Re: Halo CE Remake coming this November

by Ascendant Justice Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:50 pm

I think the Halo CE remake will be perfectly fine, assuming they dont completely butcher everything that made Halo CE, Halo CE.

Also

Since the flood are going to be in it, I'd better not see any of that half assed Halo 3 flood bull crap that died to a gentle gust of wind. I want the flood to be durable, numerous, and challenging.

by Ringleader Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:54 pm

dragoon9105 wrote:
Ringleader wrote:
Joystiq has learned that the previously rumored remake of Halo: Combat Evolved will indeed launch this holiday.
You see red, i'm seeing green here.

But, green was the average color...

Do you mean blue? the color blue? How old are you/when Halo CE came out again?

Ringleader wrote:
season for Xbox 360 with a full visual overhaul..
What would you expect.

Nothing less, that's why I used green, the average color, to express how it's not really that wonderful or impressive that they improve the graphics of a remake 10 years later.

Ringleader wrote:
[/u] Sources explain that the re-release is not Bungie's 2001 Xbox game simply running at a higher resolution -- it's being remade with new art assets. While Halo's audio will likely remain unaltered, the controls will allow for more recent Halo configurations..
Ok lets explain this for you,

Please, enlighten me with your insight.

By 'let's' you mean the entire rest of the universe? Dragoon is the spokesman of the universe and he get's to say 'let's explain this for you' like I'm the only one that thinks a Halo remake will be wholly shit.

what they mean by not simply running at a higher resolution they mean that it is being remade with new art assets,

Erm, I know, and that's why it's really really bad! lol.

They're probably going to make the Elites look like the Reach elites, or something equally horrible.

keeping the original halo soundtrack and more modern controls. all good things in the right direction.

You know what's at the end of that direction? Not remaking Halo CE with different stuff in it, and just having the original that people can be content with.

Ringleader wrote:
The Halo: Combat Evolved remake is allegedly being developed by New Jersey-based Saber Interactive,the company behind TimeShift and Namco's upcoming Inversion

Lets give a reminder here, they are remaking a game not making it.

It's seems as if you apparently know everything their going to do and everything their going to change. Please share your knowledge on the entire dynamic Saber Interactive's developmental process.

Are they going to change the story?

How about the weapons? Are we going to get the 32 round assault rifle or DMR?

Are the Elites going to look like Reach Elites with blobby helmets, and 10 elite majors per elite minor?

For all we know all they are adding is multiplayer and forge.

Wrong, that's for all YOU know, I happen to know for a fact that their going to change the gameplay, the design of practically everything, and the overall style to sell this game to a lot of kids, and pseudo-kids that really don't understand why remaking Halo is a dumb thing to do.

Ringleader wrote:
[/u][/color] but we've been unable to confirm the nature of the engine powering it. We understand that it's something other than the Reach engine.
How is this bad? there are plenty of other good engines out there, Crytec's engine, the unreal engine, source, the list goes on.

It's bad because they have to either spend time and money making a new engine (time they REALLY don't have), or using one that's older then the Reach engine, the Reach engine having been developed for more then one Halo installment.

Ringleader wrote:
The Halo: Combat Evolved update, one of two Halo games
2 halo games, in development, again how is this bad,

Well, think how bad just one remake will be by a company other then Bungie, then multiply it by 2.5

you know you look like an jerk if they are both phenomal right?

Is there a chance that both of them are phenomenal games/remakes? Well yeah, but with the given information, it's such a minuscule chance, why even entertain the thought? There are other things to have happy, snuggly thoughts about, and we wont have to worry about the extremely high probability that a rich sci fi universe wont get annihilated in the process.

give em a chance stop being closed minded

Ok, they have a .000343 chance. Am I open minded now that I agree with you? Or that I gave it a liberal chance of success?

Ringleader wrote:
[/color] currently in development under the watchful eye of 343 Industries, is expected to support 1080p resolution and 3D televisions. Details on multiplayer are supposedly still being worked out, but we understand the remake will likely feature online co-op (the original game supported two-player split-screen co-op).

does online co-op not get a color, may i approve purple for the color list for F***ing awesome?.

Well, purple is an UBER EPIC color, and online co-op is such a ground breaking revolutionary advancement that we shouldn't expect anything less of.

Ringleader wrote:
The game is expected to re-evolve on November 15, 2011, ten years after Halo: Combat Evolved launched alongside the Xbox. Our sources didn't know of any plans to similarly upgrade the recently disconnected Halo 2, but it's hard to imagine Microsoft playing favorites with its biggest franchise.
not much to say about this, A Plan to remake halo 2?. so what, that gives them 2 chances to get a halo remake right instead of just one.

It also gives them 2 considerably LARGER chances to royally fork both games in one foul swoop.

Statistics is a bitch.

Ringleader wrote:
I grew up with halo PC too, I love that game, and I still play it on occasion when I'm not busy with work or school. The point I'm trying to make is that it's basically a work of art, a masterpiece that really can't get much better then how it is now. Disenfranchising the series for a quick buck is really really low, .

Halo CE on the Xbox came out first you know.

No it didn't, because you thought I didn't know that for some reason, and if you think I didn't know something, then you can make that into a point that supports nothing.

I played halo since launch on the Xbox, and it was by no means perfect, good game, but its not some sort of god game like your making it out to be.

Whelp, you were a kid back then, maybe you should have waited a while before playing a rated M game designed for older people

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' game.

Thank you spokesman for the universe, that will be all.

I really would like to thank you for telling me things I didn't know.

Besides microsoft isn't going to break down your door and smash your original disk becuase they released a new one.

Right, they're just making it so later generations won't get a chance to play it because theres a newer, shiner, and suckier alternative that's more EPIC, it also supports MLG.

don't like it? dont buy it.

Bleep Bloop

Ringleader wrote:
It's shameful to see someone else destroy/discredit your life's work in a matter of months.

You do know your over-reacting right? Your not going to have a stroke over a bad halo game coming out so stop acting like it.

I guess when you really like something, and hold some kind of, reverence toward it, you can feel slightly irritated when it get's milked to death then sent off to the slaughter to make happy meals for all the good little girls and boys.

Ensemble destroyed halo wars becuase they were going out of business anyway,

Are you sure they weren't just qualified for the job at hand?

and besides halo wars wasn't THAT Bad,

Was too!

It can actually be pretty fun sometimes.

Nope.

You just cant be uptight and serious about it, its a game, made for you to have fun with it, like a toy.

Yes I can, yes I will. yes, yes, yes, because, believe it or not, a remake can actually be fun, and not ruin the style/artistic design/story of the parent. A lot of people seem to have forgot that.

This new game might be the funnest more EPIC thing in the world, but if it fails to be a Halo game, with Halo stuff in it? Then it's basically not Halo. It'd be fun and all especially for all the good little girls and boys, but am I really that stanch about expecting more out of the Halo franchise.

No.

by Divine Virus Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:34 pm

Ringleader wrote:Good thing Divine thinks everything is good.

I heard the Halo CE remake will be UBER EPIC, so I assume they already have your money in their pockets. I think I'm pretty safe in that assumption.

Wrong. I don't think everything is good. But I don't jump the gun and automaticly think everything is bad at announcement.

by **Vigil** Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:59 pm

Ringleader wrote:Well, right here!

http://www.microsoft-careers.com/go/343-Industries-Jobs/190537/

Look, their homepage has Halo Wars on it, like that's the one game in the series that, like needs to be on the homepage of their site.

The one stand out game in the series, not Halo CE or Halo Reach with it's fancy graphics, but that one Cutscene in Halo Wars where the Spartans (that look different from the other Spartan's were all familiar with, for some reason), say that line: "If they want war, we'll give em war!" that made you want to cry.

Oh no! you mean a game they didn't make and only took control of after Ensemble/Robot died and there using it as their homepage! That's a genuine marker of their company's view of Halo.

Ringleader wrote:Good thing neither AA or equipment belong in Halo CE.

How exactly is it 'hard to get back to the older Halos without sprint'? Halo CE, the irrefutable best game of the series managed not to be another generic shooter with sprint and prone and perks pretty well I think. As hard as you think it's for the Halo CE remake not to have SPRINT™, it's arguably harder for them to shoehorn in SPRINT™, from a story/making sense/continuity perspective, not a making tons of money perspective.

Do you work for 343 Industries?

No, do you?

Sprint/ prone didn't come to the fore of shooters until after much later after Halo CE was released, mainly drived by Battlefield and Call of Duty, that didn't hit their stride until the middle of the last decade. If Halo CE was released today in the state it without the allure of nostalgia it would be a pretty generic shooter with a decent story. Your looking through rose-tinited glasses and it shows.

Ringleader wrote:I don't think I own a 500$ keyboard, I should check though.

At any rate, yes, it is worth ruining a 500$ machine, it's worth ruining a 5,000$ machine, a 1,700,000,000$ franchise, and the life's work of hundreds of hard working employees at Bungie.

At least, that's how M$ sees it.

Thanks for the insight captain overdramatic.

Ringleader wrote:Let's not wait for it to suck to acknowledge that it will suck/be worse then the original Halo CE

Yes, because let's dismiss any game right away without giving any chance to impress us or any objective or logical thought. Your logic is inspired.

Ringleader wrote:How do you know exactly what their doing? They said they weren't just going to improve the graphics, they thought it so much as to make that one of the main points of their announcement.

