{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/12/2013 1:10:16 AM
6
you're talking about me aren't you, going by the "2-3 hours a week" thing?
>implying my 2-3 hours of halo per week nowadays isn't due to extraneous variables
>implying i haven't been part of this community for almost 7 years
>implying my account join date isn't earlier than yours (if that's what you were going to use to rebuke my second point)
>implying having a positive opinion on halo 4 is predicated by being new to or being inexperienced with the series
>implying having a positive opinion on halo 4 automatically substantiates a "defense force" classification
English
-
[quote]you're talking about me aren't you[/quote] Not really, because that's true about everyone who likes Halo 4. I did think about you though, but trust me, I've been in this community long enough to know this. There were people in the Reach days that got upset at threads in the Reach forum asking for a consensus of skill levels in Halo 3 along with their opinions of Reach. [quote]>implying my account join date isn't earlier than yours (if that's what you were going to use to rebuke my second point)[/quote] I have more than 1 account on Bungie.net. None of them are banned or exiled or anything, I just chose to use this one. If I remember, I joined Bungie.net in 2008 on my main account. [quote]>implying[/quote] Are you from /vg/'s /hg/ thread or something? I know that place is filled with shills. I think you need to go back there.
-
Edited by kgj: 11/12/2013 1:24:53 AM[quote]Not really, because that's true about everyone who likes Halo 4[/quote] is that so? [quote]I did think about you though, but trust me, I've been in this community long enough to know this.[/quote] i don't need to go off trust. i was there. [quote]There were people in the Reach days that got upset at threads in the Reach forum asking for a consensus of skill levels in Halo 3 along with their opinions of Reach.[/quote] and that argument was absolutely stupid, considering there are several reasons [i]outside of multiplayer[/i] that a person could like a game. not to mention that reach's core gunplay (without dmr bloom) was arguably more consistent than halo 3's, meaning that after the title update (specifically with zbns) halo reach became a more skill demanding game than halo 3 ever was. [quote]I have more than 1 account on Bungie.net. None of them are banned or exiled or anything, I just chose to use this one. If I remember, I joined Bungie.net in 2008 on my main account.[/quote] cool. 2006 over here. [quote]Are you from /vg/'s /hg/ thread or something? I know that place is filled with shills. I think you need to go back there.[/quote] i'm from the bungie forums. i'm here to stay.
-
[quote]...not to mention that reach's core gunplay (without dmr bloom) was arguably more consistent than halo 3's, meaning that after the title update (specifically with zbns) halo reach became a more skill demanding game than halo 3 ever was.[/quote]Arguably? I didn't think there was even a debate.
-
true, true.
-
[quote]and that argument was absolutely stupid[/quote] Why, because it proved something? What it showed was that Halo was significantly casualized in Reach for the staff captains and lolforce colonels of Halo 3. I still remember the massive butthurt that erupted from those threads. [quote]considering there are several reasons outside of multiplayer that a person could like a game[/quote] Multiplayer and core gameplay is the most important aspect of a Halo game. People don't play Halo for just the campaign, and if you do, you're not a real Halo fan (and boy and I gonna hear shit for saying that). I played Halo 3 5-8 hours a DAY, sometimes more if I had the chance; Reach for less, but still managed to get to Nova. Point is, it's all those retarded reviewers who gave Halo 4 a 10/10 that think Halo isn't all about core gameplay. Yes, the campaign and features come second, which Reach excelled at (at least for features IMO anyway), but how in the hell can you think Halo 4 is good in any of those with the exception of the campaign's story? Halo 4 lacked significant growth of features, and the campaign was turned into a super-linear mess with the importance of graphics put in front of level and sandbox design. Ever tried to get out of a Halo 4 mission? Or scope in to view a long distance? You'll notice that skyboxes and outerbounds were significantly decreased for muh graffix. [quote]cool. 2006 over here.[/quote] You keep going back in time. Maybe if I say I was around since Halo: CE you'll tell me you gave birth to Marty O'Donnel. [quote]i'm here to stay.[/quote] Ugh. Are you perma'd from Waypoint or something?
-
[quote]Why, because it proved something? What it showed was that Halo was significantly casualized in Reach for the staff captains and lolforce colonels of Halo 3. I still remember the massive butthurt that erupted from those threads. [/quote] you mean halo was further casualized in reach from the mess that was halo 3? which itself was casualized from halol 2? which itself was casualized from the only truly sound competitive game in the series? not to mention you [i]completely[/i] gloss over the fact that people can like the game [b]for things other than the multiplayer[/b] (which i do). [quote]Multiplayer and core gameplay is the most important aspect of a Halo game. People don't play Halo for just the campaign, and if you do, you're not a real Halo fan (and boy and I gonna hear shit for saying that).[/quote] "real halo fan." ah. this again. not to carry an air of pretension or anything, but i don't think this needs to be argued. [quote]I played Halo 3 5-8 hours a DAY, sometimes more if I had the chance; Reach for less, but still managed to get to Nova.[/quote] [i]wow[/i] that proves [b]nothing[/b] [quote]Point is, it's all those retarded reviewers[/quote] yes, i'm sure the people who you're talking about are mentally inept. [quote]who gave Halo 4 a 10/10 that think Halo isn't all about core gameplay.[/quote] then they shouldn't have given halo 2 anything more than a 5/10, given the core gunplay of that one. [quote]Yes, the campaign and features come second, which Reach excelled at (at least for features [b]IMO[/b] anyway), but how in the hell can you think Halo 4 is good in any of those with the exception of the campaign's story?[/quote] by possessing an opinion? i dislike the gameplay of the campaign myself, but i found the audiovisual presentation to be top notch, along with the story. [quote]Halo 4 lacked significant growth of features, and the campaign was turned into a super-linear mess with the importance of graphics put in front of level and sandbox design.[/quote] ever played halo 2 without trying to glitch the sh1t out of it? the game is [i]horribly[/i] linear. far more than halo 4 at times. [quote]Ever tried to get out of a Halo 4 mission?[/quote] yes. reclaimer has one of the largest out of bounds areas in the series. [quote]Or scope in to view a long distance? You'll notice that skyboxes and outerbounds were significantly decreased for muh graffix.[/quote] [url=http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/c/c8/Falcon_Rough.jpg][i]just like halo reach[/i][/url] [quote]You keep going back in time. Maybe if I say I was around since Halo: CE you'll tell me you gave birth to Marty O'Donnel.[/quote] in the original post (which you largely ignored), i stated that i'd been here for almost 7 years. 2013-7=2006. i haven't posted anything contradictory yet. [quote]Ugh. Are you perma'd from Waypoint or something?[/quote] no, i haven't been on waypoint for months. hell, i think i have a total of 6 posts on waypoint in general.
