Re: Lol umad bro??

CkSned Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:24 pm

CHAMIKA wrote:
CkSned wrote:Reach plays different from any other halo game due to the changes in the health system, the weapons/weapon bloom, spartan traits such as their speed/jump height and Armour Abilities change the game a huge amount by themselves.

What in this call of duty has changed the way it plays from previous games ?

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Halo 3s gameplay had nothing wrong with it, and the change that bungie made wasn't much of an improvement at all.

Black Ops now in multiplayer has character customization (More than in Reach I might add), Danger Close, and Commando have been taken out, a timer to prevent cross map noob tubing, and because of Treyarchs effort, the overall community abuse of in-game facilities is virtually non-existent. This makes for less frustration.

For a company that has a development team large enough to found a small country, Bungie really didn't do much to improve on Halo 3 over a course of 2 years.

Character customization doesn't make the game any better, it doesn't make it play any different from another cod game. Removing stuff from MW2 isn't anything drastic either. Its stuff that should have been done in a patch by IW rather than in a new game.

Treyarch do put effort into their games, sure. But again its still another cod. They do listen to their community and fix glitches bugs very quickly. But bungie does that just as much if not more, considering they have updated the game pretty much every month since it has been out and are already brining out map packs.

Talking about bungie not improving on halo 3 over the course of two years when it was out totally contradicts what you said yourself. If it aint broke dont fix it. Bungie never did change the gameplay of halo 3 drastically through updates, they changed playlist ect.

CHAMIKA Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:42 pm

CkSned wrote:
CHAMIKA wrote:
CkSned wrote:Reach plays different from any other halo game due to the changes in the health system, the weapons/weapon bloom, spartan traits such as their speed/jump height and Armour Abilities change the game a huge amount by themselves.

What in this call of duty has changed the way it plays from previous games ?

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Halo 3s gameplay had nothing wrong with it, and the change that bungie made wasn't much of an improvement at all.

Black Ops now in multiplayer has character customization (More than in Reach I might add), Danger Close, and Commando have been taken out, a timer to prevent cross map noob tubing, and because of Treyarchs effort, the overall community abuse of in-game facilities is virtually non-existent. This makes for less frustration.

For a company that has a development team large enough to found a small country, Bungie really didn't do much to improve on Halo 3 over a course of 2 years.

Character customization doesn't make the game any better, it doesn't make it play any different from another cod game. Removing stuff from MW2 isn't anything drastic either. Its stuff that should have been done in a patch by IW rather than in a new game.

Treyarch do put effort into their games, sure. But again its still another cod. They do listen to their community and fix glitches bugs very quickly. But bungie does that just as much if not more, considering they have updated the game pretty much every month since it has been out and are already brining out map packs.

Talking about bungie not improving on halo 3 over the course of two years when it was out totally contradicts what you said yourself. If it aint broke dont fix it. Bungie never did change the gameplay of halo 3 drastically through updates, they changed playlist ect.

About those maps, Bungie most likely premade those maps before launch just to sell it to us later. They are also probably going to make it so that matchmaking is extremely limited to those without the maps. They've done this so many times, and all of the tools keep falling for it (Not to say that I haven't been guilty of this).

And I meant the change from Halo 3 to Halo Reach. If they made such drastic changes from Halo 3 to Halo Reach, then I would imagine that it's not a Halo game anymore, but it is. You would say that it's just another Halo game. So what you just said just contradicted what you also said before with Halo Reach having drastic changes. Halo 3 wasn't broken, but Bungie insisted on "fixing" it. With Halo Reach by "changing it drastically". Since Halo Reach is totally not Halo 3 with a new paint-job can you point out why?

The reason why Black Ops is just another Call of Duty game is because it's a Call of Duty game. Also, Treyarch and IW are different companies which share the same engine. One is not responsible for the actions of the other.

Halo might be set in the future but Call of Duty is the future.

CkSned Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:13 pm

CHAMIKA wrote:

About those maps, Bungie most likely premade those maps before launch just to sell it to us later. They are also probably going to make it so that matchmaking is extremely limited to those without the maps. They've done this so many times, and all of the tools keep falling for it (Not to say that I haven't been guilty of this).

And I meant the change from Halo 3 to Halo Reach. If they made such drastic changes from Halo 3 to Halo Reach, then I would imagine that it's not a Halo game anymore, but it is. You would say that it's just another Halo game. So what you just said just contradicted what you also said before with Halo Reach having drastic changes. Halo 3 wasn't broken, but Bungie insisted on "fixing" it. With Halo Reach by "changing it drastically". Since Halo Reach is totally not Halo 3 with a new paint-job can you point out why?

The reason why Black Ops is just another Call of Duty game is because it's a Call of Duty game. Also, Treyarch and IW are different companies which share the same engine. One is not responsible for the actions of the other.

Halo might be set in the future but Call of Duty is the future.

I read over this like 4 times and the majority of it made no sense.

Bungie did make pretty drastic changes to the gameplay in Reach. I think it plays different from any other halo game but still feels like halo at the same time.

I know Treyarch and IW are different companies, im not a fucking idiot.

What I pointed it was, Treyarch never did anything to make COD any different from previous versions. Your point was that they removed perks like commando and one man army which according to you make the game better/different. It doesnt make it any better or different. What they did was take MW2, remove some perks and change up a few weapons. Because of this everyone seems to think its the fucking best game ever. Its not.

CHAMIKA Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:34 pm

CkSned wrote:
CHAMIKA wrote:

About those maps, Bungie most likely premade those maps before launch just to sell it to us later. They are also probably going to make it so that matchmaking is extremely limited to those without the maps. They've done this so many times, and all of the tools keep falling for it (Not to say that I haven't been guilty of this).

And I meant the change from Halo 3 to Halo Reach. If they made such drastic changes from Halo 3 to Halo Reach, then I would imagine that it's not a Halo game anymore, but it is. You would say that it's just another Halo game. So what you just said just contradicted what you also said before with Halo Reach having drastic changes. Halo 3 wasn't broken, but Bungie insisted on "fixing" it. With Halo Reach by "changing it drastically". Since Halo Reach is totally not Halo 3 with a new paint-job can you point out why?

The reason why Black Ops is just another Call of Duty game is because it's a Call of Duty game. Also, Treyarch and IW are different companies which share the same engine. One is not responsible for the actions of the other.

Halo might be set in the future but Call of Duty is the future.

I read over this like 4 times and the majority of it made no sense.

Bungie did make pretty drastic changes to the gameplay in Reach. I think it plays different from any other halo game but still feels like halo at the same time.

I know Treyarch and IW are different companies, im not a fucking idiot.

What I pointed it was, Treyarch never did anything to make COD any different from previous versions. Your point was that they removed perks like commando and one man army which according to you make the game better/different. It doesnt make it any better or different. What they did was take MW2, remove some perks and change up a few weapons. Because of this everyone seems to think its the fucking best game ever. Its not.

Bolded text makes no sense at all.

So you're saying MW 2 was perfect with Commando and OMA and it didn't break the game at all?

Having played Black Ops once or twice at a friends house doesn't count as extensive experience and it doesn't warrant a valid opinion on it.

What Bungie did was take Halo 3, add in a crappy predictable plot, a few gimmicks like assassinations, and "Change up the spartan traits" which the fanboy tools ate up like it was the fucking best game ever. It's not.

Destructo Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:39 pm

Funny story guys..

Played BO today, I wanted to eat the game disc.

Then I played Reach and had a blast.

pig

**Ghost** Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:53 am

lol I am still H3 fan over Reach....although have not played either in a week or two....been doing a big Monster Hunter Tri grind lol

CkSned Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:34 am

CHAMIKA wrote:

Bolded text makes no sense at all.

So you're saying MW 2 was perfect with Commando and OMA and it didn't break the game at all?

Having played Black Ops once or twice at a friends house doesn't count as extensive experience and it doesn't warrant a valid opinion on it.

What Bungie did was take Halo 3, add in a crappy predictable plot, a few gimmicks like assassinations, and "Change up the spartan traits" which the fanboy tools ate up like it was the fucking best game ever. It's not.

Do you actually know how to read ? I never said anywhere that MW2 was perfect, infact I pointed out problems in the fucking game.

And playing black ops at any point warrants a valid opinion. Video game reviewers dont play the game for months before giving their thoughts on it so why should I have to. I played it for a few hours and didnt find it anything great. Just the same old call of duty experience that gets shit out year after year.

Now you begin to talk about fanboys and saying something is the best game ever when you are the biggest fucking fanboy on the planet of both call of duty and mass effect. Reach's plot was predictable if your a fan of the halo series. But did you predict giving cortana to captain keys in the game ? I doubt it. Also, like ive said so many times. The changes to reach were not huge but made the gameplay very very differently from any other halo.

I could easily argue about this with you until the end of time. Call of duty is becoming more and more of a game for the mainstream. Its just a fun shooter for the casual gamer to play from time to time. Thats not what I want, its the same game pretty much every year with a few changes and to be honest its getting pretty stale. The creators are running out of ideas for the game, planning even more unoriginal COD games for the future - example Sledgehammer with the newest version playing as fucking space marines.

**Drag** Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:24 pm

keep it clean guys

CkSned Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:54 pm

Drag wrote:keep it clean guys

Im just stating my point.

The whole thread is pointless anyway. Chamika can try and argue with me all he wants but my opinion of black ops wont change. Like ive said before, its a fun game, I admit that. But its just another call of duty. Not anything truly spectacular.

CHAMIKA Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:56 pm

CkSned wrote:
CHAMIKA wrote:

Bolded text makes no sense at all.

So you're saying MW 2 was perfect with Commando and OMA and it didn't break the game at all?

Having played Black Ops once or twice at a friends house doesn't count as extensive experience and it doesn't warrant a valid opinion on it.

What Bungie did was take Halo 3, add in a crappy predictable plot, a few gimmicks like assassinations, and "Change up the spartan traits" which the fanboy tools ate up like it was the fucking best game ever. It's not.

Do you actually know how to read ? I never said anywhere that MW2 was perfect, infact I pointed out problems in the fucking game.

And playing black ops at any point warrants a valid opinion. Video game reviewers dont play the game for months before giving their thoughts on it so why should I have to. I played it for a few hours and didnt find it anything great. Just the same old call of duty experience that gets shit out year after year.

Now you begin to talk about fanboys and saying something is the best game ever when you are the biggest fucking fanboy on the planet of both call of duty and mass effect. Reach's plot was predictable if your a fan of the halo series. But did you predict giving cortana to captain keys in the game ? I doubt it. Also, like ive said so many times. The changes to reach were not huge but made the gameplay very very differently from any other halo.

I could easily argue about this with you until the end of time. Call of duty is becoming more and more of a game for the mainstream. Its just a fun shooter for the casual gamer to play from time to time. Thats not what I want, its the same game pretty much every year with a few changes and to be honest its getting pretty stale. The creators are running out of ideas for the game, planning even more unoriginal COD games for the future - example Sledgehammer with the newest version playing as fucking space marines.

Who ever said that game reviewers ever warranted a valid opinion? I bet if I show you a negative review of Halo: Reach, you would denounce its validity in a heartbeat. Game reviewers just have "professional opinions", and just because you read what they say in a magazine doesn't make it the truth.

I'm pretty sure that it was already implied that Keyes got a hold of Cortana somehow since 2001 when Halo: CE was released.

And the idea that I'm a fanboy because I like Mass Effect is completely irrelevant because you have never even played Mass Effect. Just because I know how to defend the quality of both series' doesn't make me a fanboy.

The "Same Call of Duty experience" is what Call of Duty fans want. With that logic, "The same Halo experience" is what Halo fans want, and that's exactly what they got, so how could you talk bad about Treyarch for doing what Bungie is doing except for their own fanbase?

The fact that you're saying "that's not what I want" just shows how selfish and arrogant the average Halo-tool is. Halo is a fun shooter that makes a few changes every two years or so, and is the same old Halo EVERYTIME. Why? Because it's a HALO game.

Treyarch at least attempted to fix the issues of Black Ops' predecessor, and yelling at them for leaving the cup half empty isn't going to solve anything.

CkSned Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:12 pm

CkSned wrote:
Drag wrote:keep it clean guys

Im just stating my point.

The whole thread is pointless anyway. Chamika can try and argue with me all he wants but my opinion of black ops wont change. Like ive said before, its a fun game, I admit that. But its just another call of duty. Not anything truly spectacular.

Like i said here.

Basically I dont agree with you on the subject. Probably never will. Accept it and move on.

