Something went wrong. Try again later

eastcoasteric

This user has not updated recently.

73 0 26 3
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

eastcoasteric's forum posts

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By eastcoasteric

I'm sure this is a question on some peoples minds, but I thought I would bring it up.

If someone could break down the whole "dog tags" thing to me that would help as most of the info I've seen online is pointless.

I've stabbed people from behind but yet I have like 1 dog tag and the one I have is from Battlefield 2 and it's in dark gray and I cannot use it.

The only one I have besides the Mass Effect 3 ones is one from my Veteran status in Bad Company 2 that I can use.

Can someone explain to my a little better how they work? I understand tags that are on the "left" side for the most part but not the right.

Also, can someone break down medal progression, etc too.

Thank you so much!

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By eastcoasteric

EVERY TIME you get in a game with someone they just run around like a chicken with it's head cut off, don't listen to a goddamn thing you say, don't use spotting and CONSTANTLY get put down so you have to revive them over and over and over and over again, causing an end result of you getting killed while trying to help them, for the 100th time.

For instance, for the first two missions I played them on hard...luckily the very first time I played I had another guy who took the game serious and wanted to actually enjoy it instead of RUSHING at FULL speed like an idiot through it.

But by the 3rd mission we both had to go and since then I've been stuck trying to first and foremost get the achievement on the 3rd mission "ninjas" where you can't alert anything/anyone before you capture the hostage (defector).

Every fucking time I explain to people what we're going to do, they always fuck it up.

I must have no joked tried this about 30-40 times so far, not even kidding.

And when I give up trying that, I just want to beat the damn level so I can progress further into the co-op missions and continue to enjoy them because I think they're awesome.

And EVERY TIME i'm with someone, they always end up running way too ahead of the map, get killed and leave me pinned down under fire so badly, that I can barely even move because they are stuck in the worst position possible, I revive them and they die again...and so on and on.

So I stopped playing on "hard" and went all the way to easy just to beat the damn level and STILL same damn thing, same idiots who keep getting killed on easy mode none the less.

For real, I'm about to smash my face through glass if I keep getting stuck with all these idiots.

SAME goes for rush and conquest mode, am I the only one half of the time who sticks with team work and proper communication to get the job done?

90% of the time I end up in the top 3 players on my team because everyone plays so horridly bad and I can tell who is the "call of duty" players from the "battlefield" players in an instant.

For instance, you'll notice a "COD" player when the game starts because he'll be the moron who either;

A: Get's into a helicopter or jet and flys the fucking thing straight into the ground, killing everyone in it

B: Runs to the first HUMVEE or transport and takes off in an instant without waiting a second to see if anyone needs a ride (strength in numbers!)

C: Is too busy killing people that are no where near the objective.

Now, I'm not a COD hater at all, I love the COD series and I've been playing it since the first game released on the PC but COD is a whole different beast compared to this and I'm starting to realize why I hate COD players so goddamn much after playing BF3 lately.

And no, I'm not some dude who takes my games WAY too serious, I just like to win and I like to do it right, while at the same time relaxing and enjoying the game for what it is.

This really bums me out because it's a great game (not perfect) and only a handful of my actual friends play it (and they all are COD players who are trying to cross over to Battlefield, so they're only use to one playing style and that's it).

But for the love of god, if people don't start doing what they should be doing or create a little more diversity, I'm going to burn this game.

With that said, if anyone want's to play and BEAT (while achievement hunting) the CO-OP missions in Battlefield 3 on the xbox 360, add my xbox live name and just shoot me message saying you're from Giant Bomb.

Don't worry, I don't give a shit if you have a mic as I barely even talk as it is, i'd just like to be able to beat these co-op missions in peace and with someone who can actually play (or at least TRY) instead of the idiots that I've been encountering on a day to day basis so far, which is no joke ruining the game for me as a whole.

On a second note, I'm happy to see that there aren't a bunch of super high ranking people playing like on most games there are.

I think they highest level character I have seen was a level nineteen or twenty unlike COD games that will have people who have prestige'd already within the first two days of launch!

MY xbox live account name is (the very out-dated and corny sounding)

NEW YORK ERIC

add me my fellow Giant Bomb Battlefield 3 players!

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By eastcoasteric

@xhavoc86 said:

But why would anyone want a Catwoman code if every new game is coming with one? Too early to buy used I think, but who knows! good luck

Meh I didn't know if someone bought it some where else, then they would get a different DLC or something.

