EchoEcho

Nice guide; I'm going to try to put some of this into practice. Maybe it's because I never touched versus multiplayer in the previous Gears games and most of my time is spent in Bad Company 2 Vietnam, but I have been getting my ass handed to me in Gears 3. I rock a positive K/D ratio in every shooter that I play, but I'm sitting with a depressingly embarrassing 0.5 right now in Gears 3.

I really want to like the competitive multiplayer in this game, because it's a refreshing change of pace from the other shooters that I play regularly, but I actually flat-out rage quit the other night, and I never do that shit. It seems like I can't go five seconds without somebody jumping out of nowhere and shotgunning me to death before I have a chance to react. On top of that, I seem to constantly get stuck with teammates who are more interested in using me as bait while I'm DBNO than trying to revive me, or at least hold off the bastard who's running up to execute me while I self-revive, even when I'm literally one step away. Talk about frustrating.

@Heartagram said:

Dawn of War 1 was pretty fun and i believe in the DOW 2 Multiplayer you build bases

No base-building in DoW2, just tiering-up. DoW1 on the other hand is still an excellent game, easily one of my favorite RTSes of all time, and you can pick it up (along with all the expansions) for pretty cheap if you shop around the internet. Not sure that DoW1 will fit the OP's tastes, though. By today's standards, it's graphics are probably what he'd consider "lamish".

@awe_stuck said:

@OneManX said:

@awe_stuck said:

@SpaceInsomniac said:

@djn3811 said:

How about the fact that it's not made by the real infinity ward? That's why I'm not buying it.

If West and Zampella or--however you spell his name--gave the green light to MW2 and it's laundry list of problems and annoyances (scavenger refilling noob tubes, commando, one man army, the nuke, not letting you use the party system, tactical insertions in free for all, waiting ages to patch anything, never patching the majority of the issues I just mentioned, etc) then I'm not sure how truly necessarily they really were.

And not buying it because people left the company? Why not at least a "wait and see" attitude?

They made MW1 and 2. Activision ripped off the license and gave us the two worst games of all time - Black Ops and WAW. 18 other people left IW as well, 6 stayed.

These additions you talk about arent revolutionary, they are standard in other games like idk BF.. Not exactly like I care I get points for winning instead of just killing. You already do that in MW2, and I can level up super fast in that game (think lv 1 to 25 in 5 hours, ya i know get a life.).

I will buy this game if its good, but I'm not wasting 40 bucks like I did on Black Ops (I got 20 for reselling, they had sooo many copies sold back to them fyi).

Black ops one of the worst?

REALLY?

Zombies alone makes that game better than MW2, as well as not broken MP.

I have a PC. I can play TF2 and CS Source. Much better games then BLOPs. Zombies is not worth 60. The multiplayer is dependent on the host. I'm not learning how to play a broken game by playing it for 6 months. It is a horrible, horrible game. I'm happy PC Gamer gave it about a 75%. Nothing revolutionary about Black Ops. Absolutely nothing. Not to start a flame war. But if BLOPs had used the CoD 4 gameplay with its weapons, I would have loved BLOPs. Instead it went wit WAW combat. Even the guns have swag when you dont move. Seriously. Game looks like ass, plays like ass, and was made by underpaid level designers.

I enjoyed the competitive multiplayer in WaW and BlOps more than CoD4 or MW2, and have likely played just as much -- if not more -- Zombies by this point. So if I go by your strongly-worded opinion, I apparently really like ass. Just so long as we all realize that opinions are opinions and just because you think WaW and BlOps are the worst games of all time, it doesn't mean that it holds true for everyone.

@Hailinel said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@Natedogg2 said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@SamFo: @Natedogg2 said:

The obvious question here is "Why doesn't LaunchPad McQuack have a page on Giant Bomb?"

I think somebody better get on that then!

I made the page for Jerry Rice and Nitus' Dog Football. I think I've done enough damage.

I've never even heard of this McQuack fellow. I can't do it.

Seriously? Dude, he's from both Duck Tales and Darkwing Duck.

I went ahead and created the page.

I don't even want to know where I'd be in life right now if I hadn't obsessively watched Duck Tales and Darkwing Duck during my childhood.

