MegaAfroMan

TranZit is in the 2025s. Die Rise has been proven to have been in that time frame. So unless you want to say that the Earth was already blown up by the time of Call of the Dead, and that the N4 had time traveled to get to Die Rise...

Is lastt Gen getting SOE in full? I mean, last I heard (which admittedly was some time ago), Treyarch was responsible solely for the development of the next gen titles, and Activision handed the task of TRYING to fit as much of the full experience as possible in the last gen discs to a separate developer. So although their intent is to fit zombies on last gen, it may be scaled down, or entirely seperate (BO zombies for Nintendo DS anyone?) So we don't know if SOE in full or even at all will be on last gen.

I'm at odds with Treyarch and bonus maps right now. BO1 was FANTASTIC, with the classic maps available to hardened only for many months, and then Moon for free. BO2 was GARBAGE, with only one mediocre map at launch, and then the exclusive bonus map have zero days of true exclusivity. BO3 could go either way, although I'm betting it'll follow BO2's path closer, because this map is releasing new story content, rather than just rereleasing old maps like BO1. I was pretty thoroughly upset with BO2 though. I spent some $15 more on the hardended edition than I would have spent if I just bought Nuketown Zombies seperately, and for what? A terrible camo, an avatar prop, some coins, a box, and a playercard.

Matuzz brought up the most important bit of info here. BO2 had an all new zombies campaign as well. Zombies campaign just seems to refer to the season, or the collective of maps and the Easter egg storyline that goes with them for release on this disc and accompanying DLC. Zombies campaign, just worded as that, simply means more zombies maps.

I very much appreciated the multiple vocalists in Archangel. I hope we see more songs of that nature personally.

Maybe you should post a screen cap, or a link to the statement on it. Besides, I happen to remember notable companies changing their minds before. Nintendo had made a statement once that after their Mewtwo DLC experiment for SSB4, they did not plan on releasing any more DLC characters. Then they made a trailer for another DLC character. Then they went ahead and released 3 at once shortly after E3. Even if they really did say word for word that The Giant will be the only repeated location in zombies in BO3, doesn't mean it is impossible. I would like to see this quote though, it must be from an interview or panel that I missed. Granted I have to agree that Der Riese is the only location that really makes sense for a revisit in a rewrite. Assuming the cutscene and gameplay take place immediately after Richtofen betrays Maxis, then Maxis and Samantha are not yet in control of anything. What follows is Samantha appearing on Moon and running into the MPD while scared and alone after Richtofen's scientists charge up the MPD. Maxis then will somehow be located from wherever he is and then will be brought to the MPD to try and coax Samantha out, when that fails he will be shot and absorbed into the Moon computer systems through the MPD. But since none of that has happened yet, Maxis is still alive, and Samantha may or may not have just reached the MPD. If she has, then Moon might make sense. If she hasn't yet, then Der Riese alone is the only pivot point. Anyway, that's my two cents.

It's still a little slow on mobile, and unfortunately it prioritizes weird things, usually leaving white boxes in some places for a few seconds, (still persists in 'reloading' the background when scrolling, but only seems to be the background now.) It has gotten a significant bit better, and I'm sure time will keep in improving, but the whole design just seems wrong for mobile. It's too busy, too many floating boxes over a semi-static background. Like right now in this thread, the actual thread takes up all of my screen (which is good) except for about an 1/8 or so of my screen on the left side. There it's just a background, it looks weird having the 'site' not take up the whole screen. Other than that, though, much better than it was a few days ago at least.

The site has become a pain in the backside to use via mobile, as I pretty much exclusively do, I've been missing out on a lot here. I cannot find a new content page, I cannot find status feed, the borders on mobile look like crap, there is far too much white on mobile around text boxes, some quote boxes, in the polls, and in the stats at the bottom of the screen. The notications pop up menu is buggy and unusuable on mobile. The site seems to load quicker, but it also only seems to load the content of my screen. Scrolling forces it to load more (although it is very brief it is annoying). It looks sleeker maybe, but it also feels clustered and almost less ordered. I'd say I'd get used to it, but the mobile usage severely sucks compared to the old site, and if that doesn't get fixed I doubt I'll use this site enough to get used to things. Sorrry to be a complainer, I just don't like it much. It was an unpleasant surprise when I came back to CoDz to check on the teaser info and found I could barely navigate the site.

Wait is that #4 or #3? There are only 3 videos on the OP.

It'd be certainly fun, but I feel like it'd end up defeating the purpose of why I chose my field anyways. If Treyarch ever builds a radio scope array then we'll talk. ;)

I wonder if they need a physics consultant... :P

Welcome back.

Congrats to all! Gladd to see some recognition go in the direction of Mix and Matuzz especially. Tac and PINNAZ were already famous enough ;)

A system where you have to enable a feature to use it is an opt in system. A system where a feature is enabled at default but can be disabled, is an opt out system. Basically default on is opt out (because you have to disable it if you don't want it.) and default off is opt in (because you have to enable it if you want it.)

I do see the benefits of not having signatures enabled by default, and Caddyman brought in several that I never would have thought of, but tome it comes down to what the purpose of the feature is and the purpose of the forum. This forum, like most others, is a place for varied individuals to come and discuss many things and just be themselves (within certain confines). Signatures are a vital method to highlight something about yourself that doesn't require people to enter your profile page to see, that isn't by default listed on your member info. Some use this for quptes, some for map records, some link to their favorite posts or call attention to upcoming events. My signature is basically non-existent, and I'd be perfectly fine with not having my signature, but I still think it is wrong and against the whole purpose of our community and the purpose of signatures to default them at off. I don't know how many users browse mobile ( I know I usually do and I've never had a problem with the site) and I don't know how many users will be fine with default off but switch theirs on, but if that number of users who switch signatures on is higher than those who knowingly leave it off (again, opting into signatures will result in many people simply not taking the time to make the decision at all and going with the default) then there is no good point to defaulting at off. I ask that people consider whether they personally would leave signatures off, or if they'd switch them back on anyways, even if defaulting at off doesn't bother them. Because I'm sure we have a good number of polite members here who would be okay with defaulting at off but would themselves immediately wswitch signatures on anyways. And that kind of sends a mixed message doesn't it? On paper it will look like people don't want signatures on, but in actuality they would. These are my opinion, my hypotheticals, and I don't mean to assert them on anyone. But I sincerely believe that with this and most other features and systems, defaulting at off is absolutely the wrong choice for the greater enjoyment of the forum.

I'm with ZOTD on this one. I like it, but I think it should default at ON with the option to disable them. Just like when the @ mentions were brought in, the initial thought was to have them default at off and I'm glad that isn't how it turned out. In order for a feature to be worth implementing, in my opinion, it MUST be experienced at least once by all users, or at least capable of being experienced without any self effort. If signatures are defaulted at off, