x
Click to expand

streetgoblin

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/05/2013
Last Login:4/25/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3628
Highest Content Rank:#11806
Highest Comment Rank:#3069
Content Thumbs: 7 total,  17 ,  10
Comment Thumbs: 1397 total,  1613 ,  216
Content Level Progress: 18.64% (11/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 209 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 210 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:2457
Total Comments Made:87
FJ Points:1098

latest user's comments

#496 - What a well reflected, intelligent and thought provoking comme… 04/24/2015 on BEFORE YOU BUY IT +1
#69 - I'm a fanboy for offering a different view on the content, eve…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/23/2015 on BEFORE YOU BUY IT +6
#139 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
What happens if everyone expects BF3 to be shit and it turns out good?
Nothing, people buy it because it's good.

What happens if everyone expects to BF3 to be good and it turns out shit?
Assholes like you let EA get away with this bullshit, again, degrading all of gaming as a whole.

Speculation that BF3 will be crap damages nothing.
Insisting that it won't be could harm all of gaming.
#162 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
except that if everyone is saying the game will be shit, it will hurt the sales of the game if it's actually good, because then too much people would be too biased to buy it

in other words, he's saying you don't HAVE to expect anything, you just have to wait and see
#193 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
If we were talking about national news where all sorts of people who don't care enough about gaming to bother finding out about games and just buy whats "cool," you might be right.
But we're not.
We're the type of people (other than morons like #9) who actually look at the game, not the advertising campaign for the game.
We're the type of people who will hear if it's good or if it's bad after launch, and if you don't preorder, you'll make your purchase decision at that point.
#32 - I'm rolling in that EA moneypile, baby! Seriously tho…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/23/2015 on BEFORE YOU BUY IT +6
#245 - yologdogtwo (04/23/2015) [-]
I've stopped buying EA games in general. It's not even about liking or disliking the games at this point. I just want to spite EA.
User avatar #489 - nibblebrsingr (04/24/2015) [-]
GET.IN.THE.FUCKING.ROBOT.SHNJI.
#16 - As i said, i stole it from reddit. I never said i agree with a…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/23/2015 on BEFORE YOU BUY IT +1
#482 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
Everyone chooses to hype over "Overwatch" when blizzard has showed nothing but incompetence for the last few games they make, why should they stop anti-hyping a game from EA when it shows clear signs of being a money grab.

Grow up. There's nothing wrong with assuming that a company that has produced nothing but shit for a long time will produce even more shit.
#19 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
I've been shit on enough times by EA to warrant not shelling out another $60 to them, thank you very much
User avatar #58 - pedocommando (04/23/2015) [-]
If you were stupid enough to buy an EA game at full price/pre-order to begin with then that's your own fault, isn't it m8?
#9 - Before you dismiss it as another one of EAs cashgrabs …  [+] (90 new replies) 04/23/2015 on BEFORE YOU BUY IT +607
#490 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
EA SPORTS SUK THE GAME! you are a fukingg retrd faggot paying by EA
#488 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
Why doi you get so many green thumbs? Are you abitchh oif EA or what?. How anon says, less contect ecah year, and more shitt games. And EA and UBISOFT are the 2 primary companies who do this.

And dont trust reddit. They are all liers.
#496 - streetgoblin (04/24/2015) [-]
What a well reflected, intelligent and thought provoking comment, anon. I am truly devastated, you really rekted me with that comment, and i now bow my head in defeat


#486 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
reddit steals enough shit from other sites anyway
#481 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
Whoever edited this needs to grow up and face the music. Games are getting less content with every release and that's a fact.

The price increasing for the games does not mean anything, the only thing that matters is the product they make.
#478 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
DON'T SHILL MEEEE
User avatar #476 - penalcupcake (04/24/2015) [-]
It should also be noted that this game is a reboot to the franchise. Meaning it's essentially a modernized version of the first Battlefront. Also it's not a wise business choice to essentially throw every feature from Battlefront 2, make it all bigger and better, tons more maps, modern graphics/engine, new game modes, etc and throw it all in to a single game. It leaves no room for a sequel.
#474 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
that's kind of a bullshit argument, mentioned there at least 3 times.

Games are much more expensive to make. Prices remained more or less.

ok, games are more complex, hence require bigger personell, hence bigger expenses.. but then again the amount of players have quadrupled. Developers know very well that they will earn more than enough, so the expenses are relative.
I REALLY don't care about your childish game comparison, but the argument you put against is still flawed.

