x
Click to expand

nathanbiggs

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:6/03/2011
Last Login:5/28/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#6888
Highest Content Rank:#6115
Highest Comment Rank:#660
Content Thumbs: 112 total,  193 ,  81
Comment Thumbs: 8530 total,  10778 ,  2248
Content Level Progress: 60% (3/5)
Level 9 Content: New Here → Level 10 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (10/100)
Level 278 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 279 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Subscribers:0
Content Views:16497
Times Content Favorited:33 times
Total Comments Made:2279
FJ Points:7934

latest user's comments

#62 - Nope, the game has too many issues for it to be considered GOT…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/04/2015 on beasts....all over the shop... -1
#79 - oriphiel (05/04/2015) [-]
what issues in particular are you referring to?
User avatar #86 - nathanbiggs (05/04/2015) [-]
-much smaller build variety in an attempt to force players into a certain play style (this is honestly one of my biggest complaints)
-removal of dual wielding, to again force a playstyle
-unstable framerate that drops into the lower 20s at points, if you're going to do 30 FPS it has to be rock solid
-no poise
-no equip load
-no magic
-no hexes
-no pyromancy
-randomized co-op (you can't choose who you summon anymore, the game does it for you unless you use a password)
-much smaller number of weapons available, and a couple of them even share movesets
-Armor variety is extremely small, and even then a lot of the armor in the game is the same black set with some variation
-Bosses have honestly just been disappointing. Father Gascoigne was good, Cleric Beast was Damage Sponge: The boss. Vicar was pretty much Cleric with a little variety and healing, Shadows of Yharnam was just Skeleton Lords but a little better, Rom was just Freja but much more annoying, Blood Starved Beast was hard for all the wrong reasons, and Witch of Hemwick shouldn't even be called a boss
-PvP has been stripped down pretty hard
-Blood Vials are much too forgiving, considering I've always had max carry and they heal up 1/3 of your health no matter what your health is
-Some of the enemies later on in the game are just early game enemies that do more damage
-A good chunk of enemy placement so far has just been throwing way too fucking many enemies in one area
I can admit that I haven't finished the game (I've honestly just gotten tired of it), but I have a decent number of my issues aren't going to be changed by me playing it more. The game just doesn't seem to support the hundreds of hours of playtime that I've put in DaS1 and DaS2 because they don't allow the same variety and freedom in builds that their previous games had.
#78 - anonymous (05/04/2015) [-]
nah, i agree. i love this game, and i think its spectacular. but i know something else will earn GOTY.
#58 - >Bloodborne >game of the year kek no  [+] (5 new replies) 05/04/2015 on beasts....all over the shop... -2
#61 - anonymous (05/04/2015) [-]
you spelled yes wrong
User avatar #62 - nathanbiggs (05/04/2015) [-]
Nope, the game has too many issues for it to be considered GOTY, every other game would have to fail spectacularly for me to consider BloodBorne GOTY in its current state.
#79 - oriphiel (05/04/2015) [-]
what issues in particular are you referring to?
User avatar #86 - nathanbiggs (05/04/2015) [-]
-much smaller build variety in an attempt to force players into a certain play style (this is honestly one of my biggest complaints)
-removal of dual wielding, to again force a playstyle
-unstable framerate that drops into the lower 20s at points, if you're going to do 30 FPS it has to be rock solid
-no poise
-no equip load
-no magic
-no hexes
-no pyromancy
-randomized co-op (you can't choose who you summon anymore, the game does it for you unless you use a password)
-much smaller number of weapons available, and a couple of them even share movesets
-Armor variety is extremely small, and even then a lot of the armor in the game is the same black set with some variation
-Bosses have honestly just been disappointing. Father Gascoigne was good, Cleric Beast was Damage Sponge: The boss. Vicar was pretty much Cleric with a little variety and healing, Shadows of Yharnam was just Skeleton Lords but a little better, Rom was just Freja but much more annoying, Blood Starved Beast was hard for all the wrong reasons, and Witch of Hemwick shouldn't even be called a boss
-PvP has been stripped down pretty hard
-Blood Vials are much too forgiving, considering I've always had max carry and they heal up 1/3 of your health no matter what your health is
-Some of the enemies later on in the game are just early game enemies that do more damage
-A good chunk of enemy placement so far has just been throwing way too fucking many enemies in one area
I can admit that I haven't finished the game (I've honestly just gotten tired of it), but I have a decent number of my issues aren't going to be changed by me playing it more. The game just doesn't seem to support the hundreds of hours of playtime that I've put in DaS1 and DaS2 because they don't allow the same variety and freedom in builds that their previous games had.
#78 - anonymous (05/04/2015) [-]
nah, i agree. i love this game, and i think its spectacular. but i know something else will earn GOTY.
#216 - >posting this on FJ 05/03/2015 on The Boa +1
#188 - > You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't … 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
#182 - I want Bloodborne on PC just so I wouldn't have to deal with t… 05/01/2015 on Wow calm down, man 0
#28 - >Shinji >having a sweet deal kek 05/01/2015 on worst girl +4
#176 - >I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic &quo…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
User avatar #181 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Whatever you say. You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start. Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.

But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so. Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay. Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
User avatar #188 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
> You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start
I'm complaining about what we currently know and what we can assume, if my assumption prove incorrect, guess what? I'll admit that I was wrong and move forward happier knowing that I was wrong.

> Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.
>But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so.
There you go again, on your high horse

>Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay.
And I've already stated, gameplay can only carry a game so far. It is one of the most important parts, yes, but without everything else the game will fall flat on its face

>Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
You don't have to hate life to realize that this industry is prone to disappointments.
#185 - fellatio (05/01/2015) [-]
and Ad hominem, great way to win an arguement. use a logical fallacy. They haven't shown us game play unless you go to the link i posted which is just battlefield. I point out what the previous entries into a series had, many different things. Then I point out what has been confimed to be absent from the game. Now if we take a step back and look at this logically we have

BF1 comes out - great game with a bunch of stuff
BF2 comes out - even better with fixes to the game and adds more!
EA confirms 80% of the things in BF2 will not be in the game with 5% to come out as DLC
EA does not publish any gameplay besides pre rendered cutscenes.

