Infinity Engine: Still gas left in the tank?

[Dementia Praecox]

Can you read? Are you blind? I was just talking about how a modern 2D AAA-level RPG would have 2D backgrounds, but would most likely use certain 3D features. And I *just* gave screen shots of a game with 2D environments that *does* have dynamic shadows and lighting.'

Then it wouldn't be a 2D AAA-level RPG, now woud it? It would be a 2D/3D AAA-level RPG. Now shove it. (Will give longer reply when I'm done eating.)

 

[Jeff Graw]

BG2 used 3D features, and I'm pretty sure everyone here considers it a 2D RPG. In any case, you're now arguing semantics like an idiot. An isometric RPG with 2D backgrounds and 3D features would resemble an improved IE more than say, the Aurora engine.

 

[MetalCraze]

a) I wasn't replying to you much, rather to Mareus' statements
b) I brought generals as an example that it is possible for 3d to not have NWN2 illness. just place walls instead of buildings and trees in generals and you have your indoor area - you will still see your and enemy units. and besides generals is a top-down "game" as well. controlling units there is not uncomfortable yes? in MotB with silhouettes it could be the same. it's all depends on design. Fallout had the uncomfortable controls and viewport as well - sometimes your enemies were covered by walls so you couldn't see them - and what about items covered by other objects? like a dropped enemy gun behind the barrel f.e.?
uncomfortable controls of MotB is a design problem - nothing else.

 

[Jeff Graw]

I wasn't replying to you much, rather to Mareus' statements

That's a moot point as I was addressing the exact same issues. Man up and admit that you were wrong; nobody likes a cop-out.

uncomfortable controls of MotB is a design problem - nothing else.

But MotB has a strategy mode that controls just like an RTS. I wonder why everyone still complained about the camera? Maybe it has something to do with the environments in RTSes being radically different than the environments in RPGs? Or maybe it was just ugly compared to the other camera so no one used it? You tell me.

 

[MetalCraze]

oh stop it - you yourself were bitching about horsepower required to render 3d close to 2d etc. I also was pointing out that today that is not a problem anymore.

But MotB has a strategy mode that controls just like an RTS. I wonder why everyone still complained about the camera?

the controls of it weren't comfortable. I disliked it as well - though I don't remember now precisely why - probably because you had a big head-ache rotating it. or probably because it still was too low. in IE games camera is high enough to see everything - in MotB it shows only a small field of view when top-down. plus you couldn't see what's behind the objects so you had to rotate it which comes to the "head-ache rotating it" again. and when you rotate it and there's some object on it's trajectory - the camera will be placed close to your characters face which is annoying. and it's not a 3d fault.

 

[Jeff Graw]

oh stop it - you yourself were bitching about horsepower required to render 3d close to 2d etc. I also was pointing out that today that is not a problem anymore.

Well, I didn't reply directly to your horsepower claim, but try playing an even slightly taxing game with the integrated Intel graphics something like half of PCs currently use and you'll prove yourself wrong pretty quickly. As for the entire "2D can't do real time shadows and lighting" claim I'm still waiting for you to admit your mistake.

the controls of it weren't comfortable. I disliked it as well - though I don't remember now precisely why - probably because you had a big head-ache rotating it. or probably because it still was too low. in IE games camera is high enough to see everything - in MotB it shows only a small field of view when top-down. plus you couldn't see what's behind the objects so you had to rotate it which comes to the "head-ache rotating it" again. and when you rotate it and there's some object on it's trajectory - the camera will be placed close to your characters face which is annoying. and it's not a 3d fault.

The rotation is fine. The camera could be a bit higher but that's still not the big problem. MotB simply has too many items in the vertical component like doorways, items on shelves, etc... stuff that isn't in an RTS. These things were fine in 2D because you were always in the right perspective to see them. With MotB though, even with the overhead strategy mode you still needs to change the perspective in order to use/search for those things. This gets back to my earlier point. You can't say "it worked for an RTS so it can work for an RPG" as that's an apples to oranges comparison -- the mechanics are completely different.

 

[Mareus]

a) I wasn't replying to you much, rather to Mareus' statements
b) I brought generals as an example that it is possible for 3d to not have NWN2 illness. just place walls instead of buildings and trees in generals and you have your indoor area - you will still see your and enemy units. and besides generals is a top-down "game" as well. controlling units there is not uncomfortable yes? in MotB with silhouettes it could be the same. it's all depends on design. Fallout had the uncomfortable controls and viewport as well - sometimes your enemies were covered by walls so you couldn't see them - and what about items covered by other objects? like a dropped enemy gun behind the barrel f.e.?
uncomfortable controls of MotB is a design problem - nothing else.

Nope. That still is not good enough for me. Fallout did have issues with what you say, but it's a minor problem when you compare it to the headaches you get when fighting with camera in NWN2. And there is one thing that all of you seem to be forgetting. Fallout was made more than 10 years ago with 100 times low of budget, and here we are comparing it to new games like NWN2. I guess that is enough of proof how good that graphic actually is otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Also like Jeff already stated, you cannot compare RTS with RPG. So what if it has top down view? Do you want to tell me we should also compare Sims with Fallout and point out how the camera works better there? Hey it is top down view... Sheesh.

 

[MetalCraze]

integrated Intel graphics

it can't be called a videocard. I was speaking about modern vcards which in a year will be a total low-priced norm.
like radeon hd 3850 f.e. it has a pretty fair price ($300 or even less) and can easily handle a game like Call of Duty 4 which looks far much better than anything 2d. huh it is pretty playable with gf6600 which is 2004 vcard with shadows turned off but everything else maxed out. fps drops only in heavy on foliage areas. and gf6600 costs like $100 now.
2D can't do real real-time dynamic shadows and lighting. in RE:Zero they used a prerendered textures with high-poly objects on a low poly 3d planes. so those shadows were indeed 3d. if the game was fully 2d it would require crazy complicated calculations. and nobody would want that mindfuck.

The rotation is fine. The camera could be a bit higher but that's still not the big problem. MotB simply has too many items in the vertical component like doorways, items on shelves, etc... stuff that isn't in an RTS. These things were fine in 2D because you were always in the right perspective to see them. With MotB though, even with the overhead strategy mode you still needs to change the perspective in order to use/search for those things. This gets back to my earlier point. You can't say "it worked for an RTS so it can work for an RPG" as that's an apples to oranges comparison -- the mechanics are completely different.

just place a camera with 3/4 iso world rotation and you will have the same 2d iso rendered in 3d. the problem is the buildings and objects in MotB are so big that they cover many things in viewport. and you can't see even the silhouettes of those things. hell - those 2d IE backgrounds are rendered from -3d- in 3ds max. it's not like Bio/BIS didn't place the camera in 3/4 to do that yes?
really give Generals DnD ruleset, fill the game with active objects and it still won't be uncomfortable. or wait - it is already filled by units which you can simply replace with barrels, chests and make them stand in one place - and voila - you will have a top-down rpg style.

 

[Jeff Graw]

integrated Intel graphics

it can't be called a videocard. I was speaking about modern vcards which in a year will be a total low-priced norm.

Irrelevant. Half the world uses Intel integrated graphics and low priced decently performing video cards haven't, and are probably never going to change that.

2D can't do real real-time dynamic shadows and lighting. in RE:Zero they used a prerendered textures with high-poly objects on a low poly 3d planes.

I know how the technology works, but now you're just arguing semantics again. In practical terms when we're talking about 2D games we're talking about something similar to IE where the background is pre-rendered. That it uses a low poly 3d mesh is irrelevant as the result is still the same -- great looking real time lighting and shadows projected over a two dimensional image for minuscule performance cost. That RE:0 looks as good as Crysis on high details but runs on a fucking Gamecube of all things is quite telling.

just place a camera with 3/4 iso world rotation and you will have the same 2d iso rendered in 3d.

Congratulations dumbass, you just proved my point. If the only way you can think of to get a 3D party based RPG to play as well as it's 2D counterpart is to lock it into the 3/4 iso perspective then 3D is pointless. You're much better off pre-rendering at that point.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Don't be an idiot, Dementia.

Now there there, I don't know why you go all guns blazing on behalf of that retard, even if his empty arguments is down the same alley as yours.

There are a number of points wrong with your argument, the first being that you can't take the work of a small four man indie team and use their work to make a generalization about the entire industry -- that's stupid, obviously so.

I don't know what made you think I did. Just because I mention AoD and "the big industry" in the same paragraph, doesn't mean you can make whatever meaning of it as you like, as long as it contains AoD and "the entire industry".

Secondly, AoD isn't last gen, it's several generations behind. No major developer worth their salt, even one behind on the graphical curve, is going to make a game as graphically dated as AoD.

What's this got to do with what I wrote? Quote me where I say that AoD is last-gen. In fact, by being several generations behind, AoD is just that much better of an example.

Baldur's Gate (resolution aside) looks better than AoD and it's a decade old.

I agree. However what I said was that AoD has better graphics than Fallout and Arcanum. Even if a game has better graphics, doesn't mean it have to look better. Now, Oblivion obviously has a hell of a lot better graphics than Morrowind, still the latter manages to look better. If you'd shown screenshots of AoD to the BG2 devs, back when they were developing it, they'd wet their pants because of the graphics. Not necessarily because of the art direction. Incidentally I happen to be of the opinion that AoD also looks better than Fallout and Arcanum, but that's subjective I guess. I said those games because, from my point of view, they both look less appealing, as well as having inferior graphics.

Even last gen games still need to worry about things like complex facial animation which is a lot of "hassle" to code.

Thing is, in five years they don't. They just lisence the awesome sauce middleware SpeedComplexFacialAnimation, and that's that. Sure it's still going to cost a lot of money, but it sure aint gonna be any hassle. Anyway, complex facial animations is hardly a prerequisite for a nice looking game in 3D, is it? And please don't tell me that you think complex facial animations would be any easier to do in 2D.

The second point you miss is that a good 3D artist isn't necessarily a good 2D artist and vice-versa.

I don't think you're entitled to even speak about missing points anymore. That's entirely irrelevant to my post, so why the hell should I write anything about it? The 2D artist is out of a job and the studio has to hire a 3D artist instead. So fucking what? Even it it mattered, that marvelous 2D artist of yours could easily be re-located to making textures. That's right! You know those images they wrap around the 3D models? Yes you guessed it, they're in 2D! Sure he has to think a bit different, and perhaps take a course or two, but all in all, he'll still work as a 2D artist.

You could have easily had a poor(er) looking 3D AoD and a good looking 2D AoD if their artist had better 2D skills. Just look at Spiderweb... their newer games are at least on par with AoD aesthetically and they're just one man.

What are you smoking? Spiderweb-games are so fugly that using a word as "aesthetically" in the same sentence should be fucking illegal. You know, VD actually thought of licensing some spiderweb engine for AoD until he got in touch with Flashback. And if 2D AoD actually looks any different than this:

...that's a difference I'm unable to tell. When you're on that graphic level, there's little use in talking about better or worse.

I've got a long, sharp lesson for you you to learn today.

I'll be waiting.

You cannot possibly know how a 2D AAA title would look like today, because the technology has not been developed nearly enough as 3D. If games like Fallout, BG2, PST looked so great 10 years ago, imagine how good they would look today. I bet it would kick ass out of any 3D title.

They'd look exactly the same, only with higher resolution. Only way to make them look better yet would be to hire more people, and you've already given the impression that you'd like your dev teams small, no? Also, as Calis said, there is only so much you can do with sprites.

But thats not the point you turd-like cerebrally-challenged puke-producing smelly-crotched sperm sucker.

Then what's the point? Do you even have one?

The point was that even IF 2D games were more of a hassle to make, that is no excuse for not producing any.

Who say they've stopped making them? Popcap is making billions on 2D games. How about you go bug their forums with your inane babble instead.

Games like HOMM don't need 3D because it's just not practical. Same goes for adventure games, etc.

See skyway and Calis' posts for why you are fucking wrong.

And by this i am not saying there should be no 3D adventure games or 3D strategies. I am just saying there should be a choice for the diversity sake like i stated on my previous posts.

Shut up you fucking hippe.

Rant about my fallout links

WOOSH! If you just read those pages instead of just going for the pictures, you'd see that I linked to the credits. If you were able to count that far you'd see that there was quite a lot more than 4 people working on Fallout.

You sir are a crudinfested hoghumping asswipe.

Cute.

You are mixing graphics with the gameplay the 2d games of yore delivered. Those games had vastly superior gameplay than most of the games these days, and incidentally those games had 2d-graphics.

Attention! Dumbass alert! Can you please copy paste one, just one sentence where i mention gameplay? Nope?

That's right! If you read that sentance again you'll see that my point was that you should have mentioned gameplay.

However i see where you are going.

No you're not. You're just seeing your self mirroring in the computer screen. Or that's what I gather from your nonsensical replies at least.

You are probably trying to connect my mentioning of HOMM5 and 3D graphics with 3D gameplay in certain genres.

No you dumb shit.

So i m gonna give you a bit of slack here...

You aint giving jack slack, get your head out of your ass crack.

And if you manage to show me a game like HOMM in 3D with same gameplay value as HOMM in 2D, then sir, i will apologize for everything i have said and will kiss your ass until it's skin falls off.

You can fix the camera angle in 3D you dumb shit. Whoop-de-doo, then it will be just like the old HOMMs. Now, unfortunately for you, the lead designer decided that he wanted a movable camera, and then you got the HOMM 5. What's to blame, 3D or design?

If you knew anything about statistic you would know that they are 99% bullshit, unless you use them in the right way, which i did.

If your head wasn't stuck so fucking far up your ass, you'd know that's an old joke, and that my statistic is part of said 99%. But never mind that, I want a source for your used-the-right-way statistic. UNLESS YOU JUST MADE THAT UP, HMM?

If you are talking about Temple of Elemental Evil, you are wrong again. Combat didn't suck because of camera nor did it suck because it was turn based. Combat suck because of blah blah blag

Wow, talk about epic failure. Combat in TOEE didn't suck because it didn't.

Here i have to agree with you. That old 2D AOD looks worse than new 3D AOD. BUT!!!

That BUT!!! of yours is known as a straw man. Of course shitty 3D looks worse than awesome 2D. I could compare Avernum to The Witcher to make the exact same fallacy in your face.

Yes, and Gothic 3 came out little over a year ago, what's your point? That shitty design is shitty?

No, my point is that 3D graphic reduces gameplay in certain genres. No matter how good the design is, 3D graphic will take it's toil out of certain genres.

Aha, your point is that your shitty point is shitty! Now I get it!

Well, that is not the case. Who's the moron now, bitch?

I am.

That's right! Fixed you fucking moron.

Exactly! Yet Suspiria is vastly superior to movies like Hostel or Saw 3 and Zombie Holocaust is easily is more shitty than Dawn of the Dead (2004).
How can that be? I DON'T UNDERSTAND!

And you never will you spermless wancker, because you are talking about movies. I was talking about special effects.

And I was talking about artistic quality, shit for brains.

PS. Am i getting better pops?

No.

I had such hopes for you as a snoob hunter, but this guy isn't really taking you seriously anymore since you were sorta-nice to him once.

Yeah, I don't know what made me think this one had any potential. Anyway, that just mean the rest of you have to work him harder.

Now he's just playing grabass.

Yeah, yeah, the thing with grabasses is that the only one who doesn't see that that sort of behaviour is retarded is them selves. He's just making it easier for the lot of you, though. Anyway, as long as he get strung up before people start caring for him, there shouldn't be a problem.

Calis: Mareus has some points, but he's not communicating them very well.

HA, no shit.

There's only so much you can do with sprites, yes, but you are making the faulty assumption that sprites are the be-all-end-all factor in 2D graphics. This couldn't be further from the truth. Remember Resident Evil: Zero?

Do you remember TOEE?

The truth of the matter is that an AAA 2D RPG made today would most likely use a mix of 2D and 3D features. The background would be 2D and the perspective would be fixed, but it might use 3D characters, water, spell and weather effects, etc.

You mean like TOEE? Or Final Fantasy 7? Or whatever else game with 3D on 2D backgrounds? It's not like it's a revolutionary new idea or something, and not to forget that it no longer would be fucking 2D.

Seeing as Resident Evil: Zero is a 2002 game it stands to reason that an AAA 2D RPG would look and run better than any 3D RPG on the market today.

Please elaborate.

No, my point is that 3D graphic reduces gameplay in certain genres. No matter how good the design is, 3D graphic will take it's toil out of certain genres.

I'm tempted to go up and read how the hell you managed to argue this, but I'm afraid I'll have a headache afterwards, and I'll probably feel an uncontrollable urge to tag you.

What he's trying to say is that it's harder to control a 3D party based RPG because you are constantly fiddling with perspective while a 2D party based RPG has a fixed perspective and doesen't need toying with.

No he's not. Re-read without your SUPPORTIVE-OF-MY-VIEW-goggles.

Sure, you can create a 3D party based RPG with a fixed perspective, but then you kind of loose the entire point of making the game 3D in the first place, don't you?

You're missing the point.

BG2 used 3D features, and I'm pretty sure everyone here considers it a 2D RPG.

Yes. What it didn't do was render 3D characters on a 2D background. I'm pretty sure that everyone here would consider it a 3D on 2D background game if it did.

In any case, you're now arguing semantics like an idiot.

In any case you're arguing with straw men like an idiot.

An isometric RPG with 2D backgrounds and 3D features would resemble an improved IE more than say, the Aurora engine.

It would resemble TOEE you dumb shit.

Edit:
I GOT SESSION KILLED WHEN WRITING THIS REPLY. Only extreme luck made it not disapear. This needs to end Calis.

 

[Jeff Graw]

I'm not even going to dignify that... monstrosity with an objective response. I do feel sorry that you went through all that trouble to make a giant post no one in their right mind is going to read though. The *least* you could have done is separate Marius' and my responses use the "quote by" feature.

 

[Mareus]

really give Generals DnD ruleset, fill the game with active objects and it still won't be uncomfortable. or wait - it is already filled by units which you can simply replace with barrels, chests and make them stand in one place - and voila - you will have a top-down rpg style.

Since i dont know a crap about making games i ll just keep my mouth shut on this subject. Still you cannot persuade me that 2D doesn't have anything to offer anymore, because using only 3D did destroy the diversity and that is a fact. I believe we still need 2D if we wish to see more games like BG2, PST, Fallout, etc. . I just dont believe it's possible to make such games in 3D and the reason is very simple. Did you play a 3D game yet that could compare with those 2D classics? Now maybe it is just damn coincidence those games happen to be 2D, but unless some developer persuades me otherwise, i will stick to 3D means more bugs, more problems, more camera issues, less gameplay, longer loading times,... To put it bluntly. Every time a game went from 2D to 3D it turned from good to worse.


Oh and dont forget about those cartoonlike adventure games like Discworld 1,2 , Monkey Island 1,2, 3, Toonstruck, etc. If 3D is the only standard, you can forget about seeing anything similar anytime soon. Its the same reason why you wont see anything similar to Tom&Jerry, or good old Warner Bros Bugs Bunny amongst cartoons anymore and that is what saddens me.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

The *least* you could have done is separate Marius' and my responses use the "quote by" feature.

Why, you seem more like him by the minute.

Edit:
There. Now I was going to anyway, but that session kill-thing made me forget. I blame Calis.

 

[Mareus]

Don't be an idiot, Dementia.

Now there there, I don't know why you go all guns blazing on behalf of that retard, even if his empty arguments is down the same alley as yours. ..... -> this continues for quite some time. Its the biggest post i ve ever seen (I swear, hehe)

....

BLAH.. BLAH... -> (his ramblings continue... wow i really must have hit where it hurts )

...BLAH...*coughs* BLAH... - > finally finished...

Wow... you are sick, man. :shock:

PS. To me TOEE did suck BIG TIME.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Anyway, if you need "Quote=" to tell your own posts from Mareus', that's an acute sign of mental retardation right there.

 

[Jeff Graw]

And making huge posts full of pointless garbage just because isn't?

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Don't be an idiot, Dementia.

Now there there, I don't know why you go all guns blazing on behalf of that retard, even if his empty arguments is down the same alley as yours.

..... -> this continues for quite some time. Its the biggest post i ve ever seen (I swear, hehe)

What, it's hardly more words than you spent on necroing all those ancient Oblivion threads. But I'm hardly surprised by you getting intimidated by all that air between my quotes.

i really must have hit where it hurts

Yes, I'm cutting myself now. :emo:

Wow... you are sick, man. :shock:

That's right! Now fuck off.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

And making huge posts full of pointless garbage just because isn't?

You retards obviously need it with a spoon, and spoons tend to make a lot of words on the internets. Also, whining about how you're not able to comprehend my post full of awesome is really making you shine.

 

[Brother None]

I feel you're wrong, Dementia Praecox, because you forgot about some of the main underlying theories of art.

For example, the primary theme of the works of Rushdie is the role of the participant as artist, which is equally valid for 2D as it is for 3D. Dietrich implies that we have to choose between the cultural paradigm of 2D and textual poststructuralist theory of 3D. It could be said that the example of Baudrillardist hyperreality intrinsic to Rushdie’s Satanic Verses emerges again in The Moor’s Last Sigh, although in a more self-falsifying sense.

If the cultural paradigm of context holds, we have to choose between dialectic precapitalist theory on 2D artwork in gaming and the cultural paradigm of immersion through 3D. However, in Midnight’s Children, Rushdie analyses neomodern theory; in The Moor’s Last Sigh he denies textual discourse.

The premise of Lyotardist narrative suggests that art serves to disempower the Other. In a sense, von Junz states that we have to choose between the cultural paradigm of context and neotextual deappropriation.

Therefore, the premise of art, be it 2D or 3D, holds that reality is used to entrench the status quo, but only if structural subdialectic theory is valid; otherwise, we can assume that the media is elitist. If cultural neodialectic theory holds, we have to choose between capitalism and Foucaultist power relations.

In a sense, an abundance of appropriations concerning the bridge between sexual identity and class may be found. Buxton states that the works of Smith are an example of self-falsifying interpretations of 2D artwork in gaming.

Thus, the primary theme of the works of Smith is the role of the reader as observer. Bataille suggests the use of cultural neodialectic theory to modify and attack sexual identity.

However, the subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a totality. Foucault’s analysis of cultural neodialectic theory holds that the task of the writer is social comment.

Therefore, several discourses concerning the whole 3D vs 2D thing exist. The premise of cultural neodialectic theory suggests that art serves to exploit the consumer, and in that sense, 3D is superior to 2D. But Foucault would argue that as a means of discourse, 2D holds sway.

 

[Mareus]

And making huge posts full of pointless garbage just because isn't?

You retards obviously need it with a spoon, and spoons tend to make a lot of words on the internets. Also, whining about how you're not able to comprehend my post full of awesome is really making you shine.

MAYDAY! MAYDAY!

Sexual frustrations reaching critical mass!

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Haha, I don't know how many times I've read your post now, BN. I need more hands to count them. I could translate that to Norwegian and get a straight A in any one random humaniora bachelor course.

The premise of Lyotardist narrative suggests that art serves to disempower the Other. In a sense, von Junz states that we have to choose between the cultural paradigm of context and neotextual deappropriation.

If it's in a sense, then it's in your academic paper.

Therefore, the premise of art, be it 2D or 3D, holds that reality is used to entrench the status quo, but only if structural subdialectic theory is valid; otherwise, we can assume that the media is elitist.

That's Right!

If cultural neodialectic theory holds, we have to choose between capitalism and Foucaultist power relations.

The only thing any therory in humaniora studia holds, is it's own limp dick.

In a sense, an abundance of appropriations concerning the bridge between sexual identity and class may be found. Buxton states that the works of Smith are an example of self-falsifying interpretations of 2D artwork in gaming.

However, the subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a totality. Foucault’s analysis of cultural neodialectic theory holds that the task of the writer is social comment.

I take a relative shit on totality. How's that for social comment?

Therefore, several discourses concerning the whole 3D vs 2D thing exist. The premise of cultural neodialectic theory suggests that art serves to exploit the consumer, and in that sense, 3D is superior to 2D. But Foucault would argue that as a means of discourse, 2D holds sway.

I would argue that Foucault should have pulled his post-structuralist ass over his head and choked on his very own shit. The pain he's inflicted on the BA's and the BPHIL's of the world is just not justifiable by any god damn meassure.

This reminds me of a I recently heard a news story on a municipality in Norway who sent their staff at courses on how NOT to write fucking nonsensically. They read these awesome buerocratic lines that easily could have been substituted with white paper. Actually you'd be able to make more sense out of white paper than those quotes.

Reading comprehension failure reaching critical mass!

Fixed you irredeemable piece of shit.

 

[Mareus]

Reading comprehension failure reaching critical mass!

Fixed you irredeemable piece of shit.

Aha, i see you have started to use my own insults against me, monsieur. It zeems you are either becoming desperate, or zat shicken brain of yours is overheating. In any case, may i remind you zat you will gain no victory from zee grand shampion of insult sword fighting. Therefore en garde! Take that! Touche! HAHA!!

 

[GeneralSamov]

Grade A bachelorate in Sitting on Your Ass and Posting on the Codex for Three Years wrote:

I like how he'll keep throwing that at BN no matter what

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Reading comprehension failure reaching critical mass!

Fixed you irredeemable piece of shit.

Aha, i see you have started to use my own insults against me, monsieur. It zeems you are either becoming desperate, or zat shicken brain of yours is overheating. In any case, may i remind you zat you will gain no victory from zee grand shampion of insult sword fighting. Therefore en garde! Take that! Touche! HAHA!!

By definition you've already lost, seeing that you've yet to counter my previous reply. Unless you consider "HALP, TOO MANI WURDS" a proper counter. In that case you've definitely lost.

 

[Mareus]

Reading comprehension failure reaching critical mass!

Fixed you irredeemable piece of shit.

Aha, i see you have started to use my own insults against me, monsieur. It zeems you are either becoming desperate, or zat shicken brain of yours is overheating. In any case, may i remind you zat you will gain no victory from zee grand shampion of insult sword fighting. Therefore en garde! Take that! Touche! HAHA!!

By definition you've already lost, seeing that you've yet to counter my previous reply. Unless you consider "HALP, TOO MANI WURDS" a proper counter. In that case you've definitely lost.

HAHA! But zere is where you are wrong, mensiour! I have just begun, and it zeems to me your hemorrhoids are starting to flare up! Better to surrender yourself, mensiour.. you are no match for my witty repertoire.