All PS3 Trophies

@dizzel

So you do't care so much you went to the bother of replying and tried to insult him…. Fair enough.

Maybe if Ratchet didn't think much of Mojo's post then he could have kept his mouth shut instead of throwing a one word reply into one the middle of one of the most fleshed out discussions we've had here in quite a while. 

Agree or disagree with Mojo (or Bigwoop) but there's no denying the thought and effort put into their posts, and the complete absence of either in Ratchet's. Ninja and W4R also had a go at showing how redundant they both can be.

I don't know about you, but when I click on 'Gaming related discussion', that's generally what I like to read. 

And as for Mojo's 'come back' not being as good as you expected, if you you just want to incite come-backs maybe you could PM him instead of wasting thread space.

its so funny watching you guys get pissed.

@I773D33MABL3

It was his conversation 101 definition i didn't care about , we dont have to live by the definition of everything.

Ratchet often has one word reply's , so if you dont like it maybe you should take it up with him.

 I do like to read post's with thought and effort put into them , i was only arguing one sentence which IMO is not even close to being correct.

I wasn't trying to incite a come-back , but i had a feeling i was going to get something from him , which i did.

 Everyone good now ?

Funny pic , but that's only for an attacker in a rush game and there are only a few spots that happens in . But yeah it does happen.

parnakas said:

I still think that it is a decent game, and i did enjoy the SP more than MW2, but the two games map styles are pretty damn similar. 

no, MW2's maps have much more within them and more detail. from the only map i played on bfbc2 there werent many buildings then once you get to a base there was a lot. can you try and give me a map on MW2 which is similar to a map on bfbc2?

Post edited 9:02 pm – 04/19/2010 by Mojo

dizzel22 said:

---

hahahah that cut deep that really is wonderful. Well how about this i don't care , i wasn't even the one answered you without a reason .Maybe Ratchet just put “no” because he thought that's all your comment was worth having said about it.

I would like to see you give us all an example of what MW2 maps have been stitched together to make which BBC2 map , or is it just because there on land or something , maybe they should have made it under water would that differ enough from the MW2 maps ?

Oh yeah great come back too “conversation 101″ i kinda expected better ,but maybe your social skills aren't all that great ………………..see not that good of a call is it.

I must apologise for the late reply. I missed your post yesterday.

Although, am I meant to reply? You assert that you “don't care”, yet the ensuing paragraph seems to say otherwise. 

But it's cool. You're clever use of clichés and snappy condescension has shown me how little my “insult” has affected you. You're clearly above all of my trolling.

With the statement “Shitty little Cod maps stitched together” I was referring to the size and play of the maps. Not their physical appearance. I'm sure EA have a fantastic legal team to back DICE up, but I don't think they would get away with copy-pasting CoD maps.

Perhaps in future when I make a point, I'll use smaller words and less ambiguity.

NuFc_kNoXiE_KiLa said:

parnakas said:

I still think that it is a decent game, and i did enjoy the SP more than MW2, but the two games map styles are pretty damn similar. 

---

no, MW2's maps have much more within them and more detail. from the only map i played on bfbc2 there werent many buildings then once you get to a base there was a lot. can you try and give me a map on MW2 which is similar to a map on bfbc2?

Im not talking about the physical layout, but the feel of the map. And the environments and atmosphere are kinda similar. 

Pretty much what I773D33MABL3 and Mojo said. 

parnakas said:

NuFc_kNoXiE_KiLa said:

parnakas said:

I still think that it is a decent game, and i did enjoy the SP more than MW2, but the two games map styles are pretty damn similar. 

---

no, MW2's maps have much more within them and more detail. from the only map i played on bfbc2 there werent many buildings then once you get to a base there was a lot. can you try and give me a map on MW2 which is similar to a map on bfbc2?

---

Im not talking about the physical layout, but the feel of the map. And the environments and atmosphere are kinda similar. 

Pretty much what I773D33MABL3 and Mojo said. 

But the problem with saying that is that then you can throw SOCOM , Cod 4 , BBC1 and almost any other Earth based modern war FPS on this list as well.

 So IF thats the case ,then yeah the maps are similar but how different do you expect them to be ?

Ratchet525 said:

its so funny watching you guys get pissed.

