DICE: "We Aren't Stupid"

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

But those games aside, its hard to take you seriously TC. It sounds like nothing but denial, trying to insult consoles that are stillkeeping up to medium settings standards after 6 years, something pretty much no PC is capable of. Try getting a 2005 PC to play BF3 on any setting, consoles can do it. I think this speaks volumes about how scared PC gamers are that they have to quote one guy from one (aminly PC) developer saying one thing in the face of other proof and games that have been made.

Seriously, if that's the issue then I guess you should throw out the quote where DICE says "we could have, but it was a bandwidth issue". Its just something to stroke the ego of Elitists would want to feel like their system will always be superior.

Sometimes, I hate being a PC gamer, if only because I don't want to be stereotyped like this.

SPYDER0416

Do you post on the EA forums?

I've seen this argument so many times, thank you for making it again.

It's not old hardware, its MS/Sony imposed 'bandwidth' limitations. Counter-intuitive? Yes. Consistently made as an argument? Yes.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

But those games aside, its hard to take you seriously TC. It sounds like nothing but denial, trying to insult consoles that are stillkeeping up to medium settings standards after 6 years, something pretty much no PC is capable of. Try getting a 2005 PC to play BF3 on any setting, consoles can do it. I think this speaks volumes about how scared PC gamers are that they have to quote one guy from one (aminly PC) developer saying one thing in the face of other proof and games that have been made.

Seriously, if that's the issue then I guess you should throw out the quote where DICE says "we could have, but it was a bandwidth issue". Its just something to stroke the ego of Elitists would want to feel like their system will always be superior.

Sometimes, I hate being a PC gamer, if only because I don't want to be stereotyped like this.

Wasdie

MAG and Frontlines had horrible graphics and effects. It was obvious massive cuts had to be made to make those games work with more than 24 players. BF3 has much better graphics, much better effects, and fully destructible environments all mixed in with more complex gaming mechanics.

Well yeah, but that's what I'm getting at. Its certainly possible to have vehicles and destruction, and I think that DICE could have pulled it off even if it had to be on low settings with 8 less players. They say they'd have to remove vehicles and features, but right now I think the only big thing that could have been removed was the graphical quality.

Besides that, I also remember them mentioning bandwidth and if that wasn't the problem, and another where they say it was because console gamers didn't ask for it.

I don't want them jerking me around. I'm getting the PC version, but still, it seems like they're either making some excuses to not up it even a littlebit. At this point they're blaming bandwidth limits Sony and MS have, hardware capabilities, and what the gamers asked for. Its not ONE thing they're telling me is the issue and I hate when a developer has to jerk me, the consumer, around like that and say a bunch of different things.

Again, I do plan on getting the PC version (gotta break in that 580 of course), but I lose a little faith in DICE when they can't even have faith in themselves for one reasoning.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

But those games aside, its hard to take you seriously TC. It sounds like nothing but denial, trying to insult consoles that are stillkeeping up to medium settings standards after 6 years, something pretty much no PC is capable of. Try getting a 2005 PC to play BF3 on any setting, consoles can do it. I think this speaks volumes about how scared PC gamers are that they have to quote one guy from one (aminly PC) developer saying one thing in the face of other proof and games that have been made.

Seriously, if that's the issue then I guess you should throw out the quote where DICE says "we could have, but it was a bandwidth issue". Its just something to stroke the ego of Elitists would want to feel like their system will always be superior.

Sometimes, I hate being a PC gamer, if only because I don't want to be stereotyped like this.

SPYDER0416

MAG and Frontlines had horrible graphics and effects. It was obvious massive cuts had to be made to make those games work with more than 24 players. BF3 has much better graphics, much better effects, and fully destructible environments all mixed in with more complex gaming mechanics.

Well yeah, but that's what I'm getting at. Its certainly possible to have vehicles and destruction, and I think that DICE could have pulled it off even if it had to be on low settings with 8 less players. They say they'd have to remove vehicles and features, but right now I think the only big thing that could have been removed was the graphical quality.

Besides that, I also remember them mentioning bandwidth and if that wasn't the problem, and another where they say it was because console gamers didn't ask for it.

I don't want them jerking me around. I'm getting the PC version, but still, it seems like they're either making some excuses to not up it even a littlebit. At this point they're blaming bandwidth limits Sony and MS have, hardware capabilities, and what the gamers asked for. Its not ONE thing they're telling me is the issue and I hate when a developer has to jerk me, the consumer, around like that and say a bunch of different things.

Again, I do plan on getting the PC version (gotta break in that 580 of course), but I lose a little faith in DICE when they can't even have faith in themselves for one reasoning.

Graphics alone aren't enough. If you don't have the ram, you can't be adding in extra geometries and objects. Take away the vehicles and destruction and you get a something resembling Medal of Honor, Call of Duty would easily crush that.

The destruction and the vehicles are what sets BF3 apart from the competition. You're basically saying they need to modify the gameplay in order to get 8 more players into the game. That's not how you approach something like this.

They aren't jerking around. There are both hardware limitations and bandwidth caps they are having to work with. A console with 512 mbs of ram is not going to do 32 players with full destruction and vehicles over a network while having modern graphics and running at 720p and 30fps. Just not happening.

To be honest i've found a lot of console and pc gamers here like to talk about hardware and software like they actually understand it. Just because they found a few pages on the internet which is essentially the babies translation of what is going on.

Goes for PC gamers as well, just because they've learnt how to plug some components together, people think they have a deep understanding of the technology, when in fact those people have learnt (to a competent level) what developers have made as easy as they can for them to understand.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

MAG and Frontlines had horrible graphics and effects. It was obvious massive cuts had to be made to make those games work with more than 24 players. BF3 has much better graphics, much better effects, and fully destructible environments all mixed in with more complex gaming mechanics.

Wasdie

Well yeah, but that's what I'm getting at. Its certainly possible to have vehicles and destruction, and I think that DICE could have pulled it off even if it had to be on low settings with 8 less players. They say they'd have to remove vehicles and features, but right now I think the only big thing that could have been removed was the graphical quality.

Besides that, I also remember them mentioning bandwidth and if that wasn't the problem, and another where they say it was because console gamers didn't ask for it.

I don't want them jerking me around. I'm getting the PC version, but still, it seems like they're either making some excuses to not up it even a littlebit. At this point they're blaming bandwidth limits Sony and MS have, hardware capabilities, and what the gamers asked for. Its not ONE thing they're telling me is the issue and I hate when a developer has to jerk me, the consumer, around like that and say a bunch of different things.

Again, I do plan on getting the PC version (gotta break in that 580 of course), but I lose a little faith in DICE when they can't even have faith in themselves for one reasoning.

Graphics alone aren't enough. If you don't have the ram, you can't be adding in extra geometries and objects. Take away the vehicles and destruction and you get a something resembling Medal of Honor, Call of Duty would easily crush that.

The destruction and the vehicles are what sets BF3 apart from the competition. You're basically saying they need to modify the gameplay in order to get 8 more players into the game. That's not how you approach something like this.

They aren't jerking around. There are both hardware limitations and bandwidth caps they are having to work with. A console with 512 mbs of ram is not going to do 32 players with full destruction and vehicles over a network while having modern graphics and running at 720p and 30fps. Just not happening.

Well, I guess. I don't know a whole lot about PC hardware (built my first PC very recently), but I do feel like its not allthat, and I do think DICE could have gotten a little more juice when the E3 console footage looks so great, along with the arguments against that everyone else presents. I also feel like DICE might be just a tinybit PC community, to put it lightly.

I don't want to sound like a stubborn apologist, especially to someone around here who actually seems relatively unbiased here and knowing what they're talking about, but I just really think its not ALL about graphics when mentions of "what fans have asked" come into play or when footage looks great already or other games pull off more, and really 32 players seems like getting off great compared to the PC's 64, when in reality its still 24 players for consoles which seems WAY too small considering how well consoles have kept up compared to past generations where they were old before the year's end in comparison.

How is LoL similar to BF or CoD, besides competitive MP?

ROFLCOPTER603

You can't choose whatever you please or else your team will fail in a harsh, brutal way? Just like you can't choose whatever rifle you want to use in mp?

Also, CoD competitive MP? What the :| ?

[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Nothing worse than playing BC2, and having half your team using Recon as solely ****ing snipers :x

Get in there :P

lundy86_4

I had a whole team in BC2, that was recon, and we where defending lol...well except for me and my squad, it was painful

I used smoke all over the place, so they started to turn on me -.-

it was the map at night, in the forest, where you can destroy the 2 houses where the bombs are, yet a whole team of snipers, not even 1 of them used a motor strike, and since than i've taken a long break from the game

:lol:

It's the worst. I seriously can't stand those guys :P

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

How is LoL similar to BF or CoD, besides competitive MP?

Mograine

You can't choose whatever you please or else your team will fail in a harsh, brutal way? Just like you can't choose whatever rifle you want to use in mp?

Also, CoD competitive MP? What the :| ?

Regular CoD doesn't have competitive MP. I was talking about pro-mod, which is a mod of CoD4, and a decent e-sport that in some ways resembles CS 1.6. Despite being a respected e-sport, few people know what pro-mod is, even most CoD gamers on the PC have no knowledge of it.

Huge maps + small amount of players does not = fun

[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Nothing worse than playing BC2, and having half your team using Recon as solely ****ing snipers :x

Get in there :P

Heil68

I had a whole team in BC2, that was recon, and we where defending lol...well except for me and my squad, it was painful

which is why I loved forgotten hope mod, it only allowed 1 or 2 snipers, but you had to go out to find them. I know on som servers they limited the amount of snipers per team.

I found BF2 snipers extremly hard to use, alot harder than BC2, hopefully the snipers are more like BF2, that should limit the amount of users

Huge maps + small amount of players does not = fun

-supercharged-

not really, BF2 had huge maps, but if you played enough, you could probably pin point every single unit movement, without even seeing them, because there are only so many set paths, that most people will take...plus smaller amount of players, you rank up faster

[QUOTE="Heil68"][QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]

I had a whole team in BC2, that was recon, and we where defending lol...well except for me and my squad, it was painful

gamer-adam1

which is why I loved forgotten hope mod, it only allowed 1 or 2 snipers, but you had to go out to find them. I know on som servers they limited the amount of snipers per team.

I found BF2 snipers extremly hard to use, alot harder than BC2, hopefully the snipers are more like BF2, that should limit the amount of users

The Alpha has actually gone a long way to helping the whole "sniper situation" from what I've played and seen, but with prone back all the work is kind of undone. Don't get me wrong, I love prone, but it makes snipers MUCH more plentiful, even with lens flare and reduced damage. What's even worse is that the reduced damage just seems like a BS way to nerf it back, I really think DICE should do more to make sniping useful and fun, but keep it away from having a million prone snipers that don't even care about the objectives.

I know DICE already decided against it, but having a class limit might be the best solution if they have to resort to making it near useless. It would let players try everything out and keep things balanced.

[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]

[QUOTE="Heil68"] I wish they would limit the number of each class. Those type of games you are describing are no fun. SPYDER0416

which is why I loved forgotten hope mod, it only allowed 1 or 2 snipers, but you had to go out to find them. I know on som servers they limited the amount of snipers per team.

I found BF2 snipers extremly hard to use, alot harder than BC2, hopefully the snipers are more like BF2, that should limit the amount of users

The Alpha has actually gone a long way to helping the whole "sniper situation" from what I've played and seen, but with prone back all the work is kind of undone. Don't get me wrong, I love prone, but it makes snipers MUCH more plentiful, even with lens flare and reduced damage. What's even worse is that the reduced damage just seems like a BS way to nerf it back, I really think DICE should do more to make sniping useful and fun, but keep it away from having a million prone snipers that don't even care about the objectives.

I know DICE already decided against it, but having a class limit might be the best solution if they have to resort to making it near useless. It would let players try everything out and keep things balanced.

If it's anything like BF2, people will stop playing sniper in mass and start playing. You're still on a pretty small map for Battlefield. Once you get to the larger maps, things change.

anyone ever notice who people on gs love **** riding DICE? lol I like em, but people take it to the next level here lol. Its almost like Gabe Newell works there or sumthing....II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Well, yeah. Old hardware is old.

Kan0nF0dder

To be fair, MAG says hello :P

[QUOTE="Kan0nF0dder"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Well, yeah. Old hardware is old.

WreckEm711

To be fair, MAG says hello :P

To be more fair, MAG != BF3

Comparing MAG to BF3 is a bit like comparing SMB1 to SMBGalaxy

Why not 32 players? This gen is stuck with 24players and it pisses me off... Delay the freaking game for a couple of months (ps360 version) and make it roll with 32players!silversix_

LOL. Love it.

Read the OP again. DICE explains this.

I think Metro actually has a good layout, and the maps seem to be the best strategy in keeping the classes all useful. Instead of just large maps with small indoor areas, have a bunch of small CQC areas for a support gunner to weave through, keep vehicles abundant all over for engineers too, and the medics are just great for all around thanks to the always useful reviving and assault rifles that seem to go together like cheese and burgers in making them fun to use and useful.

I just really hope they don't over nerf snipers in trying to balance them, since that's just as bad as making them too useful and having them overrepresented. Already you need 2 damn headshots to kill with a semi auto sniper, which is one more then any rifle should need. If you are out in the open and someone is skilled enough to pop your top, he deserves it. Again though, DICE really has to make some modifications from what I've seen to the prone, since right now its like being a prairie dog. Only instead of hunters, you're getting shot at by other hiding prairie dogs.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]Why not 32 players? This gen is stuck with 24players and it pisses me off... Delay the freaking game for a couple of months (ps360 version) and make it roll with 32players!ehussein1379

LOL. Love it.

Read the OP again. DICE explains this.

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

Riverwolf007

"It's not that we are evil or stupid, we did not choose not to have more players -. we would make love to 64 players on the console..."ehussein1379

Oh my, Dice... :oops:

Why not 32 players? This gen is stuck with 24players and it pisses me off... Delay the freaking game for a couple of months (ps360 version) and make it roll with 32players!silversix_

BF purists are the ones whining about it.. most players don't care for 64 players and are satisfied with 32/24 player cap.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

Lost-Memory

the only bf i ever played on pc was vietnam and 2142 and i thought bf43 was better than both of those games. (although man do i ever miss shuttling guys back and forth to the front in the huey and jamming to old rock, that's almost all i ever did in bf vietnam)

I don't really care.

24 players is enough, perfect actually.

Just another case of gaming forums being so conceited as to think they know more than a developer does. Precisely why most developers ignore forums all together. Most people in gaming forums have no idea what they're talking about.UCF_Knight

Unfortunately they have to pay attention to forums because of online mast hysteria causing distorted perceptions of their products and loss of sales.

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

But those games aside, its hard to take you seriously TC. It sounds like nothing but denial, trying to insult consoles that are stillkeeping up to medium settings standards after 6 years, something pretty much no PC is capable of. Try getting a 2005 PC to play BF3 on any setting, consoles can do it. I think this speaks volumes about how scared PC gamers are that they have to quote one guy from one (aminly PC) developer saying one thing in the face of other proof and games that have been made.

Seriously, if that's the issue then I guess you should throw out the quote where DICE says "we could have, but it was a bandwidth issue". Its just something to stroke the ego of Elitists would want to feel like their system will always be superior.

Sometimes, I hate being a PC gamer, if only because I don't want to be stereotyped like this.

