LoL is a pretty decent game
playing it right now
since when has a single opinion you've had about a game been credibleFinray wrote:
LoL is a pretty decent game
you thought cod4 was the pinnacle of competitive fps for a while, too
embarrassing
never said that, just said it was a pretty good game
which it was
which it was
i miss the era when everyone would play for a team, or form a team/clan with their friends, and shoot the breeze once a week in a match. didn't matter if it wasn't serious, or ultra-competitive, but just the general excitement about the gaming scene, being based in little teams and leagues (sometimes amateur ladders, sometimes corporate shebangs). i miss that era when everyone was centralized on one gaming network, and there was lots of squabbling and gossip and laughter about various inter-team rivalries, and everyone felt like they had a 'place' in an actual 'community', or at least a wider network of players. that was fun. i think the last fps game to even come near to having that was bf2 - and even then it was slightly reduced. i mean, look at this forum, right? people still feeling some link of attachment to a deep-rooted community based around a game, around team-play, around stats, around leagues/ranking/esteem.
on the same stroke, i miss how everyone was concentrated in one place/setting for games like world of warcraft. the pc gaming community felt like it had a core then, something propelling it steadily along, and everyone could compare notes and characters, or whatever. it truly felt 'massive', befitting the genres' title. how many games get that nowadays? the gaming community, for pc anyway, has been fragmented and broken up into little pockets of browser-based spectators and micro-transaction consumers. no genuine community impulse anymore.
dem feels.
on the same stroke, i miss how everyone was concentrated in one place/setting for games like world of warcraft. the pc gaming community felt like it had a core then, something propelling it steadily along, and everyone could compare notes and characters, or whatever. it truly felt 'massive', befitting the genres' title. how many games get that nowadays? the gaming community, for pc anyway, has been fragmented and broken up into little pockets of browser-based spectators and micro-transaction consumers. no genuine community impulse anymore.
dem feels.
Yeah too bad DICE is EA's hype/money whore now. Wake up and get used to it. BF4, BF5, BF17
i was telling you that at bf3, and that was very much the reality of bf3. the only difference is that you actually liked it and thought you were a little pr0 l33tz0r at it. it was a bad game. a corporate swindle. funny how your reality distorts to suit your tastes, though.
They were able to get away with it in BF3 because of how long it was between BF2 and BF3. Plus BF3 was a good game, that's all I care about. I'm expecting BF4 to be a cookie cutter like BF3 because of the yearly release stuff now.
please explain to me in any way shape or form how bf3 was not a 'cookie cutter'. it was a mega budget, long-wait, super-hyped cookie cutter par excellence. there was nothing about the game that was not identikit cookie cutter fps. it had zero competitive scene, ever. zero league scene. it sucked balls. it was as generic as they come. please tell me exactly why bf3 is still 'special' in your eyes and bf4 is so much worse? because the only difference i see between them is that you spent 400 hours of your life playing bf3.
They even took away the old ranking system and replaced it with COD ranks. The old system was not only better it was a lot more flavorful.
HERP DERP DESTRUKTABULE ENVIRONMENTS.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
please explain to me in any way shape or form how bf3 was not a 'cookie cutter'. it was a mega budget, long-wait, super-hyped cookie cutter par excellence. there was nothing about the game that was not identikit cookie cutter fps. it had zero competitive scene, ever. zero league scene. it sucked balls. it was as generic as they come. please tell me exactly why bf3 is still 'special' in your eyes and bf4 is so much worse? because the only difference i see between them is that you spent 400 hours of your life playing bf3.
I said they can get away with it because it was so long between releases and I didn't hate the game. Didn't say it was anything different or groundbreaking.
i remember having the longest conversations with roc about why he was a noob for playing 24/7 metro and all he could come back with as a defense was 'it's fun to me and i'm good at it'. lol like it was hard to be "good" on that spam map.RTHKI wrote:
cause 247 metro
my experience of bf3 was this: unlock infra-red scope -> rape everyone with the biggest hack known to man. nerf scope -> rape everyone with default stock weapons. get to max rank -> see that there's about 100 times that rank, over and over, forever. by 4 weeks post release most people worth a damn had max rank already. yeah, that makes a ranking system really fun, doesn't it. the only fun in bf2 pub-play for years after the comp scene got stale was in climbing that rank ladder, slowly and surely. you were going somewhere. in bf3 you were top rank in like, 10 days. amazing. but wait! there's close quarter combat hold-and-spray DLC content! oooook. great game. still a league ahead of other competitors.
And it (the rankings) reflected the general skill curve all games should have- sweet instant satisfaction until you hit 20K points, then grind to 50K and beyond. Its all just instant gratification now. Can't master a game in 20 hours? Throw it away.
Its game developers just as much as the userbase though.
Speaking about BF2
Its game developers just as much as the userbase though.
