This topic is locked from further discussion.
I can play most games on hard (unless you were like Halo on Legendary and I couldn't be arsed with your cheesy difficulty).
The highest amount of hours I've spent in one game is almost 100 hours, so my ability to play at higher difficulties is due to my nerdgeek gene.
i play on easy in every genre except for racing games, in which case i take the hardest, all assists off, for more powerful cars i turn on TC.
I always start at Hard and then go up...unless Hard was locked from the start.
i love challenge.
I play baby la la level.
I play baby la la level.
Normal. I'll adjust up if necessary.
Mostly on Normal level of difficulty.
i play on normal. even though i played in the nes days, i dont like getting frustrated.
My main problem is tuning it to harder difficulty just means half my attacks that worked in normal now doesnt, bosses just get automatic hits/ combo's and health/damage boost for the bosses. i'm not with all that. i hate automatic hits.
Lately the mode just before the hardest one, but it depends mostly on the game. I'm normally good with normal and above overall.
Since games have been coming out even more frequently than before and of course real life obligations, playing on the hardest mode isn't always the best use of time. Some games tend to slow to a crawl after awhile if they get pretty brutal and you don't want to be spending too much time dragging through certain bits.
Usually normal for first play-through. I save hard difficulty for a second play-through or if I want to 100% the game.
I very rarely would play a game on easy, unless it's to mop up achievements OR if for some reason I want to blow through the game real fast (like if I had a free rental at redbox and just want to play through it real quick in one night, then return it).
@drekula2: Hard or Very Hard. Usually I have to unlock Very Hard by beating HARD which is annoying and many times I don't go back. HARD is basically Normal tbh.
Let's be honest, there are WAY too many great games out there. I don't have freakin' time to keep playing games on easy, then normal, then hard. I'm on to the next adventure. I live a busy life, I'm lucky to get through a game ONE TIME. I am not going to make that ONE TIME boring for myself, especially since HARD MODE 99% is actually easy.
Normal is way too easy for oldschool gamers like myself. There is no challenge and I sort of feel like I'm being drug around by my nose.
For the record, HARD is usually too easy as well but it's usually the highest option when first plugging in a game. I want to enjoy the game, take it all in, but I want to also feel like I'm playing the game and not watching a damn video. It's a tough thing to juggle, but games are WAY TOO EASY THESE DAYS. How can we get better playing on normal (which is really just super easy)? You don't improve much and personally I feel like I'm playing against a 4 year old. I don't think I've ever played a game on easy, unless the game was so broken Easy was actually super hard.
If a game is way too easy, I get bored. I may as well watch someone else play it on youtube. If a game is way too hard, yes, I would get aggro, but that hardly happens in todays games. Companies cater to the biggest audience, and that audience has poor hand eye coordination.
One day I will be an old man with poor hand eye coordination. Maybe I will have the shakes. When that day comes, I will play on easy with my grandchildren and remember when I had bad ass skills and I pushed myself. I'm competitive though and I know a lot aren't, so it's all good.
Start Hard and adjust down if needed.
I disagree that normal is "way too easy". Developers in general do a pretty good job of balancing games. I usually find normal somewhat easy, where I might die a few times, but it's enough that I feel the AI is at least slowing me down a bit or posing a challenge. I like normal because i feel powerful, but not invincible. Easy would be where I wouldn't likely have to do any retries, which to me means zero challenge. However I've played many games that kick my ass on hard, even when it's my second time through the game. That's why I usually save that for a 2nd playthrough.
Basically every fighting game ever kicks my ass on hard. Racing games kick my ass on hard. Hack-n-slashs' are semi difficult on hard, but usually pretty doable with a little more patience. Shooters are really the only genre IMO which I generally find "easy" on hard, but then you have grenade spam nightmare sections like in World at War or Call of Duty 4 where a sudden section will require 1000 retries because of grenades. Maybe there are people that blow through those sections on 1st try without dieing, but I have a hard time belieing that. I remember a section in World at War that took me like 3 or 4 hours to finally get through ONE checkpoint. Even though most of the rest of the game was not that bad at all even on hardest difficulty, there are certain checkpoints that I found ridiculous because of the grenades.
RPG's are the one genre where i would tend to avoid hard, just because they might already take 50 or 100 hours. That lenght is also usually boosted artificially by fetch quests and other nonsense. I don't want to artificially increase that lenght even further by having to re-do fetch quests because I died.
