Really Stupid Things You've Heard/Read Someone Say

[Matt King]

On this very site I read a comment that said "If I insulted The Queen in London every bobby in a 20 mile radius would come after me".

Let's test that out. Fuck the Queen of England

Come at me, bros.

hello my friend, i would like to introduce my favourite servant of the British empire and more specifically the queen

 

[Matt King]

I once heard a person ask if a brown holstein cow gave chocolate milk. I wanted to strangle her for being that dumb. COWS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

god but imagine if they did,
fuck jetpacks, fuck curing cancer, fuck mars
all i want is a cow that makes chocolate milk (or icecream)

 

[triggrhappy94]

While I was on staff for my school newspaper, the only openly conservative in a class of mostly liberal or liberally minded people wrote an editorial about how opposing the death penalty and protesting in general makes the country weak. And that during the Cold War, Russia laughted at the US for the allowing the Vietnam protests. The article was littered with enough errors to even make Faux News blush. I was going to write a responce in the next issue but decided against it; he was only a sophomore and I was graduating, not to mention I didn't feel like arguing with someone who has the political opinions of Steven Colbert minus any form of satire.

 

[solemnwar]

That's not how it works at all, and it will never work like that.

"Disarming the innocent does not protect the innocent". Or as I like to say, "DUH!"

Except that it does work like in many other countries, criminals are mostly disorganised and to get hold of a weapon with sufficient control and enforcement you have to be very well organised. And, you know what unless in your society is carrying around a handgun at all times, it's more likely that the attacker is going to be the one armed. You stand a much better chance of getting away from someone with a knife than a gun.

I understand that the US is perhaps too far down the rabbit hole for an immediate ban on guns to be effective but phasing them out over a long period of time could work.

There's a little less gun crime in places like here in Britain, but there's plenty of knife crime to make up for that.

I'd much prefer a situation where everyone is encouraged to have carry guns, with an amount of mandatory shooting, safety and situational training. A prospective criminal would think twice, because chances are every target is armed. People say that would just cause more death overall, but that's not necessarily true. If it's the common knowledge that everyone around you can protect themselves, it makes crime as a whole far, far less inviting and over time, there's a good chance it could lower hugely.

Plus I've always held the view that once someone (e.g. a mugger or rapist) puts someone else's base human rights secondary to their own personal wants, they sacrifice priority for their own rights. Fair is fair, after all.

And I have had many conversations with people who, if it weren't for carry weapons, wouldn't be able to safely go out alone at night. One of whom is an escapist here I won't mention because it would probably be quite rude to randomly throw her into this.

With or without weapons, people will find ways to at least have the ability to kill each other. Hell, I know how to kill someone with a damn newspaper. With that in mind, I much prefer a world where your bogstandard guy can protect himself.

The flipside to this being that "crimes of passion" ("in the heat of the moment" type things) are much more likely to occur, since if you have that gun on hand with you, much easier to shoot that cheating wife or that asshole who cut you off.

But not really the type of thing to be discussed on a "lol people are stupid..." thread

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

That's not how it works at all, and it will never work like that.

"Disarming the innocent does not protect the innocent". Or as I like to say, "DUH!"

Except that it does work like in many other countries, criminals are mostly disorganised and to get hold of a weapon with sufficient control and enforcement you have to be very well organised. And, you know what unless in your society is carrying around a handgun at all times, it's more likely that the attacker is going to be the one armed. You stand a much better chance of getting away from someone with a knife than a gun.

I understand that the US is perhaps too far down the rabbit hole for an immediate ban on guns to be effective but phasing them out over a long period of time could work.

There's a little less gun crime in places like here in Britain, but there's plenty of knife crime to make up for that.

I'd much prefer a situation where everyone is encouraged to have carry guns, with an amount of mandatory shooting, safety and situational training. A prospective criminal would think twice, because chances are every target is armed. People say that would just cause more death overall, but that's not necessarily true. If it's the common knowledge that everyone around you can protect themselves, it makes crime as a whole far, far less inviting and over time, there's a good chance it could lower hugely.

