Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:9/29/2011
Last Login:8/24/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#11568
Highest Content Rank:#4761
Highest Comment Rank:#4847
Content Thumbs: 12 total,  14 ,  2
Comment Thumbs: 1283 total,  2040 ,  757
Content Level Progress: 25.42% (15/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 202 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 203 Comments: Comedic Genius
Content Views:1634
Total Comments Made:330
FJ Points:1030

  • Views: 1630
    Thumbs Up 14 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +12
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 05/24/16
    Hold the door Hold the door

latest user's comments

#56 - I think they forced you to fight even more in the first game. …  [+] (1 new reply) 06/18/2016 on Mirror's Edge 0
User avatar
#61 - aliennova (06/18/2016) [-]
"The game got harder if you tried not to fight towards the end" That's how these type of games are supposed to work man, they're supposed to get harder the further you get
#27 - Man I hate people like you who live in nostalgia. Mirrors Edge…  [+] (12 new replies) 06/18/2016 on Mirror's Edge +17
#42 - herecomesjohnny (06/18/2016) [-]
I'm like 6 hours in and I'm fucking loving it
User avatar
#34 - northleech (06/18/2016) [-]
Agreed, about 60% in I stopped doing sidequests because I didnt find them fun and just played through the story because thats what I enjoyed. The game didnt punish me for it one bit, as no upgrade i skipped was mandatory.

Its not like "you gain the ability to fly" if you do a sidequest, you just get more HP or something.
User avatar
#33 - aliennova (06/18/2016) [-]
I still prefer the old game. Yes the story: had a budget, short, and unmemorable. The new one just doesn't have a budget and is longer with some shitty character personalities. The combat is simplified to press a button, then go through an animation where you're invincible and the game forces you to do it. The old one was simply pressing a button, but you had to do it at just the right time or you were going to get fucked up and they didn't force you to do combat Minus that one level in the parking garage that everybody agree's didn't need it .
And they're probably going to riddle the game with DLC
#56 - killerkost (06/18/2016) [-]
I think they forced you to fight even more in the first game. The game actually got harder if you tried not to just shoot everybody in the face. In the new ME i find myself running away more often than fighting which is more fun and also easier a lot of times due to the traversal attacks and focus shield. So you kinda get rewarded for doing what a runner should do. Run away and not grabbing an m249 and just brrrrrrrt everything.

As for the DLCs I am already happy that there most likely will be some, because that means more content. I hate DLCs when a game is only finished by the means of DLCs (SW Battlefront) but when it is about extra content, I kinda like it.

But I get u all in all, the old game has it's charme and will always have a special place in my memory.
User avatar
#61 - aliennova (06/18/2016) [-]
"The game got harder if you tried not to fight towards the end" That's how these type of games are supposed to work man, they're supposed to get harder the further you get
User avatar
#35 - northleech (06/18/2016) [-]
"they are probably going to rid the game with DLC"

If thats one of your reasons for not liking the game, then you are clearly on the "EA sucks ass so this game does too" bandwagon.

Its one thing when they dont have an ending and that ending can be bought as DLC, its another when the game has a nice story and ends with that story.
User avatar
#36 - aliennova (06/18/2016) [-]
Nice job forgetting I had other reasons for not enjoying it as much as the last game.
I'm still going to buy the DLC as I did enjoy the game, I just didn't enjoy it as much as I did the old one.
User avatar
#38 - northleech (06/18/2016) [-]
And I respect that, thats why I said "one of the reasons", because that one carries a whole lot of bias.

Its like saying Dark Souls 3 is a bad game because its probably going to be riddled with DLC. As long as said DLC doesnt take away from the original game or is pay to win, who cares?
User avatar
#43 - aliennova (06/18/2016) [-]
I just don't agree with how EA and most businesses do DLC, they sell them as extra bits of the game that should/could have been in launch a couple months ago, where I think DLC should be sold much later in a games life so it doesn't feel like the ripped part of the game out and sold it desperately.
User avatar
#37 - aliennova (06/18/2016) [-]
I just reread your comment and realized you said "one of your reasons" I'm an idiot sorry.
User avatar
#40 - northleech (06/18/2016) [-]
Welp, didnt get that one in time, now I feel like an idiot as well.
#31 - tehavatar (06/18/2016) [-]
i like you
#154 - Also lets not forget that the founding story of the USA is bas… 06/11/2016 on Soviet Monuments 0
#153 - If you have a problem with communist russia then go vandalize … 06/11/2016 on Soviet Monuments 0
#64 - I mean this is actually hardly vandalizing. It's almost an imp…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/10/2016 on Soviet Monuments +2
#88 - comradewinter (06/10/2016) [-]
The monument doesn't represent the Soviet rule, it was the Soviet victory against Germany. Do we burn down the Palace of Versailles because it represents gluttony in the face of famine?