Halo CE and Halo 2 Vista were ports, not remakes, is that the strength of your evidence used to support your point?

How do you know there not? Your argument is just as valid on the other hand. There redoing the art assets and adding mutliplayer functionally from what we have been told, that's it, you know nothing else about the production of this remake or what their adding/changing.

Ringleader wrote:Well, my point is that Halo CE cannot be better when Microsoft, 343, and Saber Intererative, the company that brought you such memorable games as Will Rock and Timeshift are at the wheel.

Why bother pretending it can be with the three stooges in control?

Because Microsoft game studios hasn't been involved in any of the halo games before(Except all of them) and small developers with a few games can never make a diamond in the rough (Rocksteady).

Ringleader wrote:Good thing Divine thinks everything is good.

I heard the Halo CE remake will be UBER EPIC, so I assume they already have your money in their pockets. I think I'm pretty safe in that assumption.

Oh? Because some people don't hold the same view as you they are instantly wrong and guillible idiots. Nice to know your logic is so well founded. I'm at least going to give the damn thing a chance before I write it off.

Ringleader wrote:But, green was the average color...

Do you mean blue? the color blue? How old are you/when Halo CE came out again?

What are you getting at? You were 8 at the time, that could arguably explain exactly why your view is so distorted due to childhood nostalgia. That an irrelevant question and you know it.

Ringleader wrote:Nothing less, that's why I used green, the average color, to express how it's not really that wonderful or impressive that they improve the graphics of a remake 10 years later.

That's what most Remakes do Ring, it's not supposed to be wonderful or impressive.

Ringleader wrote:Please, enlighten me with your insight.

By 'let's' you mean the entire rest of the universe? Dragoon is the spokesman of the universe and he get's to say 'let's explain this for you' like I'm the only one that thinks a Halo remake will be wholly shit.

Your the only one here this anti-Halo.

You and a wave of B.net fucktards might all share the same view, but It wouldn't help your case, as your case is based on broad assumptions and general distaste for the Halo series over the last few years.

Ringleader wrote:Erm, I know, and that's why it's really really bad! lol.

They're probably going to make the Elites look like the Reach elites, or something equally horrible.

DUURRRRRRR CHANGE IS BAD LOLZ, I CAN NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING TO CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE UPDATING THINGS TO IMPROVE ON THE PAST IS TERRRIBLE!

Ringleader wrote:You know what's at the end of that direction? Not remaking Halo CE with different stuff in it, and just having the original that people can be content with.

Then go play it then. On an original xbox, on a Television from 10 years ago.

Ringleader wrote:It's seems as if you apparently know everything their going to do and everything their going to change. Please share your knowledge on the entire dynamic Saber Interactive's developmental process.

Are they going to change the story?

How about the weapons? Are we going to get the 32 round assault rifle or DMR?

Are the Elites going to look like Reach Elites with blobby helmets, and 10 elite majors per elite minor?

Apparantly you do, as you said AA will be in it, and it will look like garbage and be horrible. This is called Hypocrisy.

Probably not, because people would freak out even more than you are.

I doubt it.

Because updating an art design after 10 years is so repugnant. Geez, If mario going to keep wearing Blue overalls and a red shirt? Because in the original he had Red overalls and a Blue shirt and he looked better then obviously.

Ringleader wrote:Wrong, that's for all YOU know, I happen to know for a fact that their going to change the gameplay, the design of practically everything, and the overall style to sell this game to a lot of kids, and pseudo-kids that really don't understand why remaking Halo is a dumb thing to do.

Again, you just condricted your last point within the same reply this time. Are you even trying any more?

Ringleader wrote:
It's bad because they have to either spend time and money making a new engine (time they REALLY don't have), or using one that's older then the Reach engine, the Reach engine having been developed for more then one Halo installment.

Yeah, it's called Bungie Aerospace.

Well, think how bad just one remake will be by a company other then Bungie, then multiply it by 2.5

Because Gearbox Software did such a terrible job porting Halo CE to the PC.

Ringleader wrote:Is there a chance that both of them are phenomenal games/remakes? Well yeah, but with the given information, it's such a minuscule chance, why even entertain the thought? There are other things to have happy, snuggly thoughts about, and we wont have to worry about the extremely high probability that a rich sci fi universe wont get annihilated in the process.

We know practically nothing, you have already made massive assumptions which you have repeated several times. If that's the case Ring, why do you even care this much, just go play a game you give a damn about and let MS do what it does and let it be.

Ringleader wrote:Ok, they have a .000343 chance. Am I open minded now that I agree with you? Or that I gave it a liberal chance of success?

Thanks you patronising rude prick, nice to know you listen to a legitmate compliant on your view.

Ringleader wrote:Well, purple is an UBER EPIC color, and online co-op is such a ground breaking revolutionary advancement that we shouldn't expect anything less of.

Wait, you said you didn't want anything changed, and now you want a modern online compenant? Your view chnaged so hard you gave me whiplash.

Ringleader wrote:It also gives them 2 considerably LARGER chances to royally fork both games in one foul swoop.

Statistics is a bitch.

Because assumptions by the writer is a proven fact. Oh Wait.

Ringleader wrote:No it didn't, because you thought I didn't know that for some reason, and if you think I didn't know something, then you can make that into a point that supports nothing.

So your entire argument in a nutshell then?

Ringleader wrote:Whelp, you were a kid back then, maybe you should have waited a while before playing a rated M game designed for older people

Again, you were 8-9 when Halo CE was released. Maths is a bitch isn't it?

Ringleader wrote:Thank you spokesman for the universe, that will be all.

I really would like to thank you for telling me things I didn't know.

Thanks for the sarcasm as usual. You are obviosuly the spokesman of the universe and you don't like anybody else taking your title.

Ringleader wrote:Right, they're just making it so later generations won't get a chance to play it because theres a newer, shiner, and suckier alternative that's more EPIC, it also supports MLG.

Yeah, it's not like Microsoft put a digital download of the original game on Xbox live marketplace or anything.........OH WAIT THEY DID.

Ringleader wrote:I guess when you really like something, and hold some kind of, reverence toward it, you can feel slightly irritated when it get's milked to death then sent off to the slaughter to make happy meals for all the good little girls and boys.

Oh I don't you could stop being so melodramatic and actually think objectively about it and based your argument on actual facts or anything?

by Ringleader Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:41 pm

@Ring

Ohhhhh, Gee, you KNOW Vigil means business when he tags a youtube video with Captain Picard in it (possibly doing something with his palms?), I nearly soiled my paints in combination of fear and anticipation of the roast that awaits me.

I have just about enough of you.

I'm the big meanie on TCF, because I say things like "I've just had enough of you!", that sounds just like me.

If you really cared about Halo, you would have moved on and stop complaining

Actually, if I really cared about halo I would do the exact opposite of what you advise.

about every single minor thing with any single piece of evidence or logical thought behind it.

Actually the minor stuff makes up the bigger stuff, which in tern makes up Halo.

Minor things aren't insignificant because they are minor.

You dislike anything changed or added about Halo,

Well, that's not totally accurate, I do like things that are added, that make sense... Like how most people would.

But theres no real reason or need to change some things, is there?

By things, I don't mean like quality of the graphics, I mean the physical appearance of the Elites and the Spartans and such. You know, just the obvious interpretation of what I said.

and you never seem to understand the concept of evolution of a series,

Again, you mistakingly grouped adding in new elements to a story, and retconning preexisting elements for the sake of making lots of money.

or at the very less compromising for sake of gameplay.

Compromising what for the sake of gameplay? the story? How exactly is the story and appearance of units, players, ships and weapons dependent at all on the gameplay or vise versa?

Explain this to me, this is like the primary argument in support of retconning stuff.

How is the gameplay improved it the POA looks different? How the the Elites newer, edgier look improve the gameplay?

Gameplay is like, how far you can throw grenades and how many bullets are in a magazine, and driving mongeese around in certain levels, these examples are about 3000 times more important when it comes down to sitting and enjoying the game, but unnecessary and frivolous aesthetic changes to the story and in game materials can be just as damning to the enjoyability of the game from a continuity perspective.

The sad thing is that it's the easiest part not to ruin, It's easier to make the POA stay in orbit over Reach during the events of Halo: Reach, because it would require equal amounts of technical effort to put it in game, but you don't have to hatch another brilliant idea of how to get Cortana to chief, with the POA having booster jets, so why even make the change? Because it's fun to drive a mongoose around near the end of the game? They could have had you drive the mongoose, shoot a heavy gauss gun at alien ships, and blow yourself up at the end (Like, what happens to Spartans when they die) killing as many covenant as possible, and not have the POA blast off like the space shuttle with booster rockets. Why make the POA look different at all?

Thinking this one form of the story, the form we are shown, is the only possible interpretation of event's when it comes to gameplay (driving mongeese, shooting gauss turrets), isn't really that smart I think. Is it possible for the story to be different and the gameplay better? Yes. Is it possible for the story to be the same, and the gameplay better? Yes. Gameplay is not at the mercy of aesthetic changes to the story.

Halo Wars deserved every piece of venom that piece of shit got.

Your new found allies seem to share a different opinion, you might consider deferring to their opinion.

Halo 3 and Reach could of been better, but for what they were they worked.

Hey, we agree on that, we would agree on this remake too I think but I came across to passionately.

I might have even more open and accepting of your point of view if you did't come off as a condoscending arrogant rude asshole in every single sentence you utter.

