Great masterpieces... that suck!

[Snarky Username]

Snip

Whatever you say, but as someone who has played it with the camera, using it would make a lot of your problems nonexistent. Playing without it would be something like playing Half-Life 2 with just the pistol. Sure the pistol works fine, but going off of it alone would cause some problems that shouldn't be there.

The difference there is that the only thing limiting my abilities is myself and I can stop at any time. Can't exactly do that with Bioshock.

You can if you start using the camera...

 

[archvile93]

Snip

Whatever you say, but as someone who has played it with the camera, using it would make a lot of your problems nonexistent. Playing without it would be something like playing Half-Life 2 with just the pistol. Sure the pistol works fine, but going off of it alone would cause some problems that shouldn't be there.

The difference there is that the only thing limiting my abilities is myself and I can stop at any time. Can't exactly do that with Bioshock.

You can if you start using the camera...

The camera can throw itself into a functional trash compacter where it belongs. In most games where I choose to limit myself for extra challenge I can easily decide that it's too hard and immediately go full power without any effort. Bioshock, no, I have to use the godamn camera to stand a chance which is incredibly difficult to use properly, since it immediately results in death when every enemy and their dog attacks when it's used. Why have a character jump through a bunch of arbitrry hoops in order to stand a chance later, that's horrible game design. It'd be like if in an RPG I had to let an enemy drain at least half my health before I attack or else I won't gain any experience from it.

 

[archvile93]

Snip

Whatever you say, but as someone who has played it with the camera, using it would make a lot of your problems nonexistent. Playing without it would be something like playing Half-Life 2 with just the pistol. Sure the pistol works fine, but going off of it alone would cause some problems that shouldn't be there.

The difference there is that the only thing limiting my abilities is myself and I can stop at any time. Can't exactly do that with Bioshock.

You can if you start using the camera...

to true plus from the way you ***** about your problems your probly on hard right? any ways you rly shouldnt play games if your going to nit pick

I hardly consider calling out horrible game design nit picking. That would be like saying this is nit picking.

House Salesman: And as you can see, this place is spaciou, beautiful paneing and in a great neighborhood.

Me: Yes, but I noticed Cthulu is living in the basement, so I don't think this one is right.

HS: Oh come on, now you're just nit picking.

 

[Vibhor]

Deus ex
That game simply sucks.
No matter how good story or choices you make,if the gameplay sucks the game too sucks.

 

[Vykrel]

ive never been a big fan of the Mona Lisa. its the most well-known painting in the world, and everyone loves it... people enjoy her "mysterious smile" or whatever they call it.

it just looks very regular to me. nothing against DaVinci, but that painting is just very ordinary in my eyes.

also, i dont like how people can make art a thousand times more spectacular nowadays, but nobody will remember them nearly as much as paintings like the Mona Lisa.

 

[Vibhor]

ive never been a big fan of the Mona Lisa. its the most well-known painting in the world, and everyone loves it... people enjoy her "mysterious smile" or whatever they call it.

it just looks very regular to me. nothing against DaVinci, but that painting is just very ordinary in my eyes.

also, i dont like how people can make art a thousand times more spectacular nowadays, but nobody will remember them nearly as much as paintings like the Mona Lisa.

Actually,I myself don't find anything good about the painting.
Maybe it was because of the graphics? As I have seen many old paintings and they looked so shitty compared to mona lisa.
We can say that Mona lisa was Crysis of its time and it also proves that graphical whores existed before the invention of computer

 

[DkLnBr]

The Mona Lisa. you walk through the Louvre seeing these huge, majestic paintings everywhere, but when you get to the Mona Lisa all it is, is a separate wall in the middle of the room, a guard on either side, and velvet rope in front. You also have to fight through the 70 tourists to actually see anything. All for a 1' x 1' painting that you've only seen 100000 times in TV and Movies.
After seeing it I only had a feeling of "meh"

EDIT: Maybe i should have read a little further, got Ninja'd by Vykrel...

 

[Atticus89]

I enjoy reading, and a few stories listed I enjoyed.

However, I didn't enjoy "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens, "Frankenstein" (and we complain about horrible adaptations!?), or "A Tale of Two Cities" in high school.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

James Joyce wasn't a genius, he was just trolling everybody.

Ayn Rand was an autistic ***** who should've had her brains knocked out at birth.

BioShock is overrated, pretentious garbage that abuses lens flare and blur more than every shitty artist on deviantART put together.

Pink Floyd only had three good albums.

H.P. Lovecraft just needed to stop doing so many drugs writing, period.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was impressive when I was in third grade--but that was a very long time ago. It takes a lot more than purple prose and elf cities to impress me now.

I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's dick for Anne Frank or her diary. Yeah, the Holocaust happened, thirteen million people died just because Hitler was prejudiced against them, I get it, can I put this loathsome piece of trash down now? Just because she died in a concentration camp doesn't mean Anne Frank was any less vapid, annoying, or worthless than the millions of teenage girls keeping diaries today.

Oh, and fuck Led Zeppelin, too. Robert Plant cannot fucking sing, period.

Deus ex
That game simply sucks.
No matter how good story or choices you make,if the gameplay sucks the game too sucks.

This.

Also, Twilight Princess was clearly about pedophilia, which automatically puts it on my "reprehensible" list.

Wait. What?
You do realise "turned into an imp" =/= "prepubescent", don't you?
Although, if you're right, I just might have to get a copy of that...

 

[Ishamel]

Aw, there are so many worse singers than Robert Plant - if you don't like his vocal stylings, sure, but at least the screaming is in tune (I really like it but can see how it would grate with some.)

I agree - Mona Lisa shit
Romeo and Juliet shit - Shakespeare in general is mis-taught nowadays; you can get a much better appreciation for his work if you realise that with all his plays he was trying to make Halo and Bioshock at the same time. Most people would fail to do that.
The Beatles - they did a lot of stuff which was experimental for the time, which was then picked up by others who explored it more and did it a lot better. So, I can do without them in my library, but I appreciate that they were starting down the right paths.
All Dickens. Seriously, all the best characters are bad guys as usual and he takes far too long to say anything ever.
Jane Eyre is without doubt my least favourite book ever; I hid a Pratchett book in between the pages when we had to read it for school. I seriously wanted every single character to die in a fire.

 

[somerandomguy76]

I can't fucking stand listening to Ravel's Bolero. I find it to be so boring. People claim to enjoy the melody, and I guess it's OK. It would certainly be a lot better if it and its sister melody weren't repeated virtually verbatim for six minutes. I've heard a couple of versions, and even the most creative ones are equally boring. It is one melody on one instrument, followed by a different melody on a different instrument. Then the first one on a different instrument, then the second on a different instrument, and so on. I simply don't find the melody fun enough to be repeated all that much, and remain good.

Ever tried playing it? Fun fun fun! Hard as all hell but fun.

OT: Anything by Jane Austen *shudder*

 

[Johnwesleyharding]

Anything by Pink Floyd, the later work of the Beatles, and Radiohead. I know they are geniuses but I think as musicians they fail and produced some truly unlistenable music even if it was deep, meaningful and experimental.

I have to second Radiohead. Very commercialized "rock music" in the form of something trying to be artistic, but fails due to having a windbag vagina with a body attached to it that just so happens to be able to sing. Paranoid Android is laughable as to how they try to make it come off like a rock masterpiece. I blame the shallow nerds and their "intellectualism" air of a superiority complex who deem them a worthy act of the 1990's. So many other bands stand out above them.

I'm going to defend Radiohead. I don't have a superiority complex, and if it sounds like I do, I apologise in advance. Radiohead really earned their worth after OK Computer, when the music they made wasn't really rock at all, more like electronic Aphex Twin style stuff mashed together with Can and other krautrock bands from the 70s. The bands that influenced them weren't (apart from Queen and a few others) particularly commercial. Radiohead are commercial in the sense that they are experimental in the vaguest sense, and put more focus on hooky music than experimentalism. They cover ground already covered by less commercial bands like the (aforementioned) Can, Kraftwerk, and Neu, and make it commercial. Note that commercial =/= bad. In general the music is depressing as hell, and I can understand why someone would be put off by that.

As for the Beatles, their later music is not incredibly complex. The music is also very commercial. The music is popular because it is hooky, not because it is deep or meaningful. Take this lyric from Abbey Road for example from what is arguably the most challenging song on the album: "I want you. I want you so bad. I want you so bad it's driving me mad it's driving me mad".

 

[tkioz]

Oh there are lots of books I've read that are considered "classics" that I just plain detest. Ulysses by James Joyce for example is held up as one of the best novels of all time and it's fucking horrible.

 

[godfist88]

i never liked the mona lisa. seriously, i just don't get what's so great about.

 

[Deathlord665]

i never had any trouble with the hacking but then again i am a puzzle nerd

 

[Thundero13]

Citizen Kane, whenever I say I don't like it people just say "oh you're just too young, it was the first film to ever do what it did" i'm not exactly sure what it did but even so, truly good movies just be able to stand the test of time, like 12 angry men which is a brilliant film.
Also 2001 after half an hour of monkeys leaping around I fell asleep.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Most of Willie Shakespeare's library, I.M.O. Whiney emo-ish protagonists generally in situations of their own creation and continuation that I can't empathize with... The language used is generally we-structured and beautiful, the man was a wordsmith without a doubt, but I just could never bring myself to care for the characters in his tales.

I liked most of his plays that I read, but I will agree with you that he's much better as a poet than a playwright.

Anyway, I utterly despise anything by Jon Steinbeck. Some idiots have apparently decided that he's some literary genius, and made his crap mandatory reading for high schoolers everywhere. I'm just glad that I don't ever have to read that load of boring donkey poo that was The Grapes of Wrath ever again.

Totally! Shakespeare's use of imagery and tone in language is striking, I'll always agree, but I just haven't been able to really give two hoots about most of his literary works.

Oh... and Steinbeck did get awfully long in the tooth, didn't he?

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Most of Willie Shakespeare's library, I.M.O. Whiney emo-ish protagonists generally in situations of their own creation and continuation that I can't empathize with... The language used is generally we-structured and beautiful, the man was a wordsmith without a doubt, but I just could never bring myself to care for the characters in his tales.

Congratulations, you have no idea what tragedy is supposed to be about.

Congratulations, that was rude and uncalled for.

Tragedy is sorrowful and mournful catharsis in characters brought about by circumstances, but I've never been able to feel very sorry for the mouse that continues to push the cheese button and get shocked over and over. This is behaviour we see all over Shakespeare's characters, self-induced circumstances which are acknowledged by the protagonist and even cultivated to their eventual climax. It may be tragic, but not from my viewpoint. It's more bull-headed and ignorant if anything. Some of his greatest works, at least in the eyes of most of society, "Hamlet", "Romeo and Juliet" involve characters doing what they know will destroy them, all the way up until they get exactly what they knew would happen. Hardly tragic to me...

 

[Max Goldfine]

I didnt like the metamorphasis one bit.

 

[Vykrel]

ive never been a big fan of the Mona Lisa. its the most well-known painting in the world, and everyone loves it... people enjoy her "mysterious smile" or whatever they call it.

it just looks very regular to me. nothing against DaVinci, but that painting is just very ordinary in my eyes.

also, i dont like how people can make art a thousand times more spectacular nowadays, but nobody will remember them nearly as much as paintings like the Mona Lisa.

Actually,I myself don't find anything good about the painting.
Maybe it was because of the graphics? As I have seen many old paintings and they looked so shitty compared to mona lisa.
We can say that Mona lisa was Crysis of its time and it also proves that graphical whores existed before the invention of computer

i see it that way too. its just a huge shame that the Mona Lisa overshadows everything else. even when other works are clearly better.