You miss the point ratchet, entirely.  90% of your posts, like this one, contribute NOTHING to the discussion at hand.  You sit there wondering why we don't get your posts, when in reality, you are the one who does not get it.  We understand what “No” means.  We don't understand how that was supposed to contribute to what we are talking about.

@Mojo – okay, I like the picture.  Actually its pretty funny, cause its mostly accurate.  Theres definitely a few maps that don't follow that formula, and the ones that do tend to piss me off because of assloads of snipers watching the bottleneck.  Nonetheless, if you're saying “its a bunch of cod maps stitched together” well,,, at least they're 5 times bigger than COD maps.  The nice thing about them is that in different modes you play different areas, and really the bottlenecks are only a problem in rush mode.  In conquest and deathmatch its much less linear, and I don't really notice that issue.  I also enjoy that theres a consistent mix in the maps between urban and rural warfare – sure theres not buildings all the time, that'd be too easy, since you can blow them up.  The fact that there are sections you have to move up through where your only cover is the camoflauge of the foliage around you can be pretty fun, but also frustrating at times.  Overall they balance those elements well, and it works with the destructibility of the environments.

The Mario 64 glitch I was referring to is that theres a way to run THROUGH the train.  Not just ride the tracks.  Plus it was an example off the top of my head and not the best one.  I'd come up with more but you should get the idea – games have never been glitch free, and never will be.  Thanks to the internet, some of those glitches can be fixed post-release, which is a good thing for the most part – but I'm sure you're right that some developers take advantage of that.  I think IW definitely rode that train, but BFBC2 looks like they really tried to eliminate as many things as they could before release – as they should have, what with the claims of competing with MW2. 

As for the beta, I was not confused.  I was referring to the public ones.  I know, theres internal testing of course.  Hiring a team of people to do testing means paying people.  Lets say thats ~$35,000 per year per person.  Average COD game = 16 players (I think).  Do the math, thats some money right there.  Lets assume they had two full teams of people doing the testing.  Now do that versus having several thousand people do the testing for free.  Sure, the feedback isn't as professional (but I know nerds, they love to complain when something goes wrong), but with more people doing it you are definitely going to find way more glitches to fix – and it shows by the number there were on release day comparing the two games.  I reiterate, on day one of MW2, the servers didn't even work.  On day two, it was glitched to high hell.  On day now, it is still insanely glitched.  BFBC2 on day one had less glitches than MW2 has now.  If that doesn't do it for you, then heres a list of the things that were fixed during BFBC2's public beta:

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/po…..65311.page

Sure its not everything, but damn thats a lot, and some of it is pretty significant.  Public betas are free mass testing, and are effective if the company makes good use of it.  I don't see why the wouldn't, and think it was a huge mistake on IW's part to have not done so.

:::ahhhh::: now that all of that is out there, I will say I stick to my opinion of BFBC2 being better for all the reasons originally cited.  Destructible buildings, Vehicles, Maps that shift to new locations as you play, Classes that encourage team work, the squad spawning system, and the actual potential for tactical warfare to occur.  I can tell a major difference when I play with friends who communicate in BFBC2, because we support each other and balance our classes.  In all CoD games, it has never made a difference in how we play or perform, I just have someone to bullshit with while shooting people.  I guess in the end its still all a matter of preference, and I've made mine incredibly apparent.

Mojo said:

Post edited 5:44 pm – 04/20/2010 by Mojo

---

Games were never fully glitch free, no. But they never had the severity of glitches you find now. When I buy a new game, I expect glitches. I expect game breakers, and I expect to have to wait for a patch.

Thats really why I don't buy many games at launch anymore. I got burnt with Mercs 2 (bought it at launch, which means I can NEVER get tattooed millionaire), so I wait now until I read up on glitches/broken games, etc.

I think you have both made amazing posts in this thread.

I played MW2 online for a while, but the online is broken, especially if the host doesn't have a good connection. It is fun when it worked like it was intended too, but that was maybe 50% of the time.  I haven't played BFBC2 yet, although I did play the demo, and it was awesome (no lag, actual teamwork). I want to get it though, as long as the online is not like MW2, with the P2P garbage.

And do not forget Resistance 2