This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Word Wizard
Pages: 1 ... 606162 6364 ... 90
1831
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:02:34 PM »
 :^) I like where this is going
1832
« on: December 22, 2014, 06:57:57 PM »
1833
« on: December 22, 2014, 06:55:27 PM »
1834
« on: December 21, 2014, 04:05:59 PM »
1835
« on: December 21, 2014, 03:57:22 PM »
No what clutters there original weapon niche is by having weapons like the ones in Halo 2, 3 and Reach which are near useless. The AR having a slight zoom feature doesn't get rid of its niche. It simply makes the weapon easier to aim with. If you have someone that's a decent distance away from you it does help when you have a feature that allows you to control the weapon better.
Those weapons didn't suck because they couldn't zoom but because Bungie had no idea how to balance the sandbox and only nerfed weapons as opposed to buffing them. They made the AR take 23 bullets to kill on top of terrible netcode making some shots not register made it horrible. The kill times for non utility and non power weapons was awful. Aside from the DMR, I thought 343i did the best job at balancing the weapon sandbox in Halo 4. Bringing up them being super soldiers was a dumb thing to say since it implies they should be/shouldn't be able to do certain things. But when it comes down to gameplay wise it is dumb having people go out of their way to get around a 3 foot wall when it simply can be climbed over. Halo always had a base around map movement so having a climbing feature does go with it. Walking around a 3 foot wall doesn't. Halo had consequential movement. You could jump 7ft in the air but if you didn't crouch at the right time or messed up the timing you could die, miss a jump to a power position, or lose miss the chance to help a team mate in a crucial moment. Around the first Halo's it wasn't unique but with modern shooters it made post 2006-07 it made it unique. Features like killcam are dumb to have in a game but do you really see Halo lasting long if it stayed nearly the same since Halo 2? For certain things like the zoom and the climbing feature it does make sense to have them when a lot of your gamers are used to things like that. You do want to have certain things in your game that are common to people instead of the game playing like it has no place today.
So every game should sacrifice uniqueness for conformity? I understand certain changes and I believe adding cool mechanics is a better direction that perks and loud outs, just not so sure these mechanics are the right ones for a halo play style. I guess I'll see when I play the beta.
1836
« on: December 21, 2014, 02:27:21 PM »
And bloody hell... 20/30 oz Sodas... jesus...
When I lived with my mom
she would let me drink 44oz sodas with my large meals, with refills >_>
Looking back it was very sickning.
Ontop of eating out several times a week she also bought soda for home as well. I'm surprised I wasn't obese by 12. I guess my poor luck helped keep the pounds off though.
God almighty...
._.
Not having a car or home essentially meant lots of walking so I believe that helped mitigate the damage. Living with my dad though I realized how bad it was and I drastically cut back to about 12oz a day then completely quit cold turkey last year. I only drink water now, around 6-7 liters a day an feel a lot better.
1837
« on: December 21, 2014, 01:51:08 PM »
And bloody hell... 20/30 oz Sodas... jesus...
When I lived with my mom she would let me drink 44oz sodas with my large meals, with refills >_> Looking back it was very sickning. Ontop of eating out several times a week she also bought soda for home as well. I'm surprised I wasn't obese by 12. I guess my poor luck helped keep the pounds off though.
1838
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:18:35 AM »
Halo is growing ever closer to CoD.
The zoom had to be redone. The left trigger thing is a lot easier to use than constantly clicking the analog stick to get in and out of it. Simply holding the trigger in to zoom and letting go of it to get out is faster.
Then they could have just had a button layout with it. It's also a good idea to have a type of zoom feature for the weapons that don't have a scope like the AR. I don't see how. They were niche weapons so having them work past their original range clutters the original weapon niches. Aside from damage buffers a AR and needler don't need to be able to zoom in to kill people medium to long range. For the climbing thing that makes sense as well. It is dumb that if there's a wall in front of you that you can't jump over you have to go around it. with this you simply have your super solider climb over it.
If we are going for realism, then spartans should be able to sprint for at least several minutes, use martial arts, kick things, throw rocks, not flip tanks or elephants, hang from stuff, and more. Halo used to have features that defined it as Halo now 343 constantly have to explain why their features are Halo.
1839
« on: December 20, 2014, 03:56:15 PM »
I realized I didn't answer the question with my first post. After Reach and Destiny I have no faith in Bungie or care about them. 343i I feel really tries just certain people higher up force their hands. With the amount of backlash though it seems those higher ups have been reigned in significantly. If I like the beta for H5 I'd say my faith in them is restored.
1840
« on: December 20, 2014, 10:29:39 AM »
I'd rather play the worst Halo over Destiny any day.
1841
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:34:04 AM »
I think it's a nice modernization, but I think the scopes themselves are a bit unnecessarily cluttered with holograms and stuff.
I saw a glimpse of the sniper zoom-in, though, and that animation looked disorienting as fuck.
There isn't even an animation. You're just in the scope in section. If you want to be technical, there's about 3 frames where the scope-in centers into the screen.
I think he means it takes up too much of the screen.  
