Quote: "I know exactly what it means... however, the term is not relevant to a computer game. With every post you make your ignorance becomes more apparent!"
Keep taking shots, it just shows how rude you are. I don't know what your deal is with me, obviously you can't let things from over 3 years ago go. It can be applied toward any situation. For example, any time a game is released that people rush to, and they feel they must get it because all of their friends are, that obviously means they have "flocking" tendencies, thus making them a reference to a flocking animal, that being a sheep. Just because you don't see how it makes sense and applies, doesn't mean the rest of us don't. The fact of the matter is, that you let your ignorance decide how you judge others and what they say. No matter what I say, you disagree with it in some sort of way. I could state that the U.K. is an island, and despite being correct, you'd still manage to find something negative to say. I'm not going to act like I'm perfect, I disagree with a lot of things people say, but I never make personal attacks in these disagreements. Insults are the lowest augmentative form.
Going back to your claims, there are loads of people who play games simply because their friends do. People are fickle and will jump on the next big thing. I'm not going to lie to you, I joined in on the Minecraft boom, and I actually enjoy it. However, I hear LOADS of people saying they don't really care for Call of Duty but they play it because that's all their friends play. Not to mention, the overbearing amount of pressure put on people to buy things. Call of Duty marketers are genius, in their own right, simply because they can take any Call of Duty game, and make it seem godly to own it. Why do you think Call of Duty 4 STILL runs for about $20-$30, despite it being rather old? Because there is still a large fanbase around it. Same with Modern Warfare 2, one year later it's STILL $50-$60. Yet, Battlefield Bad Company 2, which hasn't been out for more than a year, has gone down to $20 - $30. Does that mean one game is better than the other? No, it just means there is a higher demand for it. Does a higher demand make it better? Absolutely not. Some of the worlds most iconic things weren't popular at first, until years later. It's a Wonderful Life was generally left with negative reviews when it came out, same with Willie Wonka, and Dumb and Dumber. All 3 have become famous in their own right, and popular. Same goes with Red Dawn. Nobody really liked it when it came out, but yet it gains popularity among other people. It all depends on what the market is doing.
People in nature are "sheep", because each person in this world always wants to be part of something new and better. Why do you think cell phones are considered obsolete 9 months after a new model is introduced? Because companies know if they can get people into a cult-like-form, they can sell them just about anything. I myself am a non-conformist. I don't feel like I need to own an iPod or play an overrated game to make myself feel more worthy. Maybe some people play for fun, if that's your choice, go for it. Who am I to say what is good and what is bad? I think Call of Duty is good, but overrated. Someone might disagree. I love Battlefield games, but as seen from Toasty, some might not appreciate them as much. It's all in what you like. Calling someone ignorant over observations in itself is ignorant. Let's call science ignorant while we're at it, they notice a pattern in things all the time. Why not them next?
I don't know if you got my email I sent to you, thraxas, I used your forum email, not sure if you got it.
Quote: "They do NOT listen to the community. All they do is listen to themselves. They refuse to tone down the AN94, which is overpowered as balls, they refuse to fix the rubberbanding and lag, and their support with DLC was absolutely bloody pathetic. They released those 4 new guns 6 MONTHS after they were released for 360, they lied about Onslaught mode and by doing that Vietnam for PC was essentially a ripoff because 360 owners got Onslaught with Vietnam, and PC didn't."
1. The AN-94 was nerfed, but due to community complaining, it was bulked back up again.
2. The rubberbanding was fixed in mid-june. If you're still having issues, it's probably your connection.
3. I can't argue about the DLC, the first few "map packs" were just game mode additions, however Map Pack 7 was a nice surprise.
4. Onslaught was indeed a bit disappointing, especially for the $10 price tag. Vietnam is impressive though.
If you listen to the community too much, you're basically stripping your games identity to appeal to a select few people. Believe it or not, forum dwellers only contribute a small percentage of the total amount of people playing the game. Why should 1 small group of members decide how the entire game is played? Most of my friends have no clue there were forums until I talked about it in passing one day. Players let their own thoughts and emotions control how they want the game to be. For example, during the period of pure M60 ownage, people were crying, and some people who abused the gun were insulting. So DICE decided to nerf it. Long behold, the AN-94 became the choice gun for campers. People like abusing the best possible weapon, like the ACR in Modern Warfare 2. The players who use these guns usually have little to no skill when they loose their powerful weapons, then they move on to other games or other game modes. It's the vicious circle of gameplay.
I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
