🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 13, 10:18 am, Folk <F...@folk.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:15:54 -0800 (PST), GTD <toob...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >One simple gimmick does not make an assault map.
>
> >It's that simple. Maybe you've never played assault, , but assault was
> >a series (key word there, "SERIES") of sucessive goals, and totally
> >one-directional gameplay. You take a goal, and it's taken, period,
> >there is no losing it, there is no re-gaining it by the defending
> >team. Yes, the gimmicks in Warfare are similar to those in assault,
> >and that does not in my opionon as the assault "element" any more than
> >saying that UT is just like Zork, because in either game you can pick
> >up weapons, kill, and die. You are trying to make this about the
> >individual 'gimmicks' (In warfare, they are just that, GIMMICKS, in
> >assault they are GOALS, can you appreciate the difference?) and that
> >was not the point of my post. You're simply trying to set up a straw-
> >man arguement.
>
> First off, I was addressing your statement:
>
> "IMO, it's like a dumbed-down version of ONS. I've yet to see any of
> the "assault" element, "
>
> And so I pointed out several "assault elements" to you.  I never
> claimed, (and Epic never claimed) that Warfare = Assault.  You're
> reading a lot of stuff into my posts that aren't there.  I asked you
> what you considered to be Assault elements and after several false
> starts (and lot's of unnecessary lip)
Who is the smart-ass that started with the "You're not paying
attention"? Sorry, but you're coming off like a punk. If you don't
like my "Lip", then deal with it. Do you know how to use a killfilter?
What a baby. . .
My point stands, that those stupid little gimmicks you pointed out add
absolutely no real asssault quality to the game. You're ignoring the
fact that assault was left out, and when asked about it, Epic
immediately mentioned Warfare. Warfare replaced assault and ONS.

> you finally answered the
> question in the post above, although I'm pretty sure there were
> Assault maps where you could lose territory that was previously
> gained.  There are Assault maps where you press a lever or button to
> lower a drawbridge.  There are Warfare maps where you build a node to
> open a bridge.  Why do you call one a "gimmick" and the other a
> "goal"?
FFS I can't believe you're still not getting it: Goal = an objective
of the game. Gimmick = something added to the game that really isn't
required. Need I point you to a dictionary?


>
> And if Warfare = all the elements from ONS plus additional elements
> from Assault, then how can it be "dumbed down"?  Something + something
> else generally equals more than the original, not less.
Are you serious? You don't think the ADDED arrows and such dumb it
down? You don't think the less-open maps, maps that direct you
straight to the goals dumb it down? The whole orb crap dumbs it down
IMO. The whole hoverboard thing makes it a joke IMO. Don't like my
opinions, then I suggest you not read my posts, since it seems you
have a hard time handling my opinion.

I'm convinced you're just a baby that can't handle another person's
opion when it differes from yours. You've arlready proved that you
can't take an honest position in a debate, and have to rely on
snipping apart and mis-representing what others post to try and get
your point across. Someone asked "how is warfare", and I gave my
opinion, don't like it, deal with it you big baby.