Plus I've always held the view that once someone (e.g. a mugger or rapist) puts someone else's base human rights secondary to their own personal wants, they sacrifice priority for their own rights. Fair is fair, after all.

And I have had many conversations with people who, if it weren't for carry weapons, wouldn't be able to safely go out alone at night. One of whom is an escapist here I won't mention because it would probably be quite rude to randomly throw her into this.

With or without weapons, people will find ways to at least have the ability to kill each other. Hell, I know how to kill someone with a damn newspaper. With that in mind, I much prefer a world where your bogstandard guy can protect himself.

The flipside to this being that "crimes of passion" ("in the heat of the moment" type things) are much more likely to occur, since if you have that gun on hand with you, much easier to shoot that cheating wife or that asshole who cut you off.

But not really the type of thing to be discussed on a "lol people are stupid..." thread

But on the other hand, if you really want to kill your cheating wife, plenty of knives in the kitchen drawer, ya know?

 

[solemnwar]

But on the other hand, if you really want to kill your cheating wife, plenty of knives in the kitchen drawer, ya know?

... men? IN THE KITCHEN? Oh you~ =D
[sub]Oh god I need more sleep.[/sub]

 

[The Funslinger]

That's not how it works at all, and it will never work like that.

"Disarming the innocent does not protect the innocent". Or as I like to say, "DUH!"

Except that it does work like in many other countries, criminals are mostly disorganised and to get hold of a weapon with sufficient control and enforcement you have to be very well organised. And, you know what unless in your society is carrying around a handgun at all times, it's more likely that the attacker is going to be the one armed. You stand a much better chance of getting away from someone with a knife than a gun.

I understand that the US is perhaps too far down the rabbit hole for an immediate ban on guns to be effective but phasing them out over a long period of time could work.

There's a little less gun crime in places like here in Britain, but there's plenty of knife crime to make up for that.

I'd much prefer a situation where everyone is encouraged to have carry guns, with an amount of mandatory shooting, safety and situational training. A prospective criminal would think twice, because chances are every target is armed. People say that would just cause more death overall, but that's not necessarily true. If it's the common knowledge that everyone around you can protect themselves, it makes crime as a whole far, far less inviting and over time, there's a good chance it could lower hugely.

Plus I've always held the view that once someone (e.g. a mugger or rapist) puts someone else's base human rights secondary to their own personal wants, they sacrifice priority for their own rights. Fair is fair, after all.

And I have had many conversations with people who, if it weren't for carry weapons, wouldn't be able to safely go out alone at night. One of whom is an escapist here I won't mention because it would probably be quite rude to randomly throw her into this.

With or without weapons, people will find ways to at least have the ability to kill each other. Hell, I know how to kill someone with a damn newspaper. With that in mind, I much prefer a world where your bogstandard guy can protect himself.

The flipside to this being that "crimes of passion" ("in the heat of the moment" type things) are much more likely to occur, since if you have that gun on hand with you, much easier to shoot that cheating wife or that asshole who cut you off.

But not really the type of thing to be discussed on a "lol people are stupid..." thread

No, to be fair, I was hesitant to get into "that" discussion again.

A closing statement however, even with means, crimes of passion are a rarity, and those with an actual inclination to commit them are people I wouldn't mind locking in a small room with a creepy butch cellmate for a few years.

A salute for those lost revealing how batshit up the wall crazy some people are.

They did their duty.

 

[Dr. Mongo]

Those "I will never buy X because Group Y likes it"-Posts.
Perfect example right in this thread:

"Amnesia is a great horror game, (which is an indie game!)" <-----I knew it was that, and I don't say its bad but I'm not buying the game because it has too many protentious followers.

If you do like something you should give a shit about other people's opinions, dude.

 

[Terminate421]

Also:

"All first person shooters are the same, the ending to Halo reach is just hold the shooty button till you win"

Which is ironic, as you're supposed to lose in the ending to Reach.

Also:

"Fallout 3 was a bad game because it was made by Bethesda"

I...think that might've been me >_>

The guy who said that "Played Combat Evolved and some of Halo 2 so he knew that the games that followed were the EXACT SAME just like every other shooter, with the exception of Half-life because it "revolutionized" every single game ever made."

I shit you not thats what the guy said.

 

[Terminate421]

Those "I will never buy X because Group Y likes it"-Posts.
Perfect example right in this thread:

"Amnesia is a great horror game, (which is an indie game!)" <-----I knew it was that, and I don't say its bad but I'm not buying the game because it has too many protentious followers.

If you do like something you should give a shit about other people's opinions, dude.

Thats not my reason at all.

I'm not buying the game simply because I feel its overrated. I played it at a friends house and while it was good, it was, in my opinion not worth my money beyond that.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Also:

"All first person shooters are the same, the ending to Halo reach is just hold the shooty button till you win"

Which is ironic, as you're supposed to lose in the ending to Reach.

Also:

"Fallout 3 was a bad game because it was made by Bethesda"

I...think that might've been me >_>

The guy who said that "Played Combat Evolved and some of Halo 2 so he knew that the games that followed were the EXACT SAME just like every other shooter, with the exception of Half-life because it "revolutionized" every single game ever made."

I shit you not thats what the guy said.

There is so much wrong in that quote, I don't even know where to start.

 

[Alcamonic]

Quite recently on Swedish television we had a professional psychologist claiming that psychopaths are not dangers while they are at sleep.
Mind blowing information, I know! I HAD NO IDEA!

 

[spartan231490]

I think the best was when a friend and i went to McDonalds and she helped me when I almost dropped my drink. I said: "you are a gentle person and a scholar." She turned to me, completely 100% serious and says: "What's a scholar?" I was literally frozen in shock. I stopped walking, and just stared at her. I have witnesses.

Thats not how gun crimes work simply.

By taking away guns from common citizens, CRIMINALS will not be as afraid to use their guns because they know the common citizen they feel like robbing/raping/killing will not be able to equal the playing field (using a gun) without it being illegal.

Too many factors including Police Response time, location, culture, user, and just over all situation make it impossible to say "Just take them away" (I don't even want to have that right taken away)

Besides, one of Americas founding ideas was to have the right to own a fire arm, it'd be a shit idea to take that idea away because of technological advances.

I take it its pretty easy to get guns in America?

I don't know...in Australia we have stricter gun laws and its not exactally mad max over here

Well its not walk in and buy it like a coke-a-cola.

There are age restrictions, like when you're 21 you can own a handgun. Then there is the whole state laws of what KIND of guns you can have. (No Sawed-offs no silencers). Then there is the whole being able to afford it, then lastly is all the paper work that says the gun you bought is specifically yours. That way, if something happens and they find your gun, it can be traced back to you etc.

Though, you don't see many people having something complex, most people in the U.S. just have something like a family revolver/pistol or a hunting rifle or shotgun. Assault rifles are found but Automatics (That are not made in the US) are outlawed.

Silencers and fully automatic weapons aren't banned, they are restricted at the federal level, not the state level. "Assault weapons"(don't even get me started on how little these weapons resemble assault rifles) are banned by several states, but no longer restricted at the federal level, and handgun laws are different for virtually every state. Also, most states don't require registration of rifles.

Ok, on to the argument itself, some of the nations in Europe with the highest rates of gun ownership, like finland and switzerland, have some of the lowest rates of gun crime and violent crime in Europe. Gun crime has a lot more to do with culture than it has to do with legislation.

Finally, the US actually has a lot stricter gun control than most people from outside the US, or even from the US but who don't own guns realize. Switzerland is often regarded as having strict handgun laws, but the significant majority of states have laws that are as strict or more strict.

In fact, you can't even buy a rifle or a shotgun the US without being 18 and having a background check. The vast vast majority of gun crime in the US is perpetrated by people who own the firearms illegally.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

OT: Let's see...I won't post the highschool newspaper article that I've posted twice already. People have seen it, know about it, so let's move on.

