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 - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 211212213 214215 ... 243
6361
« on: January 08, 2015, 07:36:41 PM »
wrong forum lol
6362
« on: January 08, 2015, 07:29:35 PM »
 Users ITT.
6363
« on: January 08, 2015, 07:23:43 PM »
The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions. If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.
That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.
Same goes for hate speech. What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC. As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead." The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.
This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor: While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.
So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"
Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.
Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.
I'd really like to see you not lose your shit when somebody protests your brother's funeral.
You know what? I actually wouldn't. I wouldn't give the fuckers the time of the day, because that's all they want. A reactionary response so they can be painted as the victims.
Pshht sure.
Believe me, or don't believe me. I really don't give a shit, just like I wouldn't give a shit about the theocratic retards with all bark but no bite.
I just think you and Lemy are full of shit when it comes to this. You'd get pissed and you know it.
There's a difference between getting pissed off and reacting in a violent and suppressing manner.
6364
« on: January 08, 2015, 04:15:37 PM »
The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions. If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.
That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.
Same goes for hate speech. What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC. As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead." The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.
This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor: While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.
So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"
Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.
Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.
I'd really like to see you not lose your shit when somebody protests your brother's funeral.
You know what? I actually wouldn't. I wouldn't give the fuckers the time of the day, because that's all they want. A reactionary response so they can be painted as the victims.
Pshht sure.
Believe me, or don't believe me. I really don't give a shit, just like I wouldn't give a shit about the theocratic retards with all bark but no bite.
6365
« on: January 08, 2015, 01:05:50 PM »
Is it a "dissenting" point of view when a person from the Westroll Baptist Church goes to a funeral for the purpose of starting a social fire, or is it shit being stirred up to intentionally cause trouble, entrap people, and wait for them to retaliate? It seems you take issue with how they express their speech, not the actual speech itself. My solution to that would be to extend picket distances, not fucking outlaw an ideology. Alright, I myself am growing tired of the dead soldier argument since you're resorting to only calling it a strawman. Let's use a different example: I'm calling it what it is broseph. You're trying to paint me out to be this pro WBC advocate when all I'm really trying do is discourage the idea of censorship. Decimator Omega.
Yes. Him. Remember that sperglord? A few weeks ago, a few members strolled onto one of his sites and began to harass him there. They knew how emotionally unstable Decimator was, yet continued to harass him until he finally exploded and went into a borderline-suicide mode. Icy eventually managed to get him to calm down. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Someone as emotionally unstable as that shouldn't be on the internet in the first place. What's your point? We should curtail speech because of mental illness? Now let's look at this from a real-life point of view, but leave someone like Icy out of the situation. People harass a mentally unstable person, then said person ends up either taking their own life or causes a violent incident due being mentally harassed. Is your precious free speech still protected, or is it a mental assault? So again, you want to restrict speech because mentally ill people might hear it? Like I said in my previous post: I have nothing against speaking your mind, but when you intentionally egg people on at funerals, laughing and mocking someone's deceased family member or causing emotional trauma via my Decimator example, then that's where your free speech ends. It's no longer free speech, it's asking for a fight and a public incident to take place, which ends up being costly on society in general.
Again, repeated point. See above.
6366
« on: January 08, 2015, 12:54:23 PM »
The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions. If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.
That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.
Same goes for hate speech. What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC. As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead." The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.
This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor: While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.
So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"
Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.
Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.
I'd really like to see you not lose your shit when somebody protests your brother's funeral.
You know what? I actually wouldn't. I wouldn't give the fuckers the time of the day, because that's all they want. A reactionary response so they can be painted as the victims.
6367
« on: January 08, 2015, 09:45:25 AM »
The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions. If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.
That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.
Same goes for hate speech. What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC. As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead." The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.
This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor: While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.
So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"
Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.
Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.
So basically your argument is "I can laugh at people freely and say how excited I am to see that their family member is dead because I am a huge cunt."
Again, read the article I posted. It gives a nice intake at both sides of this kind of discussion. I'm all for "speaking your mind", but if your purpose is to do nothing but entrap people into a "fight or flight" mentality by jeering a close one's demise, then that's stepping over the line.
No, my argument is anti censorship. When I get down to the crux of your argument, all it really espouses is silencing the dissenting point of view because muh feelings and appeal to emotions. It's subconscious fascism really. I'm on my phone at work, but I'll give your article a read when I get home. Nice strawman by the way.
6368
« on: January 08, 2015, 09:20:34 AM »
The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions. If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.
That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.
Same goes for hate speech. What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC. As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead." The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.
This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor: While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.
So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say" Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech. Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.
6369
« on: January 08, 2015, 07:57:26 AM »
(WHY the fuck isn't it outlawed again?). I've been over this innumerable times. Censoring something because you don't like it through legislative means isn't how you go about tackling toxic ideologies. That's how fascism operates.
6370
« on: January 08, 2015, 06:24:53 AM »
Needs more research, but I personally don't lend any credence to the gateway argument. The same argument is made for violent video games and Marijuana, and it's honestly just a fallacious slippery slope argument. If anything those two recreational activities have shown us, is that it has proved a major outlet for a variety of desires and feelings that would normally be frowned upon in public.
6372
« on: January 07, 2015, 07:05:24 PM »
IMPRESSIVE
CLASSIC
L
A
S
S
I
C
 if you don't share our enthusiasm
6373
« on: January 07, 2015, 06:52:55 PM »
IMPRESSIVE
6374
« on: January 07, 2015, 06:25:17 PM »
but a plot it did have, nonetheless.
Stop being an autist.
Yeah, it did, but only during the last two levels.
Stay mad nigga
Literally Camnator levels of mental gymnastics right here.
6375
« on: January 07, 2015, 06:21:56 PM »
The rest of what you referred to is once again, fucking subjective.
Umm, no.
The lack of plot and characterisation is objective.
Umm no.
Your interpretation of plot and characterisation is subjective. There are no guidelines for what constitutes as a masterpiece in narrative and story telling.
How is the lack of something subjective?
If it doesn't exist then it can't be subjective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo:_Reach#Plot
Quite a substantial paragraph there m9.
Seriously, if you want to attack the artistic merit of the plot on the basis OF YOUR OPINION, that's fine. But stop acting like it's objectively bad. I don't think you even know what objectivity is.
That's a small and symple synopsis of what Halo is about and where the game is set.
Reach itself has no plot until the last two levels.
le true halo fan joke XDD I'm sick and tired of this argument. What you really mean by "hurr there isn't a plot until the last two levels" is that the character's didn't have a true objective with any serious weight until the final act of the game. Now granted, the narrative for 80% of the game is basically just defend Reach, (which is kinda the whole premise of the game ever since it was announced. Clue's in the name) so whether you enjoyed the narrative is completely up to the individual to interpret, but a plot it did have, nonetheless. Stop being an autist.
6376
« on: January 07, 2015, 06:13:13 PM »
Its pretty fun. I guess I'm more of a mass effect guy. My biggest problem is that its just too overwhelming. Too many side quests and stuff on the map which makes me feel bad about not doing them all. Maybe if they had more substance, I would feel more motivated to do them but for the most part, the sidequests and little objectives on the map are just too simple and boring.
There's a side quest in the Hinterlands that let's you establish watch towers in the region to deter bandits in order to gain the approval of a quartermaster, which in turn, acquires horses for the Inquisition. There's definitely some substance there IMO.
6377
« on: January 07, 2015, 06:09:04 PM »
The rest of what you referred to is once again, fucking subjective.
Umm, no.
The lack of plot and characterisation is objective.
Umm no.
Your interpretation of plot and characterisation is subjective. There are no guidelines for what constitutes as a masterpiece in narrative and story telling.
How is the lack of something subjective?
If it doesn't exist then it can't be subjective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo:_Reach#PlotQuite a substantial paragraph there m9. Seriously, if you want to attack the artistic merit of the plot on the basis OF YOUR OPINION, that's fine. But stop acting like it's objectively bad. I don't think you even know what objectivity is.
6378
« on: January 07, 2015, 06:04:56 PM »
A re-master could be okay for soon, but no re-makes until 2020, 10 years is how long it should be, no more no less.
It should get neither.
Bad games don't deserve re-releases or remakes.
Then why did they release Halo CEA?
Because CE is a good game with a good campaign that has a good consistent plot and story throughout the whole campaign, doesn't shit on already existing canon, doesn't have terribly written characters and doesn't consist of a brown and grey colour pallet.
The gameplay is a little dated, but it still plays well.
Reach on the other hand...
Actually CE was essentially just your generic alien shoot em up plotline, with a slight twist to it. Not saying Reach's narrative was stellar, but as far as sophistication goes, CE was pretty simple.
As for characters there's literally like a grand total of 6. I'm not counting Johnson because he wasn't established as a character at that point. So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily say CE has an excellent array of characters either.
I don't deny that Reach was a disappointment, but you nostalgia fags really need to take of the goggles.
I'm not basing any of this on nostalgia.
CE is literally leaps and bounds ahead of Reach in terms of quality, story (regardless of it not being that original) and characters.
Subjectivity
Subjectivity is the condition of being a subject: i.e., the quality of possessing perspectives, experiences, feelings, beliefs, desires,[1] and/or power. Subjectivity is used as an explanation for what influences and informs people's judgments about truth or reality. It is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person. It is often used in contrast to the term objectivity,[1] which is described as a view of truth or reality which is free of any individual's influence.
>implying Reach isn't objectively shit
Objectively it's a very well designed game in terms of functionality.
Things like plot, characterisation, enjoyability and whether it's better than CE or not is within the realms of subjectivity.
This forum really needs a crash course on these two terms.
You need a course that teaches you that the internet is srs bsns.
It's not a well designed game because AAs, bloom, sword block, terrible AI, and it's shitty maps exist.
Plot is objectively shit considering there isn't one until the last couple missions.
Characterisation is objectively shit considering it's pretty much entirely non-existent.
For fuck sake lemon.
When I said functionality, what I was referring to is if the game is objectively playable. And by that I mean whether it doesn't lag, glitch or become unresponsive during play time. Since Reach doesn't fall under any of those categories, and generally doesn't face any severe technical difficulties as a whole, it is objectively a well crafted game, in technical terms.
The rest of what you referred to is once again, fucking subjective.
well, reach had a fair amount of connection problems due to the p2p system. not nearly as bad as h3, but networking issues happened frequently enough to be a legitimate problem with the game. forge world maps are also notorious for bad frame drops. so, there are some objective issues with the game's functionality.
i'd also like to mention how horribly optimized it was in terms of competitive balance, but competitive play isn't everyones cup of tea so that isnt necessarily an objective problem.
I do not recall this, but then again it was nearly 5 years ago. It mustn't have been that much of an overall impact on the game technically speaking, otherwise I probably would've remembered.
6379
« on: January 07, 2015, 06:01:53 PM »
The rest of what you referred to is once again, fucking subjective.
Umm, no.
The lack of plot and characterisation is objective.
Umm no. Your interpretation of plot and characterisation is subjective. There are no guidelines for what constitutes as a masterpiece in narrative and story telling.
6380
« on: January 07, 2015, 04:02:32 PM »
A re-master could be okay for soon, but no re-makes until 2020, 10 years is how long it should be, no more no less.
It should get neither.
Bad games don't deserve re-releases or remakes.
Then why did they release Halo CEA?
Because CE is a good game with a good campaign that has a good consistent plot and story throughout the whole campaign, doesn't shit on already existing canon, doesn't have terribly written characters and doesn't consist of a brown and grey colour pallet.
The gameplay is a little dated, but it still plays well.
Reach on the other hand...
Actually CE was essentially just your generic alien shoot em up plotline, with a slight twist to it. Not saying Reach's narrative was stellar, but as far as sophistication goes, CE was pretty simple.
As for characters there's literally like a grand total of 6. I'm not counting Johnson because he wasn't established as a character at that point. So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily say CE has an excellent array of characters either.
I don't deny that Reach was a disappointment, but you nostalgia fags really need to take of the goggles.
I'm not basing any of this on nostalgia.
CE is literally leaps and bounds ahead of Reach in terms of quality, story (regardless of it not being that original) and characters.
Subjectivity
Subjectivity is the condition of being a subject: i.e., the quality of possessing perspectives, experiences, feelings, beliefs, desires,[1] and/or power. Subjectivity is used as an explanation for what influences and informs people's judgments about truth or reality. It is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person. It is often used in contrast to the term objectivity,[1] which is described as a view of truth or reality which is free of any individual's influence.
>implying Reach isn't objectively shit
Objectively it's a very well designed game in terms of functionality.
Things like plot, characterisation, enjoyability and whether it's better than CE or not is within the realms of subjectivity.
This forum really needs a crash course on these two terms.
You need a course that teaches you that the internet is srs bsns.
It's not a well designed game because AAs, bloom, sword block, terrible AI, and it's shitty maps exist.
Plot is objectively shit considering there isn't one until the last couple missions.
Characterisation is objectively shit considering it's pretty much entirely non-existent.
For fuck sake lemon. When I said functionality, what I was referring to is if the game is objectively playable. And by that I mean whether it doesn't lag, glitch or become unresponsive during play time. Since Reach doesn't fall under any of those categories, and generally doesn't face any severe technical difficulties as a whole, it is objectively a well crafted game, in technical terms. The rest of what you referred to is once again, fucking subjective.
6381
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:59:12 PM »
It looks pretty bland, FC4 GOTY
It's not. I'll admit it's pretty difficult to get into if you're new to the series, but don't let that dissuade you.
It just looks totally uninteresting, splitting it into zones is something I dislike, from all the playthroughs and clips i've seen it looks pretty standard fantasy game fare, same tropes and same Bioware tactics as always
Well, this thread probably isn't for you then, isn't it?
It's not like i'm hating on DA, i'm just explaining why I don't have a high opinion of it, i'll most likely buy it once the price drops to £20 or so
Sure, that's your prerogative, but practically everyone is praising this game, including myself.
Plus, you haven't even played the game either, so idk if you're in a position to be making these judgements.
I am, because they are only judgements rather than fully formed opinions, i'm not paying the sterling equivalent of $80 on a game I may or may not actually like, people raved about Bioshock:Infinite so I bought it full-price, and I didn't enjoy it much, GAME wouldn't give a good trade-in price so it was £40 ($60) wasted, i'm not being caught out like that again
Yeah, I know how money works mate.
And I was merely saying that everyone's praise has screwed me over before now
Okay. Would you like a medal?
6382
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:51:57 PM »
A re-master could be okay for soon, but no re-makes until 2020, 10 years is how long it should be, no more no less.
It should get neither.
Bad games don't deserve re-releases or remakes.
Then why did they release Halo CEA?
Because CE is a good game with a good campaign that has a good consistent plot and story throughout the whole campaign, doesn't shit on already existing canon, doesn't have terribly written characters and doesn't consist of a brown and grey colour pallet.
The gameplay is a little dated, but it still plays well.
Reach on the other hand...
Actually CE was essentially just your generic alien shoot em up plotline, with a slight twist to it. Not saying Reach's narrative was stellar, but as far as sophistication goes, CE was pretty simple.
As for characters there's literally like a grand total of 6. I'm not counting Johnson because he wasn't established as a character at that point. So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily say CE has an excellent array of characters either.
I don't deny that Reach was a disappointment, but you nostalgia fags really need to take of the goggles.
I'm not basing any of this on nostalgia.
CE is literally leaps and bounds ahead of Reach in terms of quality, story (regardless of it not being that original) and characters.
Subjectivity
Subjectivity is the condition of being a subject: i.e., the quality of possessing perspectives, experiences, feelings, beliefs, desires,[1] and/or power. Subjectivity is used as an explanation for what influences and informs people's judgments about truth or reality. It is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person. It is often used in contrast to the term objectivity,[1] which is described as a view of truth or reality which is free of any individual's influence.
>implying Reach isn't objectively shit
Objectively it's a very well designed game in terms of functionality. Things like plot, characterisation, enjoyability and whether it's better than CE or not is within the realms of subjectivity. This forum really needs a crash course on these two terms.
6383
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:50:13 PM »
It looks pretty bland, FC4 GOTY
It's not. I'll admit it's pretty difficult to get into if you're new to the series, but don't let that dissuade you.
It just looks totally uninteresting, splitting it into zones is something I dislike, from all the playthroughs and clips i've seen it looks pretty standard fantasy game fare, same tropes and same Bioware tactics as always
Well, this thread probably isn't for you then, isn't it?
It's not like i'm hating on DA, i'm just explaining why I don't have a high opinion of it, i'll most likely buy it once the price drops to £20 or so
Sure, that's your prerogative, but practically everyone is praising this game, including myself.
Plus, you haven't even played the game either, so idk if you're in a position to be making these judgements.
I am, because they are only judgements rather than fully formed opinions, i'm not paying the sterling equivalent of $80 on a game I may or may not actually like, people raved about Bioshock:Infinite so I bought it full-price, and I didn't enjoy it much, GAME wouldn't give a good trade-in price so it was £40 ($60) wasted, i'm not being caught out like that again
Yeah, I know how money works mate.
