madbassman39

Well, of my biggest complaints some of them I'm very sure will be available by the time release. (This is the Xbox version) 1)Forming a squad with your friend then joining a game simply doesn't work. Half of the time you'll be lucky if you are in the same game, on the same team. Then, if you leave a squad to join the other, you end up on the same squad you just left. Its frustrating to say the least. 2) Falling through the ground... This is physically impossible unless your a ghost in the real world 3) The second rockets for both Russian and American armies doesn't fire... at all. It does do the firing animation, but nothing comes out and your ammo never gets depleted. The following are things I hope will get fixed, but probably wont. 1) Stick sensitivity, it catches the slightest movement. This is the only game where when I take my hands off my controller, my character keeps turning slightly, or moving slightly. This is especially frustrating when you try to put your bi-pod out only to find that you are moving ever so slightly that you can't. Turning down the sensitivity in the menu doesn't affect these slight movements. I have to correct the sticks with my thumbs. I would blame the controller, except this isn't a problem in any other game. 2) Rocket launchers: they don't explode on contact, and their splash is minimal if at all. Now some can argue that is more realistic, I wouldn't know, but you know what isn't realistic? Blinking lights on grenades. That is a visual cue for the play to know what is going on, and the same should be for Rocket launchers and their explosions. It almost seems as if the rocket doesn't exist, but the place where it hits registers a hit. There's hardly a sound at all. Bad Company 2 had perfected the rocket explosions/splash. And here is my list of things that 100% will not come true, but boy do I wish they did: 1) Full 64 player co-op on Xbox... I could play it on my PC, but all of my good friends don't know what a gaming PC even looks like. Plus, my laptop only scratches above the minimum requirements. I am really enjoying the game, and hope that they will fix the major issues. Day one buy for me, I'm loving it. Also, people need to learn to play BF, as was said above, BF is not about your K/D its about working as a team. This doesn't really register with most players.

I noticed a dis-advantage to the laser sight, When you get a laser in your face, yes its blinding, but it also means that an enemy is aiming at you, so if you have cover, you can quickly dive behind it taking away their chance to hit you

I know, but I typically like to work my way through one character at a time

I do not, sorry. I did my best to copy paste, but its a long thread, and I don't know how to take a screen capture beyond my computers screen.

I hate linking to this article, but i went through the comments and saw that the founder of the site dating had also commented, confirming what the women had said, and Sam's only retort was "you didn't show me an algorithm." Below is the link to the thread started by the founder of said dating site. Really though, there is not much need to read it unless you want to see how people have been upset at the response, and see Sam ban a few for what they said (not worthy ban worthy but still some of it is pretty insulting to the writers of Giz). Its all disgusting to me. http://gizmodo.com/5845467/how-i-was-nearly-seduced-by-grouper-the-biggest-sham-in-online-dating?comment=43150713#comments