CHAMIKA Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:28 pm

CkSned wrote:
CkSned wrote:
Drag wrote:keep it clean guys

Im just stating my point.

The whole thread is pointless anyway. Chamika can try and argue with me all he wants but my opinion of black ops wont change. Like ive said before, its a fun game, I admit that. But its just another call of duty. Not anything truly spectacular.

Like i said here.

Basically I dont agree with you on the subject. Probably never will. Accept it and move on.

Then what was 2 days worth of arguing for? Get trolled upon!

Static Jak Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:45 pm

**Ghost** Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:47 pm

Static Jak wrote:

John26 Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:34 pm

CkSned wrote:
John Sometimes Dies wrote:Black Ops is hands down the best Call of Duty on the 360 to date.

I have been killed 3 or 4 times by a noobtube so far. That is less than I got kill by them in one game on MW2. The game is balanced and challenging, usually your death is because of a mistake you made. Which I love. Kill streaks don't count towards other streaks, meaning less camping. The guns are awesome, and the new player card which is your center hub to everything online is streamline and well done.

There is no reason not to buy Black Ops.

Every game you get is the best game ever for like a week until you get something new. So yeah, I don't really believe that.

The game has been out for 3 weeks now I believe.

Hands down still best Call of Duty.

Veteran Difficulty was actually a real challenge(Not just random grenades spawning in your ass). Got killed maybe ten times by a grenade launcher online, which if I remember correctly is still less than one game of MW2.

Just wanted to prove you wrong on the one week thing.

BootlegToe Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:55 am

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and you think they all stink except for your own.

CkSned wrote:
Bungie did make pretty drastic changes to the gameplay in Reach. I think it plays different from any other halo game but still feels like halo at the same time.

Purely subjective. While the gameplay is pretty drastic from previous installments of Halo, it isn't necessarily a good thing. I for one, despise the new style they went with, and don't feel that Reach plays like a Halo game at all. They pretty much turned this into Call of Duty: Ramirez Shoot Aliens. Sprinting, loadouts, recoil, etc are a far cry from the Halo of years past and simply don't work with the style of play that has been tried and true for upwards of ten years now. I'm not drawn to Reach like I was with Halo 2 and 3.

You said removing perks like One Man Army, Danger Close, and Commando while adding new killstreaks and removing unbalanced ones does not constitute major changes. Quite the contrary. These perks when abused, were game breaking. Noob tubes and infinite explosives made online pretty much unplayable. You know what a good developer does? They see the original product, take feedback from consumers, vary the product so not to corrupt the original formula that people liked so much while still using some creativity/originality/whatever you want to call it, and make a balanced product that has as little exploits as possible. On top of the fact that Treyarch are actually patching this game on a regular basis makes the online experience leaps and bounds already better than its predecessor. You also said that all the customizable options in Black Ops are insignificant, though I'd probably bet my left nut that you have spent more than five minutes changing your character model's appearance in Reach. Whether unlocking new armor permutations, buying them, equipping, what have you, they are at least, a bit significant to warrant your attention.

The thing about MW2 was that its prime was from launch to December. Before everyone started using cheese tactics and the glitches were made public. It didn't help that Infinity Ward didn't give two shits about patching their game -- and when those patches failed taking even longer to find new fixes. The MW2 map packs were downright awful and I can't recall if IW ever once did a balancing patch -- just glitch fixes. MW2 laid the ground work for what could have been one of the greatest online FPS shooters ever made. It was vicious, fast paced and gratifying. It fell short when IW didn't support it, glitches ran rampant, danger close and chopper gunner became the norm and the COD fan base became one of the most unbearable in gaming.

Release Black Ops as a non-COD game and I bet it gets better scores, reception and other such praise.

CkSned wrote:What was brought into assassins creed/halo 2/halo 3/Gears/New Vegas from another game ?

The campaign in assassins creed isnt overrated its amazing, halo 2's campaign was awesome. Halo 3's isnt overrated because pretty much everyone agreed it wasnt that good.

