- Apocalypse
- |
- Fabled Heroic Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
You didn't even bother with this, so I'll post it again. Quoting it made it look sloppy.
Posted by: Plunderfuq
I can, but logic is judged to be so by you currently and forgive me for saying this, I believe you have made judgements about my logic before it has been written.
I honestly don't even know what this means, you've shown no "logic" in my eyes with your "arguments". You've simply said you think its a good game because you enjoy it, because you're casual and will play it regardless.
Which as I stated, is all fine and dandy. Whats not unicorns and rainbows (why am i using these weird phrases)? is that you're trying to claim that as your basis of your arguments. Arguments that you don't even know about.
I do, I have been watching two forums for a year, trust me, I am well aware of the list of things "competitive" players think is wrong with Reach. At this point, after a year the arguments are still the same basic ones, just different reasons. Example: AL was OP, now its unbalanced or breaks the flow of play or all of them.
As just previously stated, you don't know. The only things you see are the most common, by idiots who just scream an shout and do not help the case at all. You have yet to see an actual, in depth, thought out, logical argument against Reach.
If you want one, try to bring up actual logical points and views, as to why Reach is a good game (in general) in your eyes. Not just a "Its a good game cuz I like to play it, nuff said".
Then I should simplify my meaning: If after a year, you still play Reach, but have continued to have more bad to say about it then good, you are frankly losing credibility by the day.
Where to start with this one..........
You're already wrong, I played the beta and knew it would need to be drastically changed. It wasn't, I still played with friends and gave it a chance for a couple months after its release. I then ended up having enough and so did my friends, I stopped playing (and so did they, in fact most of them are still gone/done with Halo) from anywhere from 10-12 months after this period and only came back due to the mention of the TU.
I've been back for 3 months (until a few weeks ago) solely because of the TU, yet I only accumulated 3 days of game time. Two days of which are entirely playing ZB, NS customs.
So no, I do not play this game, nor do I plan on playing it again because it is bad and probably will remain bad. Its been made 100x better with the updates to MLG but that still needs a ton of work. Even then, there's no point in playing, there's no intensive of wanting to play, win, get better, theres no replay value.
Everything else you said that I did not quote was just a disguised "Adapt N00b" comment. Back to the drawing board, try again.
Logical rebutals expand farther than bloom and AA for the reason why they are valid, perhaps you should rejoin your debate class and relearn the finite rule of debating. Or perhaps retake your courses on philosophy as I believe you have missed the point of the debate and my logic.
You brought up Bloom and AA's, have yet to bring up logical arguments to why you see these as "good" changes or "beneficial" to gameplay. I have yet to see anything out of you other than "Its a good game because I enjoy playing it, nuff said".
You have brought nothing to the "debate" and have not shown any logical rebuttals or view points as to why Reach is a good game.
Nor have you given anything to set the floor for people to give you logical, thought out reasons why its a bad game.
This entire thread has been completely pointless, because once again your whole "argument" is "its good because I like to play it, end of story".
Yet you keep perusing it like you've actually got a good case, and you don't.
Again, back to the drawing board. Hopefully you present something logical, but I have my doubts.
[Edited on 12.19.2011 2:35 PM PST]