Depends on the genre.
FPS games I usually play on the hardest or one below that.
RPG games I typically play on normal because I'm more interested in the story.
Racers, usually on normal as well, because I'm frankly not that good at them lol.
Indies I'll usually play on medium.
I can play most games on hard (unless you were like Halo on Legendary and I couldn't be arsed with your cheesy difficulty).
The highest amount of hours I've spent in one game is almost 100 hours, so my ability to play at higher difficulties is due to my nerdgeek gene.
Watched someone play Halo 4 on legendary. It looked so annoying. All the person was doing was constantly hiding behind stuff to replenish their shield. Was bullshit.
I can play most games on hard (unless you were like Halo on Legendary and I couldn't be arsed with your cheesy difficulty).
The highest amount of hours I've spent in one game is almost 100 hours, so my ability to play at higher difficulties is due to my nerdgeek gene.
Watched someone play Halo 4 on legendary. It looked so annoying. All the person was doing was constantly hiding behind stuff to replenish their shield. Was bullshit.
Yeah that's a problem with higher difficulty in a lot of shooters imo. Basically what happens is that you are forced to play very defensively, which just isn't all that fun. Especially in games with regenerating health it becomes very tedious.
Usually Normal but the last five years I started playing at Hard difficulty to add more challenge. Batman games and Uncharted for example are incredibly easy on Normal, so I go higher.
Normal on a first-time playthrough always. I give up on games pretty easily so if I get stuck on anything for a teensy bit I usually just go play something else due to having way too much choice and no self-control. Most difficulty bumps lend to campy gameplay (shooter), grinding (RPGs) or otherwise cheesing the more difficult encounters (action-RPGs). I can't remember the last time I played through a game a second time on a harder difficulty that wasn't due to a nostalgia fix or back when I was a completionist.
Ironically, I'm willing to dump dozens or even hundreds of hours into multiplayer games that have high-skill caps while studying them (learning matchups, positioning, zones of control, practicing execution, etc) but something like restarting a poorly designed stealth section or getting suckered in by "gotcha" moments in single-player games will almost always make me "take a break" from a game.
I can play most games on hard (unless you were like Halo on Legendary and I couldn't be arsed with your cheesy difficulty).
The highest amount of hours I've spent in one game is almost 100 hours, so my ability to play at higher difficulties is due to my nerdgeek gene.
Watched someone play Halo 4 on legendary. It looked so annoying. All the person was doing was constantly hiding behind stuff to replenish their shield. Was bullshit.
Yeah that's a problem with higher difficulty in a lot of shooters imo. Basically what happens is that you are forced to play very defensively, which just isn't all that fun. Especially in games with regenerating health it becomes very tedious.
I feel the exact opposite when it comes to shooters, because mowing down defenseless AI is boring. The challenge and fun comes from the combat, so there needs to be a sense of danger.
I can play most games on hard (unless you were like Halo on Legendary and I couldn't be arsed with your cheesy difficulty).
The highest amount of hours I've spent in one game is almost 100 hours, so my ability to play at higher difficulties is due to my nerdgeek gene.
Watched someone play Halo 4 on legendary. It looked so annoying. All the person was doing was constantly hiding behind stuff to replenish their shield. Was bullshit.
Yeah that's a problem with higher difficulty in a lot of shooters imo. Basically what happens is that you are forced to play very defensively, which just isn't all that fun. Especially in games with regenerating health it becomes very tedious.
I feel the exact opposite when it comes to shooters, because mowing down defenseless AI is boring. The challenge and fun comes from the combat, so there needs to be a sense of danger.
It depends. In fast paced shooters or when there's a stealth element for example, higher difficulty can be fun. But shooters designed so that on higher difficultys you constanlty have to dodge down to regenerate health, the game isn't really harder, it's just boring.
Didn't mean shooters in general.
I can play most games on hard (unless you were like Halo on Legendary and I couldn't be arsed with your cheesy difficulty).
The highest amount of hours I've spent in one game is almost 100 hours, so my ability to play at higher difficulties is due to my nerdgeek gene.
Watched someone play Halo 4 on legendary. It looked so annoying. All the person was doing was constantly hiding behind stuff to replenish their shield. Was bullshit.
Yeah that's a problem with higher difficulty in a lot of shooters imo. Basically what happens is that you are forced to play very defensively, which just isn't all that fun. Especially in games with regenerating health it becomes very tedious.