another comment by the same girl, just as upsetting as the other ones. I was on this date. It was terrible and offensive and I think Gizmodo is at fault as much as Grouper. I sent this email to Gizmodo right after our date and received no response. Hello, I'd like to speak with someone regarding a terrible experience my friends and I had last night. My friends and I (I won't divulge their names out of respect for privacy and I request that my name is kept private as well), booked a group date through a new dating site called Grouper. The concept is that 3 girl friends go on a date with 3 guys friends, completely blind. We were supposed to meet with our randomly assigned dates at 9pm yesterday evening at a swanky bar in Chinatown. When we arrived, we sat at our table and waited for the guys. We were soon approached by 2 men, one holding an iPad and one holding a camera. They said they were our Grouper dates for the evening and that a third guy was on his way and a fourth guy would be joining us via skype. The guy holding a camera started snapping photos of us, (I believe his name was Woody) and the other guy (whose name I forget...maybe Kyle?) opened his iPad and explained that they were reporters from Gizmodo there to do a story on our Grouper date. They were doing a story about "how sad our lives are...being nerds and trying to date." Needless to say, my friends and I were shocked. We were completely shocked, appalled and pissed. Kyle went on to say that they were working with Grouper and with our permission would take notes on the date, take photos, and then blog about it. Obviously my friends and I did not want to be part of this and we requested immediately that Woody delete any and all photos of us on his camera. Kyle said his fellow Gizmodo buddy Andrew Tarantola was skyping with us from San Francisco but there wasn't a strong enough wifi signal to continue. We had no idea why somebody would be skyping on an ipad during our date and Kyle offered no explanation. When we got angry and explained how rude this was, Kyle admitted that they "hadn't really thought this through." I asked if an editor pitched this story to them, perhaps in an effort to capitalize on the page hits of the recent story about Jon Finkel and the okCupid date. He said that he pitched the story to his editors. I don't want to explain why this was unacceptable, but I will. When people go on dates, be they blind or not, they are putting themselves out there in a huge way. For 2 guys and an Ipad to show up at a bar and tell me and my friends that we were in effect, guinea pigs in a social experiment, is very upsetting. The guys tried to convince us to stay for drinks but there was no way we would stay at a bar with people like that: people who use such bad judgement and ultimately don't care about other people's feelings. The "date" was a huge waste of my time. My friends and I paid $20 each to have a fun experience and meet some cool guys. Instead we paid $20 to be disrespected by these men. I would like an explanation from someone working at Gizmodo. I want to know why you let these guys do this to me and my friends. Did you think it would be funny to make 3 women feel really shitty about themselves? Because it isn't funny. I spoke to Grouper after we left the bar and they said they never had an agreement with you guys. So I can only assume that what your employees did was under the radar? Please answer these questions and provide me some explanation. Thank you in advance.

Alright, I know this is a Kotaku hating (EDIT: I wrote site, but I meant thread) thread, but there is an article on Gizmodo that wasn't that bad, Until I read the comments. The story pretty much goes that Sam Biddle (a writer for Giz) went to try out a terrible dating site of 3 on 3 blind dates to see how it went. He complains that the site was poorly put together, the owner of the site was needy and the women got scared off within 10 minutes. In the end he feels that he was ripped off by some guy trying to make a quick buck. Not that bad of a story to be honest. I was worried it was another OK Cupid like story. The real issue I took was one of the comments which I will copy and paste below. Before you read this, it is important to know that the comment was promoted but not replied to by Sam Biddle, the writer. Commentor okayjulia writes Hi. I was one of the women on the "date" and I blame the reporters from Gizmodo as much as I blame Grouper. We were supposed to meet with the guys at a swanky bar in Chinatown. When we arrived, we sat at our table and waited. We were soon approached by 2 men, one holding an iPad and one holding a camera. They said they were our Grouper dates for the evening and that a third guy was on his way and a fourth guy would be joining us via skype. The guy holding a camera started snapping photos of us, and the other guy opened his iPad and explained that they were reporters from Gizmodo there to do a story on our Grouper date. They were doing a story about "how sad our lives are...being nerds and trying to date." Needless to say, my friends and I were shocked. We were completely shocked, appalled and pissed. When we got angry and explained how rude this was, Kyle admitted that they "hadn't really thought this through." I asked if an editor pitched this story to them, perhaps in an effort to capitalize on the page hits of the recent story about Jon Finkel and the okCupid date. He said that he pitched the story to his editors. (in a separate comment) continued: I don't want to explain why this was unacceptable, but I will. When people go on dates, be they blind or not, they are putting themselves out there in a huge way. For 2 guys and an Ipad to show up at a bar and tell me and my friends that we were in effect, guinea pigs in a social experiment, is very upsetting. The guys tried to convince us to stay for drinks but there was no way we would stay at a bar with people like that: people who use such bad judgement and ultimately don't care about other people's feelings. The "date" was a huge waste of my time. My friends and I paid $20 each to have a fun experience and meet some cool guys. Instead we paid $20 to be disrespected by these men. I would like an explanation from someone working at Gizmodo. I want to know why you let these guys do this to me and my friends. Did you think it would be funny to make 3 women feel really shitty about themselves? Because it isn't funny. I spoke to Grouper after we left the bar and they said they never had an agreement with you guys. So I can only assume that what your employees did was under the radar? (End of Comment) The fact that the writers not only thought it was OK to do so, they are upset about not be apologized to, yet they don't apologize to the girl who they not only disrespected, but don't even refute what she says and just promote it! That's not just terrible journalism, but also just wrong on a social level. Are they proud of what they did? They didn't talk about it in their article, but yet when the comment came in, they promoted it, gave her a star and let it be. What does that mean? Its very upsetting to me, in all honesty, because by promoting and starring her they pretty much said "Yup thats what we did hehe." EDIT: Link to article http://gizmodo.com/5...160171#comments