6384
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:47:28 PM »
A re-master could be okay for soon, but no re-makes until 2020, 10 years is how long it should be, no more no less.
It should get neither.
Bad games don't deserve re-releases or remakes.
Then why did they release Halo CEA?
Because CE is a good game with a good campaign that has a good consistent plot and story throughout the whole campaign, doesn't shit on already existing canon, doesn't have terribly written characters and doesn't consist of a brown and grey colour pallet.
The gameplay is a little dated, but it still plays well.
Reach on the other hand...
Actually CE was essentially just your generic alien shoot em up plotline, with a slight twist to it. Not saying Reach's narrative was stellar, but as far as sophistication goes, CE was pretty simple.
As for characters there's literally like a grand total of 6. I'm not counting Johnson because he wasn't established as a character at that point. So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily say CE has an excellent array of characters either.
I don't deny that Reach was a disappointment, but you nostalgia fags really need to take of the goggles.
I'm not basing any of this on nostalgia.
CE is literally leaps and bounds ahead of Reach in terms of quality, story (regardless of it not being that original) and characters.
Subjectivity Subjectivity is the condition of being a subject: i.e., the quality of possessing perspectives, experiences, feelings, beliefs, desires,[1] and/or power. Subjectivity is used as an explanation for what influences and informs people's judgments about truth or reality. It is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person. It is often used in contrast to the term objectivity,[1] which is described as a view of truth or reality which is free of any individual's influence.
6385
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:45:08 PM »
A re-master could be okay for soon, but no re-makes until 2020, 10 years is how long it should be, no more no less.
It should get neither.
Bad games don't deserve re-releases or remakes.
Then why did they release Halo CEA?
Because CE is a good game with a good campaign that has a good consistent plot and story throughout the whole campaign, doesn't shit on already existing canon, doesn't have terribly written characters and doesn't consist of a brown and grey colour pallet.
The gameplay is a little dated, but it still plays well.
Reach on the other hand...
Actually CE was essentially just your generic alien shoot em up plotline, with a slight twist to it. Not saying Reach's narrative was stellar, but as far as sophistication goes, CE was pretty simple. As for characters there's literally like a grand total of 6. I'm not counting Johnson because he wasn't established as a character at that point. So yeah, I wouldn't necessarily say CE has an excellent array of characters either. I don't deny that Reach was a disappointment, but you nostalgia fags really need to take of the goggles.
6386
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:39:56 PM »
Halos 1-3 are like the original Star Wars movies... aka the best ones.
ODST is the Phantom Menace, Reach is Attack of the Clones, and Halo 4 is Revenge of the Sith.
ODST is more like the original Star Wars: The Clone Wars series than any of the prequel movies. its supplementary material to the canon that happens to be just as good in its own way as the original product... dont even begin to compare odst to reach and h4
Except ODST doesn't deserve any of the praise it gets apart from the soundtrack.
People really need to discern between objectivity and subjectivity ITT.
6387
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:33:39 PM »
It looks pretty bland, FC4 GOTY
It's not. I'll admit it's pretty difficult to get into if you're new to the series, but don't let that dissuade you.
It just looks totally uninteresting, splitting it into zones is something I dislike, from all the playthroughs and clips i've seen it looks pretty standard fantasy game fare, same tropes and same Bioware tactics as always
Well, this thread probably isn't for you then, isn't it?
It's not like i'm hating on DA, i'm just explaining why I don't have a high opinion of it, i'll most likely buy it once the price drops to £20 or so
Sure, that's your prerogative, but practically everyone is praising this game, including myself. Plus, you haven't even played the game either, so idk if you're in a position to be making these judgements.
6388
« on: January 07, 2015, 02:20:13 PM »
It looks pretty bland, FC4 GOTY
It's not. I'll admit it's pretty difficult to get into if you're new to the series, but don't let that dissuade you.
It just looks totally uninteresting, splitting it into zones is something I dislike, from all the playthroughs and clips i've seen it looks pretty standard fantasy game fare, same tropes and same Bioware tactics as always
Well, this thread probably isn't for you then, isn't it?
6389
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:54:15 AM »
What's the philosophy for not giving a shit and enjoying life? Hedonism?
6390
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:52:53 AM »
Oh shut the fuck up Lemon.
Pages: 1 ... 211212213 214215 ... 243
|
Show Posts