So I'm wrong about not wanting Halo remade in the hands of Saber Interactive and 343 Industries because I'm being unfairly correct and passionate about something. I'm wrong because I'm mean, and their right because their at the receiving end of my meanness.

I think I speak for many people on this site when say, please for your benefit and for ours stop now.

Stop what? Name the instances in which I came across too harshly and I will seriously consider toning it down. I would cut off my left arm for someone else to get why this remake is not a good thing, so I would do less in the same spirit.

Think about how you come off, and when entering a debate, at least think about the merits of the other view are instead of your usual view:

Maybe you oughtta review the strength of ther counter arguments before saying that, both in tone and in caliber.

Why do you assume that I don't consider the merits of the counter argument and arguer? I probably think about their stance more then they do, providing diagrams and careful explanations as to why it doesn't make too much sense.

Could there be a slight possibility that I'm right at least some of the time? I do put a lot of time and effort and examples and diagrams into making my points clear and I don't do all that stuff for no reason. You seem to think that arguments on TCF are always, in terms of the strength of material being supported and each contenders legitimacy.

That's not really the case though, if that were the case, no one in the history of time would have been able to prove anything because someone else would just have a differing view.

I'm not really one to argue over stuff that theres a big chance I could be wrong over, and I don't gamble, I usually pick pretty safe fights to pick, like:

-Covenant originally liked using shorter ranged weapons then longer ranged weapons

-Shield spires make less sense then planetary attack perspective, also from a retconning perspective.

-The chances of M$, 343i, and SI making a game that is not on par with the first Halo CE, is high.

'' I AM RIGHT, MY VIEW IS 100% FACT

Actually I use 100% fact in terms of in game examples and novelized canon, in support of my arguments, I try to blend them as seamlessly and as digestably as possible. Never though it would come back to haunt me.

AND JUST AND YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT FOR DISAGREEING WITH ME."

List the top 10 most exemplifying instances that support what you say here. Please do.

I frankly tired of it, and it doesn't help your case.

Well, that's entirely on you, and I respect your opinion, but believe it or not, we can share the same opinion on something despite having different demeanors.

Your painting this is such a negative making such broad assumptions about things you have absoultely no factual evidence to back you up as if it's a for gone conclusion.

I just got a bad feelin about this one.

For christ sake this remake is celebrating the 10th Anniversary of Halo and that first great game,

That certainly is one of it's functions, the other one is to make 1 billion dollars. The marketing department at Microsoft is more inclined to celibate a video game then to make money though.

and you treat it as if it's the worst thing ever to blight the series?

It kind of already is, it's overshadowing the installment that started it all to make money, not even considering how good it could possibly be, that already sort of puts it in dog poop.

There have been far far worse things and to be honest a visual upgrade and bit more online ability to Halo CE wouldn't harm it and would only elevate it.

Are you saying the good things could possibly elevate Halo CE? Does that mean the really bad things to come out of this and that have already come out of this lower it?

This is a fitting tribute to a series we all grew up with,

I sincerely wish that were the case, and that. Frankly I'm not naive enough to believe that's what to become of this.

and if it's as bad as you claim, the original will always be there and playable.

Well, not really, not to the many generations to follow that got cheated out of a great experience due to a greedy software company. To them, the only Halo CE will be the one they remade when the IP was 100 times bigger.

Stop being so melodramatic.

You know, maybe I shouldn't have soiled my pants after all, it actually seems like we agree on a lot of stuff, with Halo 3 and Reach being better, and how you would have thought the same thing if my meanness hadn't changed the glaring factuality of the situation. I guess were not supposed to be outspoken when we feel strongly about something, and use hyperbole and sarcasm and other grammatical devices when it comes to supporting your opinion in a concise meaningful manner. We gotta explain things like kind, sterile robots that don't feel for anything.

Because human beings in internet debates aren't animals, and will always defer to the more logical opinion when it's explained in a flat and

The thing is, there's actually some historical significance to this particular situation. Could this whole thing be equated to George Lucas and Steven Spielberg going back and remaking the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogy? Kinda, except you would have to replace George Lucas and Steven Spielberg with Uwe Boll as the remaker.

You say that I don't really consider the counter merit before responding but in truth I think it would be pretty neat to see homage paid towards Halo CE like anyone else would, I would like to see everything with improved graphics and animation and effects. The thing is, I think the margin of them unnecessarily retconing the story and the appearances of in game materials for the sake of...'gameplay' is way way WAY to wide to risk it. That's basically the entirety of my stance.

I wouldn't mind seeing it done right, but when the vast majority thinks that gameplay hinges on the story and how things need to change in appearance, then I guess I can give up my hopes of it being done right.

by Ringleader Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:42 pm

Vigil thinks I'm being overmelodramatic.

Hes the better man because:

"DUURRRRRRR CHANGE IS BAD LOLZ, I CAN NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING TO CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE UPDATING THINGS TO IMPROVE ON THE PAST IS TERRRIBLE!"

His points are so friendly, I'm inclined to believe them.

Change=Improve=Obama=Halo Remake, it all makes sense now!

He also think's I'm anti Halo, despite leading a halo mod, a 3 year undertaking, the likes of which he probably has never become involved in.

Oh I don't you could stop being so melodramatic and actually think objectively about it and based your argument on actual facts or anything?

Explain to me how to think objectively then? Using evidence, supporting your points, researching and making diagrams apparently isn't objective, and neither is this statement because I used sarcasm, something Vigil does not know the likes of, which is also sarcasm.

by **Kasrkin Seath** Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:48 pm

Alot of people think that this is important enough to argue about endlessly

by Ringleader Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:52 pm

Oh yessah.

Krazy, why are you so busy all the time?

by **Vigil** Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:06 pm

Ringleader wrote:Vigil thinks I'm being overmelodramatic.

Hes the better man because:

"DUURRRRRRR CHANGE IS BAD LOLZ, I CAN NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING TO CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE UPDATING THINGS TO IMPROVE ON THE PAST IS TERRRIBLE!"

His points are so friendly, I'm inclined to believe them.

Change=Improve=Obama=Halo Remake, it all makes sense now!

He also think's I'm anti Halo, despite leading a halo mod, a 3 year undertaking, the likes of which he probably has never become involved in.

Oh I don't you could stop being so melodramatic and actually think objectively about it and based your argument on actual facts or anything?
Explain to me how to think objectively then? Using evidence, supporting your points, researching and making diagrams apparently isn't objective, and neither is this statement because I used sarcasm, something Vigil does not know the likes of, which is also sarcasm.

I loved how you missed 90% of that post and the large parts where you contradict yourself.

Your obessed with this better man thing aren't you? You make a thread attacking Rasq because he brought a opinion you didn't like, and in all your posts you use sarcasm and a generally rude, and when I get pissed off and flip out at you I'm the bad guy? Double-standards much?

There is a line of how much I am willing to take and you have crossed it. It's going beyond expressing your opinion and has become damn near trolling and hatred for hatred's sake.

You have not stopped yelling about Halo since ODST. We've had 2 years of you complaining about anything you percieve as wrong, and if we don't agree we're stupid and should agree with you. I've tried be reasonable, I've tried being rude, nothing goes into that head of yours. Why the hell should I be nice to a person who treats everybody else like shit because he can't get his way? You haven't earnt that right.

If you'd noticed I use sarcasm all the time, mainly because to show how much you use it and how it makes you come of as a jerk.

All your arguments are based on opinion, and you twist anything you claw as a fact to back it up. Your fighting against reason and logic. You were wrong about the Forerunners, You were wrong about the vehicle design of Reach, you were wrong to snub an interesting theory just because you disagreed with it.

You never address a counter argument besides insults or sarcasm. This is no cohesive for a debate and you just make this a hateful shit flinging contest.

I frankly sick of it, and I'm not the only one.

by **Vigil** Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:32 pm

Ringleader wrote:Ohhhhh, Gee, you KNOW Vigil means business when he tags a youtube video with Captain Picard in it (possibly doing something with his palms?), I nearly soiled my paints in combination of fear and anticipation of the roast that awaits me.

Saracasm as usual. Nice defensive mechanism. Sometimes text is not enough to display the emotion behind the words. Hence the clip.

Ringleader wrote:I'm the big meanie on TCF, because I say things like "I've just had enough of you!", that sounds just like me.

Just stating my opinion, If other people agree, good, if not, I don't care. At least I didn't say I wanted you dead, like Dud would have.

Ringleader wrote:Actually, if I really cared about halo I would do the exact opposite of what you advise.

Funny that on a site that is filled with people who all followed and love Halo, your the only one doing this.

Ringleader wrote:Actually the minor stuff makes up the bigger stuff, which in tern makes up Halo.

Minor things aren't insignificant because they are minor.

It is if you nitpick something to death, which you do. KOTOR II is one of my favourite games and it has a lot of minor flaws, storywise and gameplaywise. But I can overlook them because of the strength of the internal story that was presented. You'd just focus on those flaws and become obessed on them, ruining the experience.

Ringleader wrote:Well, that's not totally accurate, I do like things that are added, that make sense... Like how most people would.

But theres no real reason or need to change some things, is there?

By things, I don't mean like quality of the graphics, I mean the physical appearance of the Elites and the Spartans and such. You know, just the obvious interpretation of what I said.

Name 15 things you liked about Reach. You never gave that game a chance and destroyed any chance to like it. You never bring up positive comments here you are always here talking about the negative. It's basically become all you say here, so you are known here for nothing else.