So if we know that there is alot missing from the game, and they refuse to publish any gameplay that is not pre rendered.... why shouldn't we point out their bullshit?
User avatar #187 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to win an argument. Nobody can win "this argument" because there is no argument to be had. There is no gameplay of the game and little information released on it. The only thing close argument here is that people like you are nothing more than mindless idiots who have no patience.

Good bye, and good luck trying to make it through life with that brain of yours.
#169 - A reboot can still be compared to its predecessor, we already …  [+] (7 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
User avatar #170 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
First off, several times you have proved my point of "nothing more than assumptions".
Here:" DICE has only said "more than 8", if they were confident they would have said much more than that. The vagueness of the comment is worrying"
Here:"If we're talking about stuff like Galactic conquest/Instant action/etc. I don't see how that information has been skewed. It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise, if they even will"
I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic "It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise". This is just stupid to put it bluntly, again completely proving the assumption stupidity.

The vehicles bit was said by the author of that article, NOT Dice, NOT EA, but the author. Dice and Ea have already confirmed that the vehicles will be pilot-able (with the exception of AT-Ats) and free to use along the maps. The authors comment was literally just trying to make his writing sound better, they are not going to be killstreaks.

As for AT-ATs, it won't make a difference. Nearly every map that you could rive them in the originals where linear and under constant heavy fire. Putting them on rails isn't going to change anything, they'll still move slowly and in one direction. "Oh no, I can't move slightly to the right or left or sit on top of a base all game."

The game has already been confirmed to include the new sequels to the series, it would be better to assume that there will be NEW heroes from this universe as well.

It won't be the same, the fact that people expected it to be exactly the same is the issue here. It will be a new Battlefront, it will probably be just as fun to play. Dice were not the original developers of the game, they can't go making an exact copy with slight improvements. They are going create a more modern version of the game.

Dice has been handling it fine, the issue is that you have a bunch of nostalgia fags that can't accept that things will change. People seem to forget that many of the people working on this game are huge star wars fans and huge Battlefront fans themselves. That doesn't mean they will make the game exactly the same. Coincidentally, that doesn't automatically make the game bad.
#176 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
>I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic "It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise". This is just stupid to put it bluntly, again completely proving the assumption stupidity.
Why would DICE lead out with cut content? If there truly is this wealth of content that you're assuming is there, why haven't we heard about it yet? Where are the new game modes that'll balance out these cuts? Why should I give DICE the benefit of the doubt? More importantly, why should I give EA the benefit of the doubt? I don't trust these developers/publishers with Battlefront, like most people, so I'm going to assume the worst until they say otherwise. The fact that they still have yet to reveal gameplay does nothing to help ease those worries.

>The vehicles bit was said by the author of that article, NOT Dice, NOT EA, but the author.
Why would an author make something up like that? He wouldn't, there is something that lead him to believe that statement is worthy of including

> Dice and Ea have already confirmed that the vehicles will be pilot-able
Never argued this

> The authors comment was literally just trying to make his writing sound better, they are not going to be killstreaks.
The wording he used was very specific, they are not words someone would use lightly considering how killstreaks can divide a community

>As for AT-ATs, it won't make a difference. Nearly every map that you could rive them in the originals where linear and under constant heavy fire. Putting them on rails isn't going to change anything, they'll still move slowly and in one direction. "Oh no, I can't move slightly to the right or left or sit on top of a base all game."
So, because you experience something one way that means everyone has to experience it the same way? If it was so linear in the old games, then why even put it on rails? Why take control away from the player for no good reason? Why are options a bad thing now?

>The game has already been confirmed to include the new sequels to the series, it would be better to assume that there will be NEW heroes from this universe as well.
Do these new heroes outnumber the old ones? Would it have killed DICE to include the prequel as well and instead of cutting content, build upon the content they already had?

>It won't be the same, the fact that people expected it to be exactly the same is the issue here
Should people not expect a decent chunk of similarities between 2 games in a series? Don't give me the "b-but it's a reboot!" shit, that doesn't excuse it. If someone rebooted the Halo series I would still expect things like Custom Games and Forge to be a part of it because of how integral they are to the experience for me. The same can be said here for the different cut game modes

> It will be a new Battlefront, it will probably be just as fun to play
Nice assumptions you're making there

>They are going create a more modern version of the game.
"Modernization" of games is something that never turns out well, considering 9 times out of 10 the developers just look at the popular trends and follow those.

>Dice has been handling it fine,
Nope, DICE's comments on Reddit have just shown them blatantly ignoring the problems people have with confirmed cut game modes

>the issue is that you have a bunch of nostalgia fags that can't accept that things will change.
Christ, people are okay with change when it is good change. Obviously people don't see cut content and lower scale as good changes, and who could blame them?


>that youtube vide
It's just 11 minutes of Rooster Teeth saying "t-that doesn't matter anyway! Why do you care if it's cut/the scale has been lowered!". It's almost shill-tier level
User avatar #181 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Whatever you say. You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start. Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.

But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so. Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay. Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
User avatar #188 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
> You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start
I'm complaining about what we currently know and what we can assume, if my assumption prove incorrect, guess what? I'll admit that I was wrong and move forward happier knowing that I was wrong.

> Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.
>But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so.
There you go again, on your high horse

>Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay.
And I've already stated, gameplay can only carry a game so far. It is one of the most important parts, yes, but without everything else the game will fall flat on its face

>Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
You don't have to hate life to realize that this industry is prone to disappointments.
#185 - fellatio (05/01/2015) [-]
and Ad hominem, great way to win an arguement. use a logical fallacy. They haven't shown us game play unless you go to the link i posted which is just battlefield. I point out what the previous entries into a series had, many different things. Then I point out what has been confimed to be absent from the game. Now if we take a step back and look at this logically we have

BF1 comes out - great game with a bunch of stuff
BF2 comes out - even better with fixes to the game and adds more!
EA confirms 80% of the things in BF2 will not be in the game with 5% to come out as DLC
EA does not publish any gameplay besides pre rendered cutscenes.

So if we know that there is alot missing from the game, and they refuse to publish any gameplay that is not pre rendered.... why shouldn't we point out their bullshit?
User avatar #187 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to win an argument. Nobody can win "this argument" because there is no argument to be had. There is no gameplay of the game and little information released on it. The only thing close argument here is that people like you are nothing more than mindless idiots who have no patience.

