xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:

battlefield.Blue_falcon wrote:What do you guys think ive had a chance to play hardcore and ive got to say i had so much more fun playing it just wonder what you guys thought.Reason being that i like hardcore is that it takes maybe 4-6 shots to bring someone down 1 shot sniper which u think would get annoying but not to many sniper scrubs on hardcore + no crosshair & no mini map or kill cam!!!Lets see ur reason

I enjoy normal better. It actually has a skill gap, whereas hardcore is basically whoever sees someone first wins. And I can kill someone wit 4-6 shots in vanilla BC2.

I'm happy hardcore mode is there though. That way DICE won't have to ruin players who want skill in their games, while also catering to the COD crowd.

This is just asinine. If they wanted to cater to the CoD crowd they wouldn't add in hardcore. Hardcore is more realistic. End of story. I guess real life doesn't take skill.

iClutch ur Girl was completely right. For one thing, Hardcore mode is a DIRECT PORT from CoD...no minimap, quicker kills, no killcam...sounds like CoD hardcore to me.

Second, you're right, real life doesn't take skill. If you put two idiots in an open room with assault rifles, the first person to point the gun at the other and lay down on the trigger wins. Same goes if you put two trained killers: minute skill differences won't win over a faster shot.

People cry and cry about realism in games, but they don't understand that realistic games =/= competitive games. Hardcore mode has always been campy, and who sees who first JUST LIKE REAL LIFE. It's all spray and pray, because you don't need to aim for the head when a couple body shots kill just as quickly as a well placed headshot.

Hardcore is great, realism, yeah nice. But that doesn't allow for a large skill gap. In normal mode, I am better than other people if I can sink 3 headshots into them instead of their 3 body shots. In hardcore mode, as long as I am on the player somewhere, I can win. It's a clear and obvious difference in the ability to become skillful over time.

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:

battlefield.Blue_falcon wrote:What do you guys think ive had a chance to play hardcore and ive got to say i had so much more fun playing it just wonder what you guys thought.Reason being that i like hardcore is that it takes maybe 4-6 shots to bring someone down 1 shot sniper which u think would get annoying but not to many sniper scrubs on hardcore + no crosshair & no mini map or kill cam!!!Lets see ur reason

I enjoy normal better. It actually has a skill gap, whereas hardcore is basically whoever sees someone first wins. And I can kill someone wit 4-6 shots in vanilla BC2.

I'm happy hardcore mode is there though. That way DICE won't have to ruin players who want skill in their games, while also catering to the COD crowd.

This is just asinine. If they wanted to cater to the CoD crowd they wouldn't add in hardcore. Hardcore is more realistic. End of story. I guess real life doesn't take skill.

Really? This argument again? Hardcore mode caters to the COD crowd because COD crowd is used to killing in a few hits.

And no, realistic videogames does not mean it takes more skill. How is killing someone with a few hits by spraying and praying more skillful than actually aiming and having trigger discipline? Yes, it takes more bullets to kill someone in vanilla BC2 than is does in hardcore and people don't understand why. With headshots, killing people is faster. That's the deciding factor when two people face each other -- instead of relying solely on who saw who first, the winner of that encounter would be determined by who has more skill to make that headshot happen, or keep their aim. It's not just holding your fire button down until that person dies. It's keeping your sights on that person, keeping your recoil in check, and making sure all your bullets are connecting.

Don't bring real life into this. It's a videogame for crying out loud.

battlefield.Isacc wrote:

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:

battlefield.Blue_falcon wrote:What do you guys think ive had a chance to play hardcore and ive got to say i had so much more fun playing it just wonder what you guys thought.Reason being that i like hardcore is that it takes maybe 4-6 shots to bring someone down 1 shot sniper which u think would get annoying but not to many sniper scrubs on hardcore + no crosshair & no mini map or kill cam!!!Lets see ur reason

I enjoy normal better. It actually has a skill gap, whereas hardcore is basically whoever sees someone first wins. And I can kill someone wit 4-6 shots in vanilla BC2.

I'm happy hardcore mode is there though. That way DICE won't have to ruin players who want skill in their games, while also catering to the COD crowd.

