No I mean scrubby. Casual. Lacking mechanics that reward strategic play. It will not have a meaningful skill gap. This is to Battlefield 4 what Mario Kart is to Need For Speed. So no, it's not that it isn't Halo.

And DICE games aren't difficult to master by virtue of being DICE games, it depends on the game. Hardline is slightly easier to play than Battlefield 4 for instance. But whether or not we're talking DICE games in particular, this is an especially scrubby shooter. And that's compared to CoD and Splatoon.

I can elaborate if you wish.

You do not know what you're talking about. Walk away.

I'm half joking here. I really wouldn't mind explaining to you what makes this game casual versus other shooters. I don't think you get the difference.

The fundamentals are shooting other people and that's pretty difficult in itself. The real tactics are more in the bigger picture where you have to be very protective of yourself with the amount of exposure you have, and yet be quite offensive.

Random power ups get dropped in and it seems that's all anyone can see. I'm well aware of the arguments that people make, and in my experience 'scrubbiness' comes down to people describing a low TTK and any sort of asymmetry and/or random element. Those factors, I think, don't have the biggest impact on the game. I've seen scrubby basically thrown at every game that isn't Halo usually. I think I saw you say it about the destiny radar once.

Edit: sorry forgot the dick measuring contest I've been playing battlefield since the first one

I had a feeling you had a problem with the word rather than the principle of what we were saying. And it does seem you don't really get what's wrong with the game (perhaps not 'wrong', but not our cup of tea in regard to competitive balance). So I'm gonna respond to without using any spicy terms that may turn you off.

Okay; what you're talking about aren't the real tactics of the matter. Yes, you just described the most basic tenet of shooters in that you shoot things while not getting shot, but it also a kind of low-balling how shooters are played. Map control, movement, range, cover, health and ammo management, and many elements that are exclusive to a game are at play. These elements combine to form the game's meta, sub-tactics in the general game.

So while you have to shoot things while not getting shot, there are a ton of things you have to do to maintain that general goal. Like how basketball is putting a ball in a hoop while preventing the other team from doing the same. It isn't a false description, but it's almost a disingenuously basic overview of the game. There's more to it.

Those details you are glossing over are the details that make a shooter. Understanding these details helps you determine the overall balance of a game, giving you mastery of its meta. It is also these details that tell us if a game is balanced, broken, hardcore, or casual. Battlefront, as it is right now, is designed to be a casual shooter.

It has more problems than this, but let's chat about it.

Do you know why competitive Smash players turn off Items? It's not because they're killjoys out to exterminate fun at all costs. It's to remove as many random elements as possible. That is: gameplay elements beyond player agency that could affect the outcome of a match. It is majorly agreed upon that a game with as little random elements as possible offers the most player agency, and thus offers the most undisputed outcome. Though the term isn't accurate to the definition, most gamers call this 'competitive'. Removing items from Smash makes it 'competitive'. Games with more random elements out of player control are called 'casual'. Mario Kart and Mario Party are 'casual'. They have many elements out of player control that determine the outcome of a match.

The distinction between casual and competitive is not analogous to 'good game vs bad game'.

Now in Battlefront we have random items on the map that are not acquired by any in-game action other than being lucky enough to find it. Your skill and positioning had nothing to do with it. This makes it a casual game element. That is not a bad thing, only if you are expecting competitive elements, and wish to have agency over in-game actions.

They do.

- Low TTK removes the personality of every firearm making their individual stats and handling less prominent and forming a CoD-like 'who sees who first' situation. On one hand you can argue this kinda balances all firearms if it doesn't matter what you choose, but on the other you make player choice pointless. And while low TTK increases the chance of nearly anyone getting kills and feeling great, and usually ends up punishing casual gamers most since they often do not understand the most basic fundamentals of shooters. It screws over the people it means to help the most.
- Since the blasters are all quick to kill, that makes map traversing the key aspect of the game. Map mastery is extremely important as you claim and control strategic areas of a map. However, the maps I've played and seen don't seem to be designed with any rhyme or reason (it's not that they're asymmetrical either). There are no obvious kill-boxes, lanes, power points, etc. They are just... areas. This was deliberate, as combined with the nonsensical spawn system they made sure to remove any player agency in map control. Run around, shoot things. Casual. Not bad, again, but casual.
- The Destiny inspired 'danger zone' radar is one of the worst design ideas I've ever seen in a shooter. It mostly removes player awareness so you're not in full control of your encounters, removing the skill gap between players. There is no argument that could support this kind of radar that isn't support of casual play. And just like low TTK, this ends up screwing over lower tier players the most since a guy like me still has years of experience predicting enemy movement at the very least. Number of enemies, are they flanking, is he rushing or retreating - who knows! Here's a red quadrant, good luck.
- Jokes on them about the simplified aerial controls - they feel unnatural and Battlefront 2 had a much better grasps on it (among other things). While trying to make them accessible for everybody they ended up giving us the least amount of control with its unintuitive set-up. At least with this a simple control change can fix it easy.
- The 'card' system goes beyond simplifying loadouts to remove classes. I wouldn't have had an issue with this except they didn't institute a working ratio system to balance it out. There will absolutely be a 'perfect hand' eventually. Another casual decision that really leads to shallow meta. Not even gonna talk about what some of these cards can do. It is, literally, the Mario Kart of shooters with some of them. Great if you're down for that, not my cup of tea.
- The Partner system is nonsense. There is no logical reason not to simply transplant the squad system, unless they didn't want a good player providing strategic spawns to too many squadmates. Which perfectly ties with every other decision to keep this game casual.

DICE set out to do two things based on what they released, a) An authentic Star Wars experience that looks and sounds incredible and b) Making sure sure every Star Wars fan can actually play it. This makes perfect sense. Not every Star Wars fan is a guy like me who can talk about the nuances of an assault rifle's damage drop-off post-patch all nerdy day. A lot of people are going to buy this because it's Star Wars, and maybe you don't wanna throw them in a pit with fuckers like me. So they make every decision something that defangs me a tad while giving casuals a fighting chance. I totally get it.

But casual shooters don't pan out the way, say, casual racers do. There's a reason we've never seen a shooter take it this far. Even Splatoon, which looks like a Nicktoon, has a great deal of depth that has a notable skill gap. The shooter genre simply rarely got something on this level, and people are calling it out. Just remember they're not making a 'good/bad' judgment call per se. It's about something being casual or competitive, and judging it by their preference. Battlefront is casual, people are judging accordingly.

Don't think we're calling it casual or scrubby out of thin air, tho. There are demonstrable mechanics to showcase one way or the other. This game is casual. That's not bad. Just not our thing.

And I love Battlefield. May redownload BF4.

You said scrubby which is a perjorative and you didn't say casual. They are two different qualities, so thanks for the stereotypical explanation of what casual means.

I don't understand your point about radars because you say that it's for casuals, then you say it hurts lower tier players.

From what I've used of the blasters, there's.a fair difference in range and distance that doesn't result in a uniformly low TTK. Simulation games like ARMA or Operation Flashpoint back in the day have extremely low TTK so it's not inherently casual. As I said, the only game I think of with a high TTK is Halo, which as we all know is for console baby bros who chug the Dew

It's just habit for me to use it that way. From my point of view, as a competitive player, casual/scrubby is something I don't wanna play in a shooter. I was explaining why the game is casual, avoiding 'scrubby' because you obviously have an issue with it. It is objectively casual based on its elements, and for players like me that makes it scrubby.

That's not a stereotypical explanation... like shit, what would be an interesting explanation? Did you just need something/anything to poke at?

Something that hurts casuals doesn't make it suddenly competitive. So when I say the radar and the low TTK ends up hurting casuals it's like grading on curve. Because it still doesn't make for an interesting skill gap. I don't actually want a system where casuals can't make strategic plays on their own.

This may sound crazy to you, but competitive players want competition.

You do not know what you just said made no sense here. But I will humor this:

Distance between players makes the range of blasters relevant in most shooters. Range in shooters is usually the level before damage/accuracy drops off as to be useless at a certain range. So if you have this:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/gameskinnyop...a40b6071fc.png

Yeah this gun will be useless at long range; unless I'm shooting it. In an environment where the spawning is bonkers and there's no sense of map control. Where you can't conceivably control the distance between you and the enemy. The range stat disparity means nothing. Experienced players can use the weapon outside of its range by placing well shots, killing anybody instantly because the low TTK doesn't give the target enough time to react and use the distance to his advantage.

This is the folly of low TTK; the removal of weapon personality I mentioned in the last post. The weapons have stats and perform slightly different, but there will never be a way to really see a difference. In such an environment over long enough period of time something called "Power Creep" occurs, which is something Destiny is trying to avoid at all costs with their recent updates.

