CRank: 5Score: 0

I'm game as long as they bring it back to what it was originally. I have no idea what they were thinking with 3 - if anything, it's an example of how making a game more "accessible", and shoving MP into a game that has no real business being in the game altogether.

19d ago 2 agree0 disagreeView comment

That is unless they make another fish AI gaffe.

21d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

@death you can still create a fun experience without compromising power.

21d ago 4 agree3 disagreeView comment

"The hybrid concept is appealing to many gamers"

It's also redundant when they already have a strong handheld presence, especially when they *just* announced a new handheld...

I actually want my home consoles (and that's what Nintendo has marketed the switch as, not a handheld) to be proper home consoles. They could have put out a much more powerful device that can actually compete with what MS/Sony has on the market right now.

21d ago 1 agree12 disagreeView comment

uh... what?

21d ago 1 agree0 disagreeView comment

@xxanderxx: no. f1st party = a game that is made by a studio owned by MS/Sony. if MS doesn't own this studio, it is not 1st party.

22d ago 14 agree1 disagreeView comment

@scat uh... no. if it truly didn't matter to him, he would be fine enough with the devs having that as a part of the character's backstory, and just move on instead of complaining. if it doesn't affect gameplay or your enjoyment of the game or your life, then who cares if the devs decided to include that in the game.

22d ago 0 agree3 disagreeView comment
22d ago Show

if it doesn't matter, why are you upset about it?

22d ago 0 agree2 disagreeView comment

what "political agenda"? women did actually fight in WWII...

22d ago 1 agree2 disagreeView comment

@eiffel except the one black person you play as in BF 1 was on the French side, so...

22d ago 1 agree1 disagreeView comment

Forgive me, but shouldn't they have started making those types of games before you can ask them to stop? And even then, why should they stop?

22d ago 1 agree0 disagreeView comment

They need to update their engine, though.

22d ago 1 agree0 disagreeView comment

It's a misguided article about tokenism is the upcoming CoD title. The misguided part of the article is that it's arguing that those groups are being included into the game just to check off some box in a diversity checklist. The reality is that women, and African Americans were quite involved in the military during the war, so their inclusion is actually historically accurate.

22d ago 1 agree2 disagreeView comment

pretty good!

23d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

exactly! it's a huge misconception that only white men fought on the front lines during WWII. the ones crying "tokenism" or going on any kind of nonsensical, rabid, mouth-foaming SJW rant don't have a clue about the actual history. the inclusion of these groups in the game shows that the devs have done their research.

23d ago 0 agree5 disagreeView comment

56,000, and 400,000 aren't small numbers.

23d ago 1 agree7 disagreeView comment

there were women manning the anti-aircraft cannons. also, there's at least one female russian sniper....

"56,000 women were in Anti-Aircraft Command, most in units close to London where there was a risk of getting killed, but no risk of getting captured by the enemy.[7][9] The first "kill" came in April 1942."

"Roza Shanina, a Soviet sniper during World War II, credited with 54 confirmed target hits. About 400,000 Soviet wome...

23d ago 2 agree5 disagreeView comment

You should probably read up a bit on WWII history before opening your mouth. There's nothing about the inclusion of African Americans or women in this game that has anything to do with SJWs "trying to ruin gaming" when it actually happened. The devs are painting a more historically-accurate picture by doing this.

23d ago 2 agree4 disagreeView comment

"Although there weren't any female soldiers or many people of ethnic minority it safe to say..."

there were women, and ethnic minorities involved in WWII.

23d ago 3 agree2 disagreeView comment