This is just asinine. If they wanted to cater to the CoD crowd they wouldn't add in hardcore. Hardcore is more realistic. End of story. I guess real life doesn't take skill.

iClutch ur Girl was completely right. For one thing, Hardcore mode is a DIRECT PORT from CoD...no minimap, quicker kills, no killcam...sounds like CoD hardcore to me.

Second, you're right, real life doesn't take skill. If you put two idiots in an open room with assault rifles, the first person to point the gun at the other and lay down on the trigger wins. Same goes if you put two trained killers: minute skill differences won't win over a faster shot.

People cry and cry about realism in games, but they don't understand that realistic games =/= competitive games. Hardcore mode has always been campy, and who sees who first JUST LIKE REAL LIFE. It's all spray and pray, because you don't need to aim for the head when a couple body shots kill just as quickly as a well placed headshot.

Hardcore is great, realism, yeah nice. But that doesn't allow for a large skill gap. In normal mode, I am better than other people if I can sink 3 headshots into them instead of their 3 body shots. In hardcore mode, as long as I am on the player somewhere, I can win. It's a clear and obvious difference in the ability to become skillful over time.

My God. You take games WAY TOO seriously. But using your sad reasoning, I personally would think it takes more "skill" to stay alive in a hardcore environment, as it's just as easy to get killed as it's as to kill. Anyway, games should never be built so that some kid can prove he's better then someone else. They should be built with fun in mind. Some of us like realism over being "l337 pwnz0rs". A direct port? Don't make me laugh. I defy you to offer up a suggestion for a hardcore/realism mode that doesn't use that formula. Go on. Try.

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:

battlefield.Isacc wrote:

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:

battlefield.Blue_falcon wrote:What do you guys think ive had a chance to play hardcore and ive got to say i had so much more fun playing it just wonder what you guys thought.Reason being that i like hardcore is that it takes maybe 4-6 shots to bring someone down 1 shot sniper which u think would get annoying but not to many sniper scrubs on hardcore + no crosshair & no mini map or kill cam!!!Lets see ur reason

I enjoy normal better. It actually has a skill gap, whereas hardcore is basically whoever sees someone first wins. And I can kill someone wit 4-6 shots in vanilla BC2.

I'm happy hardcore mode is there though. That way DICE won't have to ruin players who want skill in their games, while also catering to the COD crowd.

This is just asinine. If they wanted to cater to the CoD crowd they wouldn't add in hardcore. Hardcore is more realistic. End of story. I guess real life doesn't take skill.

iClutch ur Girl was completely right. For one thing, Hardcore mode is a DIRECT PORT from CoD...no minimap, quicker kills, no killcam...sounds like CoD hardcore to me.

Second, you're right, real life doesn't take skill. If you put two idiots in an open room with assault rifles, the first person to point the gun at the other and lay down on the trigger wins. Same goes if you put two trained killers: minute skill differences won't win over a faster shot.

People cry and cry about realism in games, but they don't understand that realistic games =/= competitive games. Hardcore mode has always been campy, and who sees who first JUST LIKE REAL LIFE. It's all spray and pray, because you don't need to aim for the head when a couple body shots kill just as quickly as a well placed headshot.

Hardcore is great, realism, yeah nice. But that doesn't allow for a large skill gap. In normal mode, I am better than other people if I can sink 3 headshots into them instead of their 3 body shots. In hardcore mode, as long as I am on the player somewhere, I can win. It's a clear and obvious difference in the ability to become skillful over time.

My God. You take games WAY TOO seriously. But using your sad reasoning, I personally would think it takes more "skill" to stay alive in a hardcore environment, as it's just as easy to get killed as it's as to kill. Anyway, games should never be built so that some kid can prove he's better then someone else. They should be built with fun in mind. Some of us like realism over being "l337 pwnz0rs". A direct port? Don't make me laugh. I defy you to offer up a suggestion for a hardcore/realism mode that doesn't use that formula. Go on. Try.

On the skill part, QFT...

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:

battlefield.Isacc wrote:

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:

battlefield.Blue_falcon wrote:What do you guys think ive had a chance to play hardcore and ive got to say i had so much more fun playing it just wonder what you guys thought.Reason being that i like hardcore is that it takes maybe 4-6 shots to bring someone down 1 shot sniper which u think would get annoying but not to many sniper scrubs on hardcore + no crosshair & no mini map or kill cam!!!Lets see ur reason

I enjoy normal better. It actually has a skill gap, whereas hardcore is basically whoever sees someone first wins. And I can kill someone wit 4-6 shots in vanilla BC2.