Speaking about BF2
How am I a noob for occasionally playing that map? I played all the other maps.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i remember having the longest conversations with roc about why he was a noob for playing 24/7 metro and all he could come back with as a defense was 'it's fun to me and i'm good at it'. lol like it was hard to be "good" on that spam map.RTHKI wrote:
cause 247 metro
my experience of bf3 was this: unlock infra-red scope -> rape everyone with the biggest hack known to man. nerf scope -> rape everyone with default stock weapons. get to max rank -> see that there's about 100 times that rank, over and over, forever. by 4 weeks post release most people worth a damn had max rank already. yeah, that makes a ranking system really fun, doesn't it. the only fun in bf2 pub-play for years after the comp scene got stale was in climbing that rank ladder, slowly and surely. you were going somewhere. in bf3 you were top rank in like, 10 days. amazing. but wait! there's close quarter combat hold-and-spray DLC content! oooook. great game. still a league ahead of other competitors.
no your words were "plus bf3 was a good game". no bf3 was not a good game. not a single redeeming factor about the whole thing. it was a graphics and engine demo. as i said before, an interactive michael bay film. destructible environments didn't add shit. the novelty got old in bad company. flash graphics and suppression effects didn't mean shit, except mostly annoyance / can't see shit factor. the movement and shooting wasn't even 1/2 as good as bf2's movement and shooting. it was all style, no substance. that is not a 'good game'. a good tech demo, maybe. a good-for-youtube experience, maybe. a shit game.Roc18 wrote:
HERP DERP DESTRUKTABULE ENVIRONMENTS.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
please explain to me in any way shape or form how bf3 was not a 'cookie cutter'. it was a mega budget, long-wait, super-hyped cookie cutter par excellence. there was nothing about the game that was not identikit cookie cutter fps. it had zero competitive scene, ever. zero league scene. it sucked balls. it was as generic as they come. please tell me exactly why bf3 is still 'special' in your eyes and bf4 is so much worse? because the only difference i see between them is that you spent 400 hours of your life playing bf3.
I said they can get away with it because it was so long between releases and I didn't hate the game. Didn't say it was anything different or groundbreaking.
dude you must have a short-term memory. you were grinding out 24/7 metro trying to get your precious medals or gold stars or w/e it is with each weapon. you kept coming here to brag about your medals and sweet KDR. i kept laughing at you. we were having like 5 page arguments about why you are a 24/7 statwhore noob.Roc18 wrote:
How am I a noob for occasionally playing that map? I played all the other maps.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i remember having the longest conversations with roc about why he was a noob for playing 24/7 metro and all he could come back with as a defense was 'it's fun to me and i'm good at it'. lol like it was hard to be "good" on that spam map.RTHKI wrote:
cause 247 metro
my experience of bf3 was this: unlock infra-red scope -> rape everyone with the biggest hack known to man. nerf scope -> rape everyone with default stock weapons. get to max rank -> see that there's about 100 times that rank, over and over, forever. by 4 weeks post release most people worth a damn had max rank already. yeah, that makes a ranking system really fun, doesn't it. the only fun in bf2 pub-play for years after the comp scene got stale was in climbing that rank ladder, slowly and surely. you were going somewhere. in bf3 you were top rank in like, 10 days. amazing. but wait! there's close quarter combat hold-and-spray DLC content! oooook. great game. still a league ahead of other competitors.
And I kept saying that I played well on all the other maps. Metro was just mindless fun.
Last edited by Roc18 (2013-03-22 11:24:12)
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6553|Graz, Austria
Speaking about who played what maps and for how long...
I really miss the map statistics with play time, W/L ratio and best round stats.
I really miss the map statistics with play time, W/L ratio and best round stats.
Mostly true!Uzique The Lesser wrote:
no your words were "plus bf3 was a good game". no bf3 was not a good game. not a single redeeming factor about the whole thing. it was a graphics and engine demo. as i said before, an interactive michael bay film. destructible environments didn't add shit. the novelty got old in bad company. flash graphics and suppression effects didn't mean shit, except mostly annoyance / can't see shit factor. the movement and shooting wasn't even 1/2 as good as bf2's movement and shooting. it was all style, no substance. that is not a 'good game'. a good tech demo, maybe. a good-for-youtube experience, maybe. a shit game.
However, I do enjoy flying the choppers. The choppers are one thing BF3 did not fuck up
needs more planetside2
air combat as a whole though was mostly retarded. it never had the same thrill and sense of learning curve as bf2. it was, again, either simplified or just plainly not fine-tuned enough.Spearhead wrote:
Mostly true!Uzique The Lesser wrote:
no your words were "plus bf3 was a good game". no bf3 was not a good game. not a single redeeming factor about the whole thing. it was a graphics and engine demo. as i said before, an interactive michael bay film. destructible environments didn't add shit. the novelty got old in bad company. flash graphics and suppression effects didn't mean shit, except mostly annoyance / can't see shit factor. the movement and shooting wasn't even 1/2 as good as bf2's movement and shooting. it was all style, no substance. that is not a 'good game'. a good tech demo, maybe. a good-for-youtube experience, maybe. a shit game.
However, I do enjoy flying the choppers. The choppers are one thing BF3 did not fuck up
Ya I agree. That's why its so remarkable to me that they did such a good job with them. Were it not for the Little Birds / Cobras I probably wouldn't have played half as much as I did