Good bye, and good luck trying to make it through life with that brain of yours.
#142 - You're making the assumption that those are made specifically … 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
#136 - Alright, so if development costs so much then why are video ga…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
User avatar #138 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
games dlc subscriptions. all the things people on this site like to bitch about but gladly participate in
User avatar #142 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
You're making the assumption that those are made specifically because the company is struggling to scrape by with a profit, which is a leap of logic that doesn't hold true for the majority.
#133 - The market has gotten larger, making it easy to offset the hig…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
User avatar #134 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
yes theres inflation and other things but the point is we are really lucky we arent payign so much more for games. NES games were 50 a game. switching to cds dropped costs and allowed better games but that requires bigger teamsand so much more
User avatar #136 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
Alright, so if development costs so much then why are video game companies reporting record breaking profits? Obviously video games are still massively profitable or these budgets would have crashed by now. You keep talking about how development costs are higher, but have yet to show how that correlates to lower developer profits.
User avatar #138 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
games dlc subscriptions. all the things people on this site like to bitch about but gladly participate in
User avatar #142 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
You're making the assumption that those are made specifically because the company is struggling to scrape by with a profit, which is a leap of logic that doesn't hold true for the majority.
#130 - Alright, the PS2's sales just help my point.  [+] (6 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
User avatar #131 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
and since the ps2 game production costs have tripled yet we pay roughly the same amount for a game
User avatar #133 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
The market has gotten larger, making it easy to offset the higher production costs. There are more variables in this equation than just production costs.
User avatar #134 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
yes theres inflation and other things but the point is we are really lucky we arent payign so much more for games. NES games were 50 a game. switching to cds dropped costs and allowed better games but that requires bigger teamsand so much more
User avatar #136 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
Alright, so if development costs so much then why are video game companies reporting record breaking profits? Obviously video games are still massively profitable or these budgets would have crashed by now. You keep talking about how development costs are higher, but have yet to show how that correlates to lower developer profits.
User avatar #138 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
games dlc subscriptions. all the things people on this site like to bitch about but gladly participate in
User avatar #142 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
You're making the assumption that those are made specifically because the company is struggling to scrape by with a profit, which is a leap of logic that doesn't hold true for the majority.
#127 - If you're talking about the Wii, the Wii was a part of the sev…  [+] (8 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
User avatar #128 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
no im talking about the ps2 which almost beat out the playstation 3 and xbox 360 combined
User avatar #130 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
Alright, the PS2's sales just help my point.
User avatar #131 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
and since the ps2 game production costs have tripled yet we pay roughly the same amount for a game
User avatar #133 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
The market has gotten larger, making it easy to offset the higher production costs. There are more variables in this equation than just production costs.
User avatar #134 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
yes theres inflation and other things but the point is we are really lucky we arent payign so much more for games. NES games were 50 a game. switching to cds dropped costs and allowed better games but that requires bigger teamsand so much more
User avatar #136 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
Alright, so if development costs so much then why are video game companies reporting record breaking profits? Obviously video games are still massively profitable or these budgets would have crashed by now. You keep talking about how development costs are higher, but have yet to show how that correlates to lower developer profits.
User avatar #138 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
games dlc subscriptions. all the things people on this site like to bitch about but gladly participate in
User avatar #142 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
You're making the assumption that those are made specifically because the company is struggling to scrape by with a profit, which is a leap of logic that doesn't hold true for the majority.
#125 - So we're just going to ignore the fact that video games have g…  [+] (11 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... 0
#193 - thepizzadevourer (05/01/2015) [-]
People are demanding more and more from their games while simultaneously demanding that the prices stay the same or go lower. I don't like it either, and I'm not saying it's a flawless idea, but I think he's at least got a point. This article over at Forbes (which is one of the most balanced sites on gaming IMHO) explains it pretty well: www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/04/24/video-games-should-be-more-expensive/
User avatar #126 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
sure, if were ignoring that console game sales of the last generation were beaten out by one console from the previous generation.
User avatar #127 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
If you're talking about the Wii, the Wii was a part of the seventh generation of consoles, and all 3 consoles of that generation saw extremely healthy sales.
User avatar #128 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
no im talking about the ps2 which almost beat out the playstation 3 and xbox 360 combined
User avatar #130 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
Alright, the PS2's sales just help my point.
User avatar #131 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
and since the ps2 game production costs have tripled yet we pay roughly the same amount for a game
User avatar #133 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
The market has gotten larger, making it easy to offset the higher production costs. There are more variables in this equation than just production costs.
User avatar #134 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
yes theres inflation and other things but the point is we are really lucky we arent payign so much more for games. NES games were 50 a game. switching to cds dropped costs and allowed better games but that requires bigger teamsand so much more
User avatar #136 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
Alright, so if development costs so much then why are video game companies reporting record breaking profits? Obviously video games are still massively profitable or these budgets would have crashed by now. You keep talking about how development costs are higher, but have yet to show how that correlates to lower developer profits.
User avatar #138 - sketchE (05/01/2015) [-]
games dlc subscriptions. all the things people on this site like to bitch about but gladly participate in
User avatar #142 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
You're making the assumption that those are made specifically because the company is struggling to scrape by with a profit, which is a leap of logic that doesn't hold true for the majority.
#117 - The one piece of information that I know is patently wrong is …  [+] (9 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... +2
User avatar #168 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Nothing was "cut" because it is a completely new game, not a sequel. New deceloper, new game, it's a reboot.

That is people's issue, they keep thinking it is battlefront 3, but it isn't. The information that has been skewed includes:
number of maps
actual number of game modes included
Vehicles and their use in game
"Killstreaks"(because people assume based on a cinematic trailer)
Number of heroes

Then, people complain about what's not in the game saying there is less content. We don't know what is in the game yet. For all anyone knows the game could have triple the amount of content, it's just not the content some people want.

The game is going to be different than the other 2, there is no doubt about it. But by no means does that mean the game will suck. Everything about the situation is literally just a bunch of people acting like spoiled brats.