People should not fall for the hype culture, but also should not fall for the opposide, and should not fall for the flawed anti-opposite hype culture argumentation as well.
#443 - paraigon (04/24/2015) [-]
>Galactic Conquest
>Barely worth complaining
I had so much fun conquering worlds as the different factions. It was the go to game-type when you completed the campaign. But now there is no campaign nor GC.
#431 - xexion (04/24/2015) [-]
>BF1/2 maps were empty/basic because they 10 years ago.
>Counterstrike isn't a large-scale fps, and look how well Titanfall kept an audience. Planetside 2's large fights go well into the hundreds of players on terribly designed areas and still allow tactics and fun.
>Space battles were fun, dogfighting in no man's land with boarding and external fire ways to kill ships systems. More vertical area means either the air game won't be relevant to the ground game or they'll be just a way to blow ground into oblivion
>Mods don't open the way to cheating.
>"Games are more expensive to make now"
You mean ad budgets for games that advertise themselves are half your budget now.
Also EA has money.
>BF1/2 campaign wasn't anything special but look what cutting campaigns did to Titanfall
>"Heroes all played very similarly"
Confirmed not played BF1/2
>"BF3 Only classic"
EA has more money. Overlap in lore and timing allows reuse of assets, a few more guns and new character models is nothing
>"Games = far more expensive"
EA has more money. Maybe stop doing these stupid multi-million dollar ad budgets. It's fucking Star Wars. It sells itself.
#348 - lennylorenzo (04/24/2015) [-]
Hi EA, how's your profits?
User avatar #333 - gammajk (04/24/2015) [-]
No, I'm sorry, but no galactic conquest and no campaign is not a minor issue.
#313 - frydaexiii (04/24/2015) [-]
I'm all for giving EA and this game the benefit of doubt here, but EA has screwed gamers over so many times the past few years, that it's almost expected that they would screw gamers over for this game as well.

Think of it this way, there's a group of 5 defenseless old ladies walking on the street. Suddenly this asshole pops out and starts beating the crap out of 4 of them 1 by 1. When he eventually gets to the 5th, would your expectation be that

1) He would walk her home like a gentlemen, offer to buy her groceries and cook dinner for her while talking about her grandchildren.
OR
2) Beat the crap out of her too.




#283 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
this is an advanced sophisticated shilling

shilling evolved
#268 - beadvised (04/24/2015) [-]
THANK YOU
#250 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
it as another one of EAs cashgrabs. Everyone know it except retards.
#249 - inkydot (04/23/2015) [-]
Doesn't mean we shouldn't be preparing for a shameless cash grab though
User avatar #247 - evildeveloper (04/23/2015) [-]
Still even more shitty than BF2
#236 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
>Modding = hacking

Are you fucking kidding me?
User avatar #235 - romuloid (04/23/2015) [-]
For once, I'm not hopping on the hate EA bandwaggon. I'm staying in my neutral wagon until we get gameplay.
User avatar #425 - moldybreadcrumb (04/24/2015) [-]
Just don't wind up like the Donner Party
User avatar #191 - marcuss (04/23/2015) [-]
if you wanted a steak with potatoes but only got a potato looking like a steak "well duh there are both in one!" the fucking potato is still just a fucking potato
User avatar #185 - hejhag (04/23/2015) [-]
Thank you. This over cynical view of games nowadays is fucking annoying. Not that you should trust EA, but gamers do this with EVERY FUCKING GAME NOW. I really hate that half of the fucking reactions to a new trailer for a game coming out is people saying how much it will suck based on some random stupid factor that has absolutely no basis.
#447 - elaxx (04/24/2015) [-]
I would rather say it will suck and then get pleasantly surprised than be overhyped and get massively disappointed. Besides, it's EA. We've had just too many fuck-ups from them to expect a difference.
#177 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
That's some shilling right there
#160 - akkere (04/23/2015) [-]
Battlefront 1 had vivid interior maps that referenced the films perfectly at the same time; same with Battlefront 2.

>Space Maps are empty and identical
It's like this guy has never played Battlefront outside of singleplayer. Yeah, they were identical, but they sure as shit weren't empty. This guy talks about 64v64 not being proper for games like Titan Fall but conveniently leaves it out of the situation like space battles where the films featured battles of numerous troops on both sides.

>Moddable inevitably leads to hacking
The only time it leads to hacking is when developers can't get their shit together to make sure no exploits are left open. This is how Valve has juggled moddability and maintained a firm security system, with a strong "banned from our servers for the life of the account" to add to it. Was this written by an EA PR guy?

>Game has replayable missions
On the numerous variety of four whole planets. You know why Battlefront 2's campaign excelled? Because it allowed you to explore a great deal of planets and see it from the eyes of the underdogs - the troopers themselves.

>Galactic Conquest isn't a big loss
Galactic Conquest would've been the only thing that would make replayable missions worth noting in conjunction with the campaign.