Sweet Jesus pixie sticks, that was tough to read. A jewel for sure, but in all the wrong ways.

OT: I'm a fan of this one;

Spoiler

...but that's more on her presentation and pronunciation than what she actually says; because she's reading the god damned thing verbatim off Blizzards website!

During a college literature class the teacher asked random students to read certain passages from various articles allowed in class. One of those exersizes designed to insure we're all paying attention, etc. So a few students read some passages and everything was going swimmingly, eventually the teacher calls on me and I start rambling off whatever section was next. I shit you not, I had several people gasp and one person blurt out; "whoa, slow down there buddy, you're reading too fast." A college literature class, FFS.

And of course, posted before, the Rainbow conspiracy...

Spoiler

Too many, done for now.

 

[ProZack]

There was this one girl in my chemistry class (high school), and holding an alcohol thermometer, she asked "How do restart this?"

Naturally, I slammed my head against my desk. This girl always says stuff that makes me lose more and more faith in humanity.

 

[Terminate421]

Also:

"All first person shooters are the same, the ending to Halo reach is just hold the shooty button till you win"

Which is ironic, as you're supposed to lose in the ending to Reach.

Also:

"Fallout 3 was a bad game because it was made by Bethesda"

I...think that might've been me >_>

The guy who said that "Played Combat Evolved and some of Halo 2 so he knew that the games that followed were the EXACT SAME just like every other shooter, with the exception of Half-life because it "revolutionized" every single game ever made."

I shit you not thats what the guy said.

There is so much wrong in that quote, I don't even know where to start.

Me and three other people were literally telling him why he was wrong, here's exact quotes

Spoiler

Yes I have, I played Halo 1 and 2, ya know, when the series was not only fresh, but made by the people who INVENTED IT.

When developers change hands over a game, that doesn't mean its a bad thing. Halo 3 and Reach were made by Bungie too.

I really don't care what the plot of Halo 3 and Reach are, I'm pretty sure it goes something like: The covenant are attacking, shoot them till you win.

Wrong, you're wrong. All wrong. There is no words to describe how wrong you are. Your arguments are pretty much not valid at this point. Ask anyone, even fucking Yahtzee and they'll tell you that you are wrong.

As I told someone else who quoted me...new weapons, vehicles, enemies, theater mode...whatever, 3 months development per game. The game engine never changed, so its just adding on to what already exists and changing things around. You take a game with a bunch of weapons, how hard is it to make a new weapon? Make a gun model, make gun model shoot something...wow, that takes a couple guys maybe a week? Please, its not impressive to ADD on to something that already exists, its easy as hell.

Really? Maybe you should listen to ertheking more. In all honesty, do so because he and I agree on many things involving Halo, why? Because we are right.

3 months to develop something? You have no idea what you are talking about. At this point your arguments are not only invalid but just flat out wrong. Seriously, an opinion is one thing but saying it like that is just wrong.

At least HL2 did something new when it came out, it had (at the time) revolutionary in game physics.

Is that all it did? Because than it makes it sound rather generic about its shooting aspects. Its physics may be important for development now, but if thats all its riding on, then Halo should be revolutionary for everything else it brought to the table. Such as its own MAP EDITOR, THEATER MODE, and NEARLY LIMITLESS CUSTOMIZATION OF GAMETYPES all in one title (Halo 3).

What has Halo done to push the genre? I know the answer, its regenerating health, Halo was one of the first to do it...everyone copies it now of course...otherwise, its a generic shooter, always has been. Decent story I guess, good VO...but a generic shooter.

Ah yes, the "Generic shooter with regenerating health"

This is also a wrong argument because you haven't played Reach. Reach brought in a new health system, shields but with health that DOESN'T FUCKING REGENERATE.
Regeneration is just a new thing, Halo brought new things to its own table, I'm not saying each Halo game is revolutionary, I have been saying that Halo brings new things each game that make it different enough from the last to warrant it as a worthy sequel.

Also, generic shooter?