Even if it looks good and artful, it remains vandalism as you're messing with someone else's property. Moreover, people would throw a hissy fit if it was an American soldier monument that was defiled. These soldiers died fighting. If you wanna complain about Soviet rule, vandalize a Stalin or Lenin statue.
#62 - Monument build as a sign of victory against nazi germany which…  [+] (6 new replies) 06/10/2016 on Soviet Monuments +11
User avatar
#135 - natobro (06/10/2016) [-]
Except that no Russian soldiers died in Bulgaria, so it serves no purpose to have a memorial.
User avatar
#67 - thumbfortrump (06/10/2016) [-]
Because Communist Russia did not mass murder civilians, occupy sovereign states and oppress those who opposed it.


You're the lowest of low.
User avatar
#154 - killerkost (06/11/2016) [-]
Also lets not forget that the founding story of the USA is based on the murder of natives, occupation of their land and the oppression of said natives. For some reason here you say "the natives were weak and uncivilized and therefore the civilized world took over" but then again you could bring the same argument for the UDSSR policy. So fuck your double standards nigga.
User avatar
#153 - killerkost (06/11/2016) [-]
If you have a problem with communist russia then go vandalize some lenin statues. This is not a monument to the UDSSR but to the soldiers who lost their lives fighting the SAME enemy the USA fought against.

Sure, Stalin was a bastard, but it doesn't mean the people who faught the war don't deserve respect. I mean US patriots like you are the first ones to defend US soldiers and monuments for fallen US soldiers. So how about you close-minded fuck take a few steps back and realize that soviet soldiers did the same thing the US soldiers did and therefore deserve the same respect if not even more, since a lot more of em died fighting that fight.

In the end you are the lowest of the low because you disrespect 20million fallen soldiers by saying that a monument build in their honor is actually a soviet monument that symbolizes oppression and therefore deserves to be vandalized.
User avatar
#90 - hetzerdk (06/10/2016) [-]
Yeah, they did, but it is still a monument for the soldiers who did fight in one of the worst armies to fight for. Their suffer should not be ridiculed.

The same for the ww1 graves which fucking lefties runned on for the remebrance day of the battle of verdun.
User avatar
#98 - thumbfortrump (06/10/2016) [-]
To the people of Bulgaria it's obviously a symbol of decades of Soviet occupation.
They were liberated of one evil and were occupied by a new.

The suffering of the common soldier is tragic, but these symbols only serve remind people of a horrible time.
No one is preventing them from setting up a new monument that denounces the evil the Soviet committed, and remembering the tragic loss of soldiers.
#144 - I hope you know this is fake... here's the original  [+] (2 new replies) 06/05/2016 on SJWs in a nutshell (very loud) +5
User avatar
#179 - shenro (06/05/2016) [-]
well, it's certainly not as bad, but it's still pretty bad, because an adult is crying over a popped balloon.
#146 - flyingsquid (06/05/2016) [-]
Thanks for the orginal
#22 - Man I hate this debate. I get it that people want to own guns.…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/20/2016 on Hunting With An AR-15 +4
User avatar
#42 - thepizzadevourer (05/21/2016) [-]
>if you want free speech, bring a better argument then "there was an amendment that was written over 200 years ago"
>if you want the right of habeas corpus, bring a better argument then "there was an amendment that was written over 200 years ago"
>if you want freedom of religion, bring a better argument then "there was an amendment that was written over 200 years ago"

You see why this is dangerous? These laws were put in place to protect freedoms. They are already in place. The onus is not on the pro-gun people to "prove" why they need gun rights. It's on the anti-gun people do demonstrate why those rights are no longer needed, and to amend the laws to reflect that. And so far, they've failed to do that.
User avatar
#36 - useroftheLOLZ (05/21/2016) [-]

Should we apply the same to fucking free speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial, police being unable to do whatever they want, black rights and so forth?

Its a fucking constitutional right. What more do you need? It was written for self defense from powers both foreign and domestic.
#50 - Jowi (05/21/2016) [-]
Except America has foregone the right to a fair trial on numerous occasions. Look at G-mo for a start.

No government in the world intends to be bound by any rule it makes. Your constitution has been changed multiple times. The 2nd Amendment was a change to your constitution and Amendments have been appealed before.
The right to bear arms will only last as long as there is a strong lobby for it. It is not some holy gift given to you that will last forever
User avatar
#35 - Ripsometime (05/21/2016) [-]
When people make a proper argument using the second amendment, they state why the second amendment was created and try to relate it to how we live today.

But I agree that most people who use it as an argument are like "hurr durr guns should not be illegal because they are legal mate".
#15 - Mirin that form 05/20/2016 on Don't forget leg day +15
#30 - > lol implying I have sex but yeah the last time I…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/20/2016 on Anon races in bed +2
User avatar
#32 - shaddyz (05/20/2016) [-]
maybe fuck the living then?