Dice and EA are the parents while the people crying are the 16 year olds at their sweet 16. "Oh my god, I hate you guys! I asked for a Ferrari and you bought me porsch! My life is, like, so over!"
User avatar #169 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
A reboot can still be compared to its predecessor, we already had this discussion as a community back when DmC was coming out. A game being a reboot doesn't somehow wash away all the expectations that extend from the previous game, people still expect the same level of quality, and so far DICE has not delivered.
>number of maps
DICE has only said "more than 8", if they were confident they would have said much more than that. The vagueness of the comment is worrying.
>actual number of game modes included
If we're talking about stuff like Galactic conquest/Instant action/etc. I don't see how that information has been skewed. It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise, if they even will.
>Vehicles and their use in game
>"Killstreaks"(because people assume based on a cinematic trailer)
It's also based on comments DICE has made to Gamespot:
www.gamespot.com/articles/the-cautious-return-of-star-wars-battlefront/1100-6426701/
"Vehicles in Battlefront are meant to be powerful weapons issued as a reward for exceptional or sustained performance, weapons that can turn the tide of battle."
That sounds an awful lot like killstreaks to me.
>Number of heroes
Considering the fact that we know for certain that the prequel era is not included in the game, we can say that the number of heroes will most likely be lower.

If they do actually have triple the content, they need to hurry up and reveal it already, since they didn't lead out with that I kind of doubt that'll happen. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

No one wanted this much difference, we wanted an improvement on the Battlefront 2 formula and we don't seem to be getting that. People are acting they way they're acting because Battlefront 2 holds a special place in a lot of peoples hearts and minds. When it looks like a developer is using the name of a beloved series for pure brand recognition people are going to be mad, and DICE hasn't exactly been handling it well.



User avatar #170 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
First off, several times you have proved my point of "nothing more than assumptions".
Here:" DICE has only said "more than 8", if they were confident they would have said much more than that. The vagueness of the comment is worrying"
Here:"If we're talking about stuff like Galactic conquest/Instant action/etc. I don't see how that information has been skewed. It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise, if they even will"
I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic "It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise". This is just stupid to put it bluntly, again completely proving the assumption stupidity.

The vehicles bit was said by the author of that article, NOT Dice, NOT EA, but the author. Dice and Ea have already confirmed that the vehicles will be pilot-able (with the exception of AT-Ats) and free to use along the maps. The authors comment was literally just trying to make his writing sound better, they are not going to be killstreaks.

As for AT-ATs, it won't make a difference. Nearly every map that you could rive them in the originals where linear and under constant heavy fire. Putting them on rails isn't going to change anything, they'll still move slowly and in one direction. "Oh no, I can't move slightly to the right or left or sit on top of a base all game."

The game has already been confirmed to include the new sequels to the series, it would be better to assume that there will be NEW heroes from this universe as well.

It won't be the same, the fact that people expected it to be exactly the same is the issue here. It will be a new Battlefront, it will probably be just as fun to play. Dice were not the original developers of the game, they can't go making an exact copy with slight improvements. They are going create a more modern version of the game.

Dice has been handling it fine, the issue is that you have a bunch of nostalgia fags that can't accept that things will change. People seem to forget that many of the people working on this game are huge star wars fans and huge Battlefront fans themselves. That doesn't mean they will make the game exactly the same. Coincidentally, that doesn't automatically make the game bad.
#176 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
>I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic "It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise". This is just stupid to put it bluntly, again completely proving the assumption stupidity.
Why would DICE lead out with cut content? If there truly is this wealth of content that you're assuming is there, why haven't we heard about it yet? Where are the new game modes that'll balance out these cuts? Why should I give DICE the benefit of the doubt? More importantly, why should I give EA the benefit of the doubt? I don't trust these developers/publishers with Battlefront, like most people, so I'm going to assume the worst until they say otherwise. The fact that they still have yet to reveal gameplay does nothing to help ease those worries.

>The vehicles bit was said by the author of that article, NOT Dice, NOT EA, but the author.
Why would an author make something up like that? He wouldn't, there is something that lead him to believe that statement is worthy of including

> Dice and Ea have already confirmed that the vehicles will be pilot-able
Never argued this

> The authors comment was literally just trying to make his writing sound better, they are not going to be killstreaks.
The wording he used was very specific, they are not words someone would use lightly considering how killstreaks can divide a community

>As for AT-ATs, it won't make a difference. Nearly every map that you could rive them in the originals where linear and under constant heavy fire. Putting them on rails isn't going to change anything, they'll still move slowly and in one direction. "Oh no, I can't move slightly to the right or left or sit on top of a base all game."
So, because you experience something one way that means everyone has to experience it the same way? If it was so linear in the old games, then why even put it on rails? Why take control away from the player for no good reason? Why are options a bad thing now?

>The game has already been confirmed to include the new sequels to the series, it would be better to assume that there will be NEW heroes from this universe as well.
Do these new heroes outnumber the old ones? Would it have killed DICE to include the prequel as well and instead of cutting content, build upon the content they already had?

>It won't be the same, the fact that people expected it to be exactly the same is the issue here
Should people not expect a decent chunk of similarities between 2 games in a series? Don't give me the "b-but it's a reboot!" shit, that doesn't excuse it. If someone rebooted the Halo series I would still expect things like Custom Games and Forge to be a part of it because of how integral they are to the experience for me. The same can be said here for the different cut game modes

> It will be a new Battlefront, it will probably be just as fun to play
Nice assumptions you're making there

>They are going create a more modern version of the game.
"Modernization" of games is something that never turns out well, considering 9 times out of 10 the developers just look at the popular trends and follow those.

>Dice has been handling it fine,
Nope, DICE's comments on Reddit have just shown them blatantly ignoring the problems people have with confirmed cut game modes

>the issue is that you have a bunch of nostalgia fags that can't accept that things will change.
Christ, people are okay with change when it is good change. Obviously people don't see cut content and lower scale as good changes, and who could blame them?


>that youtube vide
It's just 11 minutes of Rooster Teeth saying "t-that doesn't matter anyway! Why do you care if it's cut/the scale has been lowered!". It's almost shill-tier level
User avatar #181 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Whatever you say. You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start. Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.

But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so. Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay. Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
User avatar #188 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
> You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start
I'm complaining about what we currently know and what we can assume, if my assumption prove incorrect, guess what? I'll admit that I was wrong and move forward happier knowing that I was wrong.

> Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.
>But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so.
There you go again, on your high horse

>Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay.
And I've already stated, gameplay can only carry a game so far. It is one of the most important parts, yes, but without everything else the game will fall flat on its face

>Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
You don't have to hate life to realize that this industry is prone to disappointments.
#185 - fellatio (05/01/2015) [-]
and Ad hominem, great way to win an arguement. use a logical fallacy. They haven't shown us game play unless you go to the link i posted which is just battlefield. I point out what the previous entries into a series had, many different things. Then I point out what has been confimed to be absent from the game. Now if we take a step back and look at this logically we have

BF1 comes out - great game with a bunch of stuff
BF2 comes out - even better with fixes to the game and adds more!
EA confirms 80% of the things in BF2 will not be in the game with 5% to come out as DLC
EA does not publish any gameplay besides pre rendered cutscenes.

So if we know that there is alot missing from the game, and they refuse to publish any gameplay that is not pre rendered.... why shouldn't we point out their bullshit?
User avatar #187 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to win an argument. Nobody can win "this argument" because there is no argument to be had. There is no gameplay of the game and little information released on it. The only thing close argument here is that people like you are nothing more than mindless idiots who have no patience.

Good bye, and good luck trying to make it through life with that brain of yours.
#107 - If it looks like someone is about to **** on my plate, …  [+] (11 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... +1
User avatar #109 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
There's been one wave on information, people have skewed just about all of that information. Nobody is sitting on anyone's plate, people are upset because they are misinformed by a few dumb asses who jump to conclusions. It's as simple as that.
User avatar #117 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
The one piece of information that I know is patently wrong is the planned DLC parts, pretty much every other big "cut"/issue is true. Campaign being cut, AT-AT on rails, no galactic conquest, no instant action, no prequel era, no space battles, the lower player cap, the worrying state of bots in multiplayer, the very killstreak-esque way DICE described vehicles www.gamespot.com/articles/the-cautious-return-of-star-wars-battlefront/1100-6426701/ , etc. None of that information is skewed, it's what DICE has confirmed so far.
User avatar #168 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Nothing was "cut" because it is a completely new game, not a sequel. New deceloper, new game, it's a reboot.

That is people's issue, they keep thinking it is battlefront 3, but it isn't. The information that has been skewed includes:
number of maps
actual number of game modes included
Vehicles and their use in game
"Killstreaks"(because people assume based on a cinematic trailer)
Number of heroes

Then, people complain about what's not in the game saying there is less content. We don't know what is in the game yet. For all anyone knows the game could have triple the amount of content, it's just not the content some people want.

The game is going to be different than the other 2, there is no doubt about it. But by no means does that mean the game will suck. Everything about the situation is literally just a bunch of people acting like spoiled brats.

Dice and EA are the parents while the people crying are the 16 year olds at their sweet 16. "Oh my god, I hate you guys! I asked for a Ferrari and you bought me porsch! My life is, like, so over!"
User avatar #169 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
A reboot can still be compared to its predecessor, we already had this discussion as a community back when DmC was coming out. A game being a reboot doesn't somehow wash away all the expectations that extend from the previous game, people still expect the same level of quality, and so far DICE has not delivered.
>number of maps
DICE has only said "more than 8", if they were confident they would have said much more than that. The vagueness of the comment is worrying.
>actual number of game modes included
If we're talking about stuff like Galactic conquest/Instant action/etc. I don't see how that information has been skewed. It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise, if they even will.
>Vehicles and their use in game
>"Killstreaks"(because people assume based on a cinematic trailer)
It's also based on comments DICE has made to Gamespot:
www.gamespot.com/articles/the-cautious-return-of-star-wars-battlefront/1100-6426701/
"Vehicles in Battlefront are meant to be powerful weapons issued as a reward for exceptional or sustained performance, weapons that can turn the tide of battle."
That sounds an awful lot like killstreaks to me.
>Number of heroes
Considering the fact that we know for certain that the prequel era is not included in the game, we can say that the number of heroes will most likely be lower.

If they do actually have triple the content, they need to hurry up and reveal it already, since they didn't lead out with that I kind of doubt that'll happen. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

No one wanted this much difference, we wanted an improvement on the Battlefront 2 formula and we don't seem to be getting that. People are acting they way they're acting because Battlefront 2 holds a special place in a lot of peoples hearts and minds. When it looks like a developer is using the name of a beloved series for pure brand recognition people are going to be mad, and DICE hasn't exactly been handling it well.



User avatar #170 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
First off, several times you have proved my point of "nothing more than assumptions".
Here:" DICE has only said "more than 8", if they were confident they would have said much more than that. The vagueness of the comment is worrying"
Here:"If we're talking about stuff like Galactic conquest/Instant action/etc. I don't see how that information has been skewed. It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise, if they even will"
I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic "It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise". This is just stupid to put it bluntly, again completely proving the assumption stupidity.

The vehicles bit was said by the author of that article, NOT Dice, NOT EA, but the author. Dice and Ea have already confirmed that the vehicles will be pilot-able (with the exception of AT-Ats) and free to use along the maps. The authors comment was literally just trying to make his writing sound better, they are not going to be killstreaks.

As for AT-ATs, it won't make a difference. Nearly every map that you could rive them in the originals where linear and under constant heavy fire. Putting them on rails isn't going to change anything, they'll still move slowly and in one direction. "Oh no, I can't move slightly to the right or left or sit on top of a base all game."

The game has already been confirmed to include the new sequels to the series, it would be better to assume that there will be NEW heroes from this universe as well.

It won't be the same, the fact that people expected it to be exactly the same is the issue here. It will be a new Battlefront, it will probably be just as fun to play. Dice were not the original developers of the game, they can't go making an exact copy with slight improvements. They are going create a more modern version of the game.

Dice has been handling it fine, the issue is that you have a bunch of nostalgia fags that can't accept that things will change. People seem to forget that many of the people working on this game are huge star wars fans and huge Battlefront fans themselves. That doesn't mean they will make the game exactly the same. Coincidentally, that doesn't automatically make the game bad.
#176 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
>I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic "It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise". This is just stupid to put it bluntly, again completely proving the assumption stupidity.
Why would DICE lead out with cut content? If there truly is this wealth of content that you're assuming is there, why haven't we heard about it yet? Where are the new game modes that'll balance out these cuts? Why should I give DICE the benefit of the doubt? More importantly, why should I give EA the benefit of the doubt? I don't trust these developers/publishers with Battlefront, like most people, so I'm going to assume the worst until they say otherwise. The fact that they still have yet to reveal gameplay does nothing to help ease those worries.

