ZombieOfTheDead

My greatest zombie achievement in recent memory is still coming on this site. Haven't played in months.

 

No, this isn't the dickish "I'm too cool for zombies now" or "zombies has lost all meaning to me." Well, maybe a little of the second, but I haven't been able to play in forever. I kinda want to play it a bit now after like 5 months, but won't be able to for awhile. 

Hard to believe it's been two years already. So much has gone by on this site in that time. Covy's got alot to catch up on.

I pretty much agree with everyone on the N4's 3 map arc. It was horribly enacted. The N4 never really got to shine. They did get progressively better with subsequent maps, but overall they were fairly meh. My main problem with the story, is that it really barely had one. It was just the giant EE really, and little to no quotes suggesting any little plot details. That was practically it. There was no real mystery to any of those three maps (save maybe Buried... that one intrigued me, but there's little to go off of). The Maxis or Richtofen choice didn't go well with me, either. I'd rather it be consistent (though there are theories which incorporate both into canon, which was alright). 

 

Part of what I loved about WaW, which kind of went into BO, was that zombies was a backstory, really. Most of the story was how the outbreaks occurred, how 935 fell, Richtofen overall as a character even. That may be one reason why I enjoyed Origins. They somewhat went back to that feeling of intrigue, finding out how it all began, why the four soldiers were together in all this. It gave a clear beginning to the story, though confused the hell out of us with the ending, and pissed most of us off with Samantha constantly speaking. It was a damn good map in terms of giving us backstory (and giving us hints towards the future), and so I'm alright with it, even if the ending was confusing.

 

I don't think most of us had a problem with MOTD... That map felt like it had a separate story in the vein of verruckt and der riese in terms of backstory.

72.

 

Fuck this game. Fuck this game. Fuck this game so much. Sorry for swearing, but it's just evil, but so addictive. 

They're not dolls, they're action figures!

 

but really, nice. I never would've thought about that quote before today. The thing about the origins ending is that it's so damn confusing how it relates to everything else. It might not even be Richtofen for all we know.

Double Tap 2 is overpowered, it needs to be separate in my opinion.

By that argument, combining any two perks really is OP. But really, no one will buy double tap without the damage boost given there are many other perks to choose, so it may as well never come back. The increased rate of fire doesn't make much of a difference. You shoot faster. I hardly think that's OP. It makes sense to keep it the way it is.

 (hacking every perk drop to get another Max Ammo). 

I completely forgot this could happen. That alone changes things. Hacking weapons similarly can change things, but it's only a point thing, thus I don't consider it game changing. 

 

But really, the biodome is the only viable option if you want to survive long and aren't amazing at zombies. It's too easy to die in other areas (I do NOT enjoy being in enclosed places in zombies, and moon is rampant with them), and tbh I actually do find the biodome to be fun on the occasions I do play moon due to the jumping things (name escapes me...). Camping or being in another area are no better in speed, it's just it's much easier to die anywhere else so the intensity is increased, but still either a train or sitting in a corner waiting to die because of the close quarters. Keep in mind, this is just from my experience, I don't think it's universal. Clearly you can survive in close quarters. I can't very well. Hence why I like origins, very open (I still love moon, though).

Improvements to Old Perks

Double Tap - revert back to double tap 1, no extra bullet damage (see new perk below)

 

That's an improvement? Why not just keep the new one, it combines the original and the damage perk you were talking about. What is the point of having two separate perks when the could just be combined? No one would buy double tap yet again. I'd hardly call that an improvement. Plus, you combined lots of perks already, so separating is weird...

 

Everything else seems pretty good to me, especially the other perk improvements.

While Origins may have more things to do, it's always the same, you will always have the same objectives, and even if you choose to not complete them, there isn't much else you can do. I get SUPER bored with the Easter egg (Which or anyone that knows me, is REALLY hard) and often just quit after it. 

 

Moon on the other hand let you play differently every game: This game I'll take the hacker and do these things, these things and these things. Or these things, these things, and these things...

 

Basically the hacker allowed for more options then origin's: Do this or don't… 

 

Also buried was really repayable, a lot more then transit, bus depot, or farm. 

 

 

 

 

Also Sledge hammer was on the MW3 project….It's not going to be grand… 

What you said is really weird... So you can choose not to do something, but it's still the same game in origins, and you could chose not to do something in moon and it's totally different? That doesn't really make sense.

 

To be honest, there isn't all that much to do in moon either. The only replayability difference I see is NML. The hacker barely changes anything, it can make things cheaper or give people points, that's pretty much it's gameplay dynamic. Not something truly game-changing. Don't get me wrong, I love moon, but it's pretty much stay in the biodome and see how long your guns can last. Origins is more fun with it's openness, and you truly feel screwed if you get swarmed, a panzer arrives, and the robot all at the same time. 

 

I'll go by your argument. Say you chose not to do all the staves. You only feel like one, or even none. You can choose any to spice up gameplay. Same basic argument you have with the hacker.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Dude, you say you get 52 on Co-op like it's nothing. After today I feel like the worst zombies player ever, lol. Highest was 40 on moon. Don't even say decent. 52 is freaking amazing.

 

You see, when you get these kinds of high rounds it's just no wonder you guys think BO2 is easier. Either way, yeah let's agree to disagree on difficulties, because I am nowhere near that level.

Yeah, it's really the setup that's difficult more than anything else... After a bit it's moreso a chore than anything, for both BO1 and BO2. I still wouldn't say dumbed down, though. There was barely a set up in BO1. Just grab perks, weapons, and go. The slight change in zombie behavior might make BO2 slightly easier, but it doesn't mean that it's "dumbed down." That's the key phrase there. Besides, in the higher rounds for most people it's just run in circles either way. It hardly gets dumber than that. It's just easier to evade zombies in BO2.

 

@tattoo, it's that tranzit is just annoying more than anything else. Persistent perks have always been meh to me. Buildables, mostly meh. Only OP ones were trample steam and sliquifier, but shield was just useful. And the bank... that just sucks. We can all agree on that.

@zen, I disagree. The zombies might be easier, but overall the maps cause hazards that make them more difficult than BO1. Tranzit, you had... freakin everything really. Die Rise, the height, close corners, and jumping jacks. MOTD, again close corners (I feel as if I've has most of my problems on this one for whatever reason). Buried... lol, you got me there. Origins, panzers and robots, and certain close corners.

 

Looking at BO1... the only remotely difficult ones were Shangri La, Five and maybe COTD. It was just a train fest in most of the others, particularly ascension and kino. The only problem there was ammo shortages in my experience.

 

Ok, that explains private matches then (though I swear some of mine showed up on the leaderboard. It's been awhile).

 

From my experience the zombie swings didn't have as much a difference. There would be times when I could run right through a crowd and not die, but I typically avoid doing that. I'm not a soloer or kiter so I would not know this. 

Yeah, you're either exaggerating or just way better than me at this. I've noticed no visible difference in the attacks of zombies. 

 

Your friends must also be freaking amazing, because no one on my friends list has made it much further than 40. I don't even want to think about going past that on Co-op... good god... That's like, a week of your life gone at that point (high exaggeration).

 

You can keep telling yourself that, but tbh BO2 is overall harder for the casual player, in set up and staying alive. Also, wth are you talking about? Private matches still exist.

People liked that EE? I still haven't finished that POS. Mostly because two of my friends suck at the target practice part. Usually when I play the game I just run all over, so I have no problems with training or camping (although the church can be a fun spot for that). I guess it's just your style of play that really affects how fun a map is. That and the set up can be bad.

 

Dumbed down for a bigger market? I don't think that at all. The only one that has shown signs of that is buried. Everything else tends to be needlessly complicated. That's more of what I've been seeing as a complaint.

tbh, Tranzit can be fun every once in awhile. That's the thing about some of these hated maps. They are fun every now and then, at least it seems that way to me. It actually was an interesting concept at first. The whole moving from place to place, etc. The problem is, that's not what zombies is really. At some point you just can't use the bus anymore in a game. It's either boring or too hectic. That's about where I started not liking it, because it just slowed the game way too much. That, and other BS.

 

Honestly haven't seen much hate on MOTD at all. That one surprises me, too, though it has it's problems like you mentioned.

 

Really for buried? I actually know a few who like it. Its sort of in the same boat as tranzit, good every now and then.

Shit man, way better than I am at this game. I know alot of people who used to like the map, including me. After awhile though, all the issues got to me.

 

None of those really were required to play the map is moreso what I meant. You could play and have fun without them. I understand that it can totally be a drag to set it up, especially if you play it alot. There's so much crap in buried that you have to break to even move around. MOTD just takes a long time to get to anywhere. That's reasonable.

 

I know, right? This thread is pretty fun, overall. Even if I don't change anyones opinion, it's still nice to talk about these things.

I agree that their perk choice was... weird at times. Buildables were hit or miss as you said (they were testing out alot in tranzit, that's for sure). Persistent perks I just don't even pay attention to. It never seemed worth it.

 

I won't argue with you on maps, you have your opinion. However, buried's design, while not everything was used, as I have said before That is the case in other maps as well. Especially MP maps, but we won't get into that.

 

I know many people who don't care for BO2, but it was mostly not caring for MP. Most people I know still enjoy zombies. You do have to understand most people are casuals. For all we know, it could go either way for how people liked it.

 

Also, agreed with swappingspit (that sounded kinda weird, lol)

@DeathBringerZen

 

Key word there: training. I don't think that map is designed for training. It's not exactly open. It seems more of a stick together type of map. Though yeah, I have experienced rounds where I've gotten next to no zombies when I'm separated from my friends.

 

Okay, the zombie balance, fair enough. The staves, well what did you expect, FOUR incredibly powerful WW? We normally get one. If anything, that is balancing.

 

Buried, You could argue that for most maps as well, some places you never go. Yes, it is ridiculously easy, but like all easy maps can be fun occasionally. That's BO1 for me.

 

The punch, Well, you could argue that the hit does an AoE, so when it does hit it blasts a few of them. That's what I'll argue.

 

I haven't checked any other zombie fansite, or the CoD forums, but I doubt it was that bad. Even if it was, how much hate does each CoD game get each year? That's called the vocal minority usually. It continues to sell.

@Chopper, well to be perfectly honest, the only one you HAVE to build anything is Tranzit, the map nobody really likes.

 

And no, I tend to avoid staying in one place in Kino and such, it just gets too boring, though if I'm playing with friends I'll tend to stay in their general area. Yhou see, I don't usually play for high rounds just to get how rounds. I like to see how far I can get with my buddies in the most challenging way, and mostly BO1 doesn't provide anymore.

 

That's sort of what I like about BO2, you're almost always on the move (not good in tranzit). You have to use teamwork to survive. I'm never really good on my own in BO2, it seems easier to die (especially in tranzit, not so much for buried).

 

To each his own I guess. We'll see where treyarch decides to go.

This is your opinion... and one I completely disagree with. Of course we all wanted another BO1... it was great. BO2 started off poorly. Tranzit and NTZ were awful (majority opinion), and it did not improve greatly as things went on.

You know, if I recall, most everyone liked tranzit at first, and then people started complaining. It's almost like CoD every year now. Saying the majority of people is not a good thing to say, I got called out on that a few days ago. Most everyone I know that plays the game enjoys BO2. Except Tranzit, which we can all agree gets annoying.

 

Your argument for Die rise... spawns, really? I never even noticed it. Revives? That can be said about all maps. Buried is actually entertaining, it's just incredibly easy. I wouldn't say the design was bad.

 

As for origins, you keep talking about balance. WTH does that even mean in zombies? The map is hard any way you look at it, regardless of staves. The punch argument... I have never heard anyone complain about that before, so no comment.

 

Oh, and I agree with the EE, they were pretty terrible, and the rewards were meh. That's not always why we play the game, though.

 

So yeah, BO2 is underrated.

I'm pretty sure that's what we all want. Another Bo1. Just with new things in it.

The problem is, that is supremely boring. Have we all not played BO to death? I'm not usually one to advocate change even, but I'm bored of zombies in general. BO1 is mostly boring but for a select few maps, BO2 I'll play Die Rise, MOTD, and Origins (or the others if my friends are up to it). Those maps continue to entertain, because there's a different style to them. It's funny, you guys are some of the few in the game community who, when they get alot of change in their game while still being recognizable as the same game, to reject that change. It's kinda weird.

While building the map around the story can be cool, I can honestly only think of three maps where it actually affects gameplay. Those being Moon, Origins, and Mob of the Dead, all having unique ideas in their own right. Most of the other maps have their own little easter eggs (or the big easter eggs), but the effect on gameplay is so minimal

 

I guess you could count Tranzit as having story affecting gameplay, too... after all, the earth blew up. How well did that work out, built around story? It's just in the way the map is set up.

 

What's wrong with tranzit? Fire everywhere, little visibility, a little too big, denizens, the bus not coming around fast enough, no way to control teleportations.

 

What's wrong with Die Rise? Only maybe that you have to go forward throughout the map, you can't climb up what you've fallen

 

Buried? Too easy because of the big guy and other minor details

 

Origins? Apparently takes too long to set up (IMO the set up is the best part of the game, what the hell is anyone complaining about?)

 

Not counting NTZ or MOTD because the complaints are few, but none the less, they haven't done a horrible job. They've done different things to try and make the game more fun. Honestly, their only real failure was tranzit in that regard. One of the problems you guys seem to have is that you want another BO. It's nothing to do with the story related to the map. It's that you prefer the basic way BO was set up: Der Riese clones. An easy set up that allows you to gets far. That's good for solors, but it gets boring after awhile.

 

Point is, BO2 is underrated, very highly, and has more maps that integrate story and change up gameplay than BO, so really you guys just want BO again.

Strange idea I had:

What if 2015 will be a double release? It gives them basically the time to work on the game 2 times over, so what if we WILL get an All-Zombies game, and the MP junkies can get their precious C4l1 0f Duty R4g3 0p5

That gives them an excuse to charge $60 for both. What of the people that like both? Doesn't sound like it'd work out too well.

 

Plus, I can't see how the story would progress. If we have several maps with the same characters, it would just be confusing on what takes place when and such. I don't think that should happen, personally.

And I am not even going to comment on your point of "the weapons can't be exchanged crap for better"… I have expressed enough times the weapon selection is BALANCED! Not perfect. But in no way game changing.

You just did comment on it, technically.

 

I apparently didn't look at the balancing part, however. Now that I read it, it just seems kind of... pointless to me. Continue on your merry way I guess with arguing for it as an addition, I guess.

Maybe? It's a thing that could work, or couldn't. It might be OP, or it could be a waste of space. Or it could just be useful. I don't really know, tbh.