Think of Power Creep as everyone suddenly becoming gods. You can drop people like flies, but you also drop in an instant. This is game balance hell and nobody, even other casual games, don't want this to happen. It's just something that can occur most prominently in a shooter. It's also why when shooters are re-balanced, you rarely hear about across the board buffs (unless pre-patch the game was... too Casual).

(And my experience is still marred because I'm not using the game elements to a controllable advantage. Do you see what I mean by something being casual while not really helping casuals? It still hurts them but doesn't make it competitive for me.)

I'm glad you mentioned this. These games (and to an extent Rainbow 6) have gameplay elements that neutralize the fact they have extremely low TTK. Do these games play anything like Destiny, Halo, Battlefield, CoD? No, the players move drastically different. The maps are crafted drastically different.

The decisions you make between encounters is the meta in games like those. Like fencing.

Once the firefight starts, as in real life, it's quick. It's brutal. And the outcome depends on how you approach that pivotal moment. This is why nobody calls those games casual despite them having low TTK. Remember to take game elements into account. Battlefront is casual because its elements combined to make it so. See how I explained above how the TTK makes weapon stats moot. Battlefront is an arena shooter with a simulation's TTK.

Sure.

I will return to this thread in a few months time to explain to you why DICE patched the game the way they will by then, as they attempt to course correct from how scrubby it is. When you have a handle on this you can predict what kinds of changes will come. It's how me and my buds knew the shotties in Destiny was gonna get nerfed a 3rd time. And it's gonna get nerfed a 4th time, because the problem with shotguns aren't the shotguns.

Oh and here's a fun experiment; go play Halo 5 and try to play it based on the scrubby outcomes of the decisions Destiny and Battlefront made. Run around with a shotgun like in Destiny, just attack people with any weapon anywhere on the map like Battlefront.

See how that works out for you. And that's not to poke fun at people who enjoy casual games. I find that most of the time, people would prefer the competitive side of things if only they understood why they have difficultly in such games. You can feel talked down to or whatever the fuck you thinkin now but you now know more the average bear after all this shit I wrote. You will see Battlefront differently. You will see shooters in general differently.

I shoved the red pill down your throat. And as somebody who went through this most recently with Smash Bros two years ago, there is no going back. Next year our conversations on this matter will be very different.

I don't think you educated me of very much, thanks. I don't expect you to give me an explanation of scrubby fps games because I don't think there is an explanation of scrubby except that it's typically used by someone of your persuasion as 'not Halo'. I think that's come out of this.

I would agree that range isn't a massive factor in Battlefront, but I think the overall impact of that is overstated. There's one thing to say it's an accessible game, and it is in some aspects, but calling it baby's first FPS as it was above is ridiculous hyperbole. It stands up with the other current shooters. I think theres more to it than CoD - at least Advanced Warfare, and I won't be playing Halo 5 because no one is.

What happened with Smash?

That's on you.

Name me another game with such a deliberate combination of 'danger zone' radar, random spawns, random power-ups, low TTK, no squad system despite its large player count, and no effort to balance its loadout system. Go.

In the realm of AAA shooters, this is the most casual that's ever been released. But if you know a more casual leaning game lemme know.

In what respects?

My feelings on CoD are very clear, but even I wouldn't put Battlefront on par with CoD. They're certainly in the class in terms of leveling the field, but Battlefront jumps into the abyss. CoD merely flirts with it. Everything's relative.

You don't need to like Halo 5, but my point stands. Halo 5 will not excuse player actions with casual mechanics. Nor will Battlefield. Nor will Destiny (for the most part). Nor will Gears. Nor will Perfect Dark. These games have notable skill gaps, Battlefront so far does not.

I only started getting serious with Smash around Brawl two years ago with my buddies. Before then I played sparringly using whatever basic fighting fundamentals I had. The guys crushed me. Took a lot of coaching from my buds (notably Khuntry) to understand the game's elements and keep from being the first to die quickly.

Now that I understand the meta I've gone from being 3-stocked in 2mins to lasting. And then from lasting longer to scoring wins. The 'fog of war' of not knowing why I was taking damage and getting caught in mix-ups was lifted. I understand competitive Smash now. I play very differently from my uploads on YouTube.

This can't happen if one dismisses the game's nuances when somebody tries to tell you how and why it works. The original of the scrub term came from people who refused uncomfortable truths about competitive games. FG icons David Sirlin and Seth Killian spoke at length about scrub mentality. Calling a game scrubby came to mean games that cater to people not willing to learn a game's meta. Destiny/Battlefront's radar keeps people from being dominated from people who use traditional radars well. Low TTK removes the disparity between good gun handlers and bad ones. Over the tip aim-assist maintains bad shooting habits. So on and so forth.

Changes were made in Brawl after Melee that were supposed to cater to people who didn't care for how hardcore Melee could get, and the community rejected it. SmashU reconciled the ease of life adjustments with less randomness in the core gameplay. It is a much better game that allows a skill gap, and casuals could still rock it and hang.

There's nothing inherently wrong with casual games, but people reject casual elements in core competitive titles. Even Mario Kart made very small changes that allow slightly more agency than past ones. It is better for it. I never make an argument to shut out casual gamers. My argument is design games that usher casuals into understanding what they're actually playing. Otherwise it's not gonna work out for them in the long run.

If somebody plays Battlefront as it is exclusively and then goes over to any other shooter, they're gonna be in for a rude awakening. This routinely happens when CoD players finally try Halo or Rainbow 6. They often conclude there's something wrong with those games, rather than the habits casual games instill. People who play honest games regularly can play CoD, it does not work the other way around.

I'm going on a mini-rant. So yeah that's my Smash experience and those are my issues with casual game design in shooters.

The battlefront radar is far, far more vague than the Destiny one. The Destiny one had more of an impact on the game to. I don't think it's a bad system in itself and its the way shooters are going to go, I think it's been a sensible evolution for the genre.

Since you like prejudices so much you should be careful who you tell that you're into competitive smash. I read a lot about it back in the Melee days but I occasionally read something for a laugh.

Fighting games are a whole other thing and inherently very much a place to talk about 'scrubbiness'. A 20 vs 20 vehicle shooter has some very different factors going on, and that's down to why I think the casualness is overstated. Calling it a baby's game. If I was casting aspersions I would wonder about games that are more openly team based than relying on an individuals KDR, but I don't know.

Simplicity of Battlefront remains exaggerated

You really think so? Explain to me the merits of this kind of radar. Never really heard an argument for.

I'm well aware about the rift between Smashers and traditional fighting gamers if that's what you mean. I play both so the rift is moot to me. I agree it's hilarious, tho.

It's like you don't know how often Battlefield 4, a 60+plyr game, has been rebalanced to keep it competitive.

I need you to stop saying this. You're the only person saying this. I went out of my way to clarify that I'm only explaining the difference between casual and competitive. I'm not making a positive/negative distinction unless I expressly state my opinion on the matter (I do not like casual shooters; casual shooters aren't 'bad').

You keep acting as though I'm saying it's objectively bad for reasons I'm not clear. I'm not calling it a baby's game. Stop it.

Battlefield absolutely leans toward team play. A recent patch even increased team action point gain. Killing people out of an objective goal context yields you the least amount of points now, next to assists. battlefield has always been good rewarding team play. The Treyarch CoD's tend to find ways to reward team/supportive play as well. Mileage may vary there but points for the effort.

Of course this depends on certain modes as well. For instance Halo could be very lone wolf-y depending on the mode. Other modes demand teamwork, even though you're rewarded individually. Halo still mostly adheres to the 'W' being your reward. I'm 70-30 on that one. I believe in some cases a player on a losing team shouldn't share his team's outcome if he stood out. More XP or whatever. Something to mitigate the L.

Sure.

Further up the thread it was called Baby's First FPS. It's not all about you, baby. To me that implies some massive gulf that separates it from other shooters. To me, it's there, it's simplified, but not in all aspects. It's certainly not Halo, and it's less technical than Battlefield but I don't think the gap is massive. It's not as if it's aimed at people who don't play shooters. You still totally need the modern shooter skill set in its entirety.

I don't recall if Goldeneye had radar, and it's been there through Halo, CoD and the others. FPS have the issues of all 3D games in that you put in an abstraction that bridges the gap that it doesn't work like you're inside the game. I think the radar as it exists with Destiny is the result of just trying a different way to give you spacial awareness in a first person game, and also cope with the increasing complexity and verticality of battlefield layouts. I think that Destiny radar may catch on. New series of games will pick up these evolutions while legacy stuff has to stick to what it has to keep the fans on board. I remember all the furious letters to magazines about how Halo's regenerating health concept was poisoning the genre.

omfg it was a joke. Sorry I insulted your precious game with the baby comment.

I don't have anything to do with that. In this particular convo, you are the only one saying this. And you're saying it in regard to what I'm writing. The implications are there. Stop it.

What does that mean, "modern shooter skill set in its entirety"? Being able to shoot things and not get shot at? That's every shooter ever. If this is your standard for a working shooter than yeah I suppose battlefront meets that quality.