>The vehicles bit was said by the author of that article, NOT Dice, NOT EA, but the author.
Why would an author make something up like that? He wouldn't, there is something that lead him to believe that statement is worthy of including

> Dice and Ea have already confirmed that the vehicles will be pilot-able
Never argued this

> The authors comment was literally just trying to make his writing sound better, they are not going to be killstreaks.
The wording he used was very specific, they are not words someone would use lightly considering how killstreaks can divide a community

>As for AT-ATs, it won't make a difference. Nearly every map that you could rive them in the originals where linear and under constant heavy fire. Putting them on rails isn't going to change anything, they'll still move slowly and in one direction. "Oh no, I can't move slightly to the right or left or sit on top of a base all game."
So, because you experience something one way that means everyone has to experience it the same way? If it was so linear in the old games, then why even put it on rails? Why take control away from the player for no good reason? Why are options a bad thing now?

>The game has already been confirmed to include the new sequels to the series, it would be better to assume that there will be NEW heroes from this universe as well.
Do these new heroes outnumber the old ones? Would it have killed DICE to include the prequel as well and instead of cutting content, build upon the content they already had?

>It won't be the same, the fact that people expected it to be exactly the same is the issue here
Should people not expect a decent chunk of similarities between 2 games in a series? Don't give me the "b-but it's a reboot!" shit, that doesn't excuse it. If someone rebooted the Halo series I would still expect things like Custom Games and Forge to be a part of it because of how integral they are to the experience for me. The same can be said here for the different cut game modes

> It will be a new Battlefront, it will probably be just as fun to play
Nice assumptions you're making there

>They are going create a more modern version of the game.
"Modernization" of games is something that never turns out well, considering 9 times out of 10 the developers just look at the popular trends and follow those.

>Dice has been handling it fine,
Nope, DICE's comments on Reddit have just shown them blatantly ignoring the problems people have with confirmed cut game modes

>the issue is that you have a bunch of nostalgia fags that can't accept that things will change.
Christ, people are okay with change when it is good change. Obviously people don't see cut content and lower scale as good changes, and who could blame them?


>that youtube vide
It's just 11 minutes of Rooster Teeth saying "t-that doesn't matter anyway! Why do you care if it's cut/the scale has been lowered!". It's almost shill-tier level
User avatar #181 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Whatever you say. You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start. Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.

But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so. Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay. Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
User avatar #188 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
> You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start
I'm complaining about what we currently know and what we can assume, if my assumption prove incorrect, guess what? I'll admit that I was wrong and move forward happier knowing that I was wrong.

> Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.
>But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so.
There you go again, on your high horse

>Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay.
And I've already stated, gameplay can only carry a game so far. It is one of the most important parts, yes, but without everything else the game will fall flat on its face

>Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
You don't have to hate life to realize that this industry is prone to disappointments.
#185 - fellatio (05/01/2015) [-]
and Ad hominem, great way to win an arguement. use a logical fallacy. They haven't shown us game play unless you go to the link i posted which is just battlefield. I point out what the previous entries into a series had, many different things. Then I point out what has been confimed to be absent from the game. Now if we take a step back and look at this logically we have

BF1 comes out - great game with a bunch of stuff
BF2 comes out - even better with fixes to the game and adds more!
EA confirms 80% of the things in BF2 will not be in the game with 5% to come out as DLC
EA does not publish any gameplay besides pre rendered cutscenes.

So if we know that there is alot missing from the game, and they refuse to publish any gameplay that is not pre rendered.... why shouldn't we point out their bullshit?
User avatar #187 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to win an argument. Nobody can win "this argument" because there is no argument to be had. There is no gameplay of the game and little information released on it. The only thing close argument here is that people like you are nothing more than mindless idiots who have no patience.

Good bye, and good luck trying to make it through life with that brain of yours.
#74 - What's with the mentality of "b-but you haven't played it…  [+] (13 new replies) 05/01/2015 on HOW TO PLAY BATTLEFRONT 2... +4
User avatar #102 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Yea, very much so. People are bitching and crying without ever seeing a scrap of the game. If you seriously think it is less warranted to complain about a game with little confirmed or revealed, you need to get your brain checked.
User avatar #107 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
If it looks like someone is about to shit on my plate, I'm going to say something. Gameplay can only carry a game so far. Just look at Destiny, a game with good gameplay that is hit hard because it lacks the content to keep people playing. Pretty much all we've been hearing about is cut after cut, people have a right to be concerned that this game won't be as good as the game that came a decade before it.
User avatar #109 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
There's been one wave on information, people have skewed just about all of that information. Nobody is sitting on anyone's plate, people are upset because they are misinformed by a few dumb asses who jump to conclusions. It's as simple as that.
User avatar #117 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
The one piece of information that I know is patently wrong is the planned DLC parts, pretty much every other big "cut"/issue is true. Campaign being cut, AT-AT on rails, no galactic conquest, no instant action, no prequel era, no space battles, the lower player cap, the worrying state of bots in multiplayer, the very killstreak-esque way DICE described vehicles www.gamespot.com/articles/the-cautious-return-of-star-wars-battlefront/1100-6426701/ , etc. None of that information is skewed, it's what DICE has confirmed so far.
User avatar #168 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Nothing was "cut" because it is a completely new game, not a sequel. New deceloper, new game, it's a reboot.

That is people's issue, they keep thinking it is battlefront 3, but it isn't. The information that has been skewed includes:
number of maps
actual number of game modes included
Vehicles and their use in game
"Killstreaks"(because people assume based on a cinematic trailer)
Number of heroes

Then, people complain about what's not in the game saying there is less content. We don't know what is in the game yet. For all anyone knows the game could have triple the amount of content, it's just not the content some people want.

The game is going to be different than the other 2, there is no doubt about it. But by no means does that mean the game will suck. Everything about the situation is literally just a bunch of people acting like spoiled brats.

