40 réponses à ce sujet

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I have not seen anyone complain the BC2 is too hard, the only people I have seen claim it is hard are the BC2 fanboys who are trying to stick up for the game.

 

Now you're just trolling, its COD fanboys like you that are complaining the game is "so hard to kill" and i have yet to see a BC2 fanboy complain that the game is "hard".

 

COD fanboys like me are complaining that the game is too hard? I am a COD fanboy like me (although COD fanboy isnt an accurate term, I just feel that MW2 is better than that pile of dog **** called BC2) and not once have I called the game hard, sure I may have complained that the game is buggy but never have I complained that the game is hard and I have yet to see any other "COD fanboys" complain about it being too hard either, although I must admit I dont spend much time on the COD or BC2 boards.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

No real argument here but still unless you are in a clan odds are most of your team is going to go lone wolf, just like MW2, and if you are in a clan in MW2 you will probably work together and thus be harder to kill, just like BC2.

 

No, the entire  team  is required to work together in BC2 to win a match, not just one or 2 squads and as i substantiated in an earlier post, it is essential or the result is failute.
It is still possible to take out an entire team working together in MW2, in BC2 however, that will not happen. 
You obviously played very little of BC2 so why the hell are you coming up with irrationale points to try to compare MW2 to BC2?

 

Ok you are right I probably havent played as much BC2 as you (I diddnt enjoy the game so why would I keep playing?) but in every match I have played it diddnt seem like many people were communicating and working together so much as they were all after the same goal, with only 1 or 2 objectives of course people are going to all go for the same goal regardless of whether they are communicating or not. In fact it is evident that many people in BC2 dont want to work together as I have seen many people rush for the helicopter and take off without even waiting for a gunner to jump on board then fly to the enemy base jump out and watch the helicopter crash into the enemy base.

The fact is I have not seen anything I really like in BC2 apart from the destructible enviroments, hell I had high hopes for this game as well as I usually like the large scale battlefields offered in these sort of games (used to love Quake Wars) but quite frankly I dont really see what is so great about this game.

[SithLordExarKun]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...



COD fanboys like me are complaining that the game is too hard? I am a COD fanboy like me (although COD fanboy isnt an accurate term, I just feel that MW2 is better than that pile of dog **** called BC2) and not once have I called the game hard,

  Yet you constantly complain that it is "hard" to kill your enemies and that he dies 5 seconds later(which was never the case for me).
Face it, you simply just suck at the game hence you are calling it a pile of dog crap.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
sure I may have complained that the game is buggy but never have I complained that the game is hard and I have yet to see any other "COD fanboys" complain about it being too hard either, although I must admit I dont spend much time on the COD or BC2 boards.

  Just know that you are the first of its kind to whine about how BC2 sucks because its this and its that when it turned out that you aren't very good at the game and moan because you can't get a single kill.

In fact most people who are utterly sick of COD moved over to battlefield.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

No real argument here but still unless you are in a clan odds are most of your team is going to go lone wolf, just like MW2, and if you are in a clan in MW2 you will probably work together and thus be harder to kill, just like BC2.

 

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

 but in every match I have played it diddnt seem like many people were communicating and working together so much as they were all after the same goal,

  Didn't seem like? Obviously it was because you think BC2 is MW2 and all you wanted to do was go pew pew pew kill kill kill and not focus on the objective.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
with only 1 or 2 objectives of course people are going to all go for the same goal regardless of whether they are communicating or not. In fact it is evident that many people in BC2 dont want to work together as I have seen many people rush for the helicopter and take off without even waiting for a gunner to jump on board then fly to the enemy base jump out and watch the helicopter crash into the enemy base.

Refer to the above, just because you say so doesn't make it so, especially when you admitted you played very little of the game.
Really in the matchs that i had lost, it was because of the people trying to get kills rather than focus on the objective and was also because lack of team work.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
The fact is I have not seen anything I really like in BC2 apart from the destructible enviroments, hell I had high hopes for this game as well as I usually like the large scale battlefields offered in these sort of games (used to love Quake Wars) but quite frankly I dont really see what is so great about this game.

