Too Suave. .. "I like BF more because it's realistic" Battlefield
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (285)
[ 285 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
122 comments displayed.
#14 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply +543
(12/17/2013) [-]
"I like BF more because it's realistic"
#19 to #14 - closothehomosexual
-6
has deleted their comment [-]
#20 to #19 - nargogh
Reply +2
(12/17/2013) [-]
For physics sake, I hope you mean 'do it in the game'.
#150 to #20 - xolotyl **User deleted account**
Reply +3
(12/17/2013) [-]
From a physics standpoint it's not that hard to calculate how to do this. All you need is the initial velocity of the plane and the speed of the pilot as he's ejecting to determine the horizontal distance he would travel by the time he falls down the the plane's altitude. Then just adjust the speed of the plane to account for that horizontal distance. The plane would need to be remotely piloted while the pilot is not in it though.
#43 to #20 - icewraith
-5
has deleted their comment [-]
#138 to #43 - Faz
Reply +4
(12/17/2013) [-]
Did the gif even load properly for you because that is not what happened.
#66 to #43 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply +3
(12/17/2013) [-]
Are you implying it can be done in real life?
#21 to #20 - closothehomosexual
-14
has deleted their comment [-]
#30 to #21 - appleisland
Reply +30
(12/17/2013) [-]
Well with a great amount of **** you. I could do your mother
Well with a great amount of **** you. I could do your mother
#31 to #30 - closothehomosexual
-7
has deleted their comment [-]
#71 to #31 - butteryweiner
Reply +4
(12/17/2013) [-]
#101 to #71 - closothehomosexual
-6
has deleted their comment [-]
#41 to #21 - improbablyyourdad
Reply +7
(12/17/2013) [-]
No.

No you can't
#22 to #21 - nargogh
Reply +6
(12/17/2013) [-]
How would you outrun the flying jet in the air?
#23 to #22 - closothehomosexual
-8
has deleted their comment [-]
#24 to #23 - nargogh
Reply +4
(12/17/2013) [-]
But still, the jet is built aerodynamically, and the pilot is not. Especially in such great speeds it makes helluva difference.
#25 to #24 - closothehomosexual
-11
has deleted their comment [-]
#26 to #25 - nargogh
Reply +7
(12/17/2013) [-]
And let's not forget about the force of impact upon jumping back to the jet. It would be much worse than a car accident.
#94 to #25 - curveball
Reply +2
(12/17/2013) [-]
It couldn't happen in reality under any circumstances. When you eject from a plane, the canopy is blasted away right before your chair is launched out of the plane. Even if you grabbed onto the plane after ejecting (which would probably tear your arms off), you'd have no canopy.
#28 to #25 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
It's impossible nitwit. You got at such a fast speed that there is no way to calmly hold and throw that c4 at that plane, fall down at the exact right spot and LAND RIGHT IN THE ******* SEAT of the airplane.

It's impossible because:
1: Human Being are incapable of staying this calm while doing something like this
2: The plane needs to be open for you to land exactly in it like in the video
3:crashing into that seat would instantly kill a person

FOr ****** sake man
#29 to #28 - closothehomosexual
-15
has deleted their comment [-]
#36 to #29 - sylberleaf
Reply +17
(12/17/2013) [-]
It's IMPOSSIBLE to make you understand how ******* wrong you are
#102 to #36 - closothehomosexual
-4
has deleted their comment [-]
#104 to #102 - sylberleaf
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
Obviously. Since it would be very short life with a very gory ending
#32 to #29 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply +13
(12/17/2013) [-]
No you couldn't. It would kill you, even if by a miracle you would manage to exactly land in an open cockpit the human body would be DESTROYED by this.  When you get hit by a car that drives with 90 miles per hour you also DIE, you get OBLITERATED, your bones get fractured, your skull crushed, your muscles rip apart, you are dead, pepsi, you cease to exist as a living being and become one with the force. And yes, even when you are 'well built'.
No you couldn't. It would kill you, even if by a miracle you would manage to exactly land in an open cockpit the human body would be DESTROYED by this. When you get hit by a car that drives with 90 miles per hour you also DIE, you get OBLITERATED, your bones get fractured, your skull crushed, your muscles rip apart, you are dead, pepsi, you cease to exist as a living being and become one with the force. And yes, even when you are 'well built'.
#44 to #32 - jeffljrumpf
Reply +13
(12/17/2013) [-]
#160 to #32 - Shitthatscrazy
Reply +4
(12/17/2013) [-]
pepsi
pepsi
#45 to #32 - inuares
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
well...not agreeing with the dumbass, but people have survived terminal velocity before.
#62 to #45 - shagityshagity
Reply +2
(12/17/2013) [-]
its not just terminal velocity you ********. if one were to eject from a plane, the plane is still going ******* hundreds of miles an hour. if by chance you were able to control most of your body after ejection (spinal compression) and by chance managed to fly into the cockpit, it would hit you like a ******* train, if you somehow managed to survive there would be no way possible to safely land the plane so you ******* DIE.
#75 to #62 - inuares
Reply +3
(12/17/2013) [-]
Rude. I expressed the fact that people have survived terminal velocity to state that people can sustain large amounts of force on their body. Yes, I get that you'd die, but you don't have to be such a dick about replying to me.
#237 to #75 - snowshark
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
We don't know why most of those people didn't die but if this .gif is any indication the deciding factor seems to be their l33t SkiLz!
#99 to #45 - closothehomosexual
-5
has deleted their comment [-]
#46 to #29 - herbolifee
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
**** you're naive...
#100 to #21 - meganinja
Reply +2
(12/17/2013) [-]
No, you couldn't. Aircraft are aerodynamically designed. If you jump out of a plane, you're not areodynamic. The wind will hit you, and most likely push you into your own plane before you can jump. Provided you could jump clear, and actually manage to get the C4 on the heli and blow it up, your plane would be very far in front of you. because, you see, drag on the human body is many times greater than that on a plane proportional to weight. Then your plane would crash, and if you did have a parachute, provided it could realistically deploy at that altitude, then you would be stranded on the ground. Having destroyed your countries multi million dollar plane so that you could do a cool trick. And remember, that's all assuming you can actually jump clear of the plane, which isn't very realistic.
#235 to #14 - thatsadpotato
Reply -1
(12/18/2013) [-]
>people arguing which video game is more realistic
>talking about realistic aspects in video games.
#51 to #14 - mango
Reply 0
(12/17/2013) [-]
Well it's not like it's less realistic then COD.
#60 to #14 - daftiduck
Reply 0
(12/17/2013) [-]
It's more realistic than COD, and then **** like this just makes it better!
#67 to #60 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
Not trying to bash BF because it's obviously awesome, but how is it more realistic than COD? I have played both and in neither games it felt like a 'real combat situation' always like a video game
#96 to #67 - anon
Reply 0
(12/17/2013) [-]
Gravity and momentum affect where you have to aim. Destructibility of the structures. (more) realistic weapon recoil.
#76 to #14 - fivebecomesfours
Reply 0
(12/17/2013) [-]
I like BF more because you can do badass stuff like this. And it's more realistic. Hue
#125 to #14 - commit
Reply 0
(12/17/2013) [-]
I like BF more because there are more ways to screw around.
#40 to #14 - improbablyyourdad
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
Doesn't change the fact that it is.
#284 to #14 - doesthislookunsure ONLINE
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
And he was never heard from again
#285 to #14 - xXCorpitoXx ONLINE
Reply +4
(12/18/2013) [-]
You would definitely attempt this in real life if you knew failing just means you respawn in 10 seconds
#180 to #14 - Hiago
Reply +5
(12/17/2013) [-]
Who ever said that is an idiot. Battlefield is an arcade shooter just as much as COD or CS. If I want realism I'll go play Arma.
#184 to #180 - majormoron
Reply +2
(12/17/2013) [-]
Arma


hahaaaaaaa.

Oh lawdy my sides. I need new sides!
#221 to #184 - curveball
Reply +4
(12/18/2013) [-]
2real4you
2real4you
#226 to #221 - majormoron
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
Absolute realism there!
#234 to #226 - curveball
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
At the same time, ARMA is the most realistic shooter I can think of. The only other semi-realistic shooters I can think of are Red Orchestra/Darkest Hour (a half-decent mod for the original Red Orchestra) and SWAT 4 (which is increasingly difficult to get a copy of). I've played ARMA 2 with guys who were in the British Armed Forces, and they all said that while ARMA obviously isn't an accurate representation of what they went through; for $30 and couple of free mods, it was pretty good.

Of course, there's VBS2 (soon to be VBS 3), but I don't feel like forking over $500 for a video game, even if it could be considered "realistic".
#253 to #234 - majormoron
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
Well hold on, Arma 2 is excellent. I was thinking of Arma 3 when I said that.
#260 to #253 - curveball
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
How is ARMA 3 worse than ARMA 2? With the right mods you can have all the same content (maps, vehicles, factions, weapons, equipment, and modules) in ARMA 3 that you did in ARMA 2. Is it the sci-fi tinge they added to ARMA 3 that you don't like?
#288 to #260 - majormoron
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
NOt only that, but they totally ****** it all up. I've seen some gameplay of it, and it looks like its bugs galore. Maybe it was just they way the lets plays handled the footage, but it seems like they released a super bugged out game.
#289 to #288 - curveball
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
There were bugs when the alpha was released in March, but I haven't had any noteworthy issues with the retail product from September (there are a few technical hiccups here and there, but the same could be said of most games). It's a huge step up from ARMA 2, which was quite literally unplayable when it was released in 2009.
#56 to #14 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +7
(12/17/2013) [-]
I like it because it's fun.
#58 to #56 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply +25
(12/17/2013) [-]
I agree

Pic slightly related
#83 to #58 - mcswoof
Reply +8
(12/17/2013) [-]
I lost it at yui.
#59 to #58 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
Holy ****, that's a classic.
#117 to #56 - anon
Reply 0
(12/17/2013) [-]
fun is a social construct
#33 to #14 - jibb
Reply +11
(12/17/2013) [-]
One aspect of the game does not make the entire game
#34 to #33 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply +2
(12/17/2013) [-]
I never said it was a bad part of it actually these things are what makes battlefield more fun Just pointing out how silly it is when people call BF "more realistic"
#161 to #34 - dumdumduu
Reply +3
(12/17/2013) [-]
It is more realistic, when compared to CoD.

But then again, that's not saying much for the realism of either one of the games.
#143 to #34 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT
Reply +2
(12/17/2013) [-]
rip
#35 to #34 - jibb
Reply -10
(12/17/2013) [-]
I would say that it is more realistic, this is one "bug".
One "bug" does not make BF less realistic than CoD
#37 to #35 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply +11
(12/17/2013) [-]
How on earth is this a bug?
#42 to #37 - jibb
Reply -8
(12/17/2013) [-]
i dont know what else to call it
exploit, action, possibility
#49 to #42 - anon
Reply 0
(12/17/2013) [-]
**** like this happens all the time in BF... are you stupid or something? they practically marketed the game off of "only in battlefield" isn't there a remote controlled plane that can instakill people by running them over? It's not realistic, and that's okay.
#55 to #49 - luxray
Reply +6
(12/17/2013) [-]
He ejected, placed an explosive on the heli, and managed to catch the plane.
The plane never hit anything.
#201 to #49 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
A remote controlled, military grade airplane. Not one of thise flimsy £10 pieces of **** you get from pound stretcher.

Probably weighs a fair bit, and at high speeds I'd say that could have a chance of killing you
#107 to #49 - anon
Reply 0
(12/17/2013) [-]
This **** virtually never happens actually.
#18 to #14 - mondominiman
Reply +71
(12/17/2013) [-]
That's only said by people who don't have a reason to hate COD but still want to ride the bandwagon
#82 to #18 - keithspike
Reply +20
(12/17/2013) [-]
i like playing whatever games with my friends.
#115 to #82 - mondominiman
Reply +6
(12/17/2013) [-]
Me too.
#197 to #18 - snowshark
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
Honestly... maybe a good reason to say you like Battlefield is that you can jump out of your fighter-jet, kill a helicopter with C4, land back in your jet, and go on killing **** if you're good enough.

I never understand why people want realistic games. My favourite shooter is Halo (though Halo 4 was a big disappointment in a lot of ways) and I like it because you're an armour-clad space-warrior making massive jumps, firing creative laser-weapons, and the mechanics that can be built around that premise like the energy shields that make the game both forgiving for the person being shot and punishing for the shooter so it is easier to survive a match but harder to get kills.

I just don't get why anyone would think realism is a good feature of a multiplayer shooter or even of any multiplayer, because real-life just isn't as fun as video games. Photo-realism? I guess that's nice if it doesn't harm the frame rate, but I don't play games to replicate reality.
#212 to #197 - mitchr
Reply +3
(12/18/2013) [-]
I'm still not sure why people didn't like Halo 4, actually.
Could you tell me why you didn't?
#218 to #212 - snowshark
Reply +6
(12/18/2013) [-]
The dislike of Halo 4 isn't easy to understand. See, with most games the badness comes from obvious things. Halo 4 is subtle, it is lots of small things that come together to make one big mess that you will only see when you look for it.

Let's start with the custom loadouts. Now, this isn't a bad idea and I like the concept of having a game-mode which is more personal to you. However the reason Halo 3 has the best shooter multiplayer of all time (and I'll stand by that until I die or I find something better... heh, get it?) is the equality of players. Each player started the game with the same tools and the only distinguishing factors in the game were luck and skill. The balance of the two made for a great amount of fun and compelling gameplay which I will get into more detail on later.

The big problem with the loadouts is that four of the choices are mid-long range weapons, meaning everyone enters the game with the ability to instantly stat kilingl other players and distance is rarely an issue. Because of this the maps have had to have been made far larger and even the smaller ones are pretty big. Because of this they have had to put large amounts of cover into the game because otherwise nobody would be able to go anywhere without getting shot at from at least two angles (as happens on the more open maps). Because of this cover though they have had to make shields recharge slower so people don't immediately hide behind things until their shields come back after a few seconds.

Because of all of this close-range combat has been sabotaged. Now there is little to no way to get in close to your enemies as they will always have the range advantage and when you do get close enough someone else will have both you and your targets in their sights. There is no duck and cover advance because your shields take too long to recharge or the gaps between cover are so long the hyper-acurate spawn weaponry has killed you.

(more to come)
#223 to #212 - snowshark
Reply +5
(12/18/2013) [-]
Well vehicles are (mostly) broken too. There are a large number of wide-open maps in Halo 4, meaning plenty of places to shoot people from. Now if those people are in a vehicle they can close those gaps quickly but if half the people on the enemy team spawn with plasma grenades you're in for some trouble. But it's not all bad, notice how I said 'mostly'? That's because there is one map where the vehicles kinda work. That figure of eight map. It is the best map in Halo 4 because it balances large sight-lines with claustrophobic corridors. It is a map where long and close range combat is made possible only by the inclusion of vehicles.

See the vehicles on that map mediate the mid-ground. They keep people moving. The Warthogs die instantly because it's too easy to stick them with the grenades and if they stop moving the gunner gets shot out by the enemy team but the ghosts and the Mantis...es? manage to be mobile enough to hold down important choke points like the bridge.

So yay, but wait, aww. That's just one map. Every other map the vehicles break the combat even further. There is one map where you get into a banshee and there is either too much cover to do any damage (which means it is a great spawn-killer for anyone not lucky enough to spawn in cover... which is pretty much the same for every vehicle in this game but that one map in particular.)