@gladspooky said:

@Captain_Rick said:

@gladspooky said:

@SirPsychoSexy said:

@gladspooky: I think any 2/3 to a retard could figure out they meant killing players in game.

Doesn't make it any less of a stupid title.

No your post was just not as cleaver as you thought it was.

Cleaver? I'm sorry, it's clear English isn't your first language. You see, 'player' is the person playing the game. 'Player character' is the player's representation within the game.

And no one needs to get confused about who is getting killed for this article's title to look ridiculous. It just does. This ain't no life-altering thing. Just something I felt like pointing out.

I would say that unless you're playing in a heavy roleplay environment then the terms "player" and "player character" can be (and typically are) used interchangeably when referring to the user's in-game representation. When I blow up another person's ship in EVE Online I'm more likely to say "I just killed that player" than "I killed that player character." Really the only time I've made it a point to differentiate between Player and Player Character is when I'm playing D&D, because you're often speaking for one or the other and not both at the same time. I imagine the same would be true on an RP server for an MMO, but I don't RP in MMOs.

Whether or not the title of the article is "ridiculous" is a matter of opinion, however, so if you think it sounds stupid, then you think it sounds stupid. I think it would take anyone a severe leap of logic to read the article's title and have their first assumption be that From Software is literally murdering its customers, however. Unless they're just in a murdery state of mind at the time.

I might have had something to say about this, but after reading through every page of comments on this article, I'm not so sure I want to get involved. Some seriously angry people up in here.

@Buzzkill said:

Hell yeah, Hark! A Vagrant!

I don't really have anything else to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said. Suffice to say I'm in favor of the "speak how you want and don't listen to optional entertainent if you don't like the way the people providing it talk" crowd, and staunchly opposed to the "If you cuss -- ever -- then I'm more intelligent and considerate than you, now get off my internet" crowd.

@SuperWristBands: That is pretty much exactly what happened with me, except for the "friend" part. I started to drink soda somewhat regularly once I was old enough to not rely on whatever my mother would buy. Then I made a concerted effort to stop -- started drinking primarily water and milk, and had some flavored sports water (Propel) when I wanted something fruity and sweet (it also gave me some vitamins I was lacking). Then I started working overnight at Walmart stocking shelves, and I started drinking soda and energy drinks again to get me through the night, and now I'm on two or three cans a day, like it's some kind of addiction. I reeeally should stop, but it's gonna be hard when the people I live with are always buying it, and it's cheaper than the Propel that would be my alternative.

I use what's appropriate for the situation, but if given the opportunity to choose my role in a battle, I generally prefer accurate, mid-to-long-range weapons: single-shot or burst-fire weapons with some kind of mid-range scope, typically. A full-auto assault rifle is an acceptable stand-in as long as its accurate and the rate of fire is easily controlled by pulsing the trigger.

@FreakAche said:

@MattyFTM said:

@Rappelsiini said:

@MattyFTM said:

Star Trek, because I like sci-fi.

By sci-fi, do you mean "sci-fi mumbo-jumbo"? Or that Star Wars is partly fantasy? I'm not complaining, just intrigued because I know almost nothing about Star Trek.

Star Wars for me obviously.

I mean that Star Wars is fantasy. It's not partly fantasy, it is completely fantasy. Being set in space doesn't make something sci-fi. There is no science whatsoever in Star Wars. You wave your hand and shit happens for no explainable reason. That's fantasy.

Don't get me wrong, I like Star Wars, but it's not sci-fi. And I love a good sci-fi.

To be fair, there's not a whole ton of real science in Star Trek either.

Well, Star Trek may not be Hard Sci-Fi, but compared to most of their contemporaries they make a decent effort to have their science at least appear plausible, and there are some sound theories sprinkled into the techno-babble at least. Star Wars is what's generally referred to as "Space Opera", and I agree is basically fantasy in space, much like Warhammer 40k.

I like both, but I definitely prefer Star Trek by a mile. Or should I say... by a light year?

Ironically, I've read more Star Wars novels than Star Trek. My Star Trek book-reading consists of the first few books of New Frontier, and that Star Trek/X-Men crossover novel because I was like "This is too stupid not to read."