Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I honestly thought game developers and publishers would have learned a valuable lesson about how outright attacking the people that legitimately buy the game can cause the whole thing to collapse when it happened to Spore over the insane DRM it had.

It's a shame, because it seemed like Dice did a really good job developing BF3, and now it seems like EA is spoiling everything they've done by undermining all of their efforts and the anticipation of gamers by making the game less and less appealing to play. To me, spyware with a computer program is like a car company being able to instal a hidden camera in your car to watch everything you're doing while you drive.

People don't appreciate this, and it's going to show in fewer sales.

At 8/24/11 07:55 AM, SpiderTaco wrote: Fallout 2 without any patches

This and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky without patches.

The real problem is the inconsistency of prison sentences for crimes of this nature. It never makes sense to give one guy only a few years while someone else rots away for the rest of their life. If you're going to hand out punishments of this magnitude, that's fine, but do it to everyone who commits these kinds of crimes. Anything less is hypocrisy and is a travesty of what the justice system should be.

At 8/24/11 12:25 AM, AbstractFlow wrote: How many of you actually beat those fuckers?

I was never able to, not even through cheating in fully loaded materia with a Game Shark. Those bastards make fighting Sephiroth look like a joke. The way they fight is just cheap and so full of ass, I felt it would be stupid to waste any more time on them.

At 8/23/11 04:22 PM, naronic wrote: old battle is old

This. There are more games out there besides BF3 and MW3, especially in the FPS genre of games. Besides, Battlefield and Call of Duty games play and behave very differently from each other, to the point where its stupid to compare the two. You might as well start making Halo 4 Vs Killzone 3 threads.

I have a strong feeling BOTH games will be good in their own, separate unique ways, and I look forward to seeing BOTH of them released.

At 8/23/11 12:15 AM, Zion0153 wrote: Someone is gonna have to tell me some of these games, because apparently I missed them. I love games that do this, but I think I've only played one, and I don't remember what it was.

I know of only one, and that was Battlefield 2. It did feel more realistic that way, since there's no way you'd ever be able to instantly take the leftover bullets from the discarded magazine and apply them to all your future magazines right in the middle of the battlefield.

The only time I don't reload after a kill is with a light machine gun, mainly because reloading with those takes a painfully long time.

And with Call of Duty, I almost always have Sleight of Hand on. It's one of those things you sorely miss if you switch it out for something else.

At 8/22/11 08:42 PM, Snuff wrote:

At 8/22/11 08:27 PM, B-L-A-Z-E wrote: Call of Duty's campaigns always suck

I don't know, so far Black Ops was the only campaign I didn't like.

Same here. I actually liked MW1 and MW2's campaign.

I mostly get these games for the multiplayer, but I appreciate a good single player campaign.

At 8/22/11 05:55 AM, Wolfos wrote: Wow, so if someone is skilled, they can win? That's a whole lot different than CoD, is it not?

That's not his point though. Honestly, Rank 50s should be placed in games only with other Rank 50s. Then have games where ranks 40-49 play together, followed by people in the 30-39 range, then 20-29, then 10-19, and then 1-9. Otherwise you have Rank 50s just preying on the newbies endlessly and all that happens is winners just keep winning and keep bragging about their KDR e-penis while the newbies that get torn apart trade in the game for store credit. Halo follows this same rank-grouping format (or at least Halo 3 did, never played Reach) and it worked pretty well to make sure players of equal skill and experience played together.

Honestly, I'd rather have a game with awesome-looking sprites as opposed to ugly 3D polygonal models.

I don't mind low quality graphics, but at least make the game feel complete, smooth, and polished.

At 8/21/11 03:20 AM, LoliTastic wrote: It's a nice time-consumer and I find myself playing it when it's bored.

I'm hating this hate angry birds bandwagon growing right now

Rebels just desire attention.

The game is fun, casual, funny, and a great way to kill time. Anyone that gets irate over it is taking it too seriously.

Culex from Super Mario RPG. Tough, but fun if you were armed with the right stuff. Otherwise it was just hell.

At 8/20/11 07:57 PM, Makeshift wrote: I have no idea why the movement is so messed up on the consoles, but it isn't like that on the PC version of the game. It's still possible to get used to it on consoles like I have, but it can take a bit of playing around first. I actually almost prefer the movement in Bad Company to other first person shooter games because it feels more like I'm a human being who actually weighs something. In other first person shooters you can bump up your sensitivity and just turn instantly. Someone could be turned away from you and then shoot you within a second because they turn so fast.

