Trav57's forum posts
When having a conversation in game, NPCs react to what you say. Garrus is never going to "decide he wants a bit of shepard" unless you choose the dialogue path that actually leads to him wanting to have a relationship with you. You sure about that? That dude in DA2 (don't really care to remember anything from that game, lol) made advances toward you out of the blue from what I remember. I never played DA2 but I should have clarified more. What I was trying to say is that there won't be a random cutscene where garrus decides to have intercourse with shepard. If a character does approach you out of the blue then just choose the "no" dialog option.[QUOTE="Trav57"][QUOTE="Biohazard93"] But I didn't play a female in ME1 or 2. I played as a straight male Shepard who had no time for relationships or sex because he was to busy saving the universe. I think that adding the option to be homosexual is really stupid and is the reason I won't be playing ME3. It's just going to ruin it for me, what if I just want to gain loyalty but end up accidentally turning on one of my squad mates ?? What if Garrus (who is one of the most badass characters ever) decides he wants a bit of shepard during some dialogue ?? that would completely destroy his character. What If I encounter a side quest were a big burly Krogan wants me to save his boyfriend from a group of mercs ?? All of these things are going to destroy the atmosphere and epicness of the previous games. I also saw on the bioware forums where they said that being gay is a huge part of the game and your missing out if your character isn't gay I just don't see why people need to be gay in there video games keep it to your personal life and dont have it ruining my experience.Karnage108
[QUOTE="dreman999"]I'm sure this bothered you some much when your playing a female in ME1 and 2. But I didn't play a female in ME1 or 2. I played as a straight male Shepard who had no time for relationships or sex because he was to busy saving the universe. I think that adding the option to be homosexual is really stupid and is the reason I won't be playing ME3. It's just going to ruin it for me, what if I just want to gain loyalty but end up accidentally turning on one of my squad mates ?? What if Garrus (who is one of the most badass characters ever) decides he wants a bit of shepard during some dialogue ?? that would completely destroy his character. What If I encounter a side quest were a big burly Krogan wants me to save his boyfriend from a group of mercs ?? All of these things are going to destroy the atmosphere and epicness of the previous games. I also saw on the bioware forums where they said that being gay is a huge part of the game and your missing out if your character isn't gay I just don't see why people need to be gay in there video games keep it to your personal life and dont have it ruining my experience. When having a conversation in game, NPCs react to what you say. Garrus is never going to "decide he wants a bit of shepard" unless you choose the dialogue path that actually leads to him wanting to have a relationship with you.[QUOTE="Biohazard93"] I understand it's optional but I won't be able to get it out my head that your 2 choices are that you can stay in the closet or come out and either way he is gay I never said I have a problem with anyone being gay I just don't understand why it has to be in video games ??Biohazard93
but when a game like Uncharted 3 gets a lower score than its predecessor for being "too similar" and BF3 gets a lower score because the "campaign is linear and the story is bad" but reviewers let these aspects of each cod iteration slide, one becomes suspicious of the consistent 9's that cod receives every year.Sledgehammer cannot win in this scenario ...
if its gets high scores everybody will act as though they expected it and reviewers were payed off. If it gets an 8 or less, everybody will say "I knew it would suck, beginning of the end for COD franchise !".
you know I'm right, except you biases and move on.
