Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why do people exaggerate so much?
  • Subject: Why do people exaggerate so much?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Why do people exaggerate so much?

It really pisses me off sometimes. When someone takes something they dont like, for whatever reason, and uses extreme hate tier adjectives to describe things. I mean really.
Frequent usage of things like.
awful, god awful
rubbish,
trash,
horrid,
abhorrent

What the hell. Its getting ridiculous.

Let me throw this out there. As a random example out of a building list of thousands. Halo Reach and halo 4 are not awful, horrid or rubbish games. Shut the hell up. They made some decisions that pissed a small competitive and vocal portion of the community off (reach more than 4) but by international standards of gaming they are FAR from awful. Man, if halo 4 is God Awful Then what does a game like brink or superman g4 become? God awful squared?

Some exaggerating people, its stupid and unnecessary. (inb4 like this thread)

  • 11.30.2012 9:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Steam - slamt4stic
Live - SLAMt4stic

This is THE BEST thread EVER.

  • 11.30.2012 9:56 PM PDT

Hyperboles n stuff

  • 11.30.2012 9:57 PM PDT

No, Reach really was god awful.

Edit: unless you mean a game has to literally be unplayable for that, in which case your standards are ridiculously low and I'd like to request that you stop dragging down the bar of adequacy.

[Edited on 11.30.2012 9:58 PM PST]

  • 11.30.2012 9:57 PM PDT

3ds FC: 2020 0621 7311

Hope Rides Alone

people are just jerks, end of discussion

  • 11.30.2012 9:58 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Hoc volo sic iubeo. Sit pro rationes voluntas." - Juvenal

"Scio me nihil scire." - Socrates

I've never exaggerated in my life. EVER!

  • 11.30.2012 9:58 PM PDT

3ds FC: 2020 0621 7311

Hope Rides Alone


Posted by: Cpt Needa
No, Reach really was god awful.



pffft that's like, your opinion or something

  • 11.30.2012 9:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Writer's Corner
6/15/2011 11:39 PM: bobcast [2597260] issued a 3 day ban expiring on 6/18/2011 11:39 PM.
Reason: A Bungie.net Forum Moderator has banned you for violating the code of conduct and/or rules of the forum in the thread below
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=61704535
Inappropriate. Went a little to far with the butt hole tearing.

Hyperboles make for more spirited dicksuction.

  • 11.30.2012 10:00 PM PDT

Posted by: x Foman123 x

Posted by: TH3_AV3NG3R
What house has a rocket pod, has legs, and has a long narrow barrel that probably shoots something powerful?

Sounds like you're describing the lower half of my body, actually.

Because people are trying to get their point across by exaggerating their post. Whatever, it is just opinions and stuff no need to get rustled over it.

  • 11.30.2012 10:01 PM PDT

You deserve to die for making this thread.

  • 11.30.2012 10:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

H4 and Reach are putrid, rubbish, terrible, disgusting, grotesque, disgraceful, an abomination, awful, and horrid.

  • 11.30.2012 10:02 PM PDT

Break the windowsill

Just because a large audience likes something doesn't make it good. The difference between brink and halo 4 is that brink failed to capture an audience

  • 11.30.2012 10:02 PM PDT

No.
NO.
-blam!- no.
Reach is no where near god awful. In fact, reach was GOOD. Not orignal trilogy good, but for many, better than the typical game on the market at the time. Come the -blam!- on. A god awful game is not a 91 on metacritic It doesnt happen. Compare it with other notoriously 'bad' games. Reach, but non halo standards, is a great video game.
Posted by: Cpt Needa
No, Reach really was god awful.

Edit: unless you mean a game has to literally be unplayable for that, in which case your standards are ridiculously low and I'd like to request that you stop dragging down the bar of adequacy.

  • 11.30.2012 10:04 PM PDT

*growl*
Posted by: IlluminatiNWO
H4 and Reach are putrid, rubbish, terrible, disgusting, grotesque, disgraceful, an abomination, awful, and horrid.

  • 11.30.2012 10:05 PM PDT

Dont you think a Good game would capture an audience? The game wasnt poorly advertised. People got their hands on it, and hated it.
Posted by: RebelVElite
Just because a large audience likes something doesn't make it good. The difference between brink and halo 4 is that brink failed to capture an audience

  • 11.30.2012 10:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: JohnyRL
*growl*
Posted by: IlluminatiNWO
H4 and Reach are putrid, rubbish, terrible, disgusting, grotesque, disgraceful, an abomination, awful, and horrid.

Did I mention abominable, awful, beastly, cloying, creepy, detestable, distasteful, foul, frightful, ghastly, grody, gross*, gruesome, hateful, hideous, horrid, horrific, icky, loathsome, lousy, macabre, monstrous, nasty, nauseating, nerdy, noisome, objectionable, obnoxious, odious, offensive, outrageous, repellent, repugnant, revolting, rotten, satiating, scandalous, scuzzy, shameless, shocking, sleazeball, sleazy*, stinking, surfeiting, vile, vulgar, yecchy, yucky?

  • 11.30.2012 10:08 PM PDT

But why?
Posted by: Omega2293
You deserve to die for making this thread.

  • 11.30.2012 10:08 PM PDT

Posted by: JohnyRL
Dont you think a Good game would capture an audience? The game wasnt poorly advertised. People got their hands on it, and hated it.
Posted by: RebelVElite
Just because a large audience likes something doesn't make it good. The difference between brink and halo 4 is that brink failed to capture an audience

There are many reasons for a game to fail outside of being bad. For example, Tribes Ascend is on its last legs because its steep learning curve was too much for codkids who are used to instant gratification.