Yeah, I play it on the XBox 360 and it just feels like something's not quite right about it. I understand the desire to mimic the effect of shaking during running, that I don't have a problem with. My issue is really with the aiming. When aiming down the sights, your control stick sensitivity is the same level as when you look around when really it should be decreased to allow for precision aiming. To me, it just feels like the game was really meant to be played on the PC with a mouse. Getting tracers on helicopters, distance sniping, and quick turning all feel like things that would be easier if I had greater control over aiming, something that's done much easier with a mouse over a control stick.

The other thing that seems off is the jumping. Sometimes, while trying to jump over rubble or around plants, I get stuck, the whole screen shakes, and I can't go anywhere unless I back off. Mind you, this is all happening while truckloads of people are out to kill you.

But yeah, like a lot of other people have said, this really seems to be a game more for hardcore players that have devoted themselves solely to this game and not to any others. Thing is, I'm more of a casual gamer that enjoys a little of everything, so it's no surprise when two random Rank 50 guys become my nemesis during any given match.

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of this game either. Often I play it and then end up hating myself for wasting the time I spent on it. My biggest pet peeve about it is how the controls don't always feel responsive, moving around feels pretty clunky and shaky and you get stopped or stuck in places where you shouldn't, and aiming just feels horrid, jerky, and inaccurate. I also feel like anything I use is weaker than everyone else's seemingly one-hit-kill weapons, and yet I have everything unlocked and I use magnum ammo all the time.

I do agree with you, this game is very, very anti-newbie. I hope BF3 won't be like BF:BC2.

At 8/20/11 01:51 AM, Travis wrote: The vault was a great plot device. It's what made Borderlands unique. You were a mercenary that wanted riches or whatever you could get your hands on.

Borderlands story kicked complete ass all the way up until the end.

Ever since the very beginning, I had that feeling that the vault was "too good to be true." You couldn't help but get that feeling every once in a while as you progressed through the game, and long and behold, you were right. To me, it just felt like a peck on the head after all that effort, but the game itself was still really good. I liked its rugged setting, its humorous approach, and its wild west kind of feel.

The whole thing with the vault needs to be ditched. Borderlands was a great game, but the storyline was garbage. Hopefully the sequel focuses on a more important cause rather than just a motivation of greed.

They need to keep the cel shading though, that's what gave Borderlands it's unique, signature look, and without it, it wouldn't feel the same. Personally, I like it, it reminds you that you're playing Borderlands and not some general FPS game.

I do agree that the game needs more character customization though. It would be a lot better if you just built your character from scratch, such as height, hair color/style, skin tone, clothing, and so on. Also, Borderlands 2 would be more interesting if they worked in being able to acquire armor items besides the shield. Usually after a fight, there were piles of guns, shields, and grenade mods, and it just felt like they could add in more item categories.

At 8/18/11 09:25 PM, Viri wrote: Fuck this retarded gay earth.

Both the devil and Modern Warfare 3 are laughing.

I really don't care about achievements/trophies. They're pointless, no one else cares about which ones or how many you've earned, and there's way more to games than just these little extras that essentially say nothing and mean nothing. I only go for achievements for games I really, really enjoy and feel like completing 100% just because it gives me a little extra thing to do after I've beaten the game down but still want something else to do with it. And I've only done this for one game (Borderlands before all that DLC came out).

People obsess way too much over these things. To get games only for the achievements/trophies they offer is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I've heard of.

I would say a lot of it depends on the Wii U, and how well Nintendo can pick up the slack from the 3DS. The 3DS can be good, but it needs a kick in the ass to get going. The PS3 had a rocky start also, but it picked up beautifully. The 3DS can do the same thing if Nintendo steps up their game. Right now, it seems like they've become a bit too reliant on remakes, and they need to get out of that trend.

Another thing Nintendo needs to fix is their online capabilities, which was murder to the Wii. Super Smash Bros Brawl online was a travesty of what online should have been like. Meanwhile, so many other games didn't even have online capabilities. If the Wii U doesn't fix this and just makes it the same old crap that the Wii did, the situation is only going to get worse.

And to me, I have yet to see anything appealing about the Wii U.

At 8/17/11 04:09 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: I actually hated the way vehicles were handled in Homefront.

I like the way battlefield does it. Usually after a few days of it's release, people in a battlefield game will stop camping for vehicles so bad.

Yeah, there will always be a few doing it; but they probably wouldn't be much of a help anyway. In my opinion, vehicles are a god given right in a battlefield game. You should be able to get one regardless of your points.