Dice and EA are the parents while the people crying are the 16 year olds at their sweet 16. "Oh my god, I hate you guys! I asked for a Ferrari and you bought me porsch! My life is, like, so over!"
User avatar #169 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
A reboot can still be compared to its predecessor, we already had this discussion as a community back when DmC was coming out. A game being a reboot doesn't somehow wash away all the expectations that extend from the previous game, people still expect the same level of quality, and so far DICE has not delivered.
>number of maps
DICE has only said "more than 8", if they were confident they would have said much more than that. The vagueness of the comment is worrying.
>actual number of game modes included
If we're talking about stuff like Galactic conquest/Instant action/etc. I don't see how that information has been skewed. It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise, if they even will.
>Vehicles and their use in game
>"Killstreaks"(because people assume based on a cinematic trailer)
It's also based on comments DICE has made to Gamespot:
www.gamespot.com/articles/the-cautious-return-of-star-wars-battlefront/1100-6426701/
"Vehicles in Battlefront are meant to be powerful weapons issued as a reward for exceptional or sustained performance, weapons that can turn the tide of battle."
That sounds an awful lot like killstreaks to me.
>Number of heroes
Considering the fact that we know for certain that the prequel era is not included in the game, we can say that the number of heroes will most likely be lower.

If they do actually have triple the content, they need to hurry up and reveal it already, since they didn't lead out with that I kind of doubt that'll happen. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

No one wanted this much difference, we wanted an improvement on the Battlefront 2 formula and we don't seem to be getting that. People are acting they way they're acting because Battlefront 2 holds a special place in a lot of peoples hearts and minds. When it looks like a developer is using the name of a beloved series for pure brand recognition people are going to be mad, and DICE hasn't exactly been handling it well.



User avatar #170 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
First off, several times you have proved my point of "nothing more than assumptions".
Here:" DICE has only said "more than 8", if they were confident they would have said much more than that. The vagueness of the comment is worrying"
Here:"If we're talking about stuff like Galactic conquest/Instant action/etc. I don't see how that information has been skewed. It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise, if they even will"
I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic "It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise". This is just stupid to put it bluntly, again completely proving the assumption stupidity.

The vehicles bit was said by the author of that article, NOT Dice, NOT EA, but the author. Dice and Ea have already confirmed that the vehicles will be pilot-able (with the exception of AT-Ats) and free to use along the maps. The authors comment was literally just trying to make his writing sound better, they are not going to be killstreaks.

As for AT-ATs, it won't make a difference. Nearly every map that you could rive them in the originals where linear and under constant heavy fire. Putting them on rails isn't going to change anything, they'll still move slowly and in one direction. "Oh no, I can't move slightly to the right or left or sit on top of a base all game."

The game has already been confirmed to include the new sequels to the series, it would be better to assume that there will be NEW heroes from this universe as well.

It won't be the same, the fact that people expected it to be exactly the same is the issue here. It will be a new Battlefront, it will probably be just as fun to play. Dice were not the original developers of the game, they can't go making an exact copy with slight improvements. They are going create a more modern version of the game.

Dice has been handling it fine, the issue is that you have a bunch of nostalgia fags that can't accept that things will change. People seem to forget that many of the people working on this game are huge star wars fans and huge Battlefront fans themselves. That doesn't mean they will make the game exactly the same. Coincidentally, that doesn't automatically make the game bad.
#176 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
>I would also like to point out the flaw in your logic "It's entirely correct to say that the actual number of game modes is lower than that of BF2, until DICE specifies otherwise". This is just stupid to put it bluntly, again completely proving the assumption stupidity.
Why would DICE lead out with cut content? If there truly is this wealth of content that you're assuming is there, why haven't we heard about it yet? Where are the new game modes that'll balance out these cuts? Why should I give DICE the benefit of the doubt? More importantly, why should I give EA the benefit of the doubt? I don't trust these developers/publishers with Battlefront, like most people, so I'm going to assume the worst until they say otherwise. The fact that they still have yet to reveal gameplay does nothing to help ease those worries.

>The vehicles bit was said by the author of that article, NOT Dice, NOT EA, but the author.
Why would an author make something up like that? He wouldn't, there is something that lead him to believe that statement is worthy of including

> Dice and Ea have already confirmed that the vehicles will be pilot-able
Never argued this

> The authors comment was literally just trying to make his writing sound better, they are not going to be killstreaks.
The wording he used was very specific, they are not words someone would use lightly considering how killstreaks can divide a community

>As for AT-ATs, it won't make a difference. Nearly every map that you could rive them in the originals where linear and under constant heavy fire. Putting them on rails isn't going to change anything, they'll still move slowly and in one direction. "Oh no, I can't move slightly to the right or left or sit on top of a base all game."
So, because you experience something one way that means everyone has to experience it the same way? If it was so linear in the old games, then why even put it on rails? Why take control away from the player for no good reason? Why are options a bad thing now?

>The game has already been confirmed to include the new sequels to the series, it would be better to assume that there will be NEW heroes from this universe as well.
Do these new heroes outnumber the old ones? Would it have killed DICE to include the prequel as well and instead of cutting content, build upon the content they already had?

>It won't be the same, the fact that people expected it to be exactly the same is the issue here
Should people not expect a decent chunk of similarities between 2 games in a series? Don't give me the "b-but it's a reboot!" shit, that doesn't excuse it. If someone rebooted the Halo series I would still expect things like Custom Games and Forge to be a part of it because of how integral they are to the experience for me. The same can be said here for the different cut game modes

> It will be a new Battlefront, it will probably be just as fun to play
Nice assumptions you're making there

>They are going create a more modern version of the game.
"Modernization" of games is something that never turns out well, considering 9 times out of 10 the developers just look at the popular trends and follow those.

>Dice has been handling it fine,
Nope, DICE's comments on Reddit have just shown them blatantly ignoring the problems people have with confirmed cut game modes

>the issue is that you have a bunch of nostalgia fags that can't accept that things will change.
Christ, people are okay with change when it is good change. Obviously people don't see cut content and lower scale as good changes, and who could blame them?


>that youtube vide
It's just 11 minutes of Rooster Teeth saying "t-that doesn't matter anyway! Why do you care if it's cut/the scale has been lowered!". It's almost shill-tier level
User avatar #181 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
Whatever you say. You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start. Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.

But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so. Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay. Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
User avatar #188 - nathanbiggs (05/01/2015) [-]
> You have done absolutely nothing to show that you aren't crying over something that you know very little about because it isn't every little thing you wanted from the start
I'm complaining about what we currently know and what we can assume, if my assumption prove incorrect, guess what? I'll admit that I was wrong and move forward happier knowing that I was wrong.

