Who cares? The REAL question is ... who had the better ALPHA!?
/end sarcasm
This is true. You get into a certain match of Bad Company 2 right now, people know all the cover spots/buildings, etc. And so what they do is they just drop those building with a tank or heli immediately when the match starts and all of a sudden you have a match that has NO good cover in it at all. Not that fun.
Troll. Sorry, had to bite :)
Well, THIS article is not meant to start flaming ...
I didn't fall for it either, I didn't click the link. Seriously, if you want to promote your website, then at least try to do it with a bit of class. All this is doing is make people not like your site before they even click the link.
And you're wrong, that picture does NOT looks better than MW3 or BF3. It does however look better than Borderlands 1.
It's no big deal really. One for campaign/co-op, one for multiplayer, I would assume.
It's not so much a ploy, as it is a business model. A game makes them a certain amount of money for a publisher and developer. But DLC is direct income for them, no middle man, etc. And sometimes it's really good, sometimes it's really bad. If it's a game that you really, really love, then why not? A lot of people want to keep playing in a game's universe when it's over because they like it so much; I'm the same with, say, Mass Effect 2.
The way I...
To be honest, this is fine with me. As I'm getting older (in my 30's now), I really don't have the time to put into a longer campaign unless it's a great RPG. But this is all dependent on whether the campaign is actually good or not; I'll wait on reviews to let me know about that. If not, I think I'll just jump right into the multiplayer. For those really, really complaining about this and hating DICE for having a "short" campaign ... if you're buying BF3...
I don't know about you, but I would WELCOME more DLC for Battlefield 3. I don't care if EA wants money or if they're there to just cash in. I will look at each DLC separately and see if they are worth it and then decide. It's better than having NO options.
One more thing: people the ONE thing I've heard the most is that BF3 "will keep out the 12 year olds." Look, I'm now in my 30's, and yeah, I hate the yelling high pitched voices as much as anyone (mute ftw). Guess what though, 2 things that newb's can BRING to a game: easy kills (lol) and more sales (which means more support, maps, games, etc.). More people in a game means there's more of a chance for the really good people to shine and will keep the game alive f...
I agree with almost everything said, except one thing: you CAN get in a 15 or 20 minute game of Battlefield (obviously, I don't know about BF3, but I'm saying it compared to Bad Company 2). I could get into a half finished match of Rush, finish that, then play an entire second match in about 15 minutes. Sometimes it's longer, sometimes it's a LOT quicker (depending on how many people suck) but it's possible.
BUT, even though I agree with most of what was ...
Ok, so go and read ANY EULA and tell me if it's any better. They're all technical jargon and about controlling information, and this is no different.
Obviously we don't know these people, but I think it's fair to say we can, AGAIN, put the blame on the parents here (just like every other violent video game disaster). What were they thinking leaving their 9 month old with a disturbed, video game playing 13 year old? And they had to have known he wasn't right if he's willing to do something like that. I'm fine with them trying him as an adult, but the parents have some blame in this.
I agree with this, because this is how it was done in Bad Company 2. But I always wondered why they didn't add another target? How about a crotch shot to take someone down?
Seriously though, why not add a shot to the heart? Then snipers would have 2 targets. Obviously it will be hard to hit on a moving target, but it would be another option (they probably can't do this; I'm sure the game would have to be designed with this as a critical area from the beginning). ...
Now they will :)
And I'm specifically going to be looking for this tactic, thanks!
Remakes in general are pretty disappointing. You'll never capture that feeling that you had playing the original, no matter how hard you try. The new one will always be glossier, more polished, and won't feel the same.
Having said that, yeah, I can see how this is a pretty disappointing thing to the fans of the series. To be honest, I haven't played ANY silent hill game, but I was interested in this HD collection to get started. It's said though; if you'r...
What fact? I didn't read any fact.
It wouldn't (or shouldn't) surprise me. I would assume if it was, that it would be 1 for the compaign + co-op missions, then 1 for the multiplayer. Not too bad of a deal, even if it's on 2 discs.
You're sick man, I think you have Stockholm syndrome. See a shrink, MW3 is NOT you're friend, they've done bad things to you.
Time for a new start, huh? Squarehard.
Not bad. I was afraid they'd have to cut it down even more to get the frame rate steady at 30 fps. Good thing it's not too much.