Whoever made this rebuttal post missed the entire point of a Star Wars game on the caliber of Battlefront. It allowed you to explore numerous planets that were seen in the films, and get a taste of the best of all six films in Star Wars' preferred setting; a battlefield. Limiting you to just one era and four planets, it's obvious DICE missed the point of that.

I appreciate the post's core sentiment of "keep an open mind", but this is distressing. And trying to defend it by saying "YEAH WELL, SPACE BATTLES WEREN'T THAT GREAT ANYWAY" and "MAN, WHO NEEDS MASSIVE BATTLEFIELDS IN A GAME ABOUT A SERIES THAT FEATURES MASSIVE BATTLEFIELDS" and "MODS LEAD TO HACKING EVENTUALLY" is just bullshit.
User avatar #395 - ugoboom (04/24/2015) [-]
Yup, >>#9 is full of shit. This game is going to be shit tier. Guys, go buy the old game on steam.
User avatar #408 - akkere (04/24/2015) [-]
I don't blame streetgoblin himself for playing the devil's advocate and trying to cool the anti-hype, but the post itself (which wasn't written by him as he's pointed out but still sponsored regardless) is an absolute travesty.
It's one thing to calmly assess and rationalize a poor development with an objective comparison, but that's just simply not what this post was. Most of it was just "Bah, this feature wasn't even that great" and constant implications that because they're providing less content, it MUST be higher quality. This post is ignoring what made Battlefront not only a phenomenal Star Wars game but a fantastic original game in of itself, for the sake of what exactly?

And maybe this anti-hype isn't bad thing either. We have no idea if EA/DICE are making these drastic cuts of content to abide by time, or if they legitimately considered only doing a half-finished product. Developing negative PR would force them to ensure they respect the model the previous Battlefronts set.
EA's used up it's right to a benefit of the doubt just as it abused pre-order hype for countless titles. It's high time they start to feel the effects of that and feel compelled to do something legitimately in the interests of their consumers. I can only hope they hear the outcry and set further plans in motion to give the complete "Battlefront" we've all waited for.
User avatar #262 - onemoreminute (04/24/2015) [-]
This shit right here.
User avatar #154 - Maroon (04/23/2015) [-]
"People should not fall for the hype culture"
That's literally what you're doing by assuming it will be a good game while simultaneously not holding the publisher to any standards and reinforcing their shitty business practices.
User avatar #166 - warvolk (04/23/2015) [-]
Read the line next to that

All he's saying is that you shouldn't assume it's a bad or a good game simply because it's made by EA

He never said it will be a good game, he is just calling bullshit on the lies that the original chart was spreading
User avatar #172 - Maroon (04/23/2015) [-]
That chart was made because EA has proven time and again that they will fuck you any way they please. Whoever made the edited chart is a fucking idiot. EA doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.
User avatar #175 - warvolk (04/23/2015) [-]
The chart was also made with lies

EA Is a terrible publisher, but I can trust that DICE can make an entertaining game
User avatar #411 - akkere (04/24/2015) [-]
An entertaining game, certainly.
But can they make a "Star Wars" game?
Even if you go by this updated chart, it's not hard to see that the way it stands now, BF3 just simply lacks every quality that made Battlefront/Star Wars great.
Varied worlds, massive multiplayer space battles, these are things that made Star Wars fantastic. How can they even justify land-based battles when they omit the prequel era, where the Republic Gunship ran wild in the first Battlefront and made for risky yet highly tactical troop movements. Why not model missions based on Galactic Conquest in a similar manner that you could arrange tasks in Empire of War?

When you go out of the way to gut out key essences to the series, you might as well have not made a sequel for the series at all. I'm sure whatever DICE puts out will be fun for all of a week, but then that'll be that. It won't have that same thrill or longevity that the Battlefront games gave out if they maintain this.
User avatar #179 - Maroon (04/23/2015) [-]
DICE make what they are told to make. Anything they include as part of the game can be cut out and sold as DLC instead by EA. They wouldn't be the first studio blamed for a shitty game when it was the publishers fault.
User avatar #340 - yusay (04/24/2015) [-]
You're ignoring the fact that the original chart is full of blatant lies and misinformation, much of it being confirmed as false by devs.
User avatar #150 - psykojet (04/23/2015) [-]
>Number of maps
Quality > Quantity. However, the EA maps will more than likely be based on the battlefield style, where each map has a different section for each game mode.

>Number of Players
Depends on the style, if it's like Hardline online, it will be decent

>Space Battles
That's horse shit and you know it. The space battles offered endless fun even after playing the same ones for years on end.