I'm happy hardcore mode is there though. That way DICE won't have to ruin players who want skill in their games, while also catering to the COD crowd.

This is just asinine. If they wanted to cater to the CoD crowd they wouldn't add in hardcore. Hardcore is more realistic. End of story. I guess real life doesn't take skill.

iClutch ur Girl was completely right. For one thing, Hardcore mode is a DIRECT PORT from CoD...no minimap, quicker kills, no killcam...sounds like CoD hardcore to me.

Second, you're right, real life doesn't take skill. If you put two idiots in an open room with assault rifles, the first person to point the gun at the other and lay down on the trigger wins. Same goes if you put two trained killers: minute skill differences won't win over a faster shot.

People cry and cry about realism in games, but they don't understand that realistic games =/= competitive games. Hardcore mode has always been campy, and who sees who first JUST LIKE REAL LIFE. It's all spray and pray, because you don't need to aim for the head when a couple body shots kill just as quickly as a well placed headshot.

Hardcore is great, realism, yeah nice. But that doesn't allow for a large skill gap. In normal mode, I am better than other people if I can sink 3 headshots into them instead of their 3 body shots. In hardcore mode, as long as I am on the player somewhere, I can win. It's a clear and obvious difference in the ability to become skillful over time.

My God. You take games WAY TOO seriously. Games should never be built so that some kid can prove he's better then someone else. They should be built with fun in mind. Some of us like realism over being "l337 pwnz0rs".

I personally would think it takes more "skill" to stay alive in a hardcore environment, as it's just as easy to get killed as it's as to kill.

Just because you want there to be some sort of skill involved, or if you like being competitive, it doesn't make you take games TOO seriously. Skill and competition is fun to many people.

Your statement "games should never be built so that some kid can prove he's better than someone else" is.. kinda stupid. Because if that weren't the case, there wouldn't be competitive multiplayer now would there? But it's funny you should say that it should be built with fun in mind.. but you like realism. If games were made to be so realistic (and I mean realistic) that it takes itself seriously.. well how would that even be fun? You play for a little bit, die, then you have to wait till the entire war is over because you're dead. That's realism.

And personally, it doesn't take more "skill" to stay alive in a hardcore environment. All it takes is a tent, a fire, and some smores.

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:And personally, it doesn't take more "skill" to stay alive in a hardcore environment. All it takes is a tent, a fire, and some smores.

Paraphrasing: Tactics are more important than aim.

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:
Just because you want there to be some sort of skill involved, or if you like being competitive, it doesn't make you take games TOO seriously. Skill and competition is fun to many people.

I was speaking in terms of his statement regarding skill. He's WAY TOO tied to this game if he thinks it proves anything about him that he can "get three headshots on a guy".

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:
Your statement "games should never be built so that some kid can prove he's better than someone else" is.. kinda stupid. Because if that weren't the case, there wouldn't be competitive multiplayer now would there? But it's funny you should say that it should be built with fun in mind.. but you like realism. If games were made to be so realistic (and I mean realistic) that it takes itself seriously.. well how would that even be fun? You play for a little bit, die, then you have to wait till the entire war is over because you're dead. That's realism.

Dense much? Of course when discussing video games there has to be consideration made to what's fun. Games like ArmA and OpFlash prove you can have an amazing amount of realism in a game and still be fun. I love people like you that try and use extremes as solid logic. Classic forum debate tactic.

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:
And personally, it doesn't take more "skill" to stay alive in a hardcore environment. All it takes is a tent, a fire, and some smores.

ROFL. Yep, I dare you to camp in a house in hardcore and try and stay alive. Or camp on a hill top. Please, try it. Again, when you can't find valid reasoning you jump to faux logic.

i like having the option of harcore mode even though ill be on regular most of the time. i always wondered wat it would be like to play on a big board with tanks and stuff with no radar on. im excited to try it

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:
Dense much? Of course when discussing video games there has to be consideration made to what's fun. Games like ArmA and OpFlash prove you can have an amazing amount of realism in a game and still be fun. I love people like you that try and use extremes as solid logic. Classic forum debate tactic.

What's fun for some isn't exactly what is fun for others. I hate milsim games. Period. I don't have the patience for it.