Urgh, one more comment and I'm done with this.
#230 to #212 - snowshark
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
Look, as you can see my feelings are well backed up and deep and I realise if I keep on like this it'll never end. Just understand that what made Halo 3 good was it's patience, the rewarding of people for using different ranges effectively, the difficulty of killing vehicles but ease of avoiding them. The small maps allowed for close-combat, the big maps allowed for close combat. The number of long-range weapons were minimal to force players closer together and the weapons spawning on the map rather than in their hands made players move around the map the way that suits the map best as opposed to just running about the map at random. By knowing spawn timers and player psychology you could anticipate where the action would be headed next and because everyone spawned equal that skill level is what separated players. But the game was also balanced enough to let a little bit of luck be all that was needed to win/lose a match.

Halo 4 was all good intentions, it really was. I love everything they tried to do but in doing it they managed to demolish the best multiplayer setup ever which was established in Halo 3 and started to crack under the changes in Reach. Introducing elements of story and development to the multiplayer, I loved that! But limiting customisation of games, removing firefight, the broken multiplayer, the lack of communication between players... it's all just a broken mess.

If I didn't have faith that the team at 343 could fix this mess for Halo 5 I would have no qualms in buying a PS4, but I do have faith. I can see the good things they tried to do and am mortified at how badly they backfired. The story is the same, to anyone who is acquainted with Sci-Fi the story is painfully predictable, something I never faced in any of the other games. It's not limited to Halo 4 though, because I already know most of the things that will come up in as far as Halo 6 because of how blunt the foreshadowing was.

I want to like Halo 4, but I simply can't do it.
#231 to #230 - mitchr
Reply +3
(12/18/2013) [-]
Alright, that's all fair enough. Yours is a more multiplayer-oriented view; I tend not to play multiplayer, and concentrate normally on story. So yeah.
But all of that makes a lot of sense, yeah.
#233 to #231 - snowshark
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
Cheers, I maintain that the story was pretty poor compared to the other Halo games. Not in it's content, but in it's execution. If you like I can go into detail but that would definitely bring spoilers for Halos 5 and 6 because the obvious plot threads are a major issue in the story.
#241 to #233 - mitchr
Reply +3
(12/18/2013) [-]
I get what you mean there.
It could have been better executed, for sure, but I think of it like this: 343 is trying to make it theirs. That sounds bad at first, but think about it. For all intents and purposes, it is now theirs, and if they didn't try to do something with it, it'd just be the downfall of a great series. The options were to go as they did, or milk the series dry. They chose the one that is better for the series in the long run.
Not to say it didn't have faults. It did. But everything does, really, whether big or small. They chose to try and make something of the series yet, and that is far better to sacrificing the series for some easy money.
#242 to #241 - snowshark
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
No, no. You seem to misunderstand. The content of the story is not the problem. The execution is. The way it was presented to the audience. Anyone should be able to tell that the big question of this story is going to be "Will Cortana become human or not?"

Now, I do not dislike the shipping of those two characters which is obviously the big factor at play here. I do not see them as lovers, I see them as husband and wife. A relationship beyond the physical. They are warriors, bonded by struggle. One has no face, the other has no body. The two of them together are perfect as they are and I really like seeing them delve into this relationship. Ultimately the big factor at play here which will either make this a great story told poorly or an awful story told poorly will be wether Cortana turns human or not, which if the writers are good, she won't.

The two of them do not need to touch physically. They are already as close to each other as they will ever be. There is no physicality to their relationship, it is all emotion between two personalities defined by how they interact as they are. What could easily have been a soldier and his helpful A.I. to sort out tech problems for him (an obvious gameplay mechanic) has turned into one of the best love stories in Sci-Fi, and turning her human will betray that... but giving her the choice and her choosing not to? That may well be one of the best touches to any story in the genre, the acknowledgement of the sentience of an A.I. and the unimportance of a physical body in defining what is or isn't human or even alive.