Ringleader wrote:Again, you mistakingly grouped adding in new elements to a story, and retconning preexisting elements for the sake of making lots of money.

That's wrong. Armour abilities were fine, and it made sense to me that Spartan had modular armour allowing for flexibilty on the battlefield. It was the best way to implement them as a story and gameplay mechanic.

Ringleader wrote:Compromising what for the sake of gameplay? the story? How exactly is the story and appearance of units, players, ships and weapons dependent at all on the gameplay or vise versa?

Certainly, it's a argument that I've gone through several times, originally about ODST. Did you notice that all the Odst and Spartans in ODST and Reach had slightly different armour configurations and colours? This was a gameplay descision to allow the player to easily distinguish AI teammates from Covenant forces when the player was too far to see the waypoint clearly. It makes them visually striking and stand out from the envrionment to stop constant confusion as to their position and therefore where the player should be going when there is no navigational marker. Sure in the books, all of them would be in green and have the same armour, but this would be hard to see at longer ranges as they would blend into the background in Reach.

That is a gameplay desicion to alter story.

Ringleader wrote:Your new found allies seem to share a different opinion, you might consider deferring to their opinion.

Most people here were on HWF and hate that game, but have reached the point where they've moved on, and if they don't like it, it doesn't matter as they've moved on. Why can't you?

Ringleader wrote:Hey, we agree on that, we would agree on this remake too I think but I came across to passionately.

If you stop being so negative, and treat it with quiet caution I wouldn't have such a problem.

Ringleader wrote:So I'm wrong about not wanting Halo remade in the hands of Saber Interactive and 343 Industries because I'm being unfairly correct and passionate about something. I'm wrong because I'm mean, and their right because their at the receiving end of my meanness.

I don't mind you being passionate with your view, it's when you let that passion control you, and take any other view as a personal attack and react with sarcasm and patronising comments.

Ringleader wrote:Stop what? Name the instances in which I came across too harshly and I will seriously consider toning it down. I would cut off my left arm for someone else to get why this remake is not a good thing, so I would do less in the same spirit.

You made a thread called 'An assault on reason' against Rasq, and even though you changed the name, the fact remains you made a thread to personal attack Rasq. You went too far.

Ringleader wrote:Maybe you oughtta review the strength of ther counter arguments before saying that, both in tone and in caliber.

Why do you assume that I don't consider the merits of the counter argument and arguer? I probably think about their stance more then they do, providing diagrams and careful explanations as to why it doesn't make too much sense.

Could there be a slight possibility that I'm right at least some of the time? I do put a lot of time and effort and examples and diagrams into making my points clear and I don't do all that stuff for no reason. You seem to think that arguments on TCF are always, in terms of the strength of material being supported and each contenders legitimacy.

That's not really the case though, if that were the case, no one in the history of time would have been able to prove anything because someone else would just have a differing view.

I'm not really one to argue over stuff that theres a big chance I could be wrong over, and I don't gamble, I usually pick pretty safe fights to pick, like:

-Covenant originally liked using shorter ranged weapons then longer ranged weapons

-Shield spires make less sense then planetary attack perspective, also from a retconning perspective.

-The chances of M$, 343i, and SI making a game that is not on par with the first Halo CE, is high.

Because even though you claim you do, you don't. You never say 'I understand where your coming from, and I respectively disagree, and here's why:'

You come off as obxious and work to bury an opposing view rather than measuring it's merits and drawbacks and replying accordingly.

I do think you have some points that are interesting and there are things in these games we agree about, but you pick on a lot of things where you are wrong. And even if the entire forum entered the thread and said, no you're wrong, like in the Forerunner thread, you doggedly stood your ground and fought an argument that lost more and more coherance and logic and became a desperate attempt to prove yourself right, despite none of us agreed, and we had a lot of evidence to why we thought that way.

Ringleader wrote:Actually I use 100% fact in terms of in game examples and novelized canon, in support of my arguments, I try to blend them as seamlessly and as digestably as possible. Never though it would come back to haunt me.

Again, we used offical canonical sources, such as the novels, the games, the Halo 3 terminals, Halo Legends, And the Halo 3 Iris campaign which all supported our argument,and your opinion based on your opinion of dialog. It wasn't fact and your argument was on very filmsy ground.

Ringleader wrote:List the top 10 most exemplifying instances that support what you say here. Please do.

If you want. It may be the way I read it, but it's seems pretty venomous to me.

1: "Ringleader: no, you may not explain why it makes sense, because nothing about what you suggested makes sense"

2: Ringleader: again, trying to rationalize reach = poop

3: Ringleader: cut it MORE slack?
Ringleader: wtf?
Ringleader: cut it NO SLACK

4: Rasq'uire'laskar: It makes tons of sense, Ringleader.
Ringleader: tons of b$
Ringleader: metric tons of bs$

5:Ringleader:I made myself look like an idiot here? Ohh, gee, I promise next time, I'll make up a theory, sell it as fact, and expect you to believe it, then come across less then convincingly so I appear to be the underdog. Everyone loves the underdog.

I went about doing so in a mean way, so I must be wrong.

6:Ringleader:It's seems as if you apparently know everything their going to do and everything their going to change. Please share your knowledge on the entire dynamic Saber Interactive's developmental process.

Are they going to change the story?

How about the weapons? Are we going to get the 32 round assault rifle or DMR?

Are the Elites going to look like Reach Elites with blobby helmets, and 10 elite majors per elite minor?

7:Ringleader:Please, enlighten me with your insight.

By 'let's' you mean the entire rest of the universe? Dragoon is the spokesman of the universe and he get's to say 'let's explain this for you' like I'm the only one that thinks a Halo remake will be wholly shit.

8:Ringleader:Wrong, that's for all YOU know, I happen to know for a fact that their going to change the gameplay, the design of practically everything, and the overall style to sell this game to a lot of kids, and pseudo-kids that really don't understand why remaking Halo is a dumb thing to do.

9:Ringleader: It also gives them 2 considerably LARGER chances to royally fork both games in one foul swoop.

Statistics is a bitch.

10: Ringleader:Whelp, you were a kid back then, maybe you should have waited a while before playing a rated M game designed for older people

And those were only recent examples. I could go back further if you want.

Ringleader wrote:Well, that's entirely on you, and I respect your opinion, but believe it or not, we can share the same opinion on something despite having different demeanors.

We can, but it doesn't mean I have to like you, or respect you as a person, or you have free reign to insult people.

Ringleader wrote:I just got a bad feelin about this one.

Fair enough, I'm cautiously interested.

Will do the rest tomorrow.

by Rasq'uire'laskar Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:13 pm

Vigil wrote:
Name 15 things you liked about Reach. You never gave that game a chance and destroyed any chance to like it. You never bring up positive comments here you are always here talking about the negative. It's basically become all you say here, so you are known here for nothing else.

Just throwing this out here, but "Name 20 things you like/20 things you dislike" is a kind of game we played with each other on Xfire a few times.

Getting him to say 20 things he liked about Reach without a negative qualifier to each point was like pulling teeth. If he wants, I can dredge up the transcript.

by **Vigil** Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:15 pm

I only didn't put the negative, as in the Halo Reach threads he put up more than 15 reasons why he didn't like it, so I didn't see the need to retread them.

My point was that he is solely focused on negative responses without any positive qualfiers. As you can atest to.

That transcript would be nice to see if you can get it though.

by **Angatar** Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:04 pm

If this is Halo CE with a major graphics overhaul and minor gameplay adjustments, then this will be great. No need to change the damn plot to fit Reach, any changes to it would just make the confusion worse.

I hope the developers make changes like in Serious Sam HD, enhance the game, don't change it. There's a reason Halo CE held to such a high regard, and that's because it worked. I'm neither here nor there until more info is released.

by Ringleader Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:26 pm

Ringleader wrote:Vigil thinks I'm being overmelodramatic.

Hes the better man because:

"DUURRRRRRR CHANGE IS BAD LOLZ, I CAN NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING TO CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE UPDATING THINGS TO IMPROVE ON THE PAST IS TERRRIBLE!"

His points are so friendly, I'm inclined to believe them.

Change=Improve=Obama=Halo Remake, it all makes sense now!

He also think's I'm anti Halo, despite leading a halo mod, a 3 year undertaking, the likes of which he probably has never become involved in.

Oh I don't you could stop being so melodramatic and actually think objectively about it and based your argument on actual facts or anything?

Explain to me how to think objectively then? Using evidence, supporting your points, researching and making diagrams apparently isn't objective, and neither is this statement because I used sarcasm, something Vigil does not know the likes of, which is also sarcasm.

I loved how you missed 90% of that post and the large parts where you contradict yourself.

You know, I'm just a little tired, that's all.

Didn't you also miss substantial sections of my posts? I don't think you've really touched on the one that was actually addressed to you. -this is outdated, I wen't to see the Superbowl at some friends, and then I realized, OH NO, I'M MISSING MY DEBATE WITH VIGIL!

Your obessed with this better man thing aren't you?

Are you sure that isn't you saying one thing and then...saying another?

I'm not the one that started calling people a big meanie here, remember that.

I just think it's funny that you say things like:

"DUURRRRRRR CHANGE IS BAD LOLZ, I CAN NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING TO CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE UPDATING THINGS TO IMPROVE ON THE PAST IS TERRRIBLE!"

