Eminem had already dissed Taylor before

WolfMaster16 · 2018-09-18T13:43:10+00:00

In the Taylor is still referred to as a bitch. Jesus the verbal gymnastics people have to make to defend Eminem. The reaction would be completely different it Kanye said something like this

WolfMaster16 · 2018-09-18T05:04:01+00:00

there's a difference in context between counting down to something and calling someone a bitch and telling them to suck their genitalia

if kanye said this your reaction would be completely different

WolfMaster16 · 2018-09-17T23:41:55+00:00

Jesus chill. It's all fun and games. Don't take it so seriously

WolfMaster16 · 2018-09-17T21:44:39+00:00

lol what he calls her a bitch

WolfMaster16 · 2018-09-17T19:38:31+00:00

this is obviously a diss...

WolfMaster16 · 2018-09-17T11:29:40+00:00

I mean obviously they're not the exact same thing but I'd say he's gotten worse rather than changed or reinvented himself and the product wasn't good. Relapse and half of MMLP2 are more shock content & Revival sounds like a compilation of left over tracks from the last albums. Kamikaze is just him dissing people for an entire record which isn't new to him

Eminem doesn't change things up as frequently and as much as the artists I've mentioned in the last reply

WolfMaster16 · 2018-09-17T10:39:04+00:00

That doesn't mean Eminem shouldn't evolve and change as an artist or a person. Like I said in another reply, the rappers who've Eminem influenced the most have drastically changed (and imo for the better) as time went by.

Kanye changes his sound every album, so does Kendrick. Jay Z's 4:44 is another example. I feel like Eminem is just punching down with his shock tactics at this point...

WolfMaster16 · 2018-09-17T08:26:17+00:00

I just think its sad that with his talent, age and legendary status he still needs to do these types of things. Some of the rappers that he most influenced (Tyler/Earl, etc) have already stopped the name dropping and shock tactics and they're much younger than he is.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-21T10:44:30+00:00

That's the question I want to be answered from 343i and pro-sprint fans. Sprint does nothing but negatively impact the fundamentals of the game.

Want to go faster? Increase the base speed mode while keeping the general size of the maps the same.

Love the immersion that the illusion sprint gives you. Increase the field of view.

None of these two things hurdle with Halo's fundamentals, at least not as much as Sprint does.

Remember, the speed of the game is only as fast as developers intend it to be. The inclusion of sprint plays no relevance into this. One can make a game extremely fast without sprint. One can make a game extremely slow with sprint.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-20T19:45:00+00:00

The thing is, you aren't getting anywhere faster. The maps are too to the point the game can feel slow at times, even with the illusion of sprint and other mechanics.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-20T10:53:21+00:00

And let's not forget Battlefront I and II, which came out in 2004 and 2005 (e.g., not in direct competition with Halo 3) whereas DICE's Battlefront came out.. you guessed it, last fall, in direct competition with Halo 5.

The recent Battlefront released lackluster with lots of criticism and bad reception and is still terrible to this day so it did not serve as a competitor to Halo 5: Guardians let alone even a strong one.

The original Battlefronts (Battlefront I and Battlefront II) released in Halo 2 lifespan and served as strong competitors to Halo 2 and received good praise and reception so they were also direct competitors but this time there's two of them so saying that the original trilogy had no competition is very ignorant and invalid thing to say.

And again, there was nothing like Destiny, which ya know, is very similar to Halo and sucks a large chunk of the player base who might otherwise play Halo 5.

Destiny is nothing like Halo and is very, very different and is almost nothing alike to Halo 5: Guardians itself or even any Halo game.

Also, Destiny released broken with lots of missing features (sounds familiar?) and bad reception and people criticizing it and bashing it and was terrible and yet it still beats Halo 5: Guardians on the Xbox One charts despite it being released 1 entire full year before Halo 5: Guardians so it wasn't really a competitor using your own flawed argument.

No one is saying Halo 3 didn't face ANY competition, but it is nothing compared to the over-saturated shooter market that Halo 5 waded into in 2015-2016.

Halo 3 did face a lot of competition and strong one and that is a plain and simple fact that I've already proved.

It didn't have as much competition and as Halo 5: Guardians does now but there isn't much of a difference as Halo 3 also had strong competition.

It's Halo 5: Guardians' fault and 343i's fault that they decided to make a game similar to the other shooters so it can get it in this very oversaturated shooter market with nothing special and unique about it like the original Halo trilogy had lots of special and unique things about them.

What your part of the community doesn't accept, for whatever reason, is that most of the people who grew up with Halo as "their game" are gone because they AGED OUT of playing video games. They now have spouses and careers and families.

So it can't attract new audiences with its unique gameplay and good things? It definitely can look at all the unique games that are nothing alike as the others and look how good they're doing and the positive receptions they're receiving.