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:
ROFL. Yep, I dare you to camp in a house in hardcore and try and stay alive. Or camp on a hill top. Please, try it. Again, when you can't find valid reasoning you jump to faux logic.

Of course I wouldn't camp in a house or on a hilltop. There are so many better places to camp.



You misunderstood all mine and Isaac's points completely. So honestly, going on any further with this is pointless. You have your own views on what's fun, we have ours. OP asked our thoughts, and I gave my reasoning why I hate hardcore and prefer vanilla BC2. You disagreed with my opinion and keep disagreeing for some weird reason, maybe to make me see your views on the topic. Frankly, I don't care.. my opinion still remains the same.

xbox.schellhammer wrote:i like having the option of harcore mode even though ill be on regular most of the time. i always wondered wat it would be like to play on a big board with tanks and stuff with no radar on. im excited to try it

there are a quite a few hardcore servers up if you want to try it out.. that's if you have your beta key and shtuff. ^^

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:
Dense much? Of course when discussing video games there has to be consideration made to what's fun. Games like ArmA and OpFlash prove you can have an amazing amount of realism in a game and still be fun. I love people like you that try and use extremes as solid logic. Classic forum debate tactic.

What's fun for some isn't exactly what is fun for others. I hate milsim games. Period. I don't have the patience for it.

xbox.Checkmate11B wrote:
ROFL. Yep, I dare you to camp in a house in hardcore and try and stay alive. Or camp on a hill top. Please, try it. Again, when you can't find valid reasoning you jump to faux logic.

Of course I wouldn't camp in a house or on a hilltop. There are so many better places to camp.



You misunderstood all mine and Isaac's points completely. So honestly, going on any further with this is pointless. You have your own views on what's fun, we have ours. OP asked our thoughts, and I gave my reasoning why I hate hardcore and prefer vanilla BC2. You disagreed with my opinion and keep disagreeing for some weird reason, maybe to make me see your views on the topic. Frankly, I don't care.. my opinion still remains the same.

he's just.. a very angry person.
i bet you he yells at his dog to get a job. :\

MAIN.antunguyd wrote:I think removing the crosshairs is plain stupid. We all know that there will people that simply draw some onto their monitors with a marker. Personally I dont want to have to do this just to even up the scores.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word "hardcore" as in realistic everything mode. Like in real life (though a game).

battlefield.Isacc wrote:
People cry and cry about realism in games, but they don't understand that realistic games =/= competitive games. Hardcore mode has always been campy, and who sees who first JUST LIKE REAL LIFE. It's all spray and pray, because you don't need to aim for the head when a couple body shots kill just as quickly as a well placed headshot.

The only reason you can say that is because you've never played a game with proper realism. Play a Tom Clancy game (preferably one from before they were dumbed down). The first Rainbow Sixes or Ghost Recons, and then come and tell me realistic games =/= competitive games.

I competed a lot in Rainbow Six 3 (on PC and Xbox), Ghost Recon (on PC), and Ghost Recon 2 + Summit Strike (on Xbox). I can tell you the matches were much much more intense (especially on the Ghost Recons) than anything I've experienced recently. It only took 2-3 shots to bring someone down, so people were more careful and didn't go running around everywhere. You couldn't run and gun in the earlier GRs because your accuracy turned to crap. Unfortunately, morons complained about how hard and slow the game was, and the devs changed it in the newer games. It's all about the run and gun now. Especially in Halo Six: Vegas.

xbox.iClutch urGirl wrote:
You misunderstood all mine and Isaac's points completely. So honestly, going on any further with this is pointless. You have your own views on what's fun, we have ours. OP asked our thoughts, and I gave my reasoning why I hate hardcore and prefer vanilla BC2. You disagreed with my opinion and keep disagreeing for some weird reason, maybe to make me see your views on the topic. Frankly, I don't care.. my opinion still remains the same.

I can't help it. I see faulty and false logic and I can't help but point it out. You were the ones who tried to say hardcore took "less skill" and were up on some high horse about it.

Anyway, let's get this topic back on track, shall we?

battlefield.Sorrow wrote:

he's just.. a very angry person.
i bet you he yells at his dog to get a job. :\

Sorry. Stupidity always has and always will drive me nuts.

[double post]