I bought my copy from gameslop, I thought the Cat Woman DLC was only with them or something, turns out I'm wrong. Oh well!

But yeah, it would still be cool to get my hands on that Robin code...I mean seeing that people are having issues with the Cat Woman DLC, they could sacrifice their Robin costume pack for the cat woman DLC that they were SUPPOSED to get. (instead of waiting 2 week's for WB/Rock Steady to get back to them)

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By eastcoasteric

@Maluvin said:

@eastcoasteric: To be fair it is kind of hard on the eyes in bold with bad spacing. Not sure if it was intentional since your other posts didn't look that way.

Yeah I didn't even notice that, I have no idea why it did that.

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By eastcoasteric

Highly agreed!

(I did not read the list of comments due to the "spoiler" alert above).

But these Batman games are weird...I'm not a die hard comic book Batman fan but I've been a fan of the old show, movies and some cartoons for sometime now (since I was like 3-4 years old in the mid 80's) and the only Batman game I played was the one for NES prior to Arkham Asylum so I waited a long long time to pick up Arkham Asylum because my doubts were so great (regardless of the rave reviews, which I hardly pay attention to).

I picked up the GOTY edition and man was I impressed. It had such style and kept you glued to the TV to see what would happen next.

Fast forward to Arkham City and I still had the same "well I don't know about it" feeling.

I ended up renting it and the day after, going out and buying it because I was so impressed, once again...with the amount of content the game had and of course the story and EVERYTHING else they put in the game.

I mean really, there isn't a flaw in the game that I can think of...other than the minor awkward talking sequences when you save someone (Batman is just too stiff feeling at times, but that's just how he normally is anyways).

It truly is an impressive feat and even the aging unreal tech is looking better than ever in this game, very...very addicting and very very impressing.

Strange just activated Protocol 10 and I just played as Cat woman saving Batman and the story has just heated up times a million, I've been playing it for the past 2 day's STRAIGHT while only taking a break to eat and rest my eyes (playing it in 3D).

I hope I beat it by tonight as I have work tomorrow finally, then I'll start a New Game + and collect everything that I missed the first time around.

Well worth the $60 and I'm excited to do all the challenge rooms after too!

Rocksteady is rocking steady with this title!

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By eastcoasteric

@McShank said:

O how i wish to play games in 3d but sadly, I do not wish to have 2 pairs of glasses smashed into my face for me to be able to use that great feature. Probably one of the main reasons i dont go see movies much anymore as everything is in 3D and the 2D ones seem to be in the shitty theater rooms. Someone needs to come up with 3d glasses / monocle's / contacts that will work with people who are wearing glasses as you need those damn things CLOSE to your face for you to even get them to work right which means you need to smash them and your glasses into the bridge of your nose or GL watching anything but a blurred picture.

See this is what I was talking about above, people who wear glasses tend to hate 3D the most.

Why not put on contacts if you're going to the theater? I wear contacts all the time, only when I'm home do I wear my glasses.

They're a bitch to get use to, but like anything else...once you get past the initial "bullshit" stage, it becomes second nature.

That goes to say as well that I still don't see the whole "blurry" thing people are talking about? I think people are trying to focus too hard or something and it's causing the image to be blurry.

In fact, when I'm watching 3D movies they seem as if they are more crisp than the original (in theaters) at times.

You should try it on a 3D LED TV, it's insane though. It's razor sharp and clear.

Lastly, I agree. Glasses free 3D will eventually become the market main stay, but we are still some time away for that.

Though I do think they just recently developed a glasses free TV somewhere? I'm not sure though.

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By eastcoasteric

@emergency said:

@eastcoasteric said:

@ShaggyPolarBear said:

@eastcoasteric: Yeah man, I've been to cinema 3D films. Avatar was probably the best use of 3D that I've seen lately, I still don't like how the glasses dull the entire image, nor do I like how the effect just gives depth - so it feels like everything is a 2 dimensional cutout, somewhat like Paper Mario.

I don't know man, I'm really indifferent about 3D than most people I guess...it seems in the gaming community, it's normal to "dislike" or "hate" 3D effects.
To me, even if it gives it more "depth" (though I've been to moves that have some awesome POP moments like Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs) and that depth adds an extra layer to the experience.
It's like this which I don't know if you have either of these or not but let's take a good pair of surround sound headphones for gaming or a good 5.1-7.1 surround sound stereo set up...if you've ever played on either of these (and I mean a GOOD pair of surround sound headphones, not some $60 crap pair) it makes the game have a feeling of more immersion and you're drawn into the world even more than with just a pair of plain old TV speakers. Now use these for a while, especially on some games that take advantage of Dolby features and it's like you couldn't image what that game would be like without such good sound.
The same goes (slightly) for 3D with CERTAIN games, notice how I say CERTAIN because this doesn't pertain to all games.
Adventure games benefit from the 3D effect largely as even if it adds that "depth" feeling, it draws you into the world more.
Now another thing I'm seeing is that people with glasses find it the worst with using 3D and I don't blame them.
With GOOD 3D on games (my living room TV is a full 3D TV, my gameroom is a small normal LCD tv) the "blur" effect that some people are talking about, is almost not even there.
But on a smaller TV with let's say the inficolor 3D effect that Batman uses, there is some minor "blurring" going on but the game itself is so dark and has very little "pop" colors that the 3D effects actually blends well into the game.

I think a lot of people are just putting it off because of a bad experience or two that they might have had and just need to find the right instance on when to use it.
With the new LED/3D TV's out now, like the one in my living room...the 3D effects are clear, sharp and in total HD...while the movie theater projection screens tend to already not been in "HD" even though they claim it's supposed to be the best picture (bullshit) and can cause this effect.
I also find that movies like Avatar or Jackass which uses real life things tend to be the worst for 3D experiences and only add's depth.
For instance, I saw the new Pirates movie in 3D and the newest Harry Potter and I was really, really disappointed with the 3D in the movies.
But when I saw a movie that was PURE CGI/animation...the artist/developers were able to manipulate the on screen visuals and effects to accommodate the 3D effects on screen, which in return makes the 3D effect much more dramatic and well produced.
The same can go with games, if you play a game that uses that effect wisely and on a good television...it add's a whole new layer to the gaming experience.

Lastly, it's like 3D in games and not not the effect we are now becoming use to but polygons themselves.
What if games were still in 2D and didn't break into the world of 3D like Mario 64? Doom? Etc.
We could have only survived with side scrollers for so long before the market became over saturated with the same games over and over, eventually causing a major gap in entertainment and making the games that are in this generation and in the past 10+ years that we've known and loved, non existent because people felt polygons were a stupid feature, that we didn't need "3D" models.
This is coming from a guy who has genuinely been gaming since the 80's, I grew up with my NES in the 80 early-mid 80's and into the 90's with my Super NES and I'm a huge retro collector to this day, but I'm glad we didn't get "stuck" in one "dimension" of gaming because lord only knows what we would be playing now or if gaming would even exist to this day.
I know it's a bold statement and a claim but people need to respect and understand natural evolution of entertainment and I feel that 3D is the next step, providing that gap between the screen and real life.
It surely needs to be worked on more, I will agree with that but for now...we need to embrace the technology that is blooming and embrace the future because imagine what games will be like when they get the features/effects down correctly...were people are no longer getting headaches, etc and the 3D effect is much more dramatic?
Could you imagine what it would be like to rush through a building that is exploding, crumbling down as you see dirt and rubble fly around your face.
It would be intense, now picture that with a big blockbuster game such as Arkham City or Uncharted 3?
It would be NUTS!

Okay okay, I'll stop ranting now. Haha

You managed to make your whole rant bold and thus I didn't read it.

It's a good thing it wasn't directed towards you, otherwise god forbid if your precious little brain had to actually read more than 2 sentences.

Go troll somewhere else, this is a topic about 3D, not you acting like a smart ass.

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By eastcoasteric

@ShaggyPolarBear said:

@eastcoasteric: Yeah man, I've been to cinema 3D films. Avatar was probably the best use of 3D that I've seen lately, I still don't like how the glasses dull the entire image, nor do I like how the effect just gives depth - so it feels like everything is a 2 dimensional cutout, somewhat like Paper Mario.

I don't know man, I'm really indifferent about 3D than most people I guess...it seems in the gaming community, it's normal to "dislike" or "hate" 3D effects.
To me, even if it gives it more "depth" (though I've been to moves that have some awesome POP moments like Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs) and that depth adds an extra layer to the experience.
It's like this which I don't know if you have either of these or not but let's take a good pair of surround sound headphones for gaming or a good 5.1-7.1 surround sound stereo set up...if you've ever played on either of these (and I mean a GOOD pair of surround sound headphones, not some $60 crap pair) it makes the game have a feeling of more immersion and you're drawn into the world even more than with just a pair of plain old TV speakers. Now use these for a while, especially on some games that take advantage of Dolby features and it's like you couldn't image what that game would be like without such good sound.
The same goes (slightly) for 3D with CERTAIN games, notice how I say CERTAIN because this doesn't pertain to all games.
Adventure games benefit from the 3D effect largely as even if it adds that "depth" feeling, it draws you into the world more.
Now another thing I'm seeing is that people with glasses find it the worst with using 3D and I don't blame them.
With GOOD 3D on games (my living room TV is a full 3D TV, my gameroom is a small normal LCD tv) the "blur" effect that some people are talking about, is almost not even there.
But on a smaller TV with let's say the inficolor 3D effect that Batman uses, there is some minor "blurring" going on but the game itself is so dark and has very little "pop" colors that the 3D effects actually blends well into the game.

I think a lot of people are just putting it off because of a bad experience or two that they might have had and just need to find the right instance on when to use it.
With the new LED/3D TV's out now, like the one in my living room...the 3D effects are clear, sharp and in total HD...while the movie theater projection screens tend to already not been in "HD" even though they claim it's supposed to be the best picture (bullshit) and can cause this effect.
I also find that movies like Avatar or Jackass which uses real life things tend to be the worst for 3D experiences and only add's depth.
For instance, I saw the new Pirates movie in 3D and the newest Harry Potter and I was really, really disappointed with the 3D in the movies.
But when I saw a movie that was PURE CGI/animation...the artist/developers were able to manipulate the on screen visuals and effects to accommodate the 3D effects on screen, which in return makes the 3D effect much more dramatic and well produced.
The same can go with games, if you play a game that uses that effect wisely and on a good television...it add's a whole new layer to the gaming experience.

Lastly, it's like 3D in games and not not the effect we are now becoming use to but polygons themselves.
What if games were still in 2D and didn't break into the world of 3D like Mario 64? Doom? Etc.
We could have only survived with side scrollers for so long before the market became over saturated with the same games over and over, eventually causing a major gap in entertainment and making the games that are in this generation and in the past 10+ years that we've known and loved, non existent because people felt polygons were a stupid feature, that we didn't need "3D" models.
This is coming from a guy who has genuinely been gaming since the 80's, I grew up with my NES in the 80 early-mid 80's and into the 90's with my Super NES and I'm a huge retro collector to this day, but I'm glad we didn't get "stuck" in one "dimension" of gaming because lord only knows what we would be playing now or if gaming would even exist to this day.
I know it's a bold statement and a claim but people need to respect and understand natural evolution of entertainment and I feel that 3D is the next step, providing that gap between the screen and real life.
It surely needs to be worked on more, I will agree with that but for now...we need to embrace the technology that is blooming and embrace the future because imagine what games will be like when they get the features/effects down correctly...were people are no longer getting headaches, etc and the 3D effect is much more dramatic?
Could you imagine what it would be like to rush through a building that is exploding, crumbling down as you see dirt and rubble fly around your face.
It would be intense, now picture that with a big blockbuster game such as Arkham City or Uncharted 3?
It would be NUTS!

Okay okay, I'll stop ranting now. Haha

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By eastcoasteric

And I'll start off by saying that I 100%, LOVED this game.

I had a blast playing through everything and took my time with the entire experience.

I finished everything in the game that you possibly could, besides nightmare mode and a few of the online bits, but other than that...almost a 100% complete.

BUT, to my surprise and original doubt, the dreaded ending came to....

Like really? What were they trying to prove here? Ok so more ARK's came up, but that doesn't mean they're going to join the resistance and lastly, the ending fight was so weak it was unbearable.

I put up 2 sentry bots and just went to work, I never even had a chance to use my BFG rounds because there was nothing WORTHY of them through out the entire fight!

I have no idea what id has up their sleeves for RAGE 2, but they better wrap the entire story up neatly, or come out with some kind of DLC that is about the ARKS and make the 2nd game all about the final fight.

Lastly, if we don't get RAGE 2, I'm going to kill somebody, or if I have to wait 5+ years to get it, I'm going to also kill somebody.

PLEASE "id" and "Bethseda" don't do us, the fans, wrong like this again!

Now I'm off to go play Arkham City. booya

Avatar image for eastcoasteric
eastcoasteric

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By eastcoasteric

@ShaggyPolarBear: Have you even been to a real 3D movie? Because they certainly are not "blue/red".

And nor is the 3D tech I'm talking about.

The blue/red deal is from like comics and old movies from the past man!