  • 11.30.2012 10:10 PM PDT


Posted by: JohnyRL
No.
NO.
-blam!- no.
Reach is no where near god awful. In fact, reach was GOOD. Not orignal trilogy good, but for many, better than the typical game on the market at the time. Come the -blam!- on. A god awful game is not a 91 on metacritic It doesnt happen. Compare it with other notoriously 'bad' games. Reach, but non halo standards, is a great video game.

Here is the thing I think you can't understand. It is bad in some people's eyes and good in others. As for justification for a game being good you really can't use a rating to do so at least not for major titles since most of the time they will be given good rating simply because gaming websites have to. Then as for people saying it is god awful it is in perspective which is another you fail to understand for whatever reason. Sure Reach was better than a lot of games, but compared to others in the series which is really all that matters it was crap. To even attempt to it to old games is a joke of an idea and imo just shows how weak of an argument you have.

  • 11.30.2012 10:11 PM PDT

What have you done?
Posted by: IlluminatiNWO

Posted by: JohnyRL
*growl*
Posted by: IlluminatiNWO
H4 and Reach are putrid, rubbish, terrible, disgusting, grotesque, disgraceful, an abomination, awful, and horrid.

Did I mention abominable, awful, beastly, cloying, creepy, detestable, distasteful, foul, frightful, ghastly, grody, gross*, gruesome, hateful, hideous, horrid, horrific, icky, loathsome, lousy, macabre, monstrous, nasty, nauseating, nerdy, noisome, objectionable, obnoxious, odious, offensive, outrageous, repellent, repugnant, revolting, rotten, satiating, scandalous, scuzzy, shameless, shocking, sleazeball, sleazy*, stinking, surfeiting, vile, vulgar, yecchy, yucky?

  • 11.30.2012 10:11 PM PDT


Posted by: Cpt Needa
There are many reasons for a game to fail outside of being bad. For example, Tribes Ascend is on its last legs because its steep learning curve was too much for codkids who are used to instant gratification.

Tribes Ascend is hard to learn since when?

  • 11.30.2012 10:12 PM PDT

Really? That's your line of reasoning, COD kids?
Maybe the game should try to find ways of decreasing the learning curve. Did it ever occur to you that a drastically sharp learning curve COULD be a bad thing? Or is simply not the best route to take in this market? COD kids? Really? This is worse than gross exaggeration.

I personally played the game. I played it for one hour and then uninstalled it. Not because it had a sharp imaginary learning curve (the game wasnt hard at all. I disliked it because it was BORING
Did that ever cross your mind as a plausible reason for the low population?
Posted by: Cpt Needa
Posted by: JohnyRL
Dont you think a Good game would capture an audience? The game wasnt poorly advertised. People got their hands on it, and hated it.
Posted by: RebelVElite
Just because a large audience likes something doesn't make it good. The difference between brink and halo 4 is that brink failed to capture an audience

There are many reasons for a game to fail outside of being bad. For example, Tribes Ascend is on its last legs because its steep learning curve was too much for codkids who are used to instant gratification.


[Edited on 11.30.2012 10:16 PM PST]

  • 11.30.2012 10:15 PM PDT

Posted by: What Is This1
Posted by: Cpt Needa
There are many reasons for a game to fail outside of being bad. For example, Tribes Ascend is on its last legs because its steep learning curve was too much for codkids who are used to instant gratification.

Tribes Ascend is hard to learn since when?

Not difficult on lower levels, but on higher levels people have trajectories, map routes, and teamwork down to a science. And since there are so few people left, you inevitably play with people who have mastered the game. I stopped playing when I was thrown into a third match with a level 50 player from whom I had actually attempted to learn.
Posted by: JohnyRL
Really? That's your line of reasoning, COD kids?
Maybe the game should try to find ways of decreasing the learning curve. Did it ever occur to you that a drastically sharp learning curve COULD be a bad thing? Or is simply not the best route to take in this market? COD kids? Really? This is worse than gross exaggeration.

I personally played the game. I played it for one hour and then uninstalled it. Not because it had a sharp learning curve (that was actually kind of enjoyable). I disliked it because it was BORING
Did that ever cross your mind as a plausible reason for the low population?

The learning curve is a barrier to entry, one that can be overcome with practice. You said it yourself, this market doesn't appreciate having to try to be good at video games.

And no, because that's just plain wrong. Tribes is a high speed game of coordination and strategy.

[Edited on 11.30.2012 10:19 PM PST]

  • 11.30.2012 10:15 PM PDT

Because COD kids. Lol.

Posted by: Cpt Needa
Posted by: What Is This1
Posted by: Cpt Needa
There are many reasons for a game to fail outside of being bad. For example, Tribes Ascend is on its last legs because its steep learning curve was too much for codkids who are used to instant gratification.

Tribes Ascend is hard to learn since when?

Not difficult on lower levels, but on higher levels people have trajectories, map routes, and teamwork down to a science. And since there are so few people left, you inevitably play with people who have mastered the game. I stopped playing when I was thrown into a third match with a level 50 player from whom I had actually attempted to learn.

  • 11.30.2012 10:16 PM PDT


Posted by: Cpt Needa
Not difficult on lower levels, but on higher levels people have trajectories, map routes, and teamwork down to a science. And since there are so few people left, you inevitably play with people who have mastered the game. I stopped playing when I was thrown into a third match with a level 50 player from whom I had actually attempted to learn.

So it is like a lot of other games out there. That doesn't mean it has a steep learning curve since that typically talks about the initial playing of the game. If anything it just means it has a large skill gap/range.

  • 11.30.2012 10:17 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2