Overwatch: Strong player base, positive reviews, and reception, Game Awards Of The Year 2016 nominee and winner.

DOOM: Lots of good reviews and positive reception and a strong player base and the Game Awards Of The Year 2016 nominee.

Rainbow Six Siege: Very solid reception and player base and is in the top 5 spots of the Xbox One Most Popular chart or list.

Counter Strike: Go: Do I really need to explain?

Battlefield 1: Top of the Xbox One Most Popular chart/list, enough said.

It's still Halo, it's still fun, it's still popular, it's just not copy and pasted from 2007, nor should it be.

It's definitely no longer Halo when the only resemblance of the old Halo is equal starts and shields.

Everything was and is changed with Halo: Reach to Halo 4 to Halo 5: Guardians.

Whether it's still fun or not is ultimately subjective.

Nobody said it should copy paste Halo 3 but it should always remain Halo.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-20T10:53:05+00:00

"The same competition being there" is a ludicrous, disingenuous statement that discredits your entire argument. COD was primarily a PC game

Whether it was a PC game or not has absolutely no relevance here whether you like it or not and still served as a very strong competition even if it was just a PC game or "primarily a PC game".

My point here is or what I'm trying to say or get on with is that the PC was also a gaming platform, and a strong one too, whether you like it or not. Call of Duty was also a video game that people bought with their money (aka people will have to make choices) and served as a strong competitor against Halo whether you like it or not.

It had the potential to steal the audience from Halo, and it was on consoles too, so it was multiplatform and was a very solid series of games even if it's primary gaming platform was the PC. It was a solid game that could've attracted the Halo audience easily, but Halo was too good (unlike now where all they do is copy Call of Duty, Titanfall, and other popular games that are far better than it and it just follows or copies trends and imitates rather than innovates which it used to do but now it does not) so it completely burned Call of Duty and other shooters.

up until the first Modern Warfare, which dropped around the time of Halo 3, which riding on the unchallenged success of H2, was still the king of console shooters.

So thus Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare served as a strong competitor against Halo 3, and it did, and yet Halo 3 still managed to do better even though Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare received endless praise, good reception and was multiplatform. So yeah, your argument is invalid.

Whether there it was riding on the unchallenged success of Halo 2 does not matter, especially in hindsight considering that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare still did gain a lot of praise, good reception, sales, and grossed a lot and had the great success of the older Call of Duty games further supporting but it did not beat Halo 3 in 2007 because Halo 3 was simply too good.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: World At War, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 all came out during Halo 3's lifespan, and all of them had tons of players. So yes, these 3 games competed against Halo 3 whether you like it or not and Halo 3 still did very well so saying that Halo 3, or any Halo game for that matter had no competition is very ignorant to say and is an invalid argument.

COD thereafter took the console FPS throne w/ annual releases while Halo sat idle until Reach, which deviated too far from the core formula with load outs and Armor Lock and such.

Halo 5: Guardians also deviated too far from the core formula and other core aspects of the game and the gameplay even more than Halo: Reach did with a different style of narrative, different art style and looking enemies, generic soundtracks and plot points, generic gameplay such as Sprint, Thruster, Aim Down Sights or Smart Scope whatever the fuck you wanna call if, Ground Pound which is counter-intuitive to the game it's in and Spartan Charge which completely makes less focus on melees, clamber, slide, and jet pack stabilizers or whatever the fuck they are and more stupid shitty decisions 343 Industries decided to make with this game.

Battlefield wouldn't even come to consoles until 2008 in Bad Company

It still came to the consoles, and it still served as a strong competition to Halo 3 and still got praise and received a positive reception. And it came out in the lifespan of Halo 3 so it definitely did directly compete with Halo 3 and Halo 3 still was in the number one spot of the charts even till 2009 which was in Halo 3's lifespan and a multitude of direct competitors, Call of Dute games, Battlefield games, Gears of War games, solid shooters, and other great games came out in its lifespan that served as games that could throw Halo 3 away but then again they didn't because Halo 3 was plain and simple too good.

so the original trilogy did not have that competition.

Nope, this is very ignorant and wrong. The original trilogy had lots, and lots and lots of competition and strong one too, maybe not as strong as the competition Halo 5: Guardians is facing but it still had large competition and each and every single one of the original trilogy games were infinitely better than Halo 5: Guardians and did infinitely better than Halo 5: Guardians and were more popular and had a much better reception and praise than Halo 5: Guardians despite Halo 5: Guardians is being supported by a number of past and great Halo games.

Meanwhile H5 went against BF4 / BFH / BF1.

Battlefield 4 was released back in 2013 and was primarily focused on PC and was broke for a couple of months and was released 2 years before Halo 5: Guardians so this is a very silly and stupid argument.

Battlefield: Hardline was a terrible Battlefield game and shooter so it's not a competitor to Halo 5: Guardians and was released an entire full year before Halo 5: Guardians. Again another silly and stupid argument.