Then say your logic is based on how mean the other person is, and not the strength of their argument.

You make a thread attacking Rasq because he brought a opinion you didn't like,

I'm still waiting on that list of the top 10 most exemplifying instances that support your claim of me be more interested insulting people I barely know then proving a point in something I strongly believe in.

I have a feeling I will be waiting indefinitely.

Seriously, point out one case in which I personally attacked rasq, and not his points. Go ahead and try. Oh wait, you can't really find any instances.

You like brining up this personal attack on Rasq, but what did I really say to personally attack Rasq?

and in all your posts you use sarcasm and a generally rude,

No one else's here are, especially yours.

and when I get pissed off and flip out at you I'm the bad guy? Double-standards much?

Actually, you were the uh, heh, uhhh, well...

I'm not riding on the high horse. I've already kind of acknowledged that I argue strongly. So yeah, your the bad guy, from a hypocrisy standpoint,

Define flip out, is this flipping out?:

"DUURRRRRRR CHANGE IS BAD LOLZ, I CAN NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING TO CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE UPDATING THINGS TO IMPROVE ON THE PAST IS TERRRIBLE!"

Is this^ flipping out? When did I do this?

There is a line of how much I am willing to take and you have crossed it.

Ok

There was a Superbowl ad with minutemen redefining the lines, can you redefine the lines?

What line? what was the straw that broke the camels back? Please tell me what I said that was so bad.

It's going beyond expressing your opinion and has become damn near trolling and hatred for hatred's sake.

Are you sure I just don't strongly disagree with the idea of a Halo remake?

You still really haven't pointed out the instances in which I've personally attacked people here, shall I wait for you to substantiate your claims with evidence?

You have not stopped yelling about Halo since ODST.

Are you sure I didn't stop the day or 2 after ODST came out?

We've had 2 years of you complaining

That you fuel by entering into, and saying I personally attack people, when I don't.

Arguments are cooperative exchanges involving 2 or more people, believe it or not. I'm also not the first skeptic to voice their concerns with notion of remaking Halo CE. They also have a standard, meaning if I say something that's mean, then you say something that's mean, so then were both big meanies and wrong.

...And guilty of being meanie heads.

about anything you percieve as wrong,

That's the jist of an argument, never heard of someone arguing over something they thought was right.

and if we don't agree we're stupid and should agree with you.

Well, again, that's kind of the jist of arguing right?

Are you implying that arguments are non objective in nature?

Would I argue if I thought you were right/savvy about something?

I mean, your just saying a lot of BS stuff right now to the effect of arguing is some kind of completely balanced contest that can only turn into a shit flinging contest when it becomes unbalanced, like your just explaining the general dynamics of an argument as a horrible thing.

I've tried be reasonable,

No, your guilty for the same inflammatory tone, from your first response.

I've tried being rude,

Tried? You seem to think that insulting people is the same thing I do. Theres a pretty big difference between using sarcasm and hyperbole and insulting people.

nothing goes into that head of yours/

To change my opinion, you need substantial evidence supporting something, not a kindly or rudely worded something-rathers.

Why the hell should I be nice to a person who treats everybody else like shit because he can't get his way? You haven't earnt that right.

You don't have to be.

Did I say you should?

Again, please point out these instances in which I intentionally personally attacked people so they feel like shit and not prove my point.

DO IT.

Can you do it?

No.

If you'd noticed I use sarcasm all the time, mainly because to show how much you use it and how it makes you come of as a jerk.

That makes perfect nonsense!

I got the feeling YOU were more interested in personally attacking ME rather then sharing your honest opinions of what to make out of the remake, mainly because you base your logic on how mean someone else's points are.

Sarcasm really doesn't work to well when you use it properly or understand it's usage. Or think that when it's used, it's a personal attack and not a grammatical device.

All your arguments are based on opinion,

Well, sorta I guess, that makes it less valid. Opinions are also incapable of being supported by factual stuff too.

and you twist anything you claw as a fact to back it up.

Erm, please provide examples is the the only thing I can say to that.

I'm not really keen on twisting facts that I know everyone else is familiar with to support my points, that's why I don't really twist them, heh.

Your fighting against reason and logic.

Because I have a strong tone? Are you sure your not fighting against reason and logic?

You were wrong about the Forerunners,

Well, that book did come out after the debate. I wasn't wrong about the evidence provided at the time supporting the theory that humans = forerunners, because at the time, we didn't know if they were, so I was neither right or wrong and neither was anyone else.

You were wrong about the vehicle design of Reach,

How?

you were wrong to snub an interesting theory just because you disagreed with it.

And what theory might that be?

You never address a counter argument besides insults or sarcasm.

Erm, wrong? I address all my counter arguments...

I don't address them instantaneously though, sorry.

This is no cohesive for a debate and you just make this a hateful shit flinging contest.

It actually kind of was until you posted that thing with the Captain Picard thing in it.

I frankly sick of it, and I'm not the only one.

Ok,

So by responding you do understand that your eliciting a counter response right? I mean, if you hated it so much, then don't worry about what I think about it, don't communicate with me about it, then you won't have to worry about me verbally personally ASSAULTING you...

Rasq and I are I guess pretty good friends I think, I mean, we debate stuff all the time. People are allowed to disagree about stuff, and not kill each other with words. Sorry for trying to personally murder you with my words Rasq.

by Ringleader Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:30 pm

I only didn't put the negative, as in the Halo Reach threads he put up more than 15 reasons why he didn't like it, so I didn't see the need to retread them.

Erm, I also pointed out what I like too? 15 iterations with the same things I didn't like =/= 15 things I didn't like.

You know my relations with Rasq better then I do, so, I suppose I better get with your program.

My point was that he is solely focused on negative responses without any positive qualfiers. As you can atest to.

No, heh,

That transcript would be nice to see if you can get it though.

Yeah, it would be nice to prove you wrong.

I live a very fulfilling life in short.

-DISCLAIMER- PROVING PEOPLE WRONG =/= PERSONAL ATTACK!!!

WARNING, WARNING, WARNING!

Getting him to say 20 things he liked about Reach without a negative qualifier to each point was like pulling teeth. If he wants, I can dredge up the transcript.

Getting you to say 20 negative things was like you saying:

"I wish there were more of this, it would be better if they did the same thing but more of it."

Wait, hold up a second...

Am I not allowed to dislike Reach now?

Is this real? What's going on here, my opinion is being sapped away.

Hey, maybe I was generally not thrilled about Reach, that's physically a possible viewpoint to have about something.

by Rasq'uire'laskar Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:33 pm

Ringleader, I'll deal with you tomorrow, but you have to be THE least self-aware person I've ever known.

Anyhow, in the interest of NOT making this page any harder to navigate, the following transcript is spoilered.

Spoiler:

by **Vigil** Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:43 am

Unfortunately I do not have the time to respond fully Ring, but I'll do so once I get home from Uni, right now I'll focus on the main problem: the fact you still don't realise what you did wrong, and why I'm so angry at you.

You claim you and Rasq are friends, but you took a private conversation that took place off this site, without his permission and put it on here and specifically worded the title and your responses in laymans terms: "Look at Rasq's stupid theory and how pathetic he is and how I am right to descredit him."

You made it into a personal attack. Even when people asked you to change the title of the thread, you still decided out of spite to add the colon "An assault on reason"- which again is a way of saying what I said above.

Now personally, I read Rasq's theory and while it is an interesting theory, I still think it's a bit too impractical for the Covenant to use and Grav lifts make more sense. That doesn't mean I would try to publically discredit him behind his back just because I didn't agree with him.

You should all people should know why personal attacks are a not tolerable on this site, you yourself being one of the first to stand up against NT when he deeply insulted Maeve on the portal earring thread.

You notice that Rasq, asked you if he could use the transcript in this thread? That's because he was giving you the choice to respect your right to privacy if you so wanted, which you completely ignored when the situation was reversed.

What you did was no better than that what NT did, and was the perverbal straw that broke the camel's back.

by Ringleader Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:49 am

Unfortunately I do not have the time to respond fully Ring, but I'll do so once I get home from Uni, right now I'll focus on the main problem: the fact you still don't realise what you did wrong, and why I'm so angry at you.

Oh.

You claim you and Rasq are friends, but you took a private conversation that took place off this site, without his permission and put it on here and specifically worded the title and your responses in laymans terms: "Look at Rasq's stupid theory and how pathetic he is and how I am right to descredit him."

Rasq said he was actually about to do the same thing though.

If he did though, would he be met with such negative reception? Even it he did the exact same thing in the exact same manner?

You made it into a personal attack. Even when people asked you to change the title of the thread, you still decided out of spite to add the colon "An assault on reason"- which again is a way of saying what I said above.

I did change the title, was it because I didn't change it to something that everyone else would approve of?

Also, a thread can still be a roast, and not the end of the world at the same time, NOW who's being overmelodramatic...

See, Rasq, all Willy Nilly, was about to do the same exact thing, and we kid, were kidders, we don't take it as seriously as you do when things are harshly worded because we actually know each other more then to like, smash each other without something underlaying keeping the roast aloft.

Now personally, I read Rasq's theory and while it is an interesting theory, I still think it's a bit too impractical for the Covenant to use and Grav lifts make more sense. That doesn't mean I would try to publically discredit him behind his back just because I didn't agree with him.

Again, he said he was about to post the same argument on TCF, I just beat him to it.

