Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    [–] [Discussion] The effects of public exposure. marshkie 2 points ago in LGBTeens

    You're completely right. Unfortunately the gay community has developed a certain narcissism out of what was once a protest for equal rights, and is now just an excuse for a bunch of obnoxious shit. Some gay people people need constant attention, and in pride month you can get a lot of it by talking about what you like to fuck.

    [–] [Discussion] Opinions on this? marshkie 1 points ago in LGBTeens

    It's always fun to see this sub implode.

    [–] Assassin's Creed Odyssey Confirmed marshkie 2 points ago in Games

    They'll only do that when they're REALLY out of ideas: that's their last resort game.

    [–] yall marshkie 6 points ago in gaming

    Yeah, but they weren't in the war. Women actually did fight- is this not an "extension" of those ideas?

    [–] yall marshkie 4 points ago in gaming

    Bf1942 also had jetpacks so

    [–] Pascal Ebbert (BFV Dev) indirectly refers to fanbase as babies marshkie 2 points ago in Battlefield

    I mean, he's not wrong. The behavior of this sub has been downright embarrassing since the trailer dropped.

    [–] Let's talk about the addition of HUD elements and abundance of information due to both the map and HUD marshkie 1 points ago in joinsquad

    A larger player base isn't always better. If you dumb down the game for more players, those new players are going to hurt the community. As I said before, it's important to grow your community without sacrificing gameplay.

    [–] Let's talk about the addition of HUD elements and abundance of information due to both the map and HUD marshkie 6 points ago in joinsquad

    I'm not saying it's like ARMA or something, but Squad is still one of the more realistic shooters. One thing that stood out to me (against other tactical shooters as well- ARMAs HUD isn't too great either) was the minimalist hud which helped immerse me in the game. While I could turn it off, that doesn't mean the enemy team will, thus giving them an advantage. Also, how is it gatekeeping to just state facts? The gameplay of Squad is appealing to less people than that of COD or Battlefield. That doesn't make them bad games, they're just more accessible. I don't see why Squad has to become more like something else which already exists, instead of preserving its own identity.

    [–] Let's talk about the addition of HUD elements and abundance of information due to both the map and HUD marshkie 1 points ago in joinsquad

    Personally, I don't see why we need to cheapen the sense of realism the game provides to make it more popular (It's not like there weren't plenty of full servers already). The minimal hud was one of the things that set Squad apart: this is supposed to be a more niche game.

    [–] Let's talk about the addition of HUD elements and abundance of information due to both the map and HUD marshkie 4 points ago in joinsquad

    It didn't take away from gameplay. The "inconvenience" is part of the realism- in a real war you don't have some magic overlay showing you where the rest of your guys are or who's down. The minimal HUD enhances the gameplay, it doesn't damage it.

    [–] Let's talk about the addition of HUD elements and abundance of information due to both the map and HUD marshkie 6 points ago in joinsquad

    I think some of us (myself included) play Squad for the realism you can't really find anywhere else (even ARMA is mostly KOTH and RP stuff without a private group). There are plenty of other shooters with elaborate hubs and "noob friendly" gameplay, Squad shouldn't be one of them.

    [–] Let's talk about the addition of HUD elements and abundance of information due to both the map and HUD marshkie 4 points ago in joinsquad

    Completely agree. A key part of Squad is immersion, and this new HUD just makes me feel like I'm playing a Ubisoft shooter.

    [–] Already triggered marshkie 1 points ago in Battlefield

    You clearly misunderstand me. I'm saying by your enemy weapon logic, a female soldier is just as valid. It's impressive how far you will go to defend the historical integrity of a franchise which as been about as arcadey as call of duty since its inception. It's a simple game about blowing a bunch of stuff up in a military sandbox with your friends. That's it. There have always been major discrepancies regarding command structure, uniforms, weaponry, and vehicles.

    [–] Already triggered marshkie 1 points ago in Battlefield

    so, as I understand it, you are saying if something isn't physically impossible, it has a place in the game (e.g you technically can pick up an enemy weapon). Arguing by your ever-evolving set of conditions for authenticity, it is in the realm of hypothetical possibility that a women would have a prosthetic arm like that, in the 1940s, and be able to shoot the gun displayed in the trailer (meaning that would not break the laws of reality- which, like it or not, are broken all the time in this arcade shooter franchise).

    [–] Already triggered marshkie 1 points ago in Battlefield

    You said weapon selection was gameplay, not me. Also, this: https://www.quora.com/Do-soldiers-pick-up-fallen-enemy-weapons-to-use-if-they-are-out-of-ammo-on-their-weapons?share=991b60ae&srid=ulJh2 . Also, do you honestly think all soldiers are kitted out with sweet exotic assualt rifles accompanied by 8x scopes? I honestly don't understand how your suspension of disbelief isn't ruined by soldiers hopping from one jet to another, but literally one woman in an entire game will shatter your immersion.

    [–] THE "I DID NOT LIKE THE TRAILER" STARTERPACK marshkie 11 points ago in Gamingcirclejerk

    but muh H I S T O R I C A L A U T H E N T I C I T Y

    [–] Already triggered marshkie 1 points ago in Battlefield

    Great! I was just making sure - you never know what to expect with battlefield players.

    [–] Already triggered marshkie 2 points ago in Battlefield

    how is the weapon selection not part of your so-called authenticity? Also, no one picks up enemy weapons in a real war. My point about cops and criminals wasn't that they don't exist, but that the symmetrical combat situations they are placed in are absurd and have no basis in reality. You seem to have created a very specific definition of authenticity, within which you can claim that Battlefield 5 has ruined what what was once a role model for historically accurate first person shooters.

    [–] Already triggered marshkie 2 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago) in Battlefield

    Ah yes, the "historical authenticity" argument. Tell me, what's historically authentic about futuristic gadgets in 1942 and BF4 (and russian soldiers using m16s), 32 cops vs 32 criminals in battlefield hardline, or weapons that were hardly on the front lines making up 99% of the equipment in BF1? BF5 is no less "authentic" than any of those games.

    [–] Already triggered marshkie 3 points ago in Battlefield

    So what's the real argument then?

    [–] Already triggered marshkie 1 points ago in Battlefield

    All I ask is you don't go into post scriptum expecting a battlefield kind of experience. It's going to be a lot slower, and you have to work with your squad if you want to win.

    [–] Battlefield V Official Reveal Trailer marshkie 24 points ago in Gamingcirclejerk

    Not really. BF4 had a bunch of futuristic stuff thrown in (along with Russian soldiers using m16s and whatnot), and BF1 was almost entirely based off of prototype weapons that were hardly ever on the battlefield. Also, when has 8 character models fighting a full blown war been realistic?