Every Halo hater has used that exact words right there, and you know what? They've all been wrong. Name one other shooter that plays like Halo....Oh wait, there is NONE.

If you say "Well, Call of Duty has regenerating Health so that means it plays EXACTLY like Halo", thats just wrong. Watching an online video of the game does not make your opinion valid. Come back and argue with me about then when you have actually played it.

Mechanics can be the same in more than two games, does that make the either game generic? No. Halo has similar aspects to its previous games but adds enough things to make it a sequel which makes it its OWN NEW GAME.

I could pick up Halo: Combat Evolved and immediatly tell that it plays differently to

Your argument has been "Oh, every Halo game is the same, regenerating health with two weapons that is a massive borefest because I am right"

If you don't like Halo, fine. That's your opinion. But when you say stuff about Halo that is wrong. You're wrong and the opinion becomes invalid, simple as that.

All this for a game where you put a + on a target and pull the trigger, basically EVERY shooter plays the same. HALO is barely different than Duke Nukem 3D. HALO is a generic shooter, thats all its really ever been, minus 1 innovation in the genre, which was regen health (which can be argued to be a negative at that).

Everything else is moot.

Also, reported for excess image use.

Spoiler

The point of images are to help get a point across, the way I see it, mission accomplished. All shooters are put x on target and pull the trigger. Technically true, but you know what else is technically true? All video games are is simply pushing buttons to change the colors of the screen, technically true. It's not really that great of an argument, but technically it's true. Oh, also in Halo you use gunships, tanks, jeeps grenades and swords. It's more than "put x on target" a gross oversimplification if I ever saw one. In that case, Arkum asylum is just running around beating up thugs, Red Dead Redemption is just riding around shooting people in the face, RTSs are only about blowing up everything and waiting patiently for it and Portal is just moving from point a to point b. See, I can oversimplify things too. 1 innovation? Uh, what about the new

1. weapons
2. enemies
3. in game vehicles (seriously, name a game that has a campaign that lets you seamlessly switch from first person shooting to vehicles so well, I doubt you'll come up with many)
4. forge mode
5. custom games
6. theater mode
7. space combat
8. armor abilities
9. firefight
10. Spartan Ops
11. Invasion game mode

Also, I'm really getting the impression that you actually haven't played Halo 3 and Reach, making your rather unqualified to criticize a series on account of not being informed to what you are debating. Seriously I'm really getting the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.

Everything else is moot= I don't want to defend my position but I want to make it look like I outsmarted you without actually doing anything.

/Sigh

I really didn't want to get involved in this forum again.

Innovation =/= new guns
Innovation =/= new enemies

I have played Halo 1, 2 and most 3.

Halo was a good game, Halo 2 I really enjoyed. Halo 3 got soooo boring.

Halo is enjoyed not for its single-player aspect, but it's multiplayer.

Forge mode, innovative for Xbox, but I seem to recall that LittleBigPlanet had a level editor as well.

Theater Mode? I think it's called youtube.

Space combat? I doubt it is anything more than a railshooter. The last great space combat game I played was Freelancer.

Armor abilities? I'll give you that... It's not like any other game allows you to change your loadout to change your playstyle.

Never played firefight, but I theorize it to be either team deathmatch or the one where you get points that increase/decrease as you kill opponents.

Spartan Ops, again never player it

Invasion game mode? I would guess its 'Horde' mode.

There are people out there who think Halo is one of the greatest games ever made. I have no problem with that. There are people out there who enjoyed the Twilight series, I have no problem with that either.

I do have a problem with people who are so arrogant in their opinion to be right, that they have to write detailed reason as to why people are wrong.

While I may seem like I am doing this now, that is not my intent. And I, like other people on this site, would find your absurdly arrogant ending paragraph to be as smug as Nathan Drake in Uncharted 3, the highly-acclaimed on the PS3 I despise despite enjoying the other two games on the PS3 (probably not a shared view).