Maybe a combination of both methods would be ideal. In BC2, people still camp for the helicopters and quickly grab them the millisecond they appear, and I have a feeling it's going to be the same case with the jets. You will also still have those experts with jets that will want to use them all the time and will go to any selfish extent to get them, even if it means a teamkill or two. I think the best idea is to have vehicles spawn, but allow the purchase of additional vehicles via points. That way, even a team that's losing badly will still be getting vehicles rather than being horribly outnumbered and overwhelmed by tanks and helicopters the way some Homefront games usually end up. Meanwhile, a team that's working well and earning points will be rewarded with additional vehicles.

Though I feel that if they did this, they'd probably have to make anti-vehicle weapons and classes slightly stronger, because otherwise infantry would be getting obliterated by the mass number of vehicles.

The whole situation of people camping for jets thing keeps reminding me of Homefront, which probably had the best idea when it came to handling vehicles. Instead of camping for vehicles, you simply purchased them with points, meaning anyone could drive a tank or helicopter if they did the work and got the points to earn it. You could also buy the vehicle and get out to give it up to someone else to use, although that was extremely rare to see happening.

I kind of wish Battlefield 3 would do this same kind of thing, where you used points to spawn a vehicle next to you in a vehicle-spawning location, such as a tank at a base or a jet on a runway. That way, you wouldn't have half the team just waiting around for jets, they'd be out trying to earn the points to get them and thus helping the team. You'd also have people that could practice flying those jets and helicopters with their own points on their own time, rather than have a poor newbie who's just trying to get better at flying vehicles being called a noob after crashing a fully loaded helicopter simply because he's been robbed of the opportunity of practicing piloting these things for the last three hundred times.

I'm sure it will still be an awesome game, but these are the little things that could make it better.

Super Smash Bros + Mario Kart. IE, Smash Bros as a racing game where you attack other drivers like Mario Kart instead of being a fighting game.

Only an airsoft AK-47. I've never fired a real gun though.

At 8/12/11 02:34 PM, micky315 wrote: My Bamboo broke down on me :( so it looks like I'll have to start on part 3 as soon as my new intuos gets here. Should be around Tuesday next week.

Eh, that sucks. When it comes to drawing, without my tablet, I think I'd be like sprinter with a broken leg. Hopefully you get it soon and this one lasts much longer.

Anyway, I've gotten started on Part 11, but most of what I have is just sketches for now.

People who say Call of Duty is the worst video game obviously don't play many video games at all. There's much worse out there, usually on the older systems. People just think they're cool kids when they say Call of Duty because its the "in" thing to hate on that franchise right now.

At 8/12/11 10:03 AM, Allaire wrote: Counter Strike > Black Ops.

Doesn't help if you're sick of Counter Strike, however. It was good for a while, but... it's old.

Game glitches used to freak me out when I was just a kid. I remember Home Alone on the Genesis had a glitch where if you maximized the pain meter and finished off Harry and Marv using the Electro Magnet gun in the old house, the game's visuals got completely scrambled and there was a loud, high-pitched, grinding noise to go along with it. I was young back then, and it was a bit unsettling.

Drowning in the early Sonic the Hedgehog games also induced more stress and tension than it really should have, and I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the music that plays when you only have seconds left before you drown.

Shadowman 64 had plenty of twisted and macabre moments, but the music to the Asylum Playrooms was definitely something that could not be unheard, and is probably one of the most deranged pieces of music I've ever heard. Beware, it's pretty sick. The drilling and blood splatter sound effects drive your imagination to make some of the most twisted imagery.

Lastly, the mutilated women in Nuke Nukem 3D on the N64 were pretty unsettling to look at, the ones that look like they were caught up in seaweed and had their bodies torn apart and their spines twisted around. They were usually found underwater, such as in the pool on the Hotel Hell map. There were times when I went out of my way to avoid having to look at them.

At 8/11/11 05:28 AM, MisterTig wrote: This may sound like a stupid question to most of you... but, what do you like in a sig? I like when someone leaves a link to a funny bbs topic, or the "no-user-who" angreh face error sigs. I know that to some of you they may seem "old" and "unoriganal", but I still like them.

I like anything that's new, funny, unique, and original. Sig trends like the stuff with the bronies gets old and annoying quickly. Once it becomes a bandwagon, it immediately loses its appeal.

I also like links to hilarious BBS topics, like the one where that guy tried to link people to a flash file that was on his hard drive and couldn't understand why people couldn't view it.

I don't hate her as a person, but I don't think she's a good singer. Not by a long shot. I know people that can sing much better than she can, but they will never get the fame she has. That's where I don't think its fair.

Oh my god, I've been waiting for a song collab for eons.

For now, I'll take Part 11 and Part 12, but what do you want the frames per second to be? I didn't see that in either the first or the second post, and that's pretty important to know before I even get started.