Admit it, you just suck at the game and don't know how to work as a team.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...



COD fanboys like me are complaining that the game is too hard? I am a COD fanboy like me (although COD fanboy isnt an accurate term, I just feel that MW2 is better than that pile of dog **** called BC2) and not once have I called the game hard,

  Yet you constantly complain that it is "hard" to kill your enemies and that he dies 5 seconds later(which was never the case for me).
Face it, you simply just suck at the game hence you are calling it a pile of dog crap.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
sure I may have complained that the game is buggy but never have I complained that the game is hard and I have yet to see any other "COD fanboys" complain about it being too hard either, although I must admit I dont spend much time on the COD or BC2 boards.

  Just know that you are the first of its kind to whine about how BC2 sucks because its this and its that when it turned out that you aren't very good at the game and moan because you can't get a single kill.

In fact most people who are utterly sick of COD moved over to battlefield.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

No real argument here but still unless you are in a clan odds are most of your team is going to go lone wolf, just like MW2, and if you are in a clan in MW2 you will probably work together and thus be harder to kill, just like BC2.

 

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

 but in every match I have played it diddnt seem like many people were communicating and working together so much as they were all after the same goal,

  Didn't seem like? Obviously it was because you think BC2 is MW2 and all you wanted to do was go pew pew pew kill kill kill and not focus on the objective.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
with only 1 or 2 objectives of course people are going to all go for the same goal regardless of whether they are communicating or not. In fact it is evident that many people in BC2 dont want to work together as I have seen many people rush for the helicopter and take off without even waiting for a gunner to jump on board then fly to the enemy base jump out and watch the helicopter crash into the enemy base.

Refer to the above, just because you say so doesn't make it so, especially when you admitted you played very little of the game.
Really in the matchs that i had lost, it was because of the people trying to get kills rather than focus on the objective and was also because lack of team work.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
The fact is I have not seen anything I really like in BC2 apart from the destructible enviroments, hell I had high hopes for this game as well as I usually like the large scale battlefields offered in these sort of games (used to love Quake Wars) but quite frankly I dont really see what is so great about this game.

Admit it, you just suck at the game and don't know how to work as a team.

Wow you are a pathetic little fanboy arent you? You cant come up with any decent points to argue against me so you resort to the lowest trick in the book and accuse me of being bad at the game, the fact that you are resorting to such tactics means that I am right about BC2 not being anywhere near as good as MW2.

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Yet you constantly complain that it is "hard" to kill your enemies and that he dies 5 seconds later(which was never the case for me).

Never once did I say it was too hard to kill a man in BC2, sure it takes the guy a few seconds to die but he still dies. My problem isnt that I cant kill people but the fact that is that there is a huge gap between from when I shot the guy till when he dies (Ok I will admit 5 secs is a bit of an exaggeration), maybe it is my internet connection that is causing me to lag but the fact still remains that I dont get near this amount of lag in MW2.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
with only 1 or 2 objectives of course people are going to all go for the same goal regardless of whether they are communicating or not. In fact it is evident that many people in BC2 dont want to work together as I have seen many people rush for the helicopter and take off without even waiting for a gunner to jump on board then fly to the enemy base jump out and watch the helicopter crash into the enemy base.

Refer to the above, just because you say so doesn't make it so, especially when you admitted you played very little of the game.
Really in the matchs that i had lost, it was because of the people trying to get kills rather than focus on the objective and was also because lack of team work.

 

You say that when you lose in BC2 it is because your team is more concerned about their killcount instead of going for the objective, but when you do win matches is it because you communicated with your team over the headset and worked as a group or is it because everybody went for the same objective? Just because somebody is going for the same objective it doesnt mean you are working as a team, all it means is that the defending team will have a harder time dealing with the attackers because there are more people attacking the same spot, which is pretty much the same as MW2 in game mode like search and destroy or domination.

Of course if you friends or clan are online you would communicate and work together, but then you would do the same thing in MW2 as well.

When it comes down to it MW2 is a much better and much more polished game that BC2, if the developers of BC2 actually gave the game a bit more polish it may have turned out to be a pretty good game, but as it is it is nothing more than a sloppy, buggy and broken piece of trash.

I sometimes wonder if people try and drum up poor quality games like BC2 just to spite the popular game it is competing with, saying that BC2 is better than MW2 is kind of like saying that Gothc 3 is better than Oblivion (not a huge fan of Oblivion myself but even I can see that Gothic 3 is a bunch of crap), the fact that you cant really come up with any valid points as to why BC2 is better than MW2 other than "If you dont like BC2 you must suck at it" kind of makes me think I am on the right track.

But then all I have to do is look at your forum avatar to know that you have poor taste in games.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 13 mars 2010 - 01:37 .

[AshedMan]

Sorry Gandalf but your main complaints about BC2 reside with your internet (or the internet of the player you are connecting to) and random players who do stupid things. None of those are the fault of the game. The fact that it has better sound, better graphics, better environments that are destructible, and more players on teams are all reasons BC2 is superior to MW2.

[SithLordExarKun]

[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...



Wow you are a pathetic little fanboy arent you? You cant come up with any decent points to argue against me so you resort to the lowest trick in the book and accuse me of being bad at the game, the fact that you are resorting to such tactics means that I am right about BC2 not being anywhere near as good as MW2.
[/quote] Can't bring up any decent points? I did, but you, being the hardcore dumbed down COD fanboy you are chose to ignore them and come up with the same points being refuted time and again.

You even admit that you didn't play BC2 for that long and you are coming up with the rationale that it sucks and completely inferior to MW2?
In your opinion, MW2 may be a better game, but you don't speak on the peoples behalf neither are your opinions universal.



[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Never once did I say it was too hard to kill a man in BC2, sure it takes the guy a few seconds to die but he still dies.
[/quote] Ergo he is harder to kill than a guy in MW2.

[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
My problem isnt that I cant kill people but the fact that is that there is a huge gap between from when I shot the guy till when he dies
[/quote] Because the shooting mechanics is actually far more realistic than in MW2 which is "point and click"? Because bullets actually take a very short amount of time to reach its target?
[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
(Ok I will admit 5 secs is a bit of an exaggeration), maybe it is my internet connection that is causing me to lag but the fact still remains that I dont get near this amount of lag in MW2.[/quote]  And you have yet to actually read anything i typed out.

First off the reason why MW2 lags so little for you is because of its P2P system where it links you to other MW2 players close to where you live, if the host lives lets say on the otherside of the world or the united states, the said ping(or lag) will increase.

You even referred to MW2 multiplayer as "servers" when they are non existant which further evaluates your lack of knowledge on both systems.

In BC2, if you are using match making and not dedicated servers, the system could have linked you to a host with bad connection or a host that lives far away.

With dedicated servers on the PC platform, i never have this problem, in fact i get no lag at all! So this debunks your claim of "MW2 is also better than BC2 because of less lag".



[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
You say that when you lose in BC2 it is because your team is more concerned about their killcount instead of going for the objective, but when you do win matches is it because you communicated with your team over the headset and worked as a group or is it because everybody went for the same objective?
[/quote] Everybody going for the same objective doesn't mean they work as a team, with that logic i guess every COD player works as a team as the goal is to kill the opposing team.

I have already substantiated my post earlier which you blatantly disregarded and ignored :

"n MW2, its mostly team death match where the two team tries to
constantly kill each other and score the highest point, in BC2 full
scale battles like rush or conquest you are required to work as a team
to complete the objective, if you are suppose to defend a station you do
so and if someone plants a bomb its your team members job to diffuse
the bomb while you and other members keep the attackers at bay."


^ READ.

Also if you are near the objective and if you die, your team members(the medics) will revive you instead of you spawning at the starting point which is a relatively long walk away.





[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Just because somebody is going for the same objective it doesnt mean you are working as a team, all it means is that the defending team will have a harder time dealing with the attackers because there are more people attacking the same spot, which is pretty much the same as MW2 in game mode like search and destroy or domination.
[/quote] See the aboove, you completely ignored my entire post in the previous page.

Simply running and gunning down anybody near the objective in BC2 is suicide as its much easier to die there and death means you respawn 10 seconds later(precious time lost) at the starting point unless one of your squadmembers is present at the objective to spawn from of if a medic is near by to revive you(which happens very frequently)
[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Of course if you friends or clan are online you would communicate and work together, but then you would do the same thing in MW2 as well.[/quote]  Doesn't mean its done the same way genius.

[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
When it comes down to it MW2 is a much better and much more polished game that BC2, if the developers of BC2 actually gave the game a bit more polish it may have turned out to be a pretty good game, but as it is it is nothing more than a sloppy, buggy and broken piece of trash.[/quote] And this comes from a COD fanboy that sucks at BC2 and that admits he played very little of any battlefield game. Just how is anybody suppose to take you seriously if you have yet to play both games accordingly?

Substantiate, BC2's "lack of polish". You claim its buggy, but your claim was debunked several times with many of us having little to no bugs at all, hell it may even be something you pulled out of your arse.

[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I sometimes wonder if people try and drum up poor quality games like BC2 just to spite the popular game it is competing with, saying that BC2 is better than MW2 is kind of like saying that Gothc 3 is better than Oblivion (not a huge fan of Oblivion myself but even I can see that Gothic 3 is a bunch of crap),
[/quote] 
How exactly is it "poor" quality? Because you can't get any kills in the game? Because you don't focus on the objective and try to work with your squad and team? Because you think this is a call of duty game which is essentially kill kill kill?

It's not supposed to be Call of Duty and comparing it
to Call of Duty is wrong.



Call of Duty is standard deathmatch.


Battlefield games are not standard deathmatch. Call of Duty is well
developed game because it only needs to get one aspect of the game
right, and that's the shooting aspect.



Battlefield games need to get multiple things right. One is shooting,
which I think it nailed. The other is vehicles, which they nailed it and
one other big one that Call of Duty will never have is teamwork. And it
nailed it pretty damn good also.


Then again, with i playing COD multiplayer since COD2(skipping 3), COD4, WAW and MW2. I have never seen anybody work together except go lone ranger and kill the opposing team, even in search and destroy and its usually one person doing the dirty work in domination.


The problem you have is that your thinking its Call of Duty and
comparing the experience against Call of Duty. Of course the game is
going to suck, because it does not play like Call of Duty.
[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
the fact that you cant really come up with any valid points as to why BC2 is better than MW2 other than "If you dont like BC2 you must suck at it" kind of makes me think I am on the right track.[/quote] No, you were never on the right track to begin with with you admitting you barely even played BC2, infact you ignore every point i come up with and claimedi never made them in the first place.

Typical fanboyism, let me guess, you think MW2 is the best game ever?
[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
But then all I have to do is look at your forum avatar to know that you have poor taste in games.[/quote] Riiight becayse you, a forum troll with a troll as his avatar says so.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 13 mars 2010 - 03:10 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AshedMan wrote...

Sorry Gandalf but your main complaints about BC2 reside with your internet (or the internet of the player you are connecting to) and random players who do stupid things. None of those are the fault of the game. The fact that it has better sound, better graphics, better environments that are destructible, and more players on teams are all reasons BC2 is superior to MW2.

Hmm I cant say I really paid much attention to the sound quality of both games but better graphics? Sure will admit that the characters in BC2 show a bit more expression in their faces but overall I would have to say MW2 has the better graphics. I also feel that MW2 has better and tighter controls than BC2 as BC2's controls feel a wee bit sloppy.

As for the maps sure they might be bigger but they are also a lot emptier, makes for a snipers paradise and quite frankly it is a bit too easy to rack up kills as a sniper, MW2's maps may be smaller but they have a lot more detail and make for more hectic firefights in smaller spaces.

But ultimately when it all comes down to it I enjoy playing MW2 and I dont enjoy playing BC2 and that is why I feel MW2 is better than BC2, there is no point in playing a video game if you dont enjoy it.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 13 mars 2010 - 02:57 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...



Wow you are a pathetic little fanboy arent you? You cant come up with any decent points to argue against me so you resort to the lowest trick in the book and accuse me of being bad at the game, the fact that you are resorting to such tactics means that I am right about BC2 not being anywhere near as good as MW2.

Can't bring up any decent points? I did, but you, being the hardcore dumbed down COD fanboy you are chose to ignore them and come up with the same points being refuted time and again.

You even admit that you didn't play BC2 for that long and you are coming up with the rationale that it sucks and completely inferior to MW2?
In your opinion, MW2 may be a better game, but you don't speak on the peoples behalf neither are your opinions universal.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Never once did I say it was too hard to kill a man in BC2, sure it takes the guy a few seconds to die but he still dies.

Ergo he is harder to kill than a guy in MW2.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
My problem isnt that I cant kill people but the fact that is that there is a huge gap between from when I shot the guy till when he dies

Because the shooting mechanics is actually far more realistic than in MW2 which is "point and click"? Because bullets actually take a very short amount of time to reach its target?

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
(Ok I will admit 5 secs is a bit of an exaggeration), maybe it is my internet connection that is causing me to lag but the fact still remains that I dont get near this amount of lag in MW2.

  And you have yet to actually read anything i typed out.

First off the reason why MW2 lags so little for you is because of its P2P system where it links you to other MW2 players close to where you live, if the host lives lets say on the otherside of the world or the united states, the said ping(or lag) will increase.

You even referred to MW2 multiplayer as "servers" when they are non existant which further evaluates your lack of knowledge on both systems.

In BC2, if you are using match making and not dedicated servers, the system could have linked you to a host with bad connection or a host that lives far away.

With dedicated servers on the PC platform, i never have this problem, in fact i get no lag at all! So this debunks your claim of "MW2 is also better than BC2 because of less lag".

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
You say that when you lose in BC2 it is because your team is more concerned about their killcount instead of going for the objective, but when you do win matches is it because you communicated with your team over the headset and worked as a group or is it because everybody went for the same objective?

Everybody going for the same objective doesn't mean they work as a team, with that logic i guess every COD player works as a team as the goal is to kill the opposing team.

I have already substantiated my post earlier which you blatantly disregarded and ignored :

"n MW2, its mostly team death match where the two team tries to
constantly kill each other and score the highest point, in BC2 full
scale battles like rush or conquest you are required to work as a team
to complete the objective, if you are suppose to defend a station you do
so and if someone plants a bomb its your team members job to diffuse
the bomb while you and other members keep the attackers at bay."


^ READ.

Also if you are near the objective and if you die, your team members(the medics) will revive you instead of you spawning at the starting point which is a relatively long walk away.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Just because somebody is going for the same objective it doesnt mean you are working as a team, all it means is that the defending team will have a harder time dealing with the attackers because there are more people attacking the same spot, which is pretty much the same as MW2 in game mode like search and destroy or domination.

See the aboove, you completely ignored my entire post in the previous page.

Simply running and gunning down anybody near the objective in BC2 is suicide as its much easier to die there and death means you respawn 10 seconds later(precious time lost) at the starting point unless one of your squadmembers is present at the objective to spawn from of if a medic is near by to revive you(which happens very frequently)

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Of course if you friends or clan are online you would communicate and work together, but then you would do the same thing in MW2 as well.

  Doesn't mean its done the same way genius.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
When it comes down to it MW2 is a much better and much more polished game that BC2, if the developers of BC2 actually gave the game a bit more polish it may have turned out to be a pretty good game, but as it is it is nothing more than a sloppy, buggy and broken piece of trash.

And this comes from a COD fanboy that sucks at BC2 and that admits he played very little of any battlefield game. Just how is anybody suppose to take you seriously if you have yet to play both games accordingly?

Substantiate, BC2's "lack of polish". You claim its buggy, but your claim was debunked several times with many of us having little to no bugs at all, hell it may even be something you pulled out of your arse.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I sometimes wonder if people try and drum up poor quality games like BC2 just to spite the popular game it is competing with, saying that BC2 is better than MW2 is kind of like saying that Gothc 3 is better than Oblivion (not a huge fan of Oblivion myself but even I can see that Gothic 3 is a bunch of crap),

 
How exactly is it "poor" quality? Because you can't get any kills in the game? Because you don't focus on the objective and try to work with your squad and team? Because you think this is a call of duty game which is essentially kill kill kill?

It's not supposed to be Call of Duty and comparing it
to Call of Duty is wrong.



Call of Duty is standard deathmatch.


Battlefield games are not standard deathmatch. Call of Duty is well
developed game because it only needs to get one aspect of the game
right, and that's the shooting aspect.



Battlefield games need to get multiple things right. One is shooting,
which I think it nailed. The other is vehicles, which they nailed it and
one other big one that Call of Duty will never have is teamwork. And it
nailed it pretty damn good also.


Then again, with i playing COD multiplayer since COD2(skipping 3), COD4, WAW and MW2. I have never seen anybody work together except go lone ranger and kill the opposing team, even in search and destroy and its usually one person doing the dirty work in domination.


The problem you have is that your thinking its Call of Duty and
comparing the experience against Call of Duty. Of course the game is
going to suck, because it does not play like Call of Duty.

I think you are getting a bit emotional there SithLordExarKun, why dont you take a deep breath and stop trying to argue the same tired and trite arguments, I have read your posts and found your arguments to be weak and took the time to tell you why your arguments are weak. Now instead of repeating your argument that failed the first 100 times you tried to argue it try reading my post and posting a sensible and new argument to counter it.

Stop trying to claim I did not read your posts because I did, I then posted my argument to tell you why you are wrong, then you posted the same argument and added claims that I did not play enough BC2 and diddnt read your posts when it is in fact you who refuses to read my posts.

Yes I may not have played as much BC2 as you but I did play enough of it to be able to form an opinion on it, my opinion is that BC2 sucks and if I think a game sucks why would I go back and play some more?

Unless you can post a sensible argument without repeating the same argument again and again I feel there is no reason to continue this conversation and quite frankly you are not worth my time.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 13 mars 2010 - 03:29 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...



I think you are getting a bit emotional there SithLordExarKun, why dont you take a deep breath and stop trying to argue the same tired and trite arguments,

Ironic seeing its coming from you when you are using the same refuted "arguments". Nobody is getting emotional but you with your accusations of "OMG FANBOI!!!".

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I have read your posts and found your arguments to be weak and took the time to tell you why your arguments are weak. Now instead of repeating your argument that failed the first 100 times you tried to argue it try reading my post and posting a sensible and new argument to counter it.

  Oh please your "arguments" are nothing but half assed assertions you pulled out of your arse, you didn't even read my rebutals because you don't want to accept that you're wrong.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Stop trying to claim I did not read your posts because I did, I then posted my argument to tell you why you are wrong, then you posted the same argument and added claims that I did not play enough BC2 and diddnt read your posts when it is in fact you who refuses to read my posts.

  No you didn't, you completely ignored my earlier post and claimed i made no argument to begin with but petty insults.
Now you're just covering your ass.

I DID read your post, and more importantly i responded to them which is something a troll like you precisely failed to do.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Yes I may not have played as much BC2 as you but I did play enough of it to be able to form an opinion on it, my opinion is that BC2 sucks and if I think a game suck why would I go back and play some more?

Unless you can post a sensible argument without repeating the same argument again and again I feel there is no reason to continue this conversation and quite frankly you are not worth my time.

Right because an argument that proves you wrong isn't sensible. Get a grip, accept your wrong and move on with life troll.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...



I think you are getting a bit emotional there SithLordExarKun, why dont you take a deep breath and stop trying to argue the same tired and trite arguments,

Ironic seeing its coming from you when you are using the same refuted "arguments". Nobody is getting emotional but you with your accusations of "OMG FANBOI!!!".

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I have read your posts and found your arguments to be weak and took the time to tell you why your arguments are weak. Now instead of repeating your argument that failed the first 100 times you tried to argue it try reading my post and posting a sensible and new argument to counter it.

  Oh please your "arguments" are nothing but half assed assertions you pulled out of your arse, you didn't even read my rebutals because you don't want to accept that you're wrong.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Stop trying to claim I did not read your posts because I did, I then posted my argument to tell you why you are wrong, then you posted the same argument and added claims that I did not play enough BC2 and diddnt read your posts when it is in fact you who refuses to read my posts.

  No you didn't, you completely ignored my earlier post and claimed i made no argument to begin with but petty insults.
Now you're just covering your ass.

I DID read your post, and more importantly i responded to them which is something a troll like you precisely failed to do.

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Yes I may not have played as much BC2 as you but I did play enough of it to be able to form an opinion on it, my opinion is that BC2 sucks and if I think a game suck why would I go back and play some more?

Unless you can post a sensible argument without repeating the same argument again and again I feel there is no reason to continue this conversation and quite frankly you are not worth my time.

Right because an argument that proves you wrong isn't sensible. Get a grip, accept your wrong and move on with life troll.

Do you actually read your posts before you hit the submit button or do you just mash your palm against the keyboard and hope that it will turn out an argument that make sense?

You do realise how hypocritical that post was dont you? Fact is I dont really need to argue against your petty arguments because now you are just getting emotional and silly and everything you say only goes to show everyone what an idiot you really are.

[SithLordExarKun]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...



Do you actually read your posts before you hit the submit button or do you just mash your palm against the keyboard and hope that it will turn out an argument that make sense?

You do realise how hypocritical that post was dont you? Fact is I dont really need to argue against your petty arguments because now you are just getting emotional and silly and everything you say only goes to show everyone what an idiot you really are.

Considering that you have been constantly mocked and ridiculed by other members in this forum, its not surprising to see you this delusional. And yeah, i DO read my posts before "clicking" the submit button, only problem is they make perfect sense and expose the sheer stupidity that you're trying to not show everyone.

Its funny how you accuse me of being emotional when you started insulting and attacked my tastes in games
What happend to me not being worth your time? Why are you still here? Oh wai- your're a hypocrite.
Lets see what troll post you're going to come up with next.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 13 mars 2010 - 03:49 .

[SpectreSeven]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...



Do you actually read your posts before you hit the submit button or do you just mash your palm against the keyboard and hope that it will turn out an argument that make sense?

You do realise how hypocritical that post was dont you? Fact is I dont really need to argue against your petty arguments because now you are just getting emotional and silly and everything you say only goes to show everyone what an idiot you really are.

Considering that you have been constantly mocked and ridiculed by other members in this forum, its not surprising to see you this delusional. And yeah, i DO read my posts before "clicking" the submit button, only problem is they make perfect sense and expose the sheer stupidity that you're trying to not show everyone.

Its funny how you accuse me of being emotional when you started insulting and attacked my tastes in games
What happend to me not being worth your time? Why are you still here? Oh wai- your're a hypocrite.
Lets see what troll post you're going to come up with next.

It's pretty obvious that he has run out of arguments about the games if he's attacking you with idiotic crap now.

[Darth-Mandalore]

First off SithLordExarKun you broke the first rule of the forums, dont feed the trolls. Secondly and as much as I hate to say it Gandalf-the-Fabulous does make some good points, points that you have yet to give a decent answer to.



In fact I am going to say that it looks like you have pretty much lost all of your composure and it seems that Gandalf has been successful in taunting you into posting hasty and emotional responses.



I guess what I am trying to say is successful troll is successful.

[SithLordExarKun]

Darth-Mandalore wrote...

First off SithLordExarKun you broke the first rule of the forums, dont feed the trolls. Secondly and as much as I hate to say it Gandalf-the-Fabulous does make some good points, points that you have yet to give a decent answer to.

In fact I am going to say that it looks like you have pretty much lost all of your composure and it seems that Gandalf has been successful in taunting you into posting hasty and emotional responses.

I guess what I am trying to say is successful troll is successful.

Riiight, because another troll like you says so.  Somebody didn't actually read my posts.

Right, so because he said MW2 had servers, which it clearly did not as it used a P2P system and i debunked that, it means he is right and i am wrong and that i have yet to give a half decent answer? Wow, hurray for logic...

The funny thing is my keyboard would have been in pieces had i truly gone "emotional". In fact if anything, he was the first one who DID get emotional with his petty insults.

For all we know you may even be him pretending to be someone else on a different account.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 14 mars 2010 - 09:45 .

[Chained_Creator]

I'd say Battlefield BC 2 is more fun to because I love destructible environments, and MW2 absolutely failed at that.



BC 2 didn't, and that adds a tactical element that MW 2 didn't have. You didn't have a tank or a helicopter bearing down on you (Other than killstreaks which are just so, so boring.) that could blow out the wall you were hiding behind or collapse most of the building you were camping in.



It's just...more my style of game.

[Darth-Mandalore]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Darth-Mandalore wrote...

First off SithLordExarKun you broke the first rule of the forums, dont feed the trolls. Secondly and as much as I hate to say it Gandalf-the-Fabulous does make some good points, points that you have yet to give a decent answer to.

In fact I am going to say that it looks like you have pretty much lost all of your composure and it seems that Gandalf has been successful in taunting you into posting hasty and emotional responses.

I guess what I am trying to say is successful troll is successful.

Riiight, because another troll like you says so.  Somebody didn't actually read my posts.

Right, so because he said MW2 had servers, which it clearly did not as it used a P2P system and i debunked that, it means he is right and i am wrong and that i have yet to give a half decent answer? Wow, hurray for logic...

The funny thing is my keyboard would have been in pieces had i truly gone "emotional". In fact if anything, he was the first one who DID get emotional with his petty insults.

For all we know you may even be him pretending to be someone else on a different account.

This argument is so not worth getting in the middle of but I will remind you that after reading both of your posts it seems that it was you who flung the first insults, and apart from Gandalf's "pathetic little fanboy" line he does seem to keep his composure which is something you lost.

Honestly I dont really care which game is perceived as better as when it comes down to it and everything is said and done it is nothing but a matter of opinion.

But whatever you can argue till you are blue in the face for all I care, it is not going to get you anywhere and it will only make you look like a fool.

[SithLordExarKun]

Darth-Mandalore wrote...



This argument is so not worth getting in the middle of but I will remind you that after reading both of your posts it seems that it was you who flung the first insults, and apart from Gandalf's "pathetic little fanboy" line he does seem to keep his composure which is something you lost.

Something i lost because a troll like you says so? Right ok.
Though i wonder, how exactly does telling him he sucks at the game meant i insult him first?
Or do you happen to be him pretending to be someone else on a different account considering your history of consistent of trolling.
Really, if you actually "read" my posts you would have seen how i countered his claims...

Darth-Mandalore wrote...
Honestly I dont really care which game is perceived as better as when it comes down to it and everything is said and done it is nothing but a matter of opinion.

But whatever you can argue till you are blue in the face for all I care, it is not going to get you anywhere and it will only make you look like a fool.

Yet here you are arguing like a fool, do i smell a hypocrite? Hell yes i do.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 14 mars 2010 - 10:54 .