If he did it though, it wouldn't have any spin to it. Vastly contrasting arguments are unbiased like that.

You should all people should know why personal attacks are a not tolerable on this site, you yourself being one of the first to stand up against NT when he deeply insulted Maeve on the portal earring thread.

That was NT attacking Maeve based on her physical appearance, not a conjectural theory she put forward for public discourse.

I didn't call out Rasq's on his looks (something that can't change with argumentation), so no.

You notice that Rasq, asked you if he could use the transcript in this thread? That's because he was giving you the choice to respect your right to privacy if you so wanted, which you completely ignored when the situation was reversed.

The situation reversed? I posted the landing pads v telepads thing before he asked permission, so it's not like I could have learned from his shining example in advance.

Am I bad for not being Rasq? Or more like Rasq? Why is Rasq Motha THERESA all of the sudden?

(Rasq, I'm so sorry you had to be dragged into this clash of the intellectual titans)

What you did was no better than that what NT did,

No.

NT insulted the physical appearance of someone, something that can't change, he didn't use sarcasm and hyperbole to emphasize a conjectural point. The point being the whole purpose of the thread.

by Ringleader Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:45 am

Ringleader wrote:Ohhhhh, Gee, you KNOW Vigil means business when he tags a youtube video with Captain Picard in it (possibly doing something with his palms?), I nearly soiled my paints in combination of fear and anticipation of the roast that awaits me.

Saracasm as usual. Nice defensive mechanism. Sometimes text is not enough to display the emotion behind the words. Hence the clip.

Are you sure I need to defend myself against a YouTube video with Captain Picard in it?

Like with a lengthy cohesive argument in my defense of that static 12 second clip?

Ringleader wrote:I'm the big meanie on TCF, because I say things like "I've just had enough of you!", that sounds just like me.
Just stating my opinion, If other people agree, good, if not, I don't care. At least I didn't say I wanted you dead, like Dud would have.

You don't want to harvest my organs for medical experimentation though.

That is my defense.

Ringleader wrote:Actually, if I really cared about halo I would do the exact opposite of what you advise.
Funny that on a site that is filled with people who all followed and love Halo, your the only one doing this.

I'm the only one being an outspoken critic?

Or am I the only one that thinks that theres an unnecessarily high risk that this remake will end up being sub par?

I don't think I'm the only one of any of those categories.

Ringleader wrote:Actually the minor stuff makes up the bigger stuff, which in tern makes up Halo.

Minor things aren't insignificant because they are minor.
It is if you nitpick something to death,

If I nitpick minor stuff to death, that really doesn't lend credence to their insignificance, or your point.

which you do. KOTOR II is one of my favourite games and it has a lot of minor flaws, storywise and gameplaywise.

Wouldn't know, haven't played it.

But I can overlook them because of the strength of the internal story that was presented.

That accepting mentality is not without the thought of the story being strong while still fitting within the established canon.

You see, a story can be good, and fit within the canon, and have good gameplay. Enjoyability of gameplay is not dependent on the incongruities of the story. because that would mean they're only capable of DOING gameplay the one way that would fit with the retconned story.

Not even arguably, they COULD have made the game more fun and engaging without armor abilities, it's mathematically possible within our universe, they could have done so in appx. 10 billion different ways. Armor abilities don't add a level of gameplay that something else that also could fit the preestablished story more readily could have too, if not better. Neither does changing the physical appearance of the Elites?

You'd just focus on those flaws and become obessed on them, ruining the experience.

I can't help it, when I see the story changed for no reason, or the aesthetic design of something change for no reason, or M$ 'paying homage to' (making Ha-loads of money on nostalgia familiarity), it drives me bonkers, and the'res frankly nothing I can do about it.

Nothing except get involved in drawn on debates in an internet forum of course.

Ringleader wrote:
Well, that's not totally accurate, I do like things that are added, that make sense... Like how most people would.

But theres no real reason or need to change some things, is there?

By things, I don't mean like quality of the graphics, I mean the physical appearance of the Elites and the Spartans and such. You know, just the obvious interpretation of what I said.
Name 15 things you liked about Reach.

Rasq can conjure up the stolen data tapes from his Xfire librarium infiniteka.

This list of 20 things specific to Reach also include the 12,000 or so things I liked about the original Halos that they didn't change around too much.

You never gave that game a chance and destroyed any chance to like it.

Because I found out a lot of flaws with something, and took the time to carefully point them out, critique them and suggest ways they could have been better, I am incapable of liking the game as a whole.

On that note, my Transformers 2 critique will be up shortly...

You never bring up positive comments here you are always here talking about the negative.

Not many people do bring up what they're critiquing something that they didn't think was as great as it's being presented as.

Is it human nature to bring up the positive stuff you like about something more then the negative stuff when it doesn't live up to your expectations?

I happen to know that you think Reach could have been better? I guess I'm more outspoken about what I didn't like. That doesn't mean I'm wrong about them.

I'd honestly give Reach a B for gameplay.

(and a D for story, because there's really no need to change it)

It's basically become all you say here, so you are known here for nothing else.

It's good to hear I'm reliably awful.

Ringleader wrote:Again, you mistakingly grouped adding in new elements to a story, and retconning preexisting elements for the sake of making lots of money.
That's wrong. Armour abilities were fine, and it made sense to me that Spartan had modular armour allowing for flexibilty on the battlefield. It was the best way to implement them as a story and gameplay mechanic.

Though that may have made sense to us, as if the Spartan's were being made by the today's military research divisions, that doesn't mean it makes sense within the established story. How were armor abilities implemented in the game? Well, you would randomly come across cases with 2 armor abilities in them, and there were a boatload of them for the relative area of Reach you trekked across, so there must be lots more of them, even though there aren't that many Spartan IIIs.

The other halo games set story precedents that sorta made sense within the scope of our universe, but they were still more or less constant and mostly without retcons. This was also the case during the various many gameplay changes that have occurred throughout the series.

How did the armor abilities alter the Story? Not much at all really.

Maybe Kat had an armor ability that drained her shields, that's why she got chopped up.

Ringleader wrote:Compromising what for the sake of gameplay? the story? How exactly is the story and appearance of units, players, ships and weapons dependent at all on the gameplay or vise versa?
Certainly, it's a argument that I've gone through several times, originally about ODST. Did you notice that all the Odst and Spartans in ODST and Reach had slightly different armour configurations and colours? This was a gameplay descision to allow the player to easily distinguish AI teammates from Covenant forces when the player was too far to see the waypoint clearly. It makes them visually striking and stand out from the envrionment to stop constant confusion as to their position and therefore where the player should be going when there is no navigational marker. Sure in the books, all of them would be in green and have the same armour, but this would be hard to see at longer ranges as they would blend into the background in Reach.

That is a gameplay desicion to alter story.

Dependence implies that changing the coloration of the Spartans was the only way to make them more distinguishable from the Covenant/enemy, on the contrary giving the Spartans varying colors is only one of many different ways this could have been achieved.

The only enemy I could see you confusing with the Spartans would be Elites, and you would have to be pretty far away from both of them to not be able to see the big differences. Also, no Elite classes are sage green, so by giving Noble team colors that differ from the classic sage green (a color most people playing halo would associate with Spartans) by giving them colors that are more characteristic of Elites, like blue? How does this help distinguish between both parties?

This particular example doesn't work out to well either, because if your soooooo far away from your teammates, as so you couldn't distinguish their WAYPOINTS (FOF tag?), then you can't really interact with them or the enemy around them, so there's not much to confuse about, unless your no scoping Elites from 4 miles away.

I don't think Reach even had FOF tags for the Spartans, but if it did, then that would have eliminated the whole need for coloration altogether. You can see an FOF tag from anywhere on the map dangling over their heads, and showing where they are if they happened to blend in with the maps so well that you couldn't find them any other way.

I guess rainbow flavored Spartans are more logical and canonical then ones that are all sage with FOF tags that would allow you to distinguish them 2.8x better.

Also, since you can't collaborate and communicate and issue orders to your fellow Nobles, then they basically are all the same thing on the battlefield, OR, the level only has one or two teammates anyway that usually hang back or split up with you.

Constant confusion would not be how I would describe Monocrhome Spartans. I mean, even if you were to get completely lost, even WITH FOF tags, they could have still made them all green, but like different shades? So they're still more camouflaged at least.

Ringleader wrote:Your new found allies seem to share a different opinion, you might consider deferring to their opinion.
Most people here were on HWF and hate that game, but have reached the point where they've moved on, and if they don't like it, it doesn't matter as they've moved on. Why can't you?

Because if I think something is genuinely bad, I won't change my mind about it being bad later.

And when it's brought up by myself or others, then I will still have the same view of it regardless.

Likewise if I think something is genuinely good, like the first Halo, then I'll continue to think so later.

If we forget why things are good and bad, then what the heck is the point.

Ringleader wrote:Hey, we agree on that, we would agree on this remake too I think but I came across to passionately.
If you stop being so negative, and treat it with quiet caution I wouldn't have such a problem.

That's the problem though, you mustn't feel that strongly about the matter at hand if that is your rationale. Otherwise you would say something like: "Well, as much as I hate the guy, I gotta agree with him.", and people will understand that, and agree with you if you put forward convincing arguments and evidence.

Ringleader wrote:So I'm wrong about not wanting Halo remade in the hands of Saber Interactive and 343 Industries because I'm being unfairly correct and passionate about something. I'm wrong because I'm mean, and their right because their at the receiving end of my meanness.
I don't mind you being passionate with your view, it's when you let that passion control you, and take any other view as a personal attack and react with sarcasm and patronising comments.

Well, In my defense, I don't think I 'personally' attack people out of the blue, as in they usually say something that eggs me on or elicits a negative response.

Ringleader wrote:Stop what? Name the instances in which I came across too harshly and I will seriously consider toning it down. I would cut off my left arm for someone else to get why this remake is not a good thing, so I would do less in the same spirit.
You made a thread called 'An assault on reason' against Rasq, and even though you changed the name, the fact remains you made a thread to personal attack Rasq. You went too far.

How far is too far?

I don't think that's going too far in the slightest. I mean, if I made a thread calling Rasq fat, that would be going to far.

Ringleader wrote:Maybe you oughtta review the strength of ther counter arguments before saying that, both in tone and in caliber.

Why do you assume that I don't consider the merits of the counter argument and arguer? I probably think about their stance more then they do, providing diagrams and careful explanations as to why it doesn't make too much sense.

Could there be a slight possibility that I'm right at least some of the time? I do put a lot of time and effort and examples and diagrams into making my points clear and I don't do all that stuff for no reason. You seem to think that arguments on TCF are always, in terms of the strength of material being supported and each contenders legitimacy.

That's not really the case though, if that were the case, no one in the history of time would have been able to prove anything because someone else would just have a differing view.

I'm not really one to argue over stuff that theres a big chance I could be wrong over, and I don't gamble, I usually pick pretty safe fights to pick, like:

-Covenant originally liked using shorter ranged weapons then longer ranged weapons

-Shield spires make less sense then planetary attack perspective, also from a retconning perspective.

-The chances of M$, 343i, and SI making a game that is not on par with the first Halo CE, is high.
Because even though you claim you do, you don't. You never say 'I understand where your coming from, and I respectively disagree, and here's why:'

But who else here does that? Do you do that?

No one else here does that, lol.

You come off as obxious and work to bury an opposing view rather than measuring it's merits and drawbacks and replying accordingly.

Really? I think I work pretty hard on measuring the drawbacks of their arguments more so then 'burying' them. That diagram I made for the Landing Pads debate actually pointed out the draw backs in using teleporters, and I can safely say that the diagram didn't BURY the telepad argument. Debunk =/= Bury.

Making diagrams about it and explaining it actually required me to think about the merits and drawbacks of it.

I do think you have some points that are interesting and there are things in these games we agree about, but you pick on a lot of things where you are wrong. And even if the entire forum entered the thread and said, no you're wrong, like in the Forerunner thread, you doggedly stood your ground and fought an argument that lost more and more coherance and logic and became a desperate attempt to prove yourself right, despite none of us agreed, and we had a lot of evidence to why we thought that way.

Ringleader wrote:Actually I use 100% fact in terms of in game examples and novelized canon, in support of my arguments, I try to blend them as seamlessly and as digestably as possible. Never though it would come back to haunt me.

Again, we used offical canonical sources, such as the novels, the games, the Halo 3 terminals, Halo Legends, And the Halo 3 Iris campaign which all supported our argument,and your opinion based on your opinion of dialog. It wasn't fact and your argument was on very filmsy ground.

That's the stuff I used though, like the terminals having linage confirmed and then the novel TFOR having the entire Covenant invasion strategy outlined in abundantly clear detail.

I don't use Halo Legends though, I think Halo Legends is poopy.

Ringleader wrote:List the top 10 most exemplifying instances that support what you say here. Please do.

If you want. It may be the way I read it, but it's seems pretty venomous to me.

1: "Ringleader: no, you may not explain why it makes sense, because nothing about what you suggested makes sense"

I'm not sure what to think of that, it doesn't really feel like a personal attack, it seems like something after a long debate, after you addressed all the rebuttals but to no effect.

2: Ringleader: again, trying to rationalize reach = poop
Leaving out the context of this one kinda makes it hard to like, understand what was going on?

Wouldn't really consider this a personal attack either.

3: Ringleader: cut it MORE slack?
Ringleader: wtf?
Ringleader: cut it NO SLACK

Personal attack it ain't

I was just trying to elevate peoples expectations, why cut something slack, that doesn't need to have slack cut. If we keep cutting slack, then we end up with Halo Wars because we buy anything with a Halo sticker on it.

4: Rasq'uire'laskar: It makes tons of sense, Ringleader.
Ringleader: tons of b$
Ringleader: metric tons of bs$
Rasq and I had differing opinions...

WAAUGHHH!!!!

Also, would you consider this a personal attack? Or just a difference of opinion? Does the word 'B$' constitute a personal attack when it's not directed to a person but a video game's retcon explanation?

5:Ringleader:I made myself look like an idiot here? Ohh, gee, I promise next time, I'll make up a theory, sell it as fact, and expect you to believe it, then come across less then convincingly so I appear to be the underdog. Everyone loves the underdog.
You neglected that one part, in which I was called an idiot?

Isn't calling someone an idiot a personal attack? How come dis other guy isn't at the receiveing end of your chop?

I went about doing so in a mean way, so I must be wrong.
I'm just rephrasing YOUR rationale, don't get angry at me for how I view what you said.

6:Ringleader:It's seems as if you apparently know everything their going to do and everything their going to change. Please share your knowledge on the entire dynamic Saber Interactive's developmental process.

Are they going to change the story?

How about the weapons? Are we going to get the 32 round assault rifle or DMR?

Are the Elites going to look like Reach Elites with blobby helmets, and 10 elite majors per elite minor?
His tone denoted his apparent omniscience with regards to the development of this project.

7:Ringleader:Please, enlighten me with your insight.
Erm, again, taking things out of context is pretty slippy.

You left out that part when the other guy said "Ok, let's explain this to you,"

Like if I were a brain dead monkey or something.

He could have gone about explaining whatever without "Ok, let's explain this to you,"

By 'let's' you mean the entire rest of the universe? Dragoon is the spokesman of the universe and he get's to say 'let's explain this for you' like I'm the only one that thinks a Halo remake will be wholly shit.
Well, he had a high and mighty attitude

8:Ringleader:Wrong, that's for all YOU know, I happen to know for a fact that their going to change the gameplay, the design of practically everything, and the overall style to sell this game to a lot of kids, and pseudo-kids that really don't understand why remaking Halo is a dumb thing to do.
Can't blame me for what I know.

9:Ringleader: It also gives them 2 considerably LARGER chances to royally fork both games in one foul swoop.

Statistics is a bitch.
Personal attack on statistics?

10: Ringleader:Whelp, you were a kid back then, maybe you should have waited a while before playing a rated M game designed for older people

Maybe you should have gotten your drivers licence before driving =/= personal attack, age related stuff can't be changed and it's not an attack to suggest to wait until something would have better with age is better with age.

As far as the so called hypocracy associated with this statement, I hadn't started playing Halo CE until a while after it was out, I know I was over 11.

Point being, he played it at launch, and didn't like it at launch as a kid. I did like it not at launch while still a kid, but I still like it now.

And those were only recent examples. I could go back further if you want.

Sure, I still wouldn't classify many or any of those things as personal attacks, especially when taken out of context and not directed to one person directly, except dragoon who sorta asked for it with an uppity tone.

You could have taken the word 'bitch' out of "statistics is a bitch" too, and made it seem like I called someone a bitch.

Ringleader wrote:Well, that's entirely on you, and I respect your opinion, but believe it or not, we can share the same opinion on something despite having different demeanors.
We can, but it doesn't mean I have to like you, or respect you as a person, or you have free reign to insult people.

Err, yeah, that's what I've been saying.

Ringleader wrote:I just got a bad feelin about this one.

Fair enough, I'm cautiously interested.

Will do the rest tomorrow.

by A_Bearded_Swede Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:21 pm

hmm...

Ah Ringleader, why do you skip a lot of points people make?

Like this one...

Vigil wrote:
Ringleader wrote:Right, they're just making it so later generations won't get a chance to play it because theres a newer, shiner, and suckier alternative that's more EPIC, it also supports MLG.

Yeah, it's not like Microsoft put a digital download of the original game on Xbox live marketplace or anything.........OH WAIT THEY DID.

Oh and one other thing.

Ringleader wrote:
Vigil wrote:Because even though you claim you do, you don't. You never say 'I understand where your coming from, and I respectively disagree, and here's why:'
But who else here does that? Do you do that?

No one else here does that, lol.

Baconsen wrote:Just just saying to Vtrooper and Ringleader.

This is a remake of a game.

Its not the end of the world. We're not "all screwed" as V likes to say.

I understand where you guys are coming from, Halo CE was your baby you think its perfect, (its not, but that's a different story) you don't want to see it change in anyway.

But for God's sake quit being so negative about it! You're making it seem like the game is a spawn of the devil itself! But its just a remake of a game! If you don't like it that's fine, just don't try to make the game seem like some horrible thing.

So, please take a chill pill.

^-^

Hey I do that.

by Gauz Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:31 pm

Cant we just get along?

by Ringleader Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 pm

hmm...

Mhhh?

Ah Ringleader, why do you skip a lot of points people make?

Because, there's one of me arguing against, and like 5 arguing for, I'm not going to address everyone, especially you, who thought so much of the argument to point out that you said "I understand that", you know, I probably made 2 or 3 other mistakes, it happens when you fight a war on 3 fronts simultaneously. You would do well to point them out because that's what you do. Pointing out these flaws also deflates my entire argument too apparently.