>Moddable
It depends on the community to be honest

>DLC
It's EA, there will be paid DLC

>Campaign
Eh... Fair point

>Galactic Conquest
That's horse shit as well. It offered more of a strategic style of play to the Instant Action instead of load up and fire

>Instant Action
Instant Action is load up against a team of NPCs and have fun, they want to push online only. Not the same thing

>Infantry Types
We will just have to wait and see how it works out

>Vehicle Types
Again, wait and see

>AI Players
Depends on which modes

>Playable eras
Yeah, I only played classic eras anyways, just opens up some memory on the disk or PC

>Release Date
It's with the movie? And you have to give them time, wen do they want it? Now?

Overall, some points made, others still stand.
User avatar #238 - yugiohkris (04/23/2015) [-]
Well plants vs zombies garden warfare has been out for a year and both the dlcs are free.
#115 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
calling space maps 'empty and identical' is just stupid, space battles were one of my favorite parts of the game
User avatar #182 - oceanfrank (04/23/2015) [-]
he said the maps were empty and identical
#114 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
That has some of the stupidest points I've ever read.
User avatar #110 - lwlarcopolio (04/23/2015) [-]
Saw this post on Reddit, and it's bullshit. It is pure apologist bullshit that states less is more, which is just not true. No space battles and less players is a good thing? No mods because cheating and we wouldn't know how to use the vehicles anyways? It's retarded
User avatar #116 - mgsexplain (04/23/2015) [-]
I don't get why everybody cares so much that they're no space battles, we'll still have AIR battles, and I'm not saying that the game will be incredible, but does the fact that its in space really make THAT much of a difference?
User avatar #427 - altairibnlaahad (04/24/2015) [-]
Yes, yes it does.
User avatar #119 - lwlarcopolio (04/23/2015) [-]
I only played a bit of Battlefront 2, but there was a map with 2 docking bays, you would spawn in one, and fly the vehicles and attack the other side. It was easily my favourite part of the game, so it's a shame it's gone. I personally don't care, but this post is saying that "Oh it's ok that they took out all of this content because...... durrr" The argument is beyond stupid. I hope the game turns out amazing, and I know that whoever made this feels the same, but their arguments are retarded.
User avatar #128 - mgsexplain (04/23/2015) [-]
This dude's aregument is stupid, and dont get me wrong I loved space battles too, but I dont think its such a big deal.
User avatar #108 - lolgonewrong (04/23/2015) [-]
Tl:dr
would you rather have 10 copper shits or 5 diamond shits
User avatar #88 - mrblueftw (04/23/2015) [-]
some things are right on that
but the comment on modding gave me cancer.
#82 - draaaaiven (04/23/2015) [-]
This is the exact same thing with blood borne and dark souls. BB has a lot less weapons but there are way less same or even identical designs. Quantity is good, quality is superior.
User avatar #258 - srskate (04/24/2015) [-]
It is significantly different. This isn't as simple as fewer weapons, this is whole swaths of content cut out.Content that people really liked. It's like if bloodborne took out multiplayer.
#494 - draaaaiven (04/24/2015) [-]
But Bloodborne basicly did take out multiplayer.
User avatar #81 - dasi (04/23/2015) [-]
I applaud you for adding this. Thumb for you.
#67 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
Found the EA fanboy.

If you preorder BF3, you're still an idiot.
User avatar #69 - streetgoblin (04/23/2015) [-]
I'm a fanboy for offering a different view on the content, even stating that i took it from reddit and that it isn't mine?

Also, both the picture i posted and my comment #32 clearly states you shouldn't pre-order it
#139 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
What happens if everyone expects BF3 to be shit and it turns out good?
Nothing, people buy it because it's good.

What happens if everyone expects to BF3 to be good and it turns out shit?
Assholes like you let EA get away with this bullshit, again, degrading all of gaming as a whole.

Speculation that BF3 will be crap damages nothing.
Insisting that it won't be could harm all of gaming.
#162 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
except that if everyone is saying the game will be shit, it will hurt the sales of the game if it's actually good, because then too much people would be too biased to buy it

in other words, he's saying you don't HAVE to expect anything, you just have to wait and see
#193 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
If we were talking about national news where all sorts of people who don't care enough about gaming to bother finding out about games and just buy whats "cool," you might be right.
But we're not.
We're the type of people (other than morons like #9) who actually look at the game, not the advertising campaign for the game.
We're the type of people who will hear if it's good or if it's bad after launch, and if you don't preorder, you'll make your purchase decision at that point.
User avatar #60 - kompel (04/23/2015) [-]
No mods does not equal less cheating.
User avatar #91 - psykobear (04/23/2015) [-]
Well, using statistics, nothing about no mods would lead to less cheating, and it's highly unlikely that the same amount of cheating would occur, so there will be less cheating, but such a small amount less it's irrelevant. I'm on your side, but for different reasons.
User avatar #491 - kompel (04/24/2015) [-]
It's like saying security by obscurity is a good thing, which it is not.
User avatar #507 - psykobear (04/24/2015) [-]
No, it's just saying that there are cases in which the ability to mod a game led to someone using the ability to cheat. I'm sure there are such cases. It doesn't justify not allowing mods, and it's shitty to not allow them, but you can't just deny that there is no one ever who uses modding as a way to cheat.
User avatar #53 - nanako (04/23/2015) [-]
Fucking bullshit.

The number 1 thing i have to dismiss as a game developer, is this notion that "games are more expensive now"

No, they are not. They are cheaper and cheaper, content is developed for mass markets, systems you once had to spend thousands on creating are now available in free engines and opensource libraries. Standards have been improved across all platforms to make porting easier. Literally every facet of development gets cheaper all thge time.

The only reason game budgets keep going up is because developers keep CHOOSING to keep driving up content to sometimes silly levels, and to spend large amounts on things that have relatively little impact on a game, like licensed music, celebriy voice acting, overelaborate set pieces and action cutscenes.

This is like saying that spacraft and planes are getting heavier. When they're actually getting lighter as we discover better materials and minimise systems. i's a false dichotomy
#485 - wingeddemon (04/24/2015) [-]
You said you were indie, things cost differently from indie to a huge company. And where are the free engines, I mean there is unreal and cry, but those are free*. Cry you pay monthly, and unreal you have to sell royalties, which is alot, depending on success of game. I get your a game developer, I am up and rising too, Been going to DigiPen for a couple of years now, I understand how a portion of the industry works.

But any ways, on to some marketing. Inflation cost man, you look at a game, and their budget, years ago, adjust for inflation, and you will see it cost much less.

Example:

Games from 16-bit ERA cost : 50k - 300k, with inflation that is 117k - 706k
Games from N64 ERA cost : 1m - 3m, with inflation that is 1.5m - 4.5m
Games from Game Cube ERA cost : 3m - 6m, with inflation that is 4m - 8m
Games from Xbox360, (2006) ERA cost : 7m - 10m, with inflation that is 8.1m - 11.5m
Games from Xbox360, (2008) ERA cost : 12 m - 15m, with inflation that is 13m - 16.5m
NOW Games cost around : 17m- 20m

and this is mostly AAA games, not indie.
So this is the cost of games, budgets keep increasing, because games are expensive to make, even for indie. But it is weird because in the past 30 years games have not gone up in prices. Actually I am kinda wrong, 30 years ago games cost 50 dollars, and now they cost 60, when reall the inflation rate demand them to cost around 110 dollars.
But that is insane no one would buy games if they cost 110 dollars, but what if they made DLC, where people who have the money, and want to spend it, can. DLC that doesn't make a pay to win bases is fair to me.

Here are my sources if you want to check them out

inflation calculator : data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=50&year1=1986&year2=2015


Mostly console stuff : www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power


About video game average prices : arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/why-retail-console-games-have-never-been-cheaper-historically/


about how game prices are less expensive : arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time/


The cost of making a game : vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_costs


Article on game inflation : www.joshuakennon.com/video-games-may-seem-more-expensive-but-they-arent-its-all-in-your-head/


I have more but for time sake, I am not pulling this out of my ass.
User avatar #502 - nanako (04/24/2015) [-]
Some things do, various engines take percentage fees, but that's a decrease in profits, not an upfront cost.

Various content markets will often charge higher prices for mass-marketing licenses, however a serious large scale company should be making their own stuff inhouse with artists on annual contracts

You're very correct that prices haven't risen due to inflation, but i would question two factors:

1. The assertion that they were fair to begin with. I remember street fighter 2 with a £70 pricetag. I'd argue that games of the past were often cashing in on what used to be an easy and sparsely populated market.

2. The economy of scale. The same reason walmart sells everyhing cheap. The industry is many orders of magnitude larger than it used to be, and game development is an industry with until recently, a moderately low overhead cost (disk manufacturing, store shelf space) which has now dropped to virtually nil as a result of digital distribution platforms.

