blackops1994 said:
You guys are stupid.especially miracle of sound.Having halo playlist would be stupid because most player like to see their stats.
And how would you know this, out of interest? Anyway, not everyone likes seeing the stats, some find that it is over-competetive, and drains some of the fun from the experience. In a game where people don't care about the stas as much, people are also less likely to exploit anything they can-be it badly balanced weapons or perks, or outright glitches.
blackops1994 said:
Miracle said something about the knifing was gay cuz people would go into a room and knife everyone and people shooting at him well if your going to shoot at him, shoot to kill, cuz if you shoot him he can't knife you retarded.
A lot of Cod takes place in a close quarters environment where knifes, particularly with commandos range, are very effective, due to the fact they are 1 hit kill. People can knife as you shoot, and since it kills faster, they will often win. If it was impossible to kill people with guns with a knife, why is commando so common, and effective?
blackops1994 said:
COD is perfect as it is.I do agree that spawning should be fixed, that and gun balancing is dumb.people complain about COD WAW didnt have good gun balancing, well neither does COD MW2 becaue the ump is way more powerful then the other submachine guns and some assault rifles.
So essentially, CoD is perfect, except for all these flaws?
blackops1994 said:
that said i think trey arch is way better then infinity ward will ever be.The reason people dont like COD WAW is because they dont like change.
Consider how similar to Cod4 world at war is. That game changed very little. They changed the time period, made things fit it, and tweaked the perks a bit, and added tanks. Gameplay is incredibly similar to cod4. There are of course other reasons to dislike it. For example the fact that CoD4 moved away from the WW2 setting that was so common beforehand, and it was a breath of fresh air, and Treyarch just went back to WW2. I also find the balance slightly worse(than cod4, not MW2). Tanks are annoying, the killstreaks are more annoying, I don't like the maps as much, and the killstreaks are more annoying. It didn't do much worse than cod4(only slightly. Cod4 has minor issues aswell-but there aren't as many, however it wasn't better, and that's not very good considering they had more time, and the basis of cod4, to work from.
blackops1994 said:
That said if you guys are going to complain about a game saying all this stuff is wrong then dont play it.
This argument is quite common, and irritating. It can still be a good game, and have problems. This is just a thread for people to discuss what they'd like to see. It's discussion. If no one ever complained about games, it would be bad, as it helps developers decide what they need to fix. Also, there are probably those who won't be buying it.
blackops1994 said:
I like all COD games and all there features.I believe that miracle of sound said again that people shouldnt be rewarded for being bad, well they did painkiller and things like that so that the player has a chance to get back into the game rather then dying over and over again.
The argument that the game supports people who aren't that good at it can be taken further than just deathstreaks. The game offers a lot of support to people who aren't that good. Things most people call "cheap", allows the game to get a large suport base, as people who aren't actually very good can do well. Going beyond just over-powered weapons, and stuff like noob-tube/OMA, there are the killstreaks. In cod4, if you want a 25+ killstreak, you're looking at around 15 kills with your gun, at least, usually more. That's 10 from killstreaks. Airstrikes, on most maps, very rarely get as many as 5. Barring maybe shipment, but the spawns and spam make up for it. On some maps(the ones with more buildings) you'd be really lucky to get 5 with an airstrike. Choppers are more consistent, and usually get around 3-5 consistently(except on built up maps), more fiarly regularly.
You would be lucky to get 10 kills with killstreaks on cod 4. Likewise on cod5. On cod6 however, you can kill 7 people with a gun, and get 25+ easily, using the 7-9-11 killstreaks.
I do think the game does support those who aren't good at it. Painkiller is a decent idea to stop spawn-camping(though seriously, better spawns would be better) but I generally don't support deathstreaks. I don't like the other deathstreaks, and think painkiller shouldn't last as long.
blackops1994 said:
I'm pretty sure the guys making these games know what there doing,if they didnt they wouldnt be making games.
They are a company. Their goal is to make a profit. Good balance and design aren't necessarily the way to do this. Look at MW2s success. It is far more successful than either Cod4 or 5, and yet, gets far more complaints because of the balance issues. Games are trying to be successful-this doesn't mean making a good game, it means making one that as many people as they can get to buy it, will buy it.
blackops1994 said:
Having a wishlist what is that,so dumb.Saying things should be more like this game or whatever well then go play that game rather then complaining about COD.
This argument doesn't work either, except in general terms. If I am saying "X should be like Y" then playing Y instead makes sense. However, what people are doing is saying "X should be like Y in this aspect". So saying play Y instead disregards any other problems Y may have. Maybe it's better in the aspect they are mentioning, but rubbish elsewhere.
blackops1994 said:
An if a gun beats a knife will then you should have no problem killing the guy trying to knife you.Apparently you have never seen Ehe Expendables..once again miracle of sound your dumb.
I think the complaint is that a gun should beat a knife. But doesn't, due to bad balance.