I feel the exact opposite when it comes to shooters, because mowing down defenseless AI is boring. The challenge and fun comes from the combat, so there needs to be a sense of danger.
It depends. In fast paced shooters or when there's a stealth element for example, higher difficulty can be fun. But shooters designed so that on higher difficultys you constanlty have to dodge down to regenerate health, the game isn't really harder, it's just boring.
Didn't mean shooters in general.
Then I guess we just disagree, because I find that sort of thing fun. When it comes to Halo, for example, I always play them on legendary, because I don't know what else there is to grab your attention otherwise. The level design is pretty bland, so making every shot count, and having to use cover effectively is a lot of fun to me, especially when playing co-op.
Then I guess we just disagree, because I find that sort of thing fun. When it comes to Halo, for example, I always play them on legendary, because I don't know what else there is to grab your attention otherwise. The level design is pretty bland, so making every shot count, and having to use cover effectively is a lot of fun to me, especially when playing co-op.
So do what @jg4xchamp does (well, what he wants to do at least), and don't waste your time playing Halo because you don't think it has much going for it.
There are so many better genres that do difficulty than shooters, and if you find difficulty in shooters fun from aggressive enemies with huge health bars, your standards are just damn low. Very few FPSes have great difficulty: FEAR was way fun being a damn good shooter where the difficulty came from flanking A.I in tightly constructed corridors. STALKER was way fun being difficult because you couldn't run-n-gun, and humans, mutants etc could surprise you at any moment. Those games didn't need to resort to cheap difficulty settings to be good.
That really all depends on a few factors for me. What genre am I playing? What franchise (I would play Mass Effect 4 and Kingdom Hearts 3 on hard)?
Any game that has RPG elements I will usually play on the harder difficulty, the one that is a notch above Normal, but usually not the hardest one(like if there are 2 above normal I mean). The hardest one can often fall into the cheap kind of difficulty. Like 1 hit and you are dead, and like you die 10 times to get past a fairly routine area in the game.
The difference between Normal and Hard is crucial for me in an RPG game. 2 reasons I enjoy RPGs, a complelling, thrilling storyline with good character development and clever plot twists, and the combat system. In order for me to enjoy the combat, it must be challenging. How do I deal with a difficult battle? I plan my build meticulously, this is usually very important. It's important to speciallize your character, or at least complement your skills with the appropriate equipment. Then, if you are good at that, and play your cards right, you will win the battles, and I get far more enjoyment like that.
I'm also a very competitive gamer and I enjoy the challenges afforded to me by games that rely on good hand-to-eye co-ordination, such as shooters, driving and fighting titles(action games mostly). These are my favorite types of games I would say, as they are the only types of games that can provide a form of adrenaline rush as you play. Playing a fighting game online is simply not the same experience as playing a solo RPG game, and I am not just talking about the content of the game, but how you react to it physically.
Some types of games such as platformers I usually start on Normal, and adjust after a few hours. I found more occurances of "cheap-hard" in those kind of games when you ramp up the difficulty. There might be other examples but they escape me at this very moment. So all this to say that I often play games on the harder difficulties, I enjoy the extra challenge but only if it is well designed.
Hardest available from the get go. Reason for it is because i want my first playthrough to be as long and challenging as possible. I rarely do more than 1 PT so beating a game in under 10h is just disappointing for $80.
Then I guess we just disagree, because I find that sort of thing fun. When it comes to Halo, for example, I always play them on legendary, because I don't know what else there is to grab your attention otherwise. The level design is pretty bland, so making every shot count, and having to use cover effectively is a lot of fun to me, especially when playing co-op.
So do what @jg4xchamp does (well, what he wants to do at least), and don't waste your time playing Halo because you don't think it has much going for it.
There are so many better genres that do difficulty than shooters, and if you find difficulty in shooters fun from aggressive enemies with huge health bars, your standards are just damn low. Very few FPSes have great difficulty: FEAR was way fun being a damn good shooter where the difficulty came from flanking A.I in tightly constructed corridors. STALKER was way fun being difficult because you couldn't run-n-gun, and humans, mutants etc could surprise you at any moment. Those games didn't need to resort to cheap difficulty settings to be good.