So I don't mind the story. But my god, I didn't need to think about ANY of that! I knew it all from the moment Cortana had that line about the sun. It's so obviously a pining for humanity and in a story about biological organisms changing into A.I. and a machine which turns A.I. into biological organisms (which didn't work... but the Didact's been turned into an A.I. now so it will be soon!)

It was way too easy!
#244 to #242 - mitchr
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
The best endings are often bittersweet.
And alright, that makes a bit more sense.
#249 to #244 - snowshark
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
Well, I disagree because a good ending is a good one, regardless of tone, but the ending to Halo 4 isn't bittersweet, it's just obvious that the Didact got turned into an A.I. and sent to Requiem by the machine he fell into (it is exposited in the Spartan Ops missions that the people turned to ash became Promethean Knights on Requiem) and that Cortana went with him (given that the alternative is killing off the only other character from the first trilogy and half of the dynamic that made the series good in the first place so that's out of the picture, plus Dr. Halsey is brought into the story in Spartan Ops and Chief has Cortana's chip with him in the teaser indicating he is looking for her).

Unless you meant that the ending where Cortanna chooses to stay an A.I. is bittersweet in that I'd disagree with you because I'd say that alone wouldn't make it sad, but I can see where you are coming from in how it might be.
#250 to #249 - mitchr
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
Yeah.

Either way, though, Halo's what's made me want to be a video game writer.
#251 to #250 - snowshark
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
Oh? What would you like to write? I'm an aspiring writer myself (though not nearly doe-eyed enough to think it alone is a sure bet so I'm also training in accountancy) and whilst Halo isn't an inspiration to me, Red vs Blue is, and that is tied into Halo.
#291 to #251 - mitchr
Reply 0
(12/18/2013) [-]
I remember we had this same discussion when I was a new user, heh.
It's mostly worldbuilding at the moment, I'm not too great at anything else. The world does, to be fair, encompass several million different universes and all that ever is, was, or is yet to be, but still.
#220 to #212 - snowshark
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
So there is no more close-range combat in Halo or where there is it is no longer any fun because by the time you've killed someone your shields are low and someone else has killed you from long range.

But fear not! There is a solution! Instant respawns! Wait, no that makes the problem worse. See, because of instant respawns the game flows faster but also you have no time to get your baring before the person you just killed kills you because they spawn with long-range weapons ready to kill you and because your shields take so long to recharge you will often die soon after you kill someone. But it's okay because not every game mode has these instant respawns, which is a shame because it is the system the game is built around, meaning by the time you respawn after being killed the guy with his long-range weaponry will be in a different position and ready to exploit the long lines of sight between the cover to kill you again.

So, we've established why close range combat is broken, but long range combat? Well that's broken too. See, because everyone has long-range weaponry there is no longer a benefit to long range weaponry. Range is meant to be a tactical advantage like elevation or surprise, but what kind of advantage is it when everyone has it? But you can't do anything else because close range is broken and mid-range is ineffective against everyone else who is using long-range weapons. So you have to use long-range weaponry. But how do you fix this problem?

Well, put in more cover of course. See, the maps are built so that people getting shot at can get into cover quickly from the massive lines of sight the game presents, however because of that you will be shooting someone and then they disappear from view just before you kill them, but in that time someone else has noticed you shooting someone so you have to hide. Heaven help you if it is a team game and multiple people start shooting you at once!

So ranges are broken, but what about vehicles?

(More to come.)
#270 to #197 - mondominiman
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
That is a good reason, there are more things to do. I don't like it because it rewards players who play longer so guys who have 100 hours on it have not only a skill advantage among new players but a weapon advantage too. I hate those types of multiplayer games. It's one reason TF2 is and always will be my favorite multiplayer game. I got over 1000 hours on it and I still roam around with stock weapons beating most players.
#271 to #270 - snowshark
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
I feel the same way about Halo 3. Whilst Team Fortress follows the setup of "Everyone gets the chance to do the same things." Halo 3 is more "Everyone starts equal and earns their stripes."

