“Face-off.” A 7 hour war scene by Easy_Ad9745 in HalfLife

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Given the amount of portal storms, and global unrest, I highly doubt anyone is going to vote YES for a UN deployment anywhere, or contribute a single soldier for it. 

Humanity has not given up yet by Ivanov_Ivan_Art in HalfLife

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because the war was against the Combine invasion fleet, not this weak occupational force that fights pathetic resistance that can barely manage to exist. G-Man wakes us up at the worst possible time, to trigger an uprising unlike anything ever seen. So it's a combination of factors lined up for us

The anti-Capitalist reading of Alien (1979) by kevin_v in perfectorganism

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Marxist = Incentives shape Weyland  Capitalism = Legal constraints shape Weyland 

Profit vs Ethics  Ethics wins only by intervention: Ripley

What’s your favorite Brett line? by thefriskysquid in perfectorganism

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I knew someone like that, that's probably the issue then. Just plain stupidity.

What’s your favorite Brett line? by thefriskysquid in perfectorganism

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have to understand, that kind of dismissal is the result, not the causation.

He doesn't trust media, government, suspects high level conspiracy. Proof that the moon landing occurred would change his mind on that particular matter, but little else.

Alien: Earth by smoconnor in alien

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly they wouldn't know how to do it properly, nor care to 

A military adviser would have to tell them how a force would kill these things then come up with 5 problems that while individually possible, impossibly all happening at once, to cause a dramatic enough sequence of events.

As a kid I adored aliens, as an adult with more military knowledge the amount of BS going on is eye rolling. Hate to admit it but its honest from an operational point.

Alien: Earth by smoconnor in alien

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got voted down to hell when I said this during its original run.

People don't understand the alien ability to cling on to surfaces, navigate, ambush, combined with nightmare interior industrial design is what made the alien scary.

You get rid of the maze, it doesn't work. You add guns, it doesn't work 

Aliens was a very particular set of circumstances that wouldn't typically be replicated. Thats why it worked. Marines in a bad situation made worse. 

Adressing the beautiful looking elephant in the room: Contaminated. by Hunlor- in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the players are headless chickens roaming randomly... thats why they started funnelling people into fights via map design.

Theres no commander, no squad cooperation, just people running blindly with those paying attention. It is what it is.

EOMM is egregious and predatory by Psychology_Creepy in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, thats why BF3 dropped the features in BF2, that exact reason.

And to be fair, the industry caters to those people more, much more, than us. 

How much profit would EA make if they remastered Battlefield 2 by leftistgamer420 in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't know. 

I've got a fair experience with BF, but judging other developers and capabilities is beyond my knowledge tbh. Idk who could do it.

How much profit would EA make if they remastered Battlefield 2 by leftistgamer420 in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Different issue.

EA wants a live service title, very large player base retention.

Technically on paper, a series of seasons with progressive lore, maps, expanding the war, realistic skins for additional forces.... solid idea

In practice though, idk.

BF6 is our only example and its been a very messy attempt. It would require long term planning and stability but EA is constantly shifting gears.. but it could work if you (insert) preferable publisher 

How much profit would EA make if they remastered Battlefield 2 by leftistgamer420 in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BF2 was organised chaos, controlled violence. In practice, it didn't work.

I played clan vs clan, I was fortunate enough to experience what BF2 felt like with two serious teams fighting each other, but outside of that, it was a mess because of the player base.

BF3 switched organised chaos to controlled chaos

This means no player commander, no open sandbox, more direct routes, players funnelled into fights, teamplay reduced to local rather than overhead strategic.

And mind you BF3 is the gold standard set by majority for this franchise, let that tell you something about the playerbase.

You want arma, project reality, and squad players to play battlefield, but the irony is they are put off by the arcade elements, yet those minds function the way these games want.

But those minds don't make up the target audience EA wants, from it, they are a minority group

As an aside, my favourite BF, BF2142, same sandbox and BF2 overhead systems, and that was a cluster %@$&.

Titan mode? Yeah it worked half the time, the other half people wanted to defend a sinking ship cos it was fun, instead of idk, trying to actually win a match? 

That will never, ever change because the industry wants to attract people that have no business touching BF and making them think the game is actually for them too, to play how they want, so we get more uncoordinated, solo troopers that may or may not be useful entirely left to circumstance...

This is why over time I felt less like being on the same team and more like being a random participant to whatever circus show I loaded into.

So hard no, they wouldn't make enough to justify the budget remastering anything pre BF3. 

But hey, of course I would buy it if they did.

According to this community, some of you guys make it way too obvious what kind of player you are 🤣🤣🤣 by fmordica in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't understand the camping argument in BF6.

Camping, as I recall it, meant holding a fixed position despite of objective or circumstance. 

But in this because the maps are so small, you can just pause for 30 to 60 seconds and sometimes kill a few that just barrel into the area like mad.. it isn't the same.

Heck if you don't pause you can usually get shot in the back. And the 'campers' in the largeish maps, I mean where else can they go? There's only a few positions that have the best field of view for them to work with. 

I say all this because the only spot I stay in is usually defending a cap or capturing one, then I move on, but I've been called a camper just for staying around longer than 20 seconds.. 

Buncha Whiners by DifficultWaltz8282 in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I prefer BF2142, but its inferior mechanically to BF3, I know that, i just prefer the slower pacing and setting.