I was simply making the point that anyone as biased as you seem to be against Call of Duty could make the same argument regarding an equally good game. For example, New Vegas is literally Fallout 3 set in a new location, new weapons, and you didn't even have to buy the Limited Edition to get the bonus truckload of bugs and glitches in the game. Halo 3 added Firefight, which is an idea based on Gears of War's Horde mode, which is undoubtedly taken from some other game I really don't care for looking up right now. Halo 3 introduced Forge and Theater mode, which is really not extraordinary at all seeing as how those features had been on PC games for years. Not to mention that Far Cry 2 had a much better map editor. Gears of War 2 added a photography feature undoubtedly brought on by the huge success of Halo 3's picture taking system.

I never said the campaign in Assassin's Creed was not amazing. In fact, it's one of my favorite franchises and I'm dying to play Brotherhood and AC3 can't come soon enough. That's not to say that it doesn't have its shortcomings. Most of the missions are generic "Follow X to a meeting to eavesdrop" or "Race with some random homeless man for no particular reason at all" that are a staple of platforming and open-world sandbox games. I still love the shit out of Assassin's Creed 2 though. In my opinion, that is what a true sequel is. Take the core gameplay, tweak it a bit, add meaningful changes, but still make it recognizable.

Halo 2's campaign was the worst in the series in my opinion. And the so-called "drastic game changing changes" that you seem to have as a requirement for every sequel of every series ever (dual-wielding, regenerating health, etc; that's not even counting the plethora of glitches that were exploitable in multiplayer) did more to hurt the series, cheapen gameplay and alienate its core fanbase than to further the series. And if you're saying that Black Ops has an overrated campaign, then you're wrong, seeing as how you literally haven't even played the campaign to give pass judgment on that.

You seem to be under the impression that a sequel must have as many brand spanking new features (that are completely original mind you) as possible. This is simply not the case.

Different =/= Good

The reality of the video game industry (and practically every industry) is that innovation is not always a good thing. In game publishers' eyes, a winning formula is one that maximizes profits. People may not know much, but they know what they like. If a game was largely popular because of a certain feature, it would be downright dumb to completely alter it, lest you endanger guaranteed sales and revenue.

You also said game reviewers don't need to spend a substantial amount of time playing a game to review it, which you used to justify your opinion that the game is nothing special after playing it "a couple of times at a friend's house". Only, they kind of do. Most legitimate reviewers that actually want to give a game a fair review instead of half-assing it to give it a low score for publicity and shock value(OMG THAT GUY GAVE BLACK OPS A BAD REVIEW? WHAT'S HIS NAME? ALEX TWOHANDS? HOW DARE HE I'LL FOLLOW HIM ON TWITTER/E-MAIL HIM TO TELL HIM WHAT I THINK) play through the entire campaign, as well as spent at least a few days playing multiplayer. This process most likely runs about one to two weeks, depending on who they review for, deadlines, workload, etc.

CkSned wrote:
I could easily argue about this with you until the end of time. Call of duty is becoming more and more of a game for the mainstream. Its just a fun shooter for the casual gamer to play from time to time.

Also, lol hard at the notion that Halo isn't a casual shooter.

BootlegToe Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:06 am

wow why was that post so long

Static Jak Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:29 am

BootlegToe wrote:
Purely subjective. While the gameplay is pretty drastic from previous installments of Halo, it isn't necessarily a good thing. I for one, despise the new style they went with, and don't feel that Reach plays like a Halo game at all. They pretty much turned this into Call of Duty: Ramirez Shoot Aliens. Sprinting, loadouts, recoil, etc are a far cry from the Halo of years past and simply don't work with the style of play that has been tried and true for upwards of ten years now. I'm not drawn to Reach like I was with Halo 2 and 3.

Ok Reach plays nothing like COD. Any COD for that matter.
Nothing about it remotely plays like COD. Hell, it plays more like TF2 than it does COD and that's saying something.

For one, Loadouts are nothing, nothing like perks. You don't select and customize your Loadouts pre game, you don't customize you weapons, you don't customize your power, you don't unlock weapons and you don't have any choice in the variety of the Loadout. At all. You are given, at the beginning of the game, a selection of 2 to 3, maybe 4 pre set Loadouts decided by Bungie to choose from. Most of which have the same weapons and grenades with the only difference being the power.

And those powers are nothing like perks either. For one, sprinting is treated as a power and in no way can that be used to state Reach is like COD. That's ridiculous. Sprint is the single most common thing in FPS games right behind having guns. Even 3 was considered late to the party for not having sprint. COD is one of countless games with it and sure as hell isn't the last. Like saying reach is like COD because it has scopes.

Then there's Jetpacks. Nothing like that in COD. Or Armour Lock. Or Invisibility.
COD Perks are not separate abilities but rather improving upon current gameplay features. Like increasing fire rate, taking less bullet damage, extra bullet damage, steady aim and so on. Absolutely different from Halo powers. Loadouts are simply the Equipment of 3 but expanded into Classes which have been in videogames for as long as I can remember.

There's no real recoil in Halo Reach. What you're probably thinking of is bloom. While Recoil sends the gun all over the place from rapid fire, bloom simply expands the reticule from constant fire. It's been shown and argued that bloom actually has little effect on the bullet accuracy but rather the person aiming loose out due to their reliance on the reticule. Partly a way of reducing too much long range spam. While 3 tried to create a similar defence to that by having that horrible bullet spread.
The guns in Reach are actually a lot more accurate in Reach than 3. There's no way in hell I could hit from THIS distance with a BR in 3. No way. The spread would let it.

And the health system is even less like CODs than it ever has been.

All in all, Reach would play more like Battlefield with its class system than it does a COD game. Even then, those similarities would be tiny. And I can assure you Battlefield does not play like COD. At all.

**Drag** Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:16 am

BootlegToe wrote:wow why was that post so long

hah, you may need to rethink a few points in your post

Open Circle Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:07 pm

Ghost wrote:lol I am still H3 fan over Reach....although have not played either in a week or two....been doing a big Monster Hunter Tri grind lol

Well, I haven't played video games in general in almost 3 months....

Except for the LAN party I went to and got 3rd place in a Halo Reach FFA, but if any of you guys were to go to that LAN party, you've would've gotten 1st place. The guys and gals I was playing against were either fresh from MW2, casuals, Street Fighter, or WoW players. The best day of the night was when I made a fat sweaty dude rage because I jacked his flying machine.

BootlegToe Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:59 pm

Drag wrote:
BootlegToe wrote:wow why was that post so long
hah, you may need to rethink a few points in your post

Meh, when I wrote that I had been awake for 36 hours. Which I know is nothing for SJ and maybe some others, but my previous high was around 26. SJ did make a good point about it not playing exactly like CoD, but my point still stands that the gameplay in Reach is very different, and in my opinion, not for the better.

**Drag** Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:12 pm

BootlegToe wrote:
Drag wrote:
BootlegToe wrote:wow why was that post so long
hah, you may need to rethink a few points in your post
Meh, when I wrote that I had been awake for 36 hours. Which I know is nothing for SJ and maybe some others, but my previous high was around 26. SJ did make a good point about it not playing exactly like CoD, but my point still stands that the gameplay in Reach is very different, and in my opinion, not for the better.

ehh its different, not very different

i dont care anyways, as long as i game with all of you any game is great *queue sexual chocolate*

**Ghost** Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:06 am

Drag wrote:
BootlegToe wrote:
Drag wrote:
BootlegToe wrote:wow why was that post so long
hah, you may need to rethink a few points in your post
Meh, when I wrote that I had been awake for 36 hours. Which I know is nothing for SJ and maybe some others, but my previous high was around 26. SJ did make a good point about it not playing exactly like CoD, but my point still stands that the gameplay in Reach is very different, and in my opinion, not for the better.
ehh its different, not very different

i dont care anyways, as long as i game with all of you any game is great *queue sexual chocolate*

I still prefer H3, played 1 game of H3 tonight, Slayer on Avalanche Heavy. +22, 1 Rampage, 2 frenzy, 2 Sprees, 1 Sharpshooter, 7 Sniper Headshots, BR still beats DMR IMO

This is playing on my 50

BootlegToe Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:49 pm

Drag wrote:
BootlegToe wrote:
Drag wrote:
BootlegToe wrote:wow why was that post so long
hah, you may need to rethink a few points in your post
Meh, when I wrote that I had been awake for 36 hours. Which I know is nothing for SJ and maybe some others, but my previous high was around 26. SJ did make a good point about it not playing exactly like CoD, but my point still stands that the gameplay in Reach is very different, and in my opinion, not for the better.
ehh its different, not very different

i dont care anyways, as long as i game with all of you any game is great *queue sexual chocolate*

D'aww I wuv you too I love you

Sponsored content