1842
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:22:21 AM »
Not surprised at all. They already ported the Halo 3 engine, so I'm sure ODST is a cake walk. I'll provably pick the game up again when ODST is released.
On waypoint there's people complaint because they don't like ODST and/or Relic...
I feel soon people will begin to complain for a reach port since it's the only halo game not on the One now.
1843
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:55:46 PM »
Oh look, it's the Republicans that scream about state's rights...fighting against state's rights...
gg
You mean how Democrats scream about government not getting involved in the bedroom, but will turn around and get involved in the doctor's office?
These states have very valid claims with supporting the Supremacy Clause at hand. If Colorado had legalized murder, would it still be wrong for Oklahoma to sue?
>Deflecting intensifies
Besides, this case could be a very huge step to looking at Federally legalizing marijuana if (and when, I polished my crystal ball) Colorado ends up winning.
Exactly how am I deflecting? You made a claim that I easily turned back around along with showing that this isn't about stepping on states rights, as the states don't have any authority above the Constitution
Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to regulate drugs and plants people possess and digest?
Supremacy Clause
That doesn't answer the question. Where is congress granted the power to regulate or prohibit drugs. Which enumerated power?
1844
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:47:06 PM »
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
In studying the time and circumstance of the late 1700's, I believe the second amendment was more to protect America from foreign threats than governmental tyranny.
Well the British government was only foreign in the sense a sea separated it from America. They were still part of the British Empire and answered directly to the King and British government.
Umm... the bill of rights was written in 1791, Kinder. We were far past being British colonies at the time.
Yes, I know. BUT the Bill of Rights was written in response to British rule over the colonies
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Note the notions of a militia defending the free state.
Plenty of nations had larger standing armies than the new and inexperienced United States. What better way to bolster numbers and ensure a reserve against foreign threats than to arm the populace?
1845
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:33:20 PM »
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
In studying the time and circumstance of the late 1700's, I believe the second amendment was more to protect America from foreign threats than governmental tyranny.
I heavily disagree. Several framers are quoted mentioning the positives of combating tyranny. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
1846
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:28:02 PM »
Oh look, it's the Republicans that scream about state's rights...fighting against state's rights...
gg
You mean how Democrats scream about government not getting involved in the bedroom, but will turn around and get involved in the doctor's office?
These states have very valid claims with supporting the Supremacy Clause at hand. If Colorado had legalized murder, would it still be wrong for Oklahoma to sue?
>Deflecting intensifies
Besides, this case could be a very huge step to looking at Federally legalizing marijuana if (and when, I polished my crystal ball) Colorado ends up winning.
Exactly how am I deflecting? You made a claim that I easily turned back around along with showing that this isn't about stepping on states rights, as the states don't have any authority above the Constitution
Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to regulate drugs and plants people possess and digest?
1847
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:15:41 PM »
Civilians should not have a right to own assault rifles ad the like.
Why?
1848
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:09:23 PM »
Since she specifically mentions campaign I take that as no firefight for ODST.
1849
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:54:58 PM »
Surprised they're making ODST for free. Kinda wish they made the firefight seeing as that was most of the replayability.
1850
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:15:11 PM »
Yeah, If the mic circle isn't next to your names it means you're in game chat, don't know why how it does it.
1851
« on: December 19, 2014, 05:22:37 PM »
Too many white people
Blacks are not allowed after the last one tried to steal all the xboxs.
1852
« on: December 19, 2014, 04:43:03 PM »
He can say the wrong thing sometimes. This was one of those times.
Edit: Even better, WHY did he even bring homosexuality up? The question was about that church's attitude towards dating, relationships, and having kids. And it turned into "gays will die out"........
wut .__.
He was thinking of an analogy as to why the church would die out because it banned dating, and compared to gay people not being able to reproduce.
1853
« on: December 19, 2014, 03:05:33 PM »
Boo bungie suXx
1854
« on: December 19, 2014, 03:03:15 PM »
Meta and ChallengerX
1855
« on: December 19, 2014, 02:59:57 PM »
I might like killing too much but that's not my problem. Watch out towel heads, I'll sever your nipples with my knife and wear them as devil horns while I slaughter your terrorist groupies.
1856
« on: December 19, 2014, 02:48:21 PM »
Can't states nullify a federal law if they deem it as unconstitutional?
Absolutely not. The Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law supersedes state law.
I know of the Supremacy Clause, but I just thought there was an exception if a state court found the federal law unconstitutional. Looking it up it appears it was just proposed by Jefferson and Madison to keep the federal gov. in check but was never made official.
1857
« on: December 19, 2014, 12:39:20 PM »
 I would never wish that upon our overlords.
1858
« on: December 19, 2014, 11:28:09 AM »
...but he isn't right.
First, gay couples have biological children all the time. Look at Neil Patrick Harris and his husband.
Secondly, even if gays stopped having kids, homosexual children would still be born, because that's how it works.
*/sarcasm*
1859
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:58:46 AM »
1860
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:57:56 AM »
Can't states nullify a federal law if they deem it as unconstitutional?
Pages: 1 ... 606162 6364 ... 90
|
Show Posts