> Here in the real world people wait until they have enough information to actually form an opinion before doing so.
>But if you choose to be mindless because you have yet to grow up, then do so.
There you go again, on your high horse

>Those of us who actually think before throwing a hissy fit will be glad to wait until we see gameplay.
And I've already stated, gameplay can only carry a game so far. It is one of the most important parts, yes, but without everything else the game will fall flat on its face

>Have fun hating life there bud, sure you must be a hoot to be around.
You don't have to hate life to realize that this industry is prone to disappointments.
#185 - fellatio (05/01/2015) [-]
and Ad hominem, great way to win an arguement. use a logical fallacy. They haven't shown us game play unless you go to the link i posted which is just battlefield. I point out what the previous entries into a series had, many different things. Then I point out what has been confimed to be absent from the game. Now if we take a step back and look at this logically we have

BF1 comes out - great game with a bunch of stuff
BF2 comes out - even better with fixes to the game and adds more!
EA confirms 80% of the things in BF2 will not be in the game with 5% to come out as DLC
EA does not publish any gameplay besides pre rendered cutscenes.

So if we know that there is alot missing from the game, and they refuse to publish any gameplay that is not pre rendered.... why shouldn't we point out their bullshit?
User avatar #187 - reaperssprint (05/01/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to win an argument. Nobody can win "this argument" because there is no argument to be had. There is no gameplay of the game and little information released on it. The only thing close argument here is that people like you are nothing more than mindless idiots who have no patience.

Good bye, and good luck trying to make it through life with that brain of yours.
#7 - >Saiyajin  [+] (13 new replies) 04/26/2015 on poor vagina -2
#19 - anonymous (04/27/2015) [-]
That's correct you newfag.
#16 - alexandervascus (04/27/2015) [-]
That's also correct yo

That's why when you talk about super saiyan forms you say. Note the J

In Japan, they say saiyajin, we say saiyan here.

SSJ1 , SSJ2, SSJ3 or SSJ God

User avatar #21 - edgeworthy (04/27/2015) [-]
There are far too few pictures of femboo.
I demand more.
#25 - vegasstoner (04/27/2015) [-]
swigity swooty i brought the majin booty. theres also some pron.
#24 - vegasstoner (04/27/2015) [-]
#34 - oniseiji (04/27/2015) [-]
#23 - vegasstoner (04/27/2015) [-]
#22 - vegasstoner (04/27/2015) [-]
you called????
User avatar #26 - edgeworthy (04/27/2015) [-]
Damn fine. Take my thumbs!
User avatar #15 - leonhardt (04/27/2015) [-]
>It's "Saiyan" in English
#11 - anonymous (04/27/2015) [-]
that's how its called horse-shit
User avatar #10 - mcmxcideath (04/27/2015) [-]
I guess it's the language of the artist, here in Mexico and perhaps everyone where Dragon Ball is in Spanish they do say Saiyajin.
User avatar #28 - hotschurl (04/27/2015) [-]
In German it was Saiyajin too
#25 - I don't give 2 ***** about Half Life 3, so the same sid… 04/25/2015 on RIP modding community +4
#20 - That image will always be retarded no matter how many times it…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/25/2015 on Heists in real life -1
User avatar #21 - unikornking (04/25/2015) [-]
User avatar #24 - evenbiggerfagget (04/25/2015) [-]
holy hell! more FJers need to watch this!
User avatar #25 - unikornking (04/25/2015) [-]
I think it was posted in newest uploads, and people still down thumbed it they're circle jerking so hard
User avatar #26 - evenbiggerfagget (04/25/2015) [-]
it's almost seems like they want an exact copy of Battlefront 2 with newer graphics....
#326 - So maybe some of these changes can be reversed or revised befo… 04/24/2015 on EA has crossed a line 0
#54 - I wish, he only does his good writing when depressed. 04/24/2015 on Evangelion 0
#53 - That's debatable, the movies strip away most of the characteri…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/24/2015 on Evangelion +1
#62 - deadagain (04/24/2015) [-]
I would like to add onto his points by saying this:

In the reboots they made all the animation streamlined. The robots move like people (instead of the lumbering beasts of inertia from the show), and all the characters make regular anime faces, and rarely make any of the pained or panicked faces that made the show so visceral.

But it's definitely a lot prettier than the show. Big hits and big explosions, bigger baddies and more destruction, brighter colours and cleaner animation. So it's definitely good eye candy if you can stomach pretty high amounts of CGI.

The density of unexplained symbolism is also way higher, so if you think that's bullcrap, be prepared for that..

But overall if you liked the show it's not a waste of time, at all.
#52 - No, watch it in release order, plus 25 & 26 are some fanta… 04/24/2015 on Evangelion +1
#16 - >least trash anime >not NGE  [+] (2 new replies) 04/20/2015 on brotherhood -5
User avatar #73 - Kulthozuer (04/20/2015) [-]
Don't care if I get thumbed down, NGE was an amazing anime. (The original last two episodes were trash but wtf are you supposed to do with no budget)
#47 - broswagonist (04/20/2015) [-]

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1500
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #9 - soundofwinter (06/21/2014) [-]
stickied by nathanbiggs
**** you
#13 - jackmaccone (11/01/2014) [-]
hey, sorry to ambush you that hard but i saw in a content that you own a xbox one too.    
 I wanted to ask that you can maybe accept my friends request on xbox so we can play together
hey, sorry to ambush you that hard but i saw in a content that you own a xbox one too.
I wanted to ask that you can maybe accept my friends request on xbox so we can play together
User avatar #14 to #13 - nathanbiggs (11/01/2014) [-]
Yea, why not. What's your gamertag?
User avatar #15 to #14 - jackmaccone (11/01/2014) [-]
JackMaccone
User avatar #16 to #15 - nathanbiggs (11/01/2014) [-]
Alright, I just added you.
#8 - angryturnip (02/05/2012) [-]
**angryturnip rolled a random image posted in comment #560 at Trolling 2 **
**angryturnip rolled a random image posted in comment #560 at Trolling 2 **
#4 - angryturnip (09/14/2011) [-]
**angryturnip rolled a random image** <--- You.
#5 to #4 - angryturnip (09/14/2011) [-]
**angryturnip rolled a random image** That made no sense. Let's try it again.
#3 - angryturnip (09/03/2011) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #2 - igotsunshineinabag (07/09/2011) [-]
its onnnn
User avatar #1 - angryturnip (06/07/2011) [-]
I popped your profile comments cherry, ho.
 Friends (0)