It would also mean we're having two totally different conversations.

The default settings had the radar for multiplayer.

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/...07_4player.jpg

And there was no way to get off it, either.

Halo has motion radar and CoD uses a variation of echo radar used in Perfect Dark Zero and now in Metal Gear Online. These radar types works vastly different and you shouldn't just nudge them together. And both are still better than danger zone radar.

Tracking objects in 3D space for tactical awareness? FPS games have answered this thru the HD era by highlighting objects above and below you (now that icons can render clear enough for you to tell). Battlefield allows you to even adjust radar size and icons. This is old, solved news. But let's move on.

See above.

Having corrected your belief that spatial awareness was an issue, do you have any other arguments for this kind of radar? Or will you rethink it?

CoD. CoD had regenerating health. Halo had health packs. They abandoned them in H2 to put emphasis on shield management - but there was still a 'healthbar' under the shield, that never recovered even if your shield returned. Halo 3 used a variation of this that introduced 'bleed' damage (damaging both shield and health) and Bungie spoke at length about it many years ago. Reach reintroduced health packs and a UI that kept players informed about their health standing when their shields took damage.

People did have beef with regenerating health and over all, it's a mechanic that appears to stay. The kneejerk reaction however subsided when games started accounting for the new pace of this kind of mechanic. Battlefield doesn't even recharge fast making use for medic class. Destiny bases their regen on classes. There were ways to make it work. And it removed the more archaic nature of fishing for health packs in a gun fight.

But the danger zone radar addresses nothing and improves nothing. At all. Unless you got something else to say about it other than the long addressed 3D awareness issue.

And listen to what you're even saying; Even given hypothetically that devs never improved radar for 3D, how on earth is removing detail any kind of solution to that? Oh I can't tell if a guy is above or below me, now make it so I can't tell if he's in shottie range or rifle range as well? On top of not knowing if he's above or below? What the fuck? lol

Do you enjoy the game Rogerer?

If you do, then why do you fucking care if it's a simpler shooter? It's a more casual game for a reason. Because the movie is going to sell an ungodly amount of tickets and a lot of those people are going to buy the game, who wouldn't have otherwise. It's meant to appeal to everybody, because everybody is going to be buying it, from kids, to casual gamers. And while they tried to cater to both casuals and more experienced gamers, it clearly leans towards the former. Again, still fun, but not enough depth or content for someone like me, who has played battlefield and rainbow six extensively.

But back to what what I was originally saying, why do you feel the need to argue so much about it? I enjoy CoD, which is a simpler shooter than most, while Kalyx repeatedly berates it. You don't see me posting these long tirades back and forth with him about it do you? No, because it's fun for me and I don't give a fuck if he doesn't like it. He likes what he likes, I like what I like. That's enough. I don't need to defend myself to anybody.

CoD sux

...

STOP IGNORING ME

See?

Seriously I was about to ask as well why Rog don't drop the mic and say he could give a fuck about skill gaps, competitive balance, etc. I won't deny the game can be fun. And if it works for you than do you.

But it's probably a bad idea to defend it's design decisions in competitive context. They are utterly indefensible. But I'd have nothing to say if you simply said you like it as it is. You clearly take issue with the baby/scrub/casual remarks, and I think it's a worthless hill to die on.

Enjoy your damn self.

People getting angry. I'm just having a chat here. Some people don't like to be disagreed with. Outrage culture.

PS Kalyx sure loves teaching his grandmother to suck eggs. If he wants to be punchy then I might as well just go back to how stupid he is by not understanding the intention of the danger zone radar. I suppose it was designed by Bungie, what the fuck do they know. I also happen to really like to like it but I am not some fucking off the shelf neogaffer/redditor like Kalyx so I have to watch him explain games I've played to me at length. From someone who proffered that we were idiots for not shooting the walls in Splatoon that's a big fat lol. And Halo 1 came out before CoD but it popularised the regenerating idea, I know it wasn't literally regenerating health in Halo but it inspired the mechanic you poindexter

Don't dodge.

Why did you take issue with the game being casual? What is me or Fig's approval worth?

I know your memory is really bad but the posts are all still there. You can click back and read where ininitated discussion. Little did I know that a couple of wankers would start kicking off because someone disagreed with their hyperbole.

What's your problem with a game being casual and why did me and Fig's commentary stir you so?

Quote the post where you said "casual" thanks

Later then.

Forgot you added this.

Rog, this is the part where you kind of lose it. I'm not sure why you break down like this. It's not a good look. You shouldn't internalize this kind of convo. We were talking game mechanics, and somehow that led to you writing the following nonsense.

Remember: Me and Rog were discussing game design. This is what he considers pertinent to a discussion like this. I dunno why.

Again, we were talking about game design and mechanics. I am 'stupid' now.

I don't subscribe to the notion that devs can do nothing wrong ever. Even one as celebrated as Bungie. Evident by their major patches. So in this case, yeah, they should have known better. It's also disappointing that after all this time you're deferring to an authority. Only two AAA games use this kind of radar.

Shall we play this 'defer to authority' game? Shall I raise you a few studios?

I repeat: We were talking about game design. Rog has taken something personal and I'm not sure why.

Also, if you like it that could have been end of conversation. Instead you tried to defend it, which future readers of this thread will judge accordingly.

I'm sure you played a lot of shooters. But it is evident to me, that you aren't as far along in how FPS games actually work as I am. I'm not trying to pull rank or anything, but you haven't even once met my analysis with any substantive counter-argument/analysis. And instead of then making this a learning experience or an open discussion in competitive FPS design, you're calling me a neogaffer/redditor (neither sites I actually frequent), 'stupid', and... condescending, by your tone?

It speaks volumes that you're reacting like this. We were talking about game design. What are we doing here?

Oh yes this launch period gaff certainly dismisses the fucking... pages of game analysis, commentary, review, advice, and generally chit-chatting in the VG forum.

Ignore everything Kalyx wrote in this thread. He thought painting the walls added to the score in Splatoon. Nay, The Rogerer is our man right here.

No.

No it didn't. You're gonna have to do better than posit this. You have shown yourself to not fully understand this subject. You can't just say things.

No it didn't.

It is no longer a half joke; Walk away.

The game is unrealistic if any blaster bolts hit you.

You say I'm wrong there Kalyx, but you're wrong, okay?

Let's have a walk down memory lane (I'll hold your hand). I asked what you meant by the word scrubby and you then went on to explain the word casual, talk about people who play Final Destination No Items on smash (smelly losers) and then go to repeatedly explain things, perhaps you're just filibustering? I remember when Halo 1 came out. COD didn't have regenerating health until 2 which came out in 2005. That's 4 years after Halo and 2 years after Halo 2.

It's adorable how you went back to look up these games to find something I said erroneous about the regen health thing, didn't, but posted what you found anyway cause it sounds subversive to say. You're floundering.

And again; I don't know why you're going batshit about this.

I looked up the release date of Halo 2 and CoD 2. I remember Halo 1and CoD 1 releases quite well. you made out that COD some how inspired other games to have regenerating health, or maybe you didnt, who knows what your were actually saying when you said no, but you're good at being wrong and then immediately denying what you just wrote so I am at your mercy here. And now you've painted me as batshit, I am reeling

Oh you used appeal to authority wrong. You constantly appeal to your own authority I suppose. And saying only 2 games have that radar doesn't counter what I said. I said I predict it will grow through new games. You probably forgot I said that though.

I was telling you which game really set the standard on regen. And now you're tripping over yourself trying to prove me otherwise. All you have are release dates. You never addressed what I told you about how health worked in Halo. Ever. You just ignored it. It directly contradicted your initial post about how Halo popularized regen. Now you're talking about when CoD and Halo came out, as if that has anything to do with which one popularized health regen.

You are being batshit, because two guys said something about a game you liked. It's not fun anymore, and I think I can help by no longer carrying this on.

Halo popularised health regen. It was a massive talking point when the game landed. Oh no sorry noibody noticed until cod4 came out 7 years later.

Halo introduced health regen to a wide audience, but CoD4 made it the standard, if for no other reason that it was multiplatform and with that had a wider audience.

According to unofficial stat trackers, more people are rumored to have played the game on the PS4 than on the PC and Xbox One combined.


Easter egg was recently discovered that pays homage to the idea of Stormtroopers being clumsy.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HATiFAjhZ3g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So I just got this game, and messing with the Speeder Bike chase on Endor........I just peed myself in excitement, and how overly great this is

Looks at season pass for dlc....50 bucks? Dafaq?

You just got EA'd.

I got the game cheap it came with the Jakob stuff.

I had $30 in gift cards to Wal-Mart so I only spent $40

EA recently revealed the DLC release schedule for the game.

http://www.destructoid.com/these-are...s-336869.phtml

I kinda want to buy the DLC. Does anyone think it will be on sale at some point?