Fulcrum09 wrote:
theENIGMATRON wrote:And what did i say?
If your first object is big and your comparing it to another, then yes it will be Small,
LOL **** Idiot yes its small when where all comparing *****!!
But it's NOT small. It's big.
It's only smaller in comparison but that does not make it small so calling it small is incorrect.
It's like saying a bullet isn't deadly because a nuke is more deadly. It makes no sense.
LMAO you do realise that "big" and "small" are relative concepts? There is no absolute. Atoms and the Universe are extremities, but they are not end points because there is no absolute scale. This is where your argument fails (again). "Deadly" is an absolute concept. Something either is or isn't deadly.
Saying building A is bigger than building B, but both are big is irrelevant, because the implicit relativity is with you. I could similarly say that a bus is big, but a blue whale would disagree, because relatively the bus would be small.
I bet you're the kind of guy that argues opinions aren't you? Opinions can't be argued because they're neither right nor wrong. Only facts can be argued. And similarly relative concepts can't be argued because there's always a different relative view point that falsifies the argument.
So, relative to console FPS maps, BC2's maps are not small, but relative to Battlefield maps, they are.
And again, "close quarters" means confined or narrow, which is also a relative concept. So unless you can cite some military doctrine that states "combat within a range of X metres is considered close quarters" then you can stop banging on about it only occuring in buildings. Relative to other Battlefield games, the combat is close quarters often. Hell, there's even a difference between BC1 and BC2 in terms of tank combat being close quarters.
Just because you can't broaden your narrow definition of the term, doesn't mean Symonator used it incorrectly.
But please - try again...
= 
Gundog132 wrote:
InfiniteStates wrote:
LMAO you do realise that "big" and "small" are relative concepts? There is no absolute. Atoms and the Universe are extremities, but they are not end points because there is no absolute scale. This is where your argument fails (again). "Deadly" is an absolute concept. Something either is or isn't deadly.
Surley being dead is an absolute concept, but being deadly is a relative concept. What is deadly to one species may not be deadly to another. For example a person shot in the face with a bullet "COULD" survive, but an ant shot in the face with the same bullet would surley turn to jam lol.
No, because in that case, being shot in the face wasn't deadly. Something is either dead or it isn't, irrespective of how much mess it made on death 
Level 4
I think in this discussion it pays to have an example of the small comparative size.
Compare the BF2 map with the BFBC2 Map, and you can see already that the control points are a lot closer together and the map itself is also a lot smaller. And that's for Atacama, one of the bigger BC2 maps.
Welcome to the Battlefield forum!
For the latest news and updates on what is happening in the PlayStation community, head over to our Announcements & Events forum.
To post a message, you will need to Sign In to the Forums using your PLAYSTATION®Network Sign In ID and password.
If you do not yet have a PSN account, just click here to register.
For more information on Battlefield 3 click here or click the image above for trial and purchasing options.
Bad Company One Photo Album | Helicopter Dos and Don'ts | Bad Company PSN Friends | Et Tu Brute | Battlefield 3
Website ©2013 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]
