Gears of War 2 is 5 v.s. 5 on xb live

i agree.. that's why Epic would have to make adjustments for the 16 player levels.. and keep things the same for 4 v 4.. as you may realize, AAA is AAA and fun is fun.. options are made and everyone is happy.. this is not a foreign concept..

and congrats on organizing a tournament.. its too bad you obviously dont play the actual game if you made the comment that 8 player matches are "rare".. :roll:

Antwan3K

I haven't played the game in about six weeks. And i did organise a tournament and it was very successful. The next Weekend Challenge is GTAIV. :| Keep up the "you must be a fanboy" thing though, it's really helping your arguement

And again; HOW can they just "change" things to accomodate 16 players? It's not just like resistance and PDZ where they just scale the maps up to allow more players. The gameplay wouldn't work with that at all, which is exactly why i doubt that you've played this game so much, because you'd know that 16 player Gears just wouldn't work.

How can you have close combat, visceral battles with 16 players? They'd have to completely change the gameplay mechanics... and if the game is already very enjoyable, why do that? Why change everything just to allow more players if it wont be any better? Do we really want just another 16 player frag fest?

You'll never admit it, but you haven't played this game. You spoke about it any way though, and now you're trying to avoid the original mistake that was doing that.

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

dhjohns

:lol: That is so true!!!

So it is either too little or too much? Basically people are just looking to hate.

I was joking man, and I think the truthhurtsu was too.

5 on 5 will be fine.

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.-GhostMLD-

ya.....that makes it more fun :roll:

Yeah and if it's like Resistance 1 where just about every single server is set to 1 shot kills. You'll be dieing ever 5 seconds... OHHHH BOYY!

That's a dog not a troll. :?

Why would you give a dog pop corn?

Truth_Hurts_U

WTF? Thats no dog, thats a bear. Since when do you see dogs at zoos which is were these signs are abundant. And thats not popcorn, those are matter balls. Its the only picture I could fine :D You get the idea.

WTF? Thats no dog, thats a bear. Since when do you see dogs at zoos which is were these signs are abundant. And thats not popcorn, those are matter balls. Its the only picture I could fine :D You get the idea.

Pro_wrestler

That sure is a small bear. It's head isn't bigger then the hand feeding it.

i figured u'd say that.. i almost edited my statment just for that purpose.. but anyway, yes 8 player matches are extremely fun.. definitely more intimate and intense when fighting over the much smaller patch of land.. and the strategies can be made easier with the smaller number of people to communicate with..

ask anybody who plays Warhawk regularly if small scale stages are "fun".. the answer is a resounding "yes".. the devs did a masterful job with the map configs.. and since the maps are so huge to begin with, you can have almost 10 different small scale configs for each overall map.. adds alot of variety.. and other than that, it's a welcome option to the full-scale war efforts of the 32 player matches....

and how about you speak for yourself.. many Gears fans would probably love the option of 16 player matches (if Epic did them to AAA quality) while other fans will just stick with 4 v4 games.. wow.. look at those options.. ;)

Antwan3K

No I won't, because I started playing gears when it first came out and to this day, I have not heard a fan say that. Only several fanboys.

And i'm backing off from warhawk, you definately know more about the game than I do. But my point still stands, because there ARE games that aren't fun with few people. Battlefield 1942/2. FANTASTIC games, yet horrible with 8 players. Even if you played the lower scale versions of the maps.

while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.xxThyLordxx

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

carljohnson3456

:lol: That is so true!!!

I really hope they get rid of the one-hit insta down. I freakin' hated that. Or at least make it so that you have to get a shot around the neck or something. Getting hit in the foot by an active reload sniper and going down was so infuriating.

lol I agree. And the 2-hit sniper melee combo gets very old too man.