The fact that AAA titles are still being churned out, and that companies like ubisoft are still solvent and able to blow absurd amounts of cash, indicates that things are working. The market has adapted to a fixed pricepoint by increasing efficiency, removing overheads, lowering costs of production, and scaling up massively
#432 - xexion (04/24/2015) [-]
Don't forget stupidly huge ad campaigns.
User avatar #74 - drldrl (04/23/2015) [-]
What company do you work for exactly?
User avatar #77 - nanako (04/23/2015) [-]
I'm currently Senior programmer, and i guess defacto technical director of a small 3 person indie studio, we don't have a name yet.
User avatar #79 - drldrl (04/23/2015) [-]
Oh? So you don't work for a huge company with hundreds of people that need to be payed?
The cost of the game design isn't all there is man. There's hundreds of people that work on these that need to be payed for years while they do so, and they aren't turning out a profit while being paid.
User avatar #132 - pippen (04/23/2015) [-]
Whos to say having hundreds of people who are payed for years make a good game anyway? Like shit do you see Cities: Skylines, that game had a very small development team and a little push from their publishers and they sold millions on their first day of sale.

Big work team does not equal good game or good time to money income.

User avatar #96 - nanako (04/23/2015) [-]
yes of course, but that's just a proxy cost. When you don't demand action set pieces for example, you could cut out several of your animators. You only employ people to do things you need done, and you need them because you chose to include them.

I'll bet you 5 bucks that this new battlefront will have a massive, complex, lovingly rendered CGI intro of big battles and jedis jumping around, Those things take lots of animators doing lots of things. EA will always spend a shitload on unnecessary presentation that adds nothing to gameplay
#37 - gangbangtime (04/23/2015) [-]
Alright, lets look over this.

BF1 came out in 2004. It's maps were bretty gud. This is 2004, by the way, having a fully fleshed out extremely detailed map wasn't expected, and they were already quite lively.
Bf2 came out in 2004, same deal, although the maps were much better and numerous.

Battlefront and star wars in general is about massive fucking battles. They were designed that way, meant to be played that way, not in some squad-based combat sort of way. More =/= better
But 20v20? 4v4 in some gamemodes? Oh fuck the fuck off, just make it 32v32 ATLEAST, maybe even 64v64 if possible. Massive battles are what made the previous games feel so epic.

>Why not add in space battles anyways though?
>Because it'll be sold back as DLC, or they rushed it.
Space battles back then were fairly empty, but were pretty amazing considering you could fly around, smash some dudes, and then dock in their base and fuck up their shit. But yeah, they needed polishing, fixing, expansions even. Not removal. Not to be left alone either.

Yeah, no. This is why you don't listen to /r/circlejerk. Stay skeptical and doubt everything. At worst, your expectations are met and you get to say "I told you so you fools", at best, your pleasantly surprised and get a good game.

What? Game prices are ridiculous nowadays. even EA used to say they were too pricey. And you bet your ass DLC is coming, and you will pay for it. But I bet they're not total idiots, and will wait till they have enough shills.

Indeed, but this misses the fine point. The campaign back then was shit. The game wasn't focused on campaign either, but it was still existant, had scripting, and wasn't awful or anything. Now there is none. Why?

Galactic conquest was cool, had some fun stuff, plus fighting in open space and wrecking the AI.

No instant action on your own lol.

Classes gave variety and roles. Engineers engineered, Troopers trooper'd, and droidekas were OP as fuck. Goodbye variety. And the heroes were pretty different, actually.

On rails shitty AT-AT, eitherway. Press F to pay respects.

Source?

Now games = Far more overpriced, more DLC bullshit, shittier game market. If they were that much more expensive, we'd be seeing a serious crash, not this garbage.


Battlefront 3 will not be terrible. It will just be like any other EA game. So, terribly overpriced with half-assed gameplay.

Nobody asked for this, nobody wanted Battlefield: Lasers pack. I just wanted the old games made new, expanded upon, fixed and polished. But nah, fuck that and fuck EA.
User avatar #164 - shieeetposter (04/23/2015) [-]
>everyone is stuck with loadouts and can't stick with preset classes
>goodbye variety

We don't know the scale of how much we can customize your loadout, but I'm pretty sure that a bunch of combos in your loadout would beat classes, as you don't know what you will expect in the next game. In BF2, you knew it will be a ton of Rebel soldiers and vanguards, with snipers hanging in the back (not really since AI is retarded) , a couple of wookies and spies merging with your allies. In BF3, you might see a sniper who can take out tanks with his rocket, or an engineer-oriented loadout with a sub machine gun.
#392 - gangbangtime (04/24/2015) [-]
Because every class will be relatively the same with the exact same hitboxes. Then again, that was probably gonna be around eitherway, since no Clone wars. I always liked how super battle droids, droidekas, and the special units of each race had a different hitbox instead of being retarded.
#33 - ygdosst (04/23/2015) [-]
>Less content is better because because it makes it more interesting
>Who wants to fight in space in a fucking Sci-fi game?
>Modern Vidya Players don't care about teamwork or cooperation
>This is somehow a good thing
>Who fucking cares about the former fans?
>Anyone who doesn't love a company that has PROVEN to be abusive and malicious to their consumers, and has bought and destroyed MANY, MANY companies and franchises in the past, is only being a hipster

Yep, sounds like reddit alright...
It's simply the nature of a hugbox.
>Guy has a big enough ego to attach his name, as if anyone cares
>"Fixed" by, further displaying his impotent ego

These are all mostly baseless anger and an attempt to reaffirm themselves that they're not stupid for getting hyped for something when EVERY SINGLE TIME in the past that a franchise has gone down this EXACT path and pattern, it's been shit and destroyed.

Let go of your denial, be a smart consumer and DON'T FUCKING PRE-ORDER IT.
Actually see what you're buying before you fucking buy it.
#339 - idlizard (04/24/2015) [-]
Every time I see that picture, I'm sad that Nox isn't listed under Westwood. That was the first RPG I ever played and it was awesome. I still have the disk kicking around somewhere, but it won't run on my new computer.
#317 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
"These are all mostly baseless anger and an attempt to reaffirm themselves that they're not stupid for getting hyped for something when EVERY SINGLE TIME in the past that a franchise has gone down this EXACT path and pattern, it's been **** and destroyed. "

couldnt have worded it better, gold fucking star for you sir.
#87 - draaaaiven has deleted their comment.
#29 - flnonymousseven (04/23/2015) [-]
so when does your check get in?
#32 - streetgoblin (04/23/2015) [-]
I'm rolling in that EA moneypile, baby!

Seriously though, i know it's popular to hate EA, and with good reason I fucking hate them myself but i don't think people should be too quick to dismiss a game based on so little information, it's just a big circlejerk.

That being said, i understand why people are skeptic, as EA would start world war 3 if it means they'll make money from it, and they are undeniably the worst publisher in the world

TL;DR Ea sucks, we know too little about the game as of right now to say wether it's worth buying or not. Just for the love of god do not pre-order it
#245 - yologdogtwo (04/23/2015) [-]
I've stopped buying EA games in general. It's not even about liking or disliking the games at this point. I just want to spite EA.
User avatar #489 - nibblebrsingr (04/24/2015) [-]
GET.IN.THE.FUCKING.ROBOT.SHNJI.
#21 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
A lot of the stuff under notes is just excuses/opinion though. The person who made this is basically saying "it wasn't that good in the previous games, therefore cut them out", which is stupid. Just because it wasn't as good in the previous games doesn't mean people still didn't enjoy them. This is next gen and a sequel, those features should have been included and improved upon, which is what people were expecting. This whole "games are harder to develop" should not be an excuse.
User avatar #44 - scorcho (04/23/2015) [-]
doesn't change the fact that the original chart was overly biased and unfactual.
>only two heroes
Like, where did you get that information? From the trailer? Because we only saw vader and boba? Do you think the rebels wont get heroes or what?
#15 - biebergotswag (04/23/2015) [-]
found the EA employee.

seriously through, being moddable doesnot mean that it is open to cheating, since the solution is quite simply to not allow match making with people with incompatible games. the real reason to not allow mods is that it generates pretty much free content, which will prevent the game developer to release small sized dlcs, and limit them to larger sized dlcs such as in skyrim's case generally not very profitable .
User avatar #14 - rainbowisbestpone (04/23/2015) [-]
no mods = much less cheating
Top fucking kek. I stopped reading after it.

I played more than thousand hours of CoD UO and 4 and I have seem less cheaters than in one game of MW3. Servers that users can host and manage means much less cheating.
User avatar #30 - alcoholandthc (04/23/2015) [-]
what servers do you play on? i go by [EW]DiCE mostly play on {RA} server now

User avatar #16 - streetgoblin (04/23/2015) [-]
As i said, i stole it from reddit. I never said i agree with all of it, though i agree with some of it.

The point is that people are way to quick to judge a game they haven't played. We should wait until someone actually gets their hand on this game and listen to their feedback before joining the circlejerk
#482 - fefe (04/24/2015) [-]
Everyone chooses to hype over "Overwatch" when blizzard has showed nothing but incompetence for the last few games they make, why should they stop anti-hyping a game from EA when it shows clear signs of being a money grab.

Grow up. There's nothing wrong with assuming that a company that has produced nothing but shit for a long time will produce even more shit.
#19 - fefe (04/23/2015) [-]
I've been shit on enough times by EA to warrant not shelling out another $60 to them, thank you very much
User avatar #58 - pedocommando (04/23/2015) [-]
If you were stupid enough to buy an EA game at full price/pre-order to begin with then that's your own fault, isn't it m8?
#152 - I have tried it both with 1 legit, 1 pirated, and with 2 pirat…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/10/2015 on Leave em for the radroaches 0
User avatar #153 - amusingusername (04/10/2015) [-]
It might be something to do with incorrect file paths that were modified for cracked versions since as far as I know apart from Steam neither FO3 nor New Vegas have any kind of DRM. Might be a case of simply having to look for a different pirate release.
#147 - In my experience you must have legit copies with all DLC for b…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/09/2015 on Leave em for the radroaches 0
User avatar #151 - amusingusername (04/10/2015) [-]
Have you failed to use it with pirated copies at some point? I've got it to work with pirated copies of both games. I'm aware of what the mod developers say on their page about it not working with pirated copies I'm not sure if they say it just to discourage piracy of the game or if there are truly some cracked versions of the game that do not work with this since I have never failed to install it.

Alternatively you can try to buy a copy of whichever you need with all the DLC for a pretty good price as long as you keep an eye out for sales as I did eventually.

Notification for the interested: spoperman
User avatar #152 - streetgoblin (04/10/2015) [-]
I have tried it both with 1 legit, 1 pirated, and with 2 pirated. Couldn't get it to work. It worked for me right away with 2 legit copies

It probably works with pirated copies, but i haven't been able to get it working myself
User avatar #153 - amusingusername (04/10/2015) [-]
It might be something to do with incorrect file paths that were modified for cracked versions since as far as I know apart from Steam neither FO3 nor New Vegas have any kind of DRM. Might be a case of simply having to look for a different pirate release.
User avatar #148 - spoperman (04/09/2015) [-]
Thanx anyway m80.
#91 - You have to play for a while to really get into to story (at l… 04/09/2015 on Leave em for the radroaches 0
#23 - A tale of two wastelands master race  [+] (11 new replies) 04/08/2015 on Leave em for the radroaches +61
User avatar #135 - spoperman (04/09/2015) [-]
how to get working with Real FO3 and pirated NV?
User avatar #147 - streetgoblin (04/09/2015) [-]
In my experience you must have legit copies with all DLC for both games in order for the mod to work, i don't think it works with pirated copies.
User avatar #151 - amusingusername (04/10/2015) [-]
Have you failed to use it with pirated copies at some point? I've got it to work with pirated copies of both games. I'm aware of what the mod developers say on their page about it not working with pirated copies I'm not sure if they say it just to discourage piracy of the game or if there are truly some cracked versions of the game that do not work with this since I have never failed to install it.

Alternatively you can try to buy a copy of whichever you need with all the DLC for a pretty good price as long as you keep an eye out for sales as I did eventually.

Notification for the interested: spoperman
User avatar #152 - streetgoblin (04/10/2015) [-]
I have tried it both with 1 legit, 1 pirated, and with 2 pirated. Couldn't get it to work. It worked for me right away with 2 legit copies

It probably works with pirated copies, but i haven't been able to get it working myself
User avatar #153 - amusingusername (04/10/2015) [-]
It might be something to do with incorrect file paths that were modified for cracked versions since as far as I know apart from Steam neither FO3 nor New Vegas have any kind of DRM. Might be a case of simply having to look for a different pirate release.
User avatar #148 - spoperman (04/09/2015) [-]
Thanx anyway m80.
#89 - fefe (04/09/2015) [-]
I bought both games expecting something really fun, but I just couldn´t get into either of the games, especially New Vegas. It just seemed so slow with an uninteresting world and characters. I really like the Elder scroll style game but with guns and stuff, but I just lost interest. Am i doing something wrong? Does it take longer for the story to really get exciting or is it just not a game for me?
User avatar #94 - medxforme (04/09/2015) [-]
I tihnk that New Vegas can end up being really really dry at points. But for 3 I loved the whole game. It never really got boring until I maxed out my character. Honestly in 3 you just have to find some of the more interesting quests, like The Superhuman Gambit. Also explore interesting places like the Republic of Dave, Oasis, Little Lamplight, etc..
User avatar #91 - streetgoblin (04/09/2015) [-]
You have to play for a while to really get into to story (at least i had to), but not everyone can like every game

Have you given Far Cry 3 or 4 a try? Highly reccomended, 7.8/10 like Skyrim with guns
User avatar #65 - lordneoify (04/09/2015) [-]
God I love having both worlds in one. The fucking train station quest to gain access to NV is a nightmare
User avatar #29 - loopymoomoo (04/08/2015) [-]
Glorious tale of two wastelands master race reporting in!
#45 - Like this.  [+] (1 new reply) 01/25/2015 on Unnatural (Top LEL) +39
#65 - theshrekening (01/26/2015) [-]
[ 87 Total ]

user's friends

User avatar petterloco    

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)