(The arguer that All FPS's are the same/halo hater has his name changed to "thewrongguy"

 

[ProZack]

And of course, posted before, the Rainbow conspiracy...

Spoiler

Too many, done for now.

Dear...dear god...are there actually people -- you know what, never mind. There's probably a lot of people like this. I'm starting to wonder if I'm actually pretty smart, or if I'm just surrounded by morons.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Also:

"All first person shooters are the same, the ending to Halo reach is just hold the shooty button till you win"

Which is ironic, as you're supposed to lose in the ending to Reach.

Also:

"Fallout 3 was a bad game because it was made by Bethesda"

I...think that might've been me >_>

The guy who said that "Played Combat Evolved and some of Halo 2 so he knew that the games that followed were the EXACT SAME just like every other shooter, with the exception of Half-life because it "revolutionized" every single game ever made."

I shit you not thats what the guy said.

There is so much wrong in that quote, I don't even know where to start.

Me and three other people were literally telling him why he was wrong, here's exact quotes

Spoiler

Yes I have, I played Halo 1 and 2, ya know, when the series was not only fresh, but made by the people who INVENTED IT.

When developers change hands over a game, that doesn't mean its a bad thing. Halo 3 and Reach were made by Bungie too.

I really don't care what the plot of Halo 3 and Reach are, I'm pretty sure it goes something like: The covenant are attacking, shoot them till you win.

Wrong, you're wrong. All wrong. There is no words to describe how wrong you are. Your arguments are pretty much not valid at this point. Ask anyone, even fucking Yahtzee and they'll tell you that you are wrong.

As I told someone else who quoted me...new weapons, vehicles, enemies, theater mode...whatever, 3 months development per game. The game engine never changed, so its just adding on to what already exists and changing things around. You take a game with a bunch of weapons, how hard is it to make a new weapon? Make a gun model, make gun model shoot something...wow, that takes a couple guys maybe a week? Please, its not impressive to ADD on to something that already exists, its easy as hell.

Really? Maybe you should listen to ertheking more. In all honesty, do so because he and I agree on many things involving Halo, why? Because we are right.

3 months to develop something? You have no idea what you are talking about. At this point your arguments are not only invalid but just flat out wrong. Seriously, an opinion is one thing but saying it like that is just wrong.

At least HL2 did something new when it came out, it had (at the time) revolutionary in game physics.

Is that all it did? Because than it makes it sound rather generic about its shooting aspects. Its physics may be important for development now, but if thats all its riding on, then Halo should be revolutionary for everything else it brought to the table. Such as its own MAP EDITOR, THEATER MODE, and NEARLY LIMITLESS CUSTOMIZATION OF GAMETYPES all in one title (Halo 3).

What has Halo done to push the genre? I know the answer, its regenerating health, Halo was one of the first to do it...everyone copies it now of course...otherwise, its a generic shooter, always has been. Decent story I guess, good VO...but a generic shooter.

Ah yes, the "Generic shooter with regenerating health"

This is also a wrong argument because you haven't played Reach. Reach brought in a new health system, shields but with health that DOESN'T FUCKING REGENERATE.
Regeneration is just a new thing, Halo brought new things to its own table, I'm not saying each Halo game is revolutionary, I have been saying that Halo brings new things each game that make it different enough from the last to warrant it as a worthy sequel.

Also, generic shooter?

Every Halo hater has used that exact words right there, and you know what? They've all been wrong. Name one other shooter that plays like Halo....Oh wait, there is NONE.

If you say "Well, Call of Duty has regenerating Health so that means it plays EXACTLY like Halo", thats just wrong. Watching an online video of the game does not make your opinion valid. Come back and argue with me about then when you have actually played it.

Mechanics can be the same in more than two games, does that make the either game generic? No. Halo has similar aspects to its previous games but adds enough things to make it a sequel which makes it its OWN NEW GAME.

I could pick up Halo: Combat Evolved and immediatly tell that it plays differently to

Your argument has been "Oh, every Halo game is the same, regenerating health with two weapons that is a massive borefest because I am right"

If you don't like Halo, fine. That's your opinion. But when you say stuff about Halo that is wrong. You're wrong and the opinion becomes invalid, simple as that.