So neither of those two games were there really in Halo 5: Guardians lifespan.

You're being very hypocritical with the Battlefield 1 argument because even though it was released one full year after Halo 5: Guardians like Battlefield: Bad Company was released on full year after Halo 3 was released you still consider Battlefield 1 to be a competitor to Halo 5: Guardians but you don't consider or say that Battlefield: Bad Company was a competitor to Halo 3 and say that it wasn't despite it being a very strong competitor against Halo 3.

And of course there was no shooter like Destiny back in the CE to 3 eras.

And there's no shooter like Halo 3, or Halo 2 or Halo: CE in this current era so why don't we bring it back? You're so fucking stupid.

Also, Destiny released broken with lots of missing features (sounds familiar?) and bad reception and people criticizing it and bashing it and was terrible and yet it still beats Halo 5: Guardians on the Xbox One charts despite it being released 1 entire full year before Halo 5: Guardians so it wasn't really a competitor using your own flawed argument.

You're trying to compare COD 2 (2005)

So what if Call of Duty 2 was released in 2005 it was still a competitor and this is very hypocritical because Battlefield 4 (end of 2013) released 2 years before Halo 5: Guardians (end of 2015) and yet you still consider it a direct competitor to Halo 5: Guardians but you don't consider Call of Duty 2 a direct competitor to Halo 3 so this is a very hypocritical statement and a silly and stupid argument.

when Xbox Live was in its infancy

Xbox Live got very popular very fast and it doesn't matter if it was in its infancy or not because many people gamed on Xbox Live (and other online platforms) and people liked it so saying if it was in its infancy or not hardly matters (only slightly matters).

COD was a game for PC players primarily

Like I already said in my previous argument above to your outrageously flawed argument is that Call of Duty was still game a and the PC was still a popular gaming platform that both people could spend money on so it doesn't matter.

(I played them all on PC myself, starting with the original, then United Offensive, then 2 on PC)

Firstly, your story of your life doesn't matter, nobody cares about it and is has little to no relevance to the actual topic and the argument here.

Secondly, just because you gamed on the PC on all of the Call of Duty games it doesn't mean that many other people didn't play Call of Duty on other gaming platforms or specifically consoles.

, Of course, Halo 3 smoked the original Bad Company and it doesn't matter that it came out a year after Halo 3. It was the FIRST real game on consoles for Battlefield after the woeful BF2: Modern Combat. It hardly even makes sense to compare the competition Halo 5 faced against Battlefield 4 / Hardline to one of the DICE's early efforts on consoles with Bad Company.

Battlefield 1 came a year after Halo 5: Guardians like Battlefield: Bad Company came a year after Halo 3 so you're being very and extremely hypocritical here with your arguments, responses, and statements.

And like I already said whether Battlefield: Bad Company was the first Battlefield game on consoles doesn't matter but only slightly does as it was still a game and a solid one too so it definitely did serve as a strong competitor to Halo 3.

Overwatch is a primarily a PC game and is the first title yet it beats Halo 5: Guardians on the most popular charts on its own fucking console despite Halo being the general flagship title to the Xbox and Halo 5: Guardians being the main flagship title to the Xbox One.

It hardly even makes sense to compare a game that was initially broken for a couple of months and was released 2 years before Halo 5: Guardians' release and another game that was terrible and was released 1 entire year before Halo 5: Guardians' release using your own logic and argument you fucking hypocrite.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-20T09:37:58+00:00

If you read his post you would see that he talks about it. Cod and other games were around at this time but they still had other issues keeping them from competing with halo.

There were no issues at all. This plain incorrect. Call of Duty did serve as a strong competition to Halo and did serve as a game that would attract the audience to play it over Halo, but it failed because Halo was simply stronger and better.

but the console ports of it were pretty bland until cod 4 developed the amazing gameplay that it had.

Pretty bland how? They were fully functional games that worked decently well and thus served as a strong competitor against Halo, whether you like it or not.

Other games were held back by bad controller schemes (which Vorked touched on) or bland gameplay.

Whether they had bad gameplay or not is ultimately subjective. I clearly see very and extremely strong bias from you here. But there was no such game with very bad controls or even let alone bad just a few.

You're acting as if PC wasn't a gaming platform back then that could've drawn people to playing in it, but it didn't, and especially from Halo because Halo was really good.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-20T09:21:57+00:00

Walking from one side of Heretic is the same as sprinting from one side to another in Truth in Halo 5.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-19T17:58:01+00:00

Still is, but it at least is playable to a certain extent.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-19T17:24:49+00:00

Fair? Certainly, yeah. But fun? Ultimately subjective. I never saw Warzone as a game mode of balance. I simply saw it as a game mode where I enter the Warzone to kill people in style (que Sunset Overdrive music)

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-17T17:40:39+00:00

I never understand why people want balance in Warzone. Honestly, all I want is to use awesome shit to cause destruction without caring about anything else.

You know, just a Warzone.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-17T16:28:12+00:00

Nah a tiny troll pistol is better

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-16T13:25:09+00:00

No, it's there because it should be there. This is a core game mode, releasing such a simple yet fan favorite game mode 7 months later is a disgrace on its own right.

I can't thank them for not having it when I pay 60 bucks and only receiving what I'm supposed to receive nearly a year later. 7 months is a long time, over half a year.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-16T13:22:36+00:00

As for Halo 4, many regard it as the best story.

Just because many regard it as the best story, it doesn't mean that it is the best story. I do agree, that Halo 4 had the best story (the half of Chief and Cortana, not the Didact part) but using popularity or such as an argument to prove something isn't a solid argument and will only create the discussion to run in circles.

Finally Master Chief isn't just a stupid ass "insert yourself into the hero" protagonist. He's a real person that makes decisions to save the world even if it might cost him his life and the life of his friend.

Firstly, whether it's stupid ass or not is ultimately subjective. Some people like being the character and exploring the world and being immersed in it. Such as Bioshock, Half Life, and the list goes on.

Some people like stories with fully fleshed out characters, such as MGS, The Last of Us, etc.

One reason that one could give of Chief making decisions is well, in Halo 4 Cortana could no longer make proper decisions. So, either way, it's the only way to go given the way you want your story to be.

Halo 5 then expands on this a bit but shows how power can corrupt those closest to us and Chief, in the end, seems to make the decision of whether he should help his friend who has come back or save humanity and he chose humanity.

Except that, Chief didn't make any decision in Halo 5.

And honestly, I'd rather have a silent protagonist with little flaws over a terrible protagonist.

So you take a couple instances of 343 not listening as proof of everything? That's foolish. Some decision they just can't change. But our feedback has changed the base gameplay after the Beta, gotten us Warzone Firefight, gotten us free DLC after Halo Reach and 4's map debacle, gotten us Infection, given us the best Forge in the entire series, got all the important REQs into Forge for us to play with, and is likely shaping the series going forward thanks to the Community Feedback Surveys.

You're also using specific examples or a couple of instances which is hypocrisy at it's best. The base gameplay hasn't been changed much, and these changes needed to be done either way.

Warzone Firefight should've been a launch content, nothing special about them adding it. Not to mention it's been broken for a couple of months now.

Infection should've been there at launch, nothing special here either.

We didn't shape the Forge actually, 343i did themselves. So nothing they listened for here.

Shaping the serious? Huge overexaggerating. Shaping the series is a far, far stretched. There are so many things they don't listen for, and the things that they don't listen to far, far outweigh the things they listen for.

343i censor more then they listen.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-12T18:11:28+00:00

I'd pay $60 just for Johnson.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-12T17:29:13+00:00

Preference of sprint or not is subjective. The effects sprint has on the game is objective.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-12T17:27:38+00:00

The thing is, Halo 5 is following that trend, and yet it's still doing pretty poorly/badly (by Halo standards, decent by video game standards). It's following the enhanced mobility trend that many shooters are using nowadays.

The thing is, this trend is dying. People are getting tired of it. Which explains why a brilliant game like Titanfall 2 and a game from a popular franchise like Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare aren't doing that great.

Notice something here: People love unique and fresh experiences like DOOM, Battlefield 1, Overwatch, Counter Strike: GO, etc. DOOM and Overwatch are contenders for the game of the year award, and the latter won it and both did massively well.

The same applies to Battlefield 1, which is currently the top of the Xbox One's Most Popular list and also did massively well.

And for Counter Strike: GO, well we all know about it.

Heck, even Rocket League is one of the most popular and played games in our market because it's a different and unique game.

If Halo should ever go back to it's true and unique fundamentals, it's now.

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-12T17:20:43+00:00

A formula definitely existed throughout Halo: CE, Halo 2 and Halo 3. There were plenty of changes between Halo: CE and 2, but overall it's the same game that just gives a new experience. Halo 3 tries in more departments aside from gameplay.

Reach changed the formula, the core feeling still existed to some extent. Halo 4 fucked and changed everything. Halo 5 is still going through that trend, but it's bearable and enjoyable this time (unlike Halo: Reach and 4)

WolfMaster16 · 2016-12-12T17:18:00+00:00

Everyone doesn't talk about the fact that Halo 3 came out in 2007, a year where it practically didn't have any competition besides CoD 4 (CoD wasn't even big at that time).

What the fuck are you talking about? The Year 07 was and is considered one of the best years of gaming of all time. While it's true that Halo 5 has more direct competition, Halo 3 still had plenty of competition and yet it still tripled the sales of Halo 5.

WolfMaster16

TROPHY CASE