Both multiplayers are great and I won't start a debate as to which is better because I'll say Halo 3 and it will probably be purely down to my preferred play-style because when two games are as good as Halo 3 and TF2 but also so fundamentally different in the way they approach the genre it really becomes impossible to choose a better one technically, so it is all preference.
#275 to #271 - mondominiman
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
I don't like the halo games because alien games just really aren't my thing. They are good and they play great I just don't find much fun in sci fi stuff.
#287 to #275 - snowshark
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
Fine, be like that. I'll just be over here killing space monsters with this laser sword!

But aye, genre is quite a polarising factor. Different strokes for different folks, eh?
#2 - tsubakicomplex
Reply +174
(12/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#12 to #2 - niggafromoutaspace
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
The players name is xhoho if anyone is interested.
He's an absolute beast in BF.
#52 to #12 - thalfak
Reply +2
(12/17/2013) [-]
Meh rather Xerathor and Xhoho together are some of the best at what they do
#217 to #52 - gypsyfruitcake
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
the thing that amazes me is that they're brothers. i ******* **** my self when i heard that
#286 to #217 - thalfak
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
I felt like it was quiet obivious. Seeing as all you ever see in their videos is them in same squad and vehicle really.
#292 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2013) [-]
actually, its ponylionHD, heres the source vid on youtube.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E9HXYKUHIY
#274 to #2 - djequalizee
Reply +2
(12/18/2013) [-]
It's so fluid
It's so fluid
#177 to #2 - cycloberrick
Reply +3
(12/17/2013) [-]
holy ******* ****, can I have the source to this video please
#181 to #177 - soundcloud
Reply +4
(12/17/2013) [-]
Top 5 Battlefield 3 Plays - Episode 41
#1 - karmasboobage
Reply +110
(12/17/2013) [-]
#9 - whyamiloggedin
Reply +107
(12/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#267 to #9 - oceanfrank
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
... thats rad
#273 to #9 - cubanwhiteman
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
It's cool and all, but that's a basic how to use the helicopter, honsetly.
#16 - Stilgar
Reply +8
(12/17/2013) [-]
Wow battlefield hasn't changed much



www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-wFI9vTqto
#27 to #16 - Stilgar
Reply +59
(12/17/2013) [-]
Here's the gif
Here's the gif
#122 to #27 - Pred
Reply +8
(12/17/2013) [-]
War. War never changes.
#3 - konradkurze
Reply +58
(12/17/2013) [-]
#53 to #3 - thalfak
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
I so love Gmod Idiot Box, but never bothered to figure if the hax guy originated from there?  gif rather unrelated
I so love Gmod Idiot Box, but never bothered to figure if the hax guy originated from there? gif rather unrelated
#64 to #53 - harbingerwolf
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
Originated from the gmod idiot box i think it was called, i know the uploaded was named Dasboschitt i think, something like that.
#65 to #64 - thalfak
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
Yeah I know the series and uploader, even still subscribe to him. And I believe he recently posted a new episode. Anyway, I was just looking to see if he created the idea leading to the hax-mod for gmod.
#169 to #3 - puregarbage
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
Can i have the other picture of phoenix wright saying objection but his penis is his finger

sounds weird but hey, i need that picture for something
#127 - bronzecatgamer
Reply +56
(12/17/2013) [-]
When I try to fly in Battlefield.
When I try to fly in Battlefield.
#215 to #127 - padzoid
Reply +1
(12/18/2013) [-]
may I have the source please?
#121 - noonesperfect ONLINE
Reply +52
(12/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#57 - nighthawxx
Reply +42
(12/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#110 - darkmaker
Reply +37
(12/17/2013) [-]
Okay, that was literally one of the most badass things i have ever witnessed in a video game.
#173 to #110 - goldengohan ONLINE
Reply +1
(12/17/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnPhnMW5C4w

stungravy, the player in the gif, always does this kind of stuff. check out his youtube channel
#208 to #110 - cheeziswin
Reply +3
(12/18/2013) [-]
I dunno, this is pretty good too.
GTA V - Mount Chiliad Police Chase I dunno, this is pretty good too.