All this for a game where you put a + on a target and pull the trigger, basically EVERY shooter plays the same. HALO is barely different than Duke Nukem 3D. HALO is a generic shooter, thats all its really ever been, minus 1 innovation in the genre, which was regen health (which can be argued to be a negative at that).

Everything else is moot.

Also, reported for excess image use.

Spoiler

The point of images are to help get a point across, the way I see it, mission accomplished. All shooters are put x on target and pull the trigger. Technically true, but you know what else is technically true? All video games are is simply pushing buttons to change the colors of the screen, technically true. It's not really that great of an argument, but technically it's true. Oh, also in Halo you use gunships, tanks, jeeps grenades and swords. It's more than "put x on target" a gross oversimplification if I ever saw one. In that case, Arkum asylum is just running around beating up thugs, Red Dead Redemption is just riding around shooting people in the face, RTSs are only about blowing up everything and waiting patiently for it and Portal is just moving from point a to point b. See, I can oversimplify things too. 1 innovation? Uh, what about the new

1. weapons
2. enemies
3. in game vehicles (seriously, name a game that has a campaign that lets you seamlessly switch from first person shooting to vehicles so well, I doubt you'll come up with many)
4. forge mode
5. custom games
6. theater mode
7. space combat
8. armor abilities
9. firefight
10. Spartan Ops
11. Invasion game mode

Also, I'm really getting the impression that you actually haven't played Halo 3 and Reach, making your rather unqualified to criticize a series on account of not being informed to what you are debating. Seriously I'm really getting the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.

Everything else is moot= I don't want to defend my position but I want to make it look like I outsmarted you without actually doing anything.

/Sigh

I really didn't want to get involved in this forum again.

Innovation =/= new guns
Innovation =/= new enemies

I have played Halo 1, 2 and most 3.

Halo was a good game, Halo 2 I really enjoyed. Halo 3 got soooo boring.

Halo is enjoyed not for its single-player aspect, but it's multiplayer.

Forge mode, innovative for Xbox, but I seem to recall that LittleBigPlanet had a level editor as well.

Theater Mode? I think it's called youtube.

Space combat? I doubt it is anything more than a railshooter. The last great space combat game I played was Freelancer.

Armor abilities? I'll give you that... It's not like any other game allows you to change your loadout to change your playstyle.

Never played firefight, but I theorize it to be either team deathmatch or the one where you get points that increase/decrease as you kill opponents.

Spartan Ops, again never player it

Invasion game mode? I would guess its 'Horde' mode.

There are people out there who think Halo is one of the greatest games ever made. I have no problem with that. There are people out there who enjoyed the Twilight series, I have no problem with that either.

I do have a problem with people who are so arrogant in their opinion to be right, that they have to write detailed reason as to why people are wrong.

While I may seem like I am doing this now, that is not my intent. And I, like other people on this site, would find your absurdly arrogant ending paragraph to be as smug as Nathan Drake in Uncharted 3, the highly-acclaimed on the PS3 I despise despite enjoying the other two games on the PS3 (probably not a shared view).

I actually disagree with the first guy, in that I think Halo is a really well-made shooter. But saying it's the same as every shooter is like saying every WRPG is like Skyrim.

And of course, posted before, the Rainbow conspiracy...

Spoiler

Too many, done for now.

Dear...dear god...are there actually people -- you know what, never mind. There's probably a lot of people like this. I'm starting to wonder if I'm actually pretty smart, or if I'm just surrounded by morons.

The answer to that wonder is: yes.

 

[Terminate421]

[snip.

Exactly why I think its one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard

Also I tried changing their names to try to not get them involved in this.

 

[uneek]

"One Direction's just like the Beatles, only better!"

One Direction is a group of musicians that revolutionized rock and roll and experimented constantly? Interesting.

"Romeo and Juliet is stupid! Why don't we read Twilight?"

Because it's a literature class?