I think in a recent inverview I saw/heard (cant remember if it was text or video) Cliffy said something about crawling away. So we may be able to crawl away, but I could of misheard or something.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i figured u'd say that.. i almost edited my statment just for that purpose.. but anyway, yes 8 player matches are extremely fun.. definitely more intimate and intense when fighting over the much smaller patch of land.. and the strategies can be made easier with the smaller number of people to communicate with..

ask anybody who plays Warhawk regularly if small scale stages are "fun".. the answer is a resounding "yes".. the devs did a masterful job with the map configs.. and since the maps are so huge to begin with, you can have almost 10 different small scale configs for each overall map.. adds alot of variety.. and other than that, it's a welcome option to the full-scale war efforts of the 32 player matches....

and how about you speak for yourself.. many Gears fans would probably love the option of 16 player matches (if Epic did them to AAA quality) while other fans will just stick with 4 v4 games.. wow.. look at those options.. ;)

Ninja-Hippo

How could they possibly have 16 players withou profoundly changing everything about the multiplayer? Explain how that would work. Unless they split it up into small teams in different areas, but that's again pointless.

You're demonstrating with every post that you haven't played this game. 16 player Gears of War just wouldnt work.

i'd gather that they could make the gameplay more squad-based with different targets/objectives in different areas and then balance things out accordingly.. i'm sure Epic could pull it off and i'm sure the fans and critics would eat it up...

it's not that hard to imagine..

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i figured u'd say that.. i almost edited my statment just for that purpose.. but anyway, yes 8 player matches are extremely fun.. definitely more intimate and intense when fighting over the much smaller patch of land.. and the strategies can be made easier with the smaller number of people to communicate with..

ask anybody who plays Warhawk regularly if small scale stages are "fun".. the answer is a resounding "yes".. the devs did a masterful job with the map configs.. and since the maps are so huge to begin with, you can have almost 10 different small scale configs for each overall map.. adds alot of variety.. and other than that, it's a welcome option to the full-scale war efforts of the 32 player matches....

and how about you speak for yourself.. many Gears fans would probably love the option of 16 player matches (if Epic did them to AAA quality) while other fans will just stick with 4 v4 games.. wow.. look at those options.. ;)

astiop

No I won't, because I started playing gears when it first came out and to this day, I have not heard a fan say that. Only several fanboys.

And i'm backing off from warhawk, you definately know more about the game than I do. But my point still stands, because there ARE games that aren't fun with few people. Battlefield 1942/2. FANTASTIC games, yet horrible with 8 players. Even if you played the lower scale versions of the maps.

sounds fair.. i respect your opinion, but i think that Epic can indeed figure out a way to make 16 players work on GeoW with AAA results and i know full well that if Gamespot gave GeoW 3 (complete with 16 players max) a 9.5, not a single lemming would have a complaint...

i'd gather that they could make the gameplay more squad-based with different targets/objectives in different areas and then balance things out accordingly.. i'm sure Epic could pull it off and i'm sure the fans and critics would eat it up...

it's not that hard to imagine..

Antwan3K

Why change everything about the game just to allow more players, when everybody is already happy with the small-scale combat as it is? What does that achieve?

Nothing. It'd be completely pointless, wouldn't it? Y'know, like i said in my first post.

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]

WTF? Thats no dog, thats a bear. Since when do you see dogs at zoos which is were these signs are abundant. And thats not popcorn, those are matter balls. Its the only picture I could fine :D You get the idea.

Truth_Hurts_U

That sure is a small bear. It's head isn't bigger then the hand feeding it.

Then it relates to trolls in some way: Small heads, small brains.:D

sounds fair.. i respect your opinion, but i think that Epic can indeed figure out a way to make 16 players work on GeoW with AAA results and i know full well that if Gamespot gave GeoW 3 (complete with 16 players max) a 9.5, not a single lemming would have a complaint...

Antwan3K

You started off saying 5 vs 5 was a limitation, and it would be better to have the option of 16 players or so like in other games such as Resistance or Warhawk. That is completely wrong.

Simple.

He seems to think that 16 players on Gears could be done simply by making bigger levels and editing a couple of things. That's what leads me to believe he's never played the game, as i'm sure you'll agree, that simply isn't true. To get 16 players, they'd have to completely change the way the game works entirely.Ninja-Hippo

I think your forgetting who your talking too. Usually when someone who denies something that can be proven with experience, hes not looking to be proven wrong. Rather, just arguing for the sake of arguing.

So my advice to you:

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]

WTF? Thats no dog, thats a bear. Since when do you see dogs at zoos which is were these signs are abundant. And thats not popcorn, those are matter balls. Its the only picture I could fine :D You get the idea.

Truth_Hurts_U

That sure is a small bear. It's head isn't bigger then the hand feeding it.

lol That's totally a bear man. A cub, if that makes you feel better.

Then it relates to trolls in some way: Small heads, small brains.:D

Pro_wrestler

It's only a myth portrait in movies that trolls are not intelligent.

I think in a recent inverview I saw/heard (cant remember if it was text or video) Cliffy said something about crawling away. So we may be able to crawl away, but I could of misheard or something.

justforlotr2004

If you're down but not out, you can now crawl away. Tapping A also makes you crawl faster. :)

lol That's totally a bear man. A cub, if that makes you feel better.

carljohnson3456

Reminds me of a cute puppy. Especially how the eye looks and the small teeth.

sounds fair.. i respect your opinion, but i think that Epic can indeed figure out a way to make 16 players work on GeoW with AAA results and i know full well that if Gamespot gave GeoW 3 (complete with 16 players max) a 9.5, not a single lemming would have a complaint...

Antwan3K

No way, that would totaly suck! :P

What me and ninja are trying to say is not that it can't be done, it's that by the time they made all the apropriate changes to make a 16 gears match playable, you basicaly wouldn't be playing the same game. If they made a gears of war spinoff that allowed that, then yea I would be more than happy to try it.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i'd gather that they could make the gameplay more squad-based with different targets/objectives in different areas and then balance things out accordingly.. i'm sure Epic could pull it off and i'm sure the fans and critics would eat it up...

it's not that hard to imagine..

Ninja-Hippo

Why change everything about the game just to allow more players, when everybody is already happy with the small-scale combat as it is? What does that achieve?

Nothing. It'd be completely pointless, wouldn't it? Y'know, like i said in my first post.

what would that acheive?.. the option of playing 4v4, 5v5, 6v6, and 8v8 on different sized maps.. wow.. imagine that.. complete with a AAA gaming experience in each game type (if Epic put their minds to it)...

but i'll just leave you with that.. i guess if GS gave Geow 3 (complete with 16 players) a score of 9.5, you'd be the only guy crying foul because you cant stand to have those "other guys" in those 12 and 16 player rooms having such a good time.. :roll: have fun with that...

[QUOTE="justforlotr2004"]

I think in a recent inverview I saw/heard (cant remember if it was text or video) Cliffy said something about crawling away. So we may be able to crawl away, but I could of misheard or something.

Ninja-Hippo

If you're down but not out, you can now crawl away. Tapping A also makes you crawl faster. :)

Aw gawd I can picture it already. My thumb goes sore from all the A tapping and when I finaly crawl to cover, some dude runs up and curbstomps me O.O

[QUOTE="justforlotr2004"]

I think in a recent inverview I saw/heard (cant remember if it was text or video) Cliffy said something about crawling away. So we may be able to crawl away, but I could of misheard or something.

Ninja-Hippo

If you're down but not out, you can now crawl away. Tapping A also makes you crawl faster. :)

Thought I heard that. Thats definatly going to change up multiplayer.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

sounds fair.. i respect your opinion, but i think that Epic can indeed figure out a way to make 16 players work on GeoW with AAA results and i know full well that if Gamespot gave GeoW 3 (complete with 16 players max) a 9.5, not a single lemming would have a complaint...

astiop

No way, that would totaly suck! :P

What me and ninja are trying to say is not that it can't be done, it's that by the time they made all the apropriate changes to make a 16 gears match playable, you basicaly wouldn't be playing the same game. If they made a gears of war spinoff that allowed that, then yea I would be more than happy to try it.

You are exactly right.

what would that acheive?.. the option of playing 4v4, 5v5, 6v6, and 8v8 on different sized maps.. wow.. imagine that.. complete with a AAA gaming experience in each game type (if Epic put their minds to it)...

but i'll just leave you with that.. i guess if GS gave Geow 3 (complete with 16 players) a score of 9.5, you'd be the only guy crying foul because you cant stand to have those "other guys" in those 12 and 16 player rooms having such a good time.. :roll: have fun with that...

Antwan3K

You have missed the point continually, and yet again make completely flippant comments like "if epic put their mind to it".

YES i'm sure they could do it but they would HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING to make it work, which would be pointless. Why bother chaning the whole game just to allow more players when everyone is happy with how it works now?

You just argue for the sake of it.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="justforlotr2004"]

I think in a recent inverview I saw/heard (cant remember if it was text or video) Cliffy said something about crawling away. So we may be able to crawl away, but I could of misheard or something.

justforlotr2004

If you're down but not out, you can now crawl away. Tapping A also makes you crawl faster. :)

Thought I heard that. Thats definatly going to change up multiplayer.

Awesome. Maybe all the active reload sniper shots wont be as effective now if you can crawl away into cover, lol.

Aw gawd I can picture it already. My thumb goes sore from all the A tapping and when I finaly crawl to cover, some dude runs up and curbstomps me O.O

astiop

I wonder how all the crazy new executions will work now that you can crawl... how do you curbstomp a moving person? Also, i cant wait to do the crazy beat-down execution in multiplayer. :D

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i'd gather that they could make the gameplay more squad-based with different targets/objectives in different areas and then balance things out accordingly.. i'm sure Epic could pull it off and i'm sure the fans and critics would eat it up...

it's not that hard to imagine..

Antwan3K

Why change everything about the game just to allow more players, when everybody is already happy with the small-scale combat as it is? What does that achieve?

Nothing. It'd be completely pointless, wouldn't it? Y'know, like i said in my first post.

what would that acheive?.. the option of playing 4v4, 5v5, 6v6, and 8v8 on different sized maps.. wow.. imagine that.. complete with a AAA gaming experience in each game type (if Epic put their minds to it)...

but i'll just leave you with that.. i guess if GS gave Geow 3 (complete with 16 players) a score of 9.5, you'd be the only guy crying foul because you cant stand to have those "other guys" in those 12 and 16 player rooms having such a good time.. :roll: have fun with that...

In other words you think the multiplayer should be more like warhawk or resistence.No thanks I'd rather keep the unqiue game over the average one.

Know what would happen if you had an 8on8 match? You'd be taking cover and fighting and 9 times out of 10 you'd find yourself being chainsawed. If you'd ever played gears you'd realize it's not run and gun, it's not about how many kills you get.

To win at gears you need to think smart, be careful because there are so many ways to be out instantly and with no respawns it's very unforgiving. You need to figure out what guns you want, how your going to get ahold of them (you can't just run in and DING it's in your hands.) all the while trying to insure your team mates don't die cause if they do, you've got a big problem.

Small, tactical, squad based action. Anything else would ruin the game. Wouldn't bother replying, I wont go through the effort of trying to convince you any further, I suspect you wont listen to reason anyway.

[QUOTE="astiop"]

Aw gawd I can picture it already. My thumb goes sore from all the A tapping and when I finaly crawl to cover, some dude runs up and curbstomps me O.O

Ninja-Hippo

I wonder how all the crazy new executions will work now that you can crawl... how do you curbstomp a moving person? Also, i cant wait to do the crazy beat-down execution in multiplayer. :D

Yea, the possibilities will probably get me killed :P Do I curbstomp, do I go ape**** on his face, execute him, snap his ... blam I get killed.

Or picture this, one squad member is having a chainsaw duel while next to him, another is beating up a downed enemy... man I'm getting really pumped for this game...

while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.xxThyLordxx

Oh please...More does not mean better.

resistance 1 had 32 players and gears had 8,but Gears scored much better.

If GeOW 2 would have 60 players, MP will be teh suck.

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]

Then it relates to trolls in some way: Small heads, small brains.:D

Truth_Hurts_U

It's only a myth portrait in movies that trolls are not intelligent.

Are you defending trolls?

[QUOTE="astiop"]

Aw gawd I can picture it already. My thumb goes sore from all the A tapping and when I finaly crawl to cover, some dude runs up and curbstomps me O.O

Ninja-Hippo

I wonder how all the crazy new executions will work now that you can crawl... how do you curbstomp a moving person? Also, i cant wait to do the crazy beat-down execution in multiplayer. :D

You do the thing where you use them as human meatshields and snap their necks :D

Pro_wrestler for Mayor of Gamespot, anyone? :PNinja-Hippo

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.ProductNumber49

Oh please...More does not mean better.

resistance 1 had 32 players and gears had 8,but Gears scored much better.

If GeOW 2 would have 60 players, MP will be teh suck.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Pro_wrestler for Mayor of Gamespot, anyone? :PDreams-Visions

Only if you keep entertaining us with those awsome gifs. What happened to the cycle?

[QUOTE="ProductNumber49"]

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.DuDisNow

Oh please...More does not mean better.

resistance 1 had 32 players and gears had 8,but Gears scored much better.

If GeOW 2 would have 60 players, MP will be teh suck.

Mate, you just said 30 vs. 30 Chainsaw duels.

What is wrong with that vision?

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i'd gather that they could make the gameplay more squad-based with different targets/objectives in different areas and then balance things out accordingly.. i'm sure Epic could pull it off and i'm sure the fans and critics would eat it up...

it's not that hard to imagine..

CreepyBacon

Why change everything about the game just to allow more players, when everybody is already happy with the small-scale combat as it is? What does that achieve?

Nothing. It'd be completely pointless, wouldn't it? Y'know, like i said in my first post.

what would that acheive?.. the option of playing 4v4, 5v5, 6v6, and 8v8 on different sized maps.. wow.. imagine that.. complete with a AAA gaming experience in each game type (if Epic put their minds to it)...

but i'll just leave you with that.. i guess if GS gave Geow 3 (complete with 16 players) a score of 9.5, you'd be the only guy crying foul because you cant stand to have those "other guys" in those 12 and 16 player rooms having such a good time.. :roll: have fun with that...

In other words you think the multiplayer should be more like warhawk or resistence.No thanks I'd rather keep the unqiue game over the average one.

Know what would happen if you had an 8on8 match? You'd be taking cover and fighting and 9 times out of 10 you'd find yourself being chainsawed. If you'd ever played gears you'd realize it's not run and gun, it's not about how many kills you get.

To win at gears you need to think smart, be careful because there are so many ways to be out instantly and with no respawns it's very unforgiving. You need to figure out what guns you want, how your going to get ahold of them (you can't just run in and DING it's in your hands.) all the while trying to insure your team mates don't die cause if they do, you've got a big problem.

Small, tactical, squad based action. Anything else would ruin the game. Wouldn't bother replying, I wont go through the effort of trying to convince you any further, I suspect you wont listen to reason anyway.

[QUOTE="astiop"][QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

sounds fair.. i respect your opinion, but i think that Epic can indeed figure out a way to make 16 players work on GeoW with AAA results and i know full well that if Gamespot gave GeoW 3 (complete with 16 players max) a 9.5, not a single lemming would have a complaint...

Ninja-Hippo

No way, that would totaly suck! :P

What me and ninja are trying to say is not that it can't be done, it's that by the time they made all the apropriate changes to make a 16 gears match playable, you basicaly wouldn't be playing the same game. If they made a gears of war spinoff that allowed that, then yea I would be more than happy to try it.

You are exactly right.

what would that acheive?.. the option of playing 4v4, 5v5, 6v6, and 8v8 on different sized maps.. wow.. imagine that.. complete with a AAA gaming experience in each game type (if Epic put their minds to it)...

but i'll just leave you with that.. i guess if GS gave Geow 3 (complete with 16 players) a score of 9.5, you'd be the only guy crying foul because you cant stand to have those "other guys" in those 12 and 16 player rooms having such a good time.. :roll: have fun with that...

Antwan3K

You have missed the point continually, and yet again make completely flippant comments like "if epic put their mind to it".

YES i'm sure they could do it but they would HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING to make it work, which would be pointless. Why bother chaning the whole game just to allow more players when everyone is happy with how it works now?

You just argue for the sake of it.

you wouldnt have to change "everything".. that's as flippant comment as can be said.. you seem to be the one who just argues for the sake of it and pretend to know for a fact that Epic isnt capable of such a feat.. Epic could easily keep the 4v4 and 5v5 unchanged while making 12 and 16 player maps to accomidate and support such gameplay.. as mentioned before, maybe a more squad-based concept with smaller battles and goals faught on a greater plane.. i believe if anybody can acheive this, Epic certainly can.. more gameply options will have been created and everybody will still be happy..

so i believe i've made my points clear.. astiop seems to be able to agree to disagree and meet on some form of common ground.. you sir, seem incapable of that...

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i'd gather that they could make the gameplay more squad-based with different targets/objectives in different areas and then balance things out accordingly.. i'm sure Epic could pull it off and i'm sure the fans and critics would eat it up...

it's not that hard to imagine..

CreepyBacon

Why change everything about the game just to allow more players, when everybody is already happy with the small-scale combat as it is? What does that achieve?

Nothing. It'd be completely pointless, wouldn't it? Y'know, like i said in my first post.

what would that acheive?.. the option of playing 4v4, 5v5, 6v6, and 8v8 on different sized maps.. wow.. imagine that.. complete with a AAA gaming experience in each game type (if Epic put their minds to it)...

but i'll just leave you with that.. i guess if GS gave Geow 3 (complete with 16 players) a score of 9.5, you'd be the only guy crying foul because you cant stand to have those "other guys" in those 12 and 16 player rooms having such a good time.. :roll: have fun with that...

In other words you think the multiplayer should be more like warhawk or resistence.No thanks I'd rather keep the unqiue game over the average one.

Know what would happen if you had an 8on8 match? You'd be taking cover and fighting and 9 times out of 10 you'd find yourself being chainsawed. If you'd ever played gears you'd realize it's not run and gun, it's not about how many kills you get.

To win at gears you need to think smart, be careful because there are so many ways to be out instantly and with no respawns it's very unforgiving. You need to figure out what guns you want, how your going to get ahold of them (you can't just run in and DING it's in your hands.) all the while trying to insure your team mates don't die cause if they do, you've got a big problem.

Small, tactical, squad based action. Anything else would ruin the game. Wouldn't bother replying, I wont go through the effort of trying to convince you any further, I suspect you wont listen to reason anyway.

the same thing can be said for nearly any tactical based shooter without respawns.. not every game that supports 16 players is "run and gun".. look at Socom or CoD4 in smaller rooms with no respawn.. small maps with a small number of players and no respawn isnt exactly "unique".. it's certainly "average" for tactical shooters and 10 players max is decidedly "below average" for the genre..

not speaking literally ofcourse.. Gears is hands down a great game.. but lets not pretend that 16 players for a tactical shooter is "impossible"...

Well yeah look at SOCOM 1 and 2 those maps were small yet they worked perfectly with 8 Vs 8. I don't get what would eb soo wrong with Gears 2 having 8 Vs 8. It would be more chaotic yet I honestly do think it would be more fun as well.

And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.Cedmln

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.C_BozkurT_C

To me, 2 extra people don't seem worth the extra effort..they could've put in more fun game design instead of coding for two + people.

Well yeah look at SOCOM 1 and 2 those maps were small yet they worked perfectly with 8 Vs 8. I don't get what would eb soo wrong with Gears 2 having 8 Vs 8. It would be more chaotic yet I honestly do think it would be more fun as well.

KrazyKev26

Being chaotic isn't what Gears is about, its about a very organized team working together to outwit the other team.

[QUOTE="TheOwnerOner"][QUOTE="thrones"]

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Cedmln"]Cedmln

Over video games? :|

video games are serious business

Its called insecurity. :D

Possibly, although judging by your avatar...theres nothing for him to be insecure about. Relieved possibly. But not insecure.

And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.Cedmln

Careful. The bias in you is showing.

[QUOTE="Cedmln"][QUOTE="TheOwnerOner"][QUOTE="thrones"]

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Cedmln"]GazzaB

Over video games? :|

video games are serious business

Its called insecurity. :D

Possibly, although judging by your avatar...theres nothing for him to be insecure about. Relieved possibly. But not insecure.

That's the meanest thing I've read here. :lol:

sorry i cant link...or copy / paste

its on gametrailers.com interview with cliffy B
THE_Rob_Himself