rasengan2552
[QUOTE="Trav57"][QUOTE="FPSDad1161"]BF3 came with a new engine, which means new graphics, animation,lighting, and destruction. Also restructured classes, new weapon unlock system, lots of attachments for guns (upgradable barrels, bolt actions, laser sights, tactical flashlights, etc), unlockable weapons/equipment for vehicles, new class specific equipment to help your team (med kits, ammo kits, respawn beacon, engineer torch, MAV etc), coop (never been done before in bf3), lots of new vehicles. Also, are you seriously saying that Halo Reach wasn't very different from previous Halos? Because Halo reach changed the fundamental gameplay that the Halo series was always known for. So BF3 combines assault and medic and does some tweaks to classes. Very innovative, although as an assault player, I'm greatful for the class finally being useful.. ZOMG new gadgets/weapons/vehicles (CoD has new stufff too, but it doesn't count right?). Most FPS games have had co op for a while, BF playing catch up. Oh, and one new mode TDM to appeal to the TDM players from CoD. As for Halo, Reach felt more like the gameplay of Halo CE to me (which is a good thing). It also added a class system which offered a perk for each class. As much as I love Halo there wasn't much innovative about Reach. Amazing game, 10/10 for me and my GOTY for 2010. Also my favorite FPS of all time, but it really didn't change much, sorry. My point is, none of these FPS games are not doing much to change or introducing a lot of new stuff. However CoD catches flak for it year after year. Hate it if you want, but don't give me the rehash crap because almost every games sequels are rehashes. the fans of Battlefield and Halo don't want it to change much through each iteration because they feel that the core gameplay needs no improvement. However, I always see people who used to play the old cods (1-4, before killstreaks and perks were the only thing that mattered) saying that they won't buy the new games because the gameplay of cod is really broken and unbalanced. Cod 4 was fun because it brought killstreaks and perks to the fps genre, and it was something no one has ever seen before. Since everyone loved the game, Activision saw fit to release a cod every year after while adding more and more perks and killstreaks. In cod 4 there were only 3 kill streaks and they weren't overpowered or didn't make the game unbalanced. Then MW2 and blackops come along and the massive amounts of crazy overpowered killstreaks (what a joke the nuke was) really makes the game unplayable because it has become the focus of the game. Most of the people that "hate" on cod are cod veterans who do not like what the game has become. And when cod players say "but if its not broken, don't fix it" they must not remember the time when cod was actually a somewhat balanced and innovative game.I voted AAAA, but I know it will get AAA. I cannot wait for this game. To the people complaining about CoD not doing anything new, let me ask you this: What did BF3 do that was new? What did Gears 3 do that was new? What did Halo: Reach do that was new? I could go on and on. I've played pretty much every FPS there is, as well as pretty much each iteration of these series.
BF3 did not add any major improvements or features over the previous BF game (BF:BC2). In fact, I feel that BC2 was the better game. Halo: Reach added very few improvements and features over the last core game (Halo 3, ODST was an expansion), and it is still the best FPS game of all time. Gears of War 3 improved the MP over Gears 2, but didn't add a ton of new features, yet it is the best of it's series. CoD gets so much hate for being the same each year, but tell me honestly (take the fanboy goggles off, and turn off you're blind hatred of CoD), what did these other FPS/TPS games do that was so new?
FPSDad1161
BF3 came with a new engine, which means new graphics, animation,lighting, and destruction. Also restructured classes, new weapon unlock system, lots of attachments for guns (upgradable barrels, bolt actions, laser sights, tactical flashlights, etc), unlockable weapons/equipment for vehicles, new class specific equipment to help your team (med kits, ammo kits, respawn beacon, engineer torch, MAV etc), coop (never been done before in bf3), lots of new vehicles. Also, are you seriously saying that Halo Reach wasn't very different from previous Halos? Because Halo reach changed the fundamental gameplay that the Halo series was always known for.I voted AAAA, but I know it will get AAA. I cannot wait for this game. To the people complaining about CoD not doing anything new, let me ask you this: What did BF3 do that was new? What did Gears 3 do that was new? What did Halo: Reach do that was new? I could go on and on. I've played pretty much every FPS there is, as well as pretty much each iteration of these series.
BF3 did not add any major improvements or features over the previous BF game (BF:BC2). In fact, I feel that BC2 was the better game. Halo: Reach added very few improvements and features over the last core game (Halo 3, ODST was an expansion), and it is still the best FPS game of all time. Gears of War 3 improved the MP over Gears 2, but didn't add a ton of new features, yet it is the best of it's series. CoD gets so much hate for being the same each year, but tell me honestly (take the fanboy goggles off, and turn off you're blind hatred of CoD), what did these other FPS/TPS games do that was so new?
FPSDad1161
The Roommate, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, Dream House, and Drive were all pretty bad.xdude85I completely agree on The Roommate, but you thought Drive was bad?
Log in to comment