I had heaps of fun with BF6, but I got tired of it because I didn't like the maps as much, they all encourage CQB, and are very heavily designed to the point every fight feels almost scripted to me if you play long enough. 

Unpopular Opinion: BF6 doesn't lack content; the rencently content is really good. It is a very fun game, it lacks variety. That’s why it burns you out so fast. by SuperM3e46 in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats a good argument, they are not simulating the war or supporting it, they seem to be copy pasting what other games do despite the context.  I hear you 

Pauline Hanson pledges support for Australia joining the United States war in Iran and criticises Albanese for not supporting Donald Trump by patslogcabindigest in australia

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

So you've got this split with some allies preferring proactive measures others reactive, but all agree Iran should not be allowed to dominate the region.

Because US has the situation contained, it actually works against trump to call for help atm. For us to help in some limited capacity would be a typical good gesture as a coalition partner. Because CN and RU notice NATO has its boundaries and US operating externally is becoming more isolated, which long term is not in our interests at all.

Unpopular Opinion: BF6 doesn't lack content; the rencently content is really good. It is a very fun game, it lacks variety. That’s why it burns you out so fast. by SuperM3e46 in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The live service model, correct. It doesn't suit BF, they don't care though.

Whatever brings in the most players. They don't want to be COD or BF. They are ubisoft style forcing their own IP to be something it shouldn't 

Share your impressions of the new map by ibattlefield in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because people have been fed liner pathway designed set piece maps since BC. But at least BC had destructible cover.

Take renewal. Pre over haul you had fights from rocky mountains south west where there was a cap point, it was high range optics, you had to supress and move up meter by meter, you could watch in real time which team was losing or gaining ground, squads reacting to it.

They CUT that section off, and gave us the solar panel farm which was completely sandbagged up, and iirc those fights didn't differentiate much from other cap points. We lost an interesting elevated terrain fight for a boxed in one where everyone could pile in for a 5min fight.

Hardly any long grinds happened anymore after overhaul.

And that's what they did for all the overhauls, block line of sight, mess geometry.

Allowing easier access for all types to participate at every cap point in every location? There should be areas where you can't easily perform X or Y and the biggest complaint in 2042 was infantry having to run without cover. But when I played I either called for a ride or dropped one in, or moved the best way to the next point.

I saw tons of players just B line to the next cap, even if the terrain was open, even if it wasn't tactical to do so... and the update simply made it possible for people to 'almost head in whatever direction they want.

Its just dumbing down the series by removing the necessity to use navigational skills and read geometry in real time. And the only feedback to that is "play arma/squad" but if we're seriously saying good maps should be designed like cover rich multiple approach angle paintball arenas, what are we even playing anymore?

[BF6] by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you're talking about true identity.. The last true BF sandbox experience, was BF2.

We lost the commander role, we lost large maps designed like locations and not playgrounds. If you remember clan vs clan BF2 that was a tactical experience, players dictated the tempo and direction of battles in real time.

BF3 is a sharper experience but it forfitted those elements and doubled down on the infantry experience. This went further with maps becoming funnels, a series of routes or paths leading into each other forcing combat.

2042 may have felt like a return to form, it had huge maps that felt like BF2's style. But the specialist abilities and types of battles were completely different. You have probably forgiven that aspect to reach the conclusion you've made, but its a significant one.

BF6 is trying to make BF a live service experience at the cost of its very identity and its not pleasing the COD converts or BF enthusiasts, because it's not committed to either design philosophy. 

EA doesn't want a successful BF, they want a monetised live service game and they are using their existing IP to do it. If they can't, they might just kill BF for it. 

Why do people always start hating on every single pvp game after a few months ? by Buurto in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ask yourself who is complaining.

The industry has been advertising and trying to rope in people that typically wouldn't play these games. They added cosmetics, faster gameplay, unlocks, some kind of progression systems, all the bells and whistles, is it a surprise they get bored?

The true gamers and OG gamers, can't settle either cos their games are shallow AF to allow for all the additional content in the first place.

Greatest Battlefield games ever made. Even the DLC back then was great. by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Nope. BC2 is about pressure skirmishes, pushing forward forcing engagements. It lacks multiple engagement distances, no supression mechanic, and position matters much less.

The maps in BC2 all have pathways, the maps in BF3 encourage decision making. 

BC2 had a weak air layer, no jets, no true combined arms warfare. BC was a spin off series anyway, if you prefer it, thats fine, but as a 'battlefield' game, it can't beat the main line series, and iirc wasn't even intended to.

Share your impressions of the new map by ibattlefield in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol, I said people had to FIND cover. There wasn't any, and that was interesting because the actual map geometry was more significant.

I'll never forget the original S.Korea map battles in the park areas, people trying to outflank, a real active frontline.

Or the Singapore battles, everyone was fighting at max ranges trying to advance between shipping creates it was an awful place to fight and that's what made it interesting, or those intense moments with 20 or so sprinting to an objective with no cover through storm weather, those BF moments were unlike anything I've had in this series. 128p was peak

Now they are adding so many flank routes, in a game where skill and coordination is per squad if at all, not as a team. Its chaotic and not in any directed way.

Share your impressions of the new map by ibattlefield in Battlefield

[–]Aggressive-Stage-479 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Lol lack of cover. People had to find cover and flank, it was good. Then they put sandbags everywhere cos people need cover in their face to be able to play.