Why do they skip a lot of points I make?

For instance, why did you skip over my entire argument?

For instance, like, what did you think of all the other points I brought up, except for the part when I said: "who else does that?"

I need to address all your points, but you only have to point out one flaw I made while typing up this response at 1 AM.

Seems pretty balanced. Where's Vigil to call double standards when you need him?

Like this one...

Vigil wrote:
Ringleader wrote:Right, they're just making it so later generations won't get a chance to play it because theres a newer, shiner, and suckier alternative that's more EPIC, it also supports MLG.

Yeah, it's not like Microsoft put a digital download of the original game on Xbox live marketplace or anything.........OH WAIT THEY DID.

I think I had preemptively provided my response to that, by saying that Halo's IP is so much more gigantic now, that this new game would overshadow the original even on the XBL Marketplace to the extent of it being nonexistent to most players new to the series.

I can see how you might have missed it though, the quotation may not have been directly above the response, so they mustn't have gone together. I honestly can't remember if I quoted that when I responded, but I definitely provided a rebuttal. But you understand where I'm coming from.

Oh and one other thing.

Ringleader wrote:
Vigil wrote:Because even though you claim you do, you don't. You never say 'I understand where your coming from, and I respectively disagree, and here's why:'
But who else here does that? Do you do that?

No one else here does that, lol.

So your the only one that does that? Does Vigil do that? Who else does that? Do I really need to do that because you did that and you did that only?

Why do I need to do that? Because Vigil said I need to do that? Why does Vigil saying I need to do that mean I need to do that? Isn't it kinda obvious that I understand your points, of like, a Remake paying homage to the original Halo with updated graphics and co-op campaign, and improved matchmaking, when I said the same thing? It wasn't obvious enough then.

I guess when you say something as uneducated as "The chances of M$, 343i, and SI making a game that is not on par with the first Halo CE, is high.", I guess everything else you say is pretty meaningless, even when it coincides with your own stance closely.

Baconsen wrote:Just just saying to Vtrooper and Ringleader.

This is a remake of a game.

Its not the end of the world. We're not "all screwed" as V likes to say.

I understand where you guys are coming from, Halo CE was your baby you think its perfect, (its not, but that's a different story) you don't want to see it change in anyway.

But for God's sake quit being so negative about it! You're making it seem like the game is a spawn of the devil itself! But its just a remake of a game! If you don't like it that's fine, just don't try to make the game seem like some horrible thing.

So, please take a chill pill.

^-^

Hey I do that.

Oh, cool, because you stated it, you must understand more so then if someone didn't state it.

Looks like you actually skipped a lot just to prove that you said "I understand", to be honest the occourence was so underwhelming, I either forgot it instantaneously, or my brain deleted it in self defense, to protect my sanity of you saying "I understand" when the level of your understanding doesn't get beyond nitpicking 1 minor mistake of my saying that no one else says 'I understand' while disregarding the entity of the rest of the argument and a point I had already addressed.

by Ringleader Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:45 pm

Gauz wrote:Cant we just get along?

Guaz, the chances of successfully getting along are approximately 3720 to 1.

by Ascendant Justice Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:54 pm

Yeah this thread aint going anywhere productive. What are the chances of this getting locked?

by A_Bearded_Swede Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:44 pm

Ringleader wrote:
hmm...
Mhhh?

mhmm.

Ah Ringleader, why do you skip a lot of points people make?

Ring wrote:Because, there's one of me arguing against, and like 5 arguing for, I'm not going to address everyone,

Not that hard seeing that you make those large multi-quoting posts against Vigil. So seeing you reply to the tinier posts made by the other members doesn't seem all too hard.

Ringster wrote:especially you,

That hurt. =(

Ringy wrote:
who thought so much of the argument to point out that you said "I understand that",

You posted as if it were fact. I showed you otherwise. So now you're saying that the only thing I picked up from the argument is that one "error"? Nah, that's wrong, but i'll dwell on that later.

Ring a Ding Ding wrote:you know, I probably made 2 or 3 other mistakes, it happens when you fight a war on 3 fronts simultaneously.

Three fronts? This isn't some battle, it's a small debate. Those "mistakes" can be easily fixed just by reading what you type before you post.

Ringing the Door Bell wrote:You would do well to point them out because that's what you do.

No I don't?

Ring the Lady Dammit! wrote:Pointing out these flaws also deflates my entire argument too apparently.

Hey you said it yourself.

Ring I like to make big multi quotes Leader wrote:
Why do they skip a lot of points I make?

For instance, why did you skip over my entire argument?

For instance, like, what did you think of all the other points I brought up, except for the part when I said: "who else does that?"

I need to address all your points, but you only have to point out one flaw I made while typing up this response at 1 AM.

All the points you brought up were a mixture of stuff towards Vigil. Not me. Why would I bud into an argument between the two of you that basically dwindled down to insults? No point. The only reason I commented on that bit you said was to finally bait you into replying to me. Which as i see it worked. If you want me to debate/argue/whatever with you then please address the points you want and i'll be happy to reply.

Ring Toss is a Fun Game wrote:
Seems pretty balanced. Where's Vigil to call double standards when you need him?

Wait what?

Ring Sizes are a Must Know for Jewelry Salesmen wrote:
Like this one...
Vigil wrote:
Ringleader wrote:Right, they're just making it so later generations won't get a chance to play it because theres a newer, shiner, and suckier alternative that's more EPIC, it also supports MLG.

Yeah, it's not like Microsoft put a digital download of the original game on Xbox live marketplace or anything.........OH WAIT THEY DID.

I think I had preemptively provided my response to that, by saying that Halo's IP is so much more gigantic now, that this new game would overshadow the original even on the XBL Marketplace to the extent of it being nonexistent to most players new to the series.

I can see how you might have missed it though, the quotation may not have been directly above the response, so they mustn't have gone together. I honestly can't remember if I quoted that when I responded, but I definitely provided a rebuttal. But you understand where I'm coming from.

Yes i do see where you are coming from. Once again you're afraid no one will appreciate your baby anymore. But that's what happens. It happened to the amazing game Call of Duty 2, happened to NFL 2K5 arguably the best football game evar, hell it even happened to Halo 2. But you know what, just because this remake is going to happen doesn't mean some swat team is going to break into your house and snap your Halo CE disk. Its going to be made to give people a chance to play CE when they couldn't before. Hell it'll prolly bring more back to the original.

Ringing that Guy's Neck Cause he Looked at Me Funny wrote:
Oh and one other thing.

Ringleader wrote:
Vigil wrote:Because even though you claim you do, you don't. You never say 'I understand where your coming from, and I respectively disagree, and here's why:'
But who else here does that? Do you do that?

No one else here does that, lol.

So your the only one that does that? Does Vigil do that? Who else does that? Do I really need to do that because you did that and you did that only?

Why do I need to do that? Because Vigil said I need to do that? Why does Vigil saying I need to do that mean I need to do that? Isn't it kinda obvious that I understand your points, of like, a Remake paying homage to the original Halo with updated graphics and co-op campaign, and improved matchmaking, when I said the same thing? It wasn't obvious enough then.

I guess when you say something as uneducated as "The chances of M$, 343i, and SI making a game that is not on par with the first Halo CE, is high.", I guess everything else you say is pretty meaningless, even when it coincides with your own stance closely.

I say it as a sign of respect towards the other person. And no, its not obvious, you reply with a tone that sounds like you're talking down to everyone. I don't know if its intentional or not, but its true. So you come off as someone who is just ignoring everyone's point and just tries to solidify his own. So when you say "I understand where you're coming from but," makes you look a lot better.

Plus i didn't say that you said something uneducated. So i don't know why you're posting that. I guess to try to make me seem like i'm insulting you? I dunno.

A Ring Ring Ring Ring Ring Ring Ring BANANA PHONE! wrote:
Baconsen wrote:Just just saying to Vtrooper and Ringleader.

This is a remake of a game.

Its not the end of the world. We're not "all screwed" as V likes to say.

I understand where you guys are coming from, Halo CE was your baby you think its perfect, (its not, but that's a different story) you don't want to see it change in anyway.

But for God's sake quit being so negative about it! You're making it seem like the game is a spawn of the devil itself! But its just a remake of a game! If you don't like it that's fine, just don't try to make the game seem like some horrible thing.

So, please take a chill pill.

^-^

Hey I do that.
Oh, cool, because you stated it, you must understand more so then if someone didn't state it.

I stated that in hopes that you will reply with a less sarcastic remark. Guess that didn't work. Also, yes I do, I wouldn't have typed that if I didn't. I actually typed an explanation of what I think you're thinking, but you didn't respond...

Ring I Ran Out of Stuff to Say ='( wrote:
Looks like you actually skipped a lot just to prove that you said "I understand", to be honest the occurrence was so underwhelming, I either forgot it instantaneously, or my brain deleted it in self defense, to protect my sanity of you saying "I understand" when the level of your understanding doesn't get beyond nitpicking 1 minor mistake of my saying that no one else says 'I understand' while disregarding the entity of the rest of the argument and a point I had already addressed.

So you're basically saying that whatever I say is invalid due to the fact that i didn't address the insult filled points between you and Vigil? And how I can't comprehend what you are trying to say due to me addressing a mistake you made?

Okay, if you want to explain that better to me, then please be my guest.

by Sponsored content