Totalhalibut, aka the cynical brit, has a bunch of videos on youtube of GW2. Honestly I keep watching the videos and think "Man I want to play THAT class" after each demo of each class. I CANT DECIDE (Head asplodes)

Nice article! So excited for this game. Massively.com had a few articles on there as well. Also, I'll talk MMOs with ya, I don't play a lot, but I have tried out almost all of them. I've never really gotten to max level though

My biggest complaint thus far is the menu system on the Xbox. Its made for PC, and I just wish they would change it to control like the ingame menus to change or customize classed like BF:BC2. The best feature was the fact that you moved up or down to change class and left or right to change load out, in this its left or right to change class and left or right to change load out. In order to change the load out, you have to press the RB and LB. Not a really big deal, but its less intuitive for a controller. Having said that, I'm really enjoying the game, it will take some time to get used to, after dedicating two years to BC2.

I don't think its that bad. I am really enjoying it, but its no BF 2/2142

Playing it on Xbox, its pretty damn good looking. I can't stand some of the changes (the menu needs to be easier to access with a controller) and also the fact that they changed a few controls to be the opposite for no real reason (left puts out your ammo/health bag instead of right)

Does onlive support local split screen on the micro console? I don't even know if the games do, they might just be PC games, but if they do that would be a big plus for them.

My internet connection is just not good enough for onlive. I can play it, but there is a slight feeling of lag when playing. Its not game changing at all, but it feels like I'm disconnected. I feel like I'm sending my buttons through the internet to the server and then it responds sends it back to me. I know thats how Onlive works, but if I were to play it, I want to feel like I'm playing it on my computer, not on a service. If Charter (who I want to change for fios, but living with parents and not having to pay for internet means I get no say) ups my internet speed or we upgrade to something better, then I'll give it another shot. If it works perfectly, then I'll probably buy the tv controller when I can. I prefer gaming with a controller on my TV

Yea, its a small price to pay for a full game. Thing is, DCUO is worth money, just not the $50 start up, and then a full subscription every month, thats too steep for that game. Some MMOs warrant that price, but DCUO is too shallow for that. If DCUO was $30, with a $10 sub then I would be more on board with it... I find the idea that MMO subs are all the same price and don't understand why each game can't create a different price, but thats a subject for another topic of discussion.

I think that the advantage is unfair to new players, but I do like the idea that you can unlock a weapon that has different stats and acts differently, allowing for a different play style.

I personally like it. Not an XP bar, but I like the idea (for single player only) that the more you use a gun the better your skill becomes. or a type of weapon. We don't need to have XP boosts and what not in multiplayer, but I also enjoy gun unlocks, it gives me a goal to reach, something to work at that makes my play style unique, if there are multiple options of paths to unlock like BF:BC2, but I also understand why people don't like them. As a skilled player in BF:BC2 (I know, I'm very modest) I can chose the weakest weapon and still beat anyone with a better gun because I'm a better player (in theory, I'm not that bad) which is why I like it.

It seems like there is no downside to the free players. Sure you don't get a whole lot of inventory, or free vault tickets, but you can still access all the powers/costumes/and vanilla game content for free. Having purchased this I will be a premium member, which sounds even better. Hopefully this is how they manage it. If they can give enough content to make free players feel like they are playing a full game then I would assume they would be more inclined to buy the DLC/characterslots/ anything else, than if you choke them into small amounts of the game EDIT: I also think that the console market has been "trained" for this type of system on microtransactions. DLC is a huge hit for consoles and if they can sway people to purchase DLC then they'll be fine.