I've never cared about what "good" difficulty is, and I find it to be a stupid topic in general. To me, everything stems from the gameplay, so as long as that's fun, I couldn't care less what tactics the developers employ on the higher settings. If all they do is put faster and more enemies and give them bigger health bars, that's cool by me, since that's what many of my favorite games such as Streets of Rage, Battle Mania, and Gunstar Heroes do. I like the combat in Halo; that's why I play it. It's the most important factor, so I can forgive sterile level design as long as the gameplay is fun. That's why I played the original F.E.A.R too back in the day, even though it had cramped and boring level design as well. STALKER never interested me, because of its boring setting, but the difficulty in that game of what I remember from watching my brother was even more retarded because the AI would just head shot you on the highest difficulty.
So do what @jg4xchamp does (well, what he wants to do at least), and don't waste your time playing Halo because you don't think it has much going for it.
There are so many better genres that do difficulty than shooters, and if you find difficulty in shooters fun from aggressive enemies with huge health bars, your standards are just damn low. Very few FPSes have great difficulty: FEAR was way fun being a damn good shooter where the difficulty came from flanking A.I in tightly constructed corridors. STALKER was way fun being difficult because you couldn't run-n-gun, and humans, mutants etc could surprise you at any moment. Those games didn't need to resort to cheap difficulty settings to be good.
I've never cared about what "good" difficulty is, and I find it to be a stupid topic in general. To me, everything stems from the gameplay, so as long as that's fun, I couldn't care less what tactics the developers employ on the higher settings. If all they do is put faster and more enemies and give them bigger health bars, that's cool by me, since that's what many of my favorite games such as Streets of Rage, Battle Mania, and Gunstar Heroes do. I like the combat in Halo; that's why I play it. It's the most important factor, so I can forgive sterile level design as long as the gameplay is fun. That's why I played the original F.E.A.R too back in the day, even though it had cramped and boring level design as well. STALKER never interested me, because of its boring setting, but the difficulty in that game of what I remember from watching my brother was even more retarded because the AI would just head shot you on the highest difficulty.
Halo does it in a manner that is super shitty and highlights its many weaknesses in gameplay. I would argue all Legendary does is put giant spot lights on the shit Halo does poorly. Streets of Rage, Gunstar Heroes, FEAR are a class superior and do difficulty in interesting ways. Hell Japanese developers on balance have always done multiple difficulty settings significantly better than the west ever did.
FPS games to me just do it in a shitty manner that always undermines the gameplay as opposed to enhancing it. It's not the same as playing Ninja Gaiden on hard (master ninja is probably not fair, so I won't argue it is, but I can do it, so it's not that bad) where actual enemy patterns have changed, enemy types have changed, aggression level and pace is different, but you're still expected to play offensively the way the game is built. Halo and a lot of this regen health/2 weapon system FPS's take what is offense oriented mechanics, and then ask you to get behind a rock and pick off enemies in a tedious fashion. Combat Evolved was better about it because it had good weapon balance, but Halo 2-now? Pfft Nope.
Then I guess we just disagree, because I find that sort of thing fun. When it comes to Halo, for example, I always play them on legendary, because I don't know what else there is to grab your attention otherwise. The level design is pretty bland, so making every shot count, and having to use cover effectively is a lot of fun to me, especially when playing co-op.
So do what @jg4xchamp does (well, what he wants to do at least), and don't waste your time playing Halo because you don't think it has much going for it.
There are so many better genres that do difficulty than shooters, and if you find difficulty in shooters fun from aggressive enemies with huge health bars, your standards are just damn low. Very few FPSes have great difficulty: FEAR was way fun being a damn good shooter where the difficulty came from flanking A.I in tightly constructed corridors. STALKER was way fun being difficult because you couldn't run-n-gun, and humans, mutants etc could surprise you at any moment. Those games didn't need to resort to cheap difficulty settings to be good.
I've never cared about what "good" difficulty is, and I find it to be a stupid topic in general. To me, everything stems from the gameplay, so as long as that's fun, I couldn't care less what tactics the developers employ on the higher settings. If all they do is put faster and more enemies and give them bigger health bars, that's cool by me, since that's what many of my favorite games such as Streets of Rage, Battle Mania, and Gunstar Heroes do. I like the combat in Halo; that's why I play it. It's the most important factor, so I can forgive sterile level design as long as the gameplay is fun. That's why I played the original F.E.A.R too back in the day, even though it had cramped and boring level design as well. STALKER never interested me, because of its boring setting, but the difficulty in that game of what I remember from watching my brother was even more retarded because the AI would just head shot you on the highest difficulty.
Goes to show you don't know what you're talking about. Two points about STALKER's difficulty
All the more reason to not limit your brother's lateral thinking by co-oping with him stupid difficulties like Halo on Legendary. Be a good brother and let him become part of the elite master race.
Another point about FEAR: it didn't have boring level design, it had boring art design. The great level design is what made the encounters more challenging than "enemy has bigger health bars and you deal smaller damage", because A.I were given the ability to come around any corner, corridor, window, desk etc.
Anyway, if you think "good" difficulty is a stupid topic in general, really no point in discussing it with you. But it's like sharting in between two buns, calling it a sloppy joe, and being content with it. Some people have standards.
So do what @jg4xchamp does (well, what he wants to do at least), and don't waste your time playing Halo because you don't think it has much going for it.
There are so many better genres that do difficulty than shooters, and if you find difficulty in shooters fun from aggressive enemies with huge health bars, your standards are just damn low. Very few FPSes have great difficulty: FEAR was way fun being a damn good shooter where the difficulty came from flanking A.I in tightly constructed corridors. STALKER was way fun being difficult because you couldn't run-n-gun, and humans, mutants etc could surprise you at any moment. Those games didn't need to resort to cheap difficulty settings to be good.
I've never cared about what "good" difficulty is, and I find it to be a stupid topic in general. To me, everything stems from the gameplay, so as long as that's fun, I couldn't care less what tactics the developers employ on the higher settings. If all they do is put faster and more enemies and give them bigger health bars, that's cool by me, since that's what many of my favorite games such as Streets of Rage, Battle Mania, and Gunstar Heroes do. I like the combat in Halo; that's why I play it. It's the most important factor, so I can forgive sterile level design as long as the gameplay is fun. That's why I played the original F.E.A.R too back in the day, even though it had cramped and boring level design as well. STALKER never interested me, because of its boring setting, but the difficulty in that game of what I remember from watching my brother was even more retarded because the AI would just head shot you on the highest difficulty.
Halo does it in a manner that is super shitty and highlights its many weaknesses in gameplay. I would argue all Legendary does is put giant spot lights on the shit Halo does poorly. Streets of Rage, Gunstar Heroes, FEAR are a class superior and do difficulty in interesting ways. Hell Japanese developers on balance have always done multiple difficulty settings significantly better than the west ever did.
FPS games to me just do it in a shitty manner that always undermines the gameplay as opposed to enhancing it. It's not the same as playing Ninja Gaiden on hard (master ninja is probably not fair, so I won't argue it is, but I can do it, so it's not that bad) where actual enemy patterns have changed, enemy types have changed, aggression level and pace is different, but you're still expected to play offensively the way the game is built. Halo and a lot of this regen health/2 weapon system FPS's take what is offense oriented mechanics, and then ask you to get behind a rock and pick off enemies in a tedious fashion. Combat Evolved was better about it because it had good weapon balance, but Halo 2-now? Pfft Nope.
I wonder if it's legitimate laziness on the part of the developers to scale damage in that way, or a philosophy of relying on systems to carry the gameplay. Or maybe they need to realise sometimes systems fail and you need to do a custom job.
I get the reason why Halo's friendly A.I is stupid, because if they actually were competent there wouldn't be many enemies for you to kill. But far from creating a more dynamic system which involves macro-managing valuable friendlies (which would've been a great addition to the game by the way), you could script some moments to just make the game better. If you ride shot-gun or on the turret in a vehicle, 100% script them to the next objective, with the trade-off being vulnerable to heavies. And with enemies, instead of scaling their damage on Legendary, override Elites with swords that relentlessly track you down, or grunt squads that relentlessly flank you out of cover.
Sometimes you gotta hand-craft the sandbox a bit.
Then I guess we just disagree, because I find that sort of thing fun. When it comes to Halo, for example, I always play them on legendary, because I don't know what else there is to grab your attention otherwise. The level design is pretty bland, so making every shot count, and having to use cover effectively is a lot of fun to me, especially when playing co-op.
So do what @jg4xchamp does (well, what he wants to do at least), and don't waste your time playing Halo because you don't think it has much going for it.
There are so many better genres that do difficulty than shooters, and if you find difficulty in shooters fun from aggressive enemies with huge health bars, your standards are just damn low. Very few FPSes have great difficulty: FEAR was way fun being a damn good shooter where the difficulty came from flanking A.I in tightly constructed corridors. STALKER was way fun being difficult because you couldn't run-n-gun, and humans, mutants etc could surprise you at any moment. Those games didn't need to resort to cheap difficulty settings to be good.
I've never cared about what "good" difficulty is, and I find it to be a stupid topic in general. To me, everything stems from the gameplay, so as long as that's fun, I couldn't care less what tactics the developers employ on the higher settings. If all they do is put faster and more enemies and give them bigger health bars, that's cool by me, since that's what many of my favorite games such as Streets of Rage, Battle Mania, and Gunstar Heroes do. I like the combat in Halo; that's why I play it. It's the most important factor, so I can forgive sterile level design as long as the gameplay is fun. That's why I played the original F.E.A.R too back in the day, even though it had cramped and boring level design as well. STALKER never interested me, because of its boring setting, but the difficulty in that game of what I remember from watching my brother was even more retarded because the AI would just head shot you on the highest difficulty.
Goes to show you don't know what you're talking about. Two points about STALKER's difficulty
All the more reason to not limit your brother's lateral thinking by co-oping with him stupid difficulties like Halo on Legendary. Be a good brother and let him become part of the elite master race.
Another point about FEAR: it didn't have boring level design, it had boring art design. The great level design is what made the encounters more challenging than "enemy has bigger health bars and you deal smaller damage", because A.I were given the ability to come around any corner, corridor, window, desk etc.
Anyway, if you think "good" difficulty is a stupid topic in general, really no point in discussing it with you. But it's like sharting in between two buns, calling it a sloppy joe, and being content with it. Some people have standards.
lol, someone's mad. My post apparently upset you as half of the garbage that you wrote reeks of a butthurt hermit. Funny too, considering that both my bro and I are probably what one would classify as mostly hermits; especially him, considering that he's a Quake III/Live vet, a Global Elite on CS: GO, and oh yeah, that he's beaten your heralded STALKER, actually every STALKER, on the highest difficulty. So, yeah, I don't understand what fanboy shit you're trying to spew here, but apparently you think I'm championing Halo since you HAD the need to defend F.E.A.R and STALKER even though I said upfront that I had no interest in such a blowhard discussion. Oh wait, you did recognize, you just wanted to make sure that you came off as a complete tool first. :(
Pretty much always start on normal since that's what devs in general balance the game for. For the most part, changing from that just alters your/enemy's health/damage output, and that usually isn't very fun on the first playthrough. However, because I don't buy new games very often, I'll go back and reply most of my games on higher difficulties just because. Other games, like CoD and Uncharted, I'll play through on easy the next times through because that replicates the feel the game is going for the best.
Goes to show you don't know what you're talking about. Two points about STALKER's difficulty
All the more reason to not limit your brother's lateral thinking by co-oping with him stupid difficulties like Halo on Legendary. Be a good brother and let him become part of the elite master race.
Another point about FEAR: it didn't have boring level design, it had boring art design. The great level design is what made the encounters more challenging than "enemy has bigger health bars and you deal smaller damage", because A.I were given the ability to come around any corner, corridor, window, desk etc.
Anyway, if you think "good" difficulty is a stupid topic in general, really no point in discussing it with you. But it's like sharting in between two buns, calling it a sloppy joe, and being content with it. Some people have standards.
lol, someone's mad. My post apparently upset you as half of the garbage that you wrote reeks of a butthurt hermit. Funny too, considering that both my bro and I are probably what one would classify as mostly hermits; especially him, considering that he's a Quake III/Live vet, a Global Elite on CS: GO, and oh yeah, that he's beaten your heralded STALKER, actually every STALKER, on the highest difficulty. So, yeah, I don't understand what fanboy shit you're trying to spew here, but apparently you think I'm championing Halo since you HAD the need to defend F.E.A.R and STALKER even though I said upfront that I had no interest in such a blowhard discussion. Oh wait, you did recognize, you just wanted to make sure that you came off as a complete tool first. :(
Plot twist: When you realise the guy you called a hermit loves his Halo.
Yes, I enjoy being somewhat of a tool on System Wars and calling out peoples' ill logic for sport. Next time, don't take the bait when I do something as stupid as call out your brother. I made a really wild throw dude and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. It was too easy!
I start off at normal and go up once I finish the game. Some games I go on hard because normal is like handicapped.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment