serious characters;

• The most realistic history;

• The best protagonist.

 

GTA SA:

• Has the best radio;

• Has the most funny characters;

• CJ is the best black protagonist of the franchise.

 

GTA VC:

• The best aesthetic.

 

GTA III:

• The hardest game of the 3D universe.