SPYDER0416

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

But those games aside, its hard to take you seriously TC. It sounds like nothing but denial, trying to insult consoles that are stillkeeping up to medium settings standards after 6 years, something pretty much no PC is capable of. Try getting a 2005 PC to play BF3 on any setting, consoles can do it. I think this speaks volumes about how scared PC gamers are that they have to quote one guy from one (aminly PC) developer saying one thing in the face of other proof and games that have been made.

Seriously, if that's the issue then I guess you should throw out the quote where DICE says "we could have, but it was a bandwidth issue". Its just something to stroke the ego of Elitists would want to feel like their system will always be superior.

Sometimes, I hate being a PC gamer, if only because I don't want to be stereotyped like this.

Wasdie

MAG and Frontlines had horrible graphics and effects. It was obvious massive cuts had to be made to make those games work with more than 24 players. BF3 has much better graphics, much better effects, and fully destructible environments all mixed in with more complex gaming mechanics.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you are trying a little too hard to push your opinion here.

How are the graphics horrible? they are at least as good as Halo 3 a game that only has 16 players online and sub-HD and it was praised for it's graphics by alot of fans.

MAG with 256 players it's in HD and it looks fine. With the arguments I'm seeing here you would thinkg this game wouldn't even exist: nice gameplay trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2z7Tg5_LY&feature=related But here it is.

saying the game has horrible graphics just doesen't hold up, it's 256 vs 24 we are talking about. of course there is going to be some sacrafice but being able to put 256 players in a game with as nice of graphics as MAG has kind of smashes the argument that someone couldn't do it with 64 players.

I don't really care about the players thing I just dislike how some of you are trying to disregard facts in order to support jaded opinions. MAG with 256 players is 3x the amout of players the PC verions has for this game...3 times. And MAG came out last year, yep it would be impossible to do a game with 64 players on consoles just impossible!

2 cent.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you are trying a little too hard to push your opinion here.

How are the graphics horrible? they are at least as good as Halo 3 a game that only has 16 players online and sub-HD and it was praised for it's graphics by alot of fans.

MAG with 256 players it's in HD and it looks fine. With the arguments I'm seeing here you would thinkg this game wouldn't even exist: nice gameplay trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2z7Tg5_LY&feature=related But here it is.

saying the game has horrible graphics just doesen't hold up, it's 256 vs 24 we are talking about. of course there is going to be some sacrafice but being able to put 256 players in a game with as nice of graphics as MAG has kind of smashes the argument that someone couldn't do it with 64 players.

I don't really care about the players thing I just dislike how some of you are trying to disregard facts in order to support jaded opinions. MAG with 256 players is 3x the amout of players the PC verions has for this game...3 times. And MAG came out in 2008, yep it would be impossible to do a game with64 players on consoles just impossible!

2 cent.

casharmy

Compared to BF3 those are absolutely terrible graphics. I've played MAG, I know how it looks. It's jagged, the lighting sucks, the textures are low rest, the effects are sub par, the sound is terrible (especially when compared with BFBC2), and the framerate was inconsistent.

To top it all off MAG lacks the destructible environments that BF3 has, it also has many less vehicles.

what does the year MAG releasing have anything to do with BF3? The only people here that are disregarding facts here are the people bringing up MAG and resistance as if they are even close in comparison to Battlefield 3 in terms of visuals and scale. Now if MAG had visuals and destruction like BF3 or even BC2..then you'd actually have a decent argument lawlessx

If Battlefield had 256 players online with the same level of graphics it has with 24 or 64 players youwould have an argument...see how that works?

Cool that Dice actually said something, but I look forward to people still calling them "PC facists" and other various, laughable things on the Facebook fan page.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

But those games aside, its hard to take you seriously TC. It sounds like nothing but denial, trying to insult consoles that are stillkeeping up to medium settings standards after 6 years, something pretty much no PC is capable of. Try getting a 2005 PC to play BF3 on any setting, consoles can do it. I think this speaks volumes about how scared PC gamers are that they have to quote one guy from one (aminly PC) developer saying one thing in the face of other proof and games that have been made.

Seriously, if that's the issue then I guess you should throw out the quote where DICE says "we could have, but it was a bandwidth issue". Its just something to stroke the ego of Elitists would want to feel like their system will always be superior.

Sometimes, I hate being a PC gamer, if only because I don't want to be stereotyped like this.

MAG and Frontlines had horrible graphics and effects. It was obvious massive cuts had to be made to make those games work with more than 24 players. BF3 has much better graphics, much better effects, and fully destructible environments all mixed in with more complex gaming mechanics.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you are trying a little too hard to push your opinion here.

How are the graphics horrible? they are at least as good as Halo 3 a game that only has 16 players online and sub-HD and it was praised for it's graphics by alot of fans.

MAG with 256 players it's in HD and it looks fine. With the arguments I'm seeing here you would thinkg this game wouldn't even existhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2z7Tg5_LY&feature=related But here it is.

saying the game has horrible graphics just doesen't hold up, it's 256 vs 24 we are talking about. of course there is going to besome sacrafice but being able to put 256 players in a game with as nice of graphics as MAG has kind of smashes the argument that someone couldn't do it with 64 players.

I don't really care about the players thing I just dislike how some of you are trying to disregard facts in order to support jaded opinions. MAGwith 256 players is 3x the amout of players the PC verions has for this game...3 times. And MAGcame out in 2008, yep it would be impossible to do a game with64 players onconsoles just impossible!

2 cent.

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

I'm sorry but it sounds like you are trying a little too hard to push your opinion here.

How are the graphics horrible? they are at least as good as Halo 3 a game that only has 16 players online and sub-HD and it was praised for it's graphics by alot of fans.

MAG with 256 players it's in HD and it looks fine. With the arguments I'm seeing here you would thinkg this game wouldn't even exist: nice gameplay trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2z7Tg5_LY&feature=related But here it is.

saying the game has horrible graphics just doesen't hold up, it's 256 vs 24 we are talking about. of course there is going to be some sacrafice but being able to put 256 players in a game with as nice of graphics as MAG has kind of smashes the argument that someone couldn't do it with 64 players.

I don't really care about the players thing I just dislike how some of you are trying to disregard facts in order to support jaded opinions. MAG with 256 players is 3x the amout of players the PC verions has for this game...3 times. And MAG came out in 2008, yep it would be impossible to do a game with64 players on consoles just impossible!

2 cent.

Wasdie

Compared to BF3 those are absolutely terrible graphics. I've played MAG, I know how it looks. It's jagged, the lighting sucks, the textures are low rest, the effects are sub par, the sound is terrible (especially when compared with BFBC2), and the framerate was inconsistent.

To top it all off MAG lacks the destructible environments that BF3 has, it also has many less vehicles.

I gave my 2cent you don't have to agree.

And just to be clear MAG is AA here at gamespot, if it was really has horrible is you make it out to be I'm sure would not be rated so.

I gave my 2cent you don't have to agree.

And just to be clear MAG is AA here at gamespot, if it was really has horrible is you make it out to be I'm sure would not be rated so.

casharmy

I was only talking about the graphics and what they had to do to make that 256 players work.

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"] The studio behind Modern Warfare 3.kris9031998

What :|

Fine with me, DICE are doing their job and doing it well. People whining about it basically need to just hop off the nearest cliff, they would likely suck to play with anyways.

When they built MAG, they started from the ground up to make 256 players happen. The whole game is built around the player count. Anyone who seriously wants to point at MAG as an excuse for player count clearly knows nothing about game design or hardware limitations. There's a reason why MAG is a completely static environment and looks like a high-end Gamecube game. Again, everything about the game was built to make 256 players happen. If you want Battlefield 3 to revert back to a re-released Battlefield 2 to make 64-players work on consoles then by all means. But you can't bench press 300lbs if you don't work out.

did he say, "we would make love to 64 players" ???? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Have you guys heard of sarcasm?JigglyWiggly_

Sarcasm is supposed to be a witty remark about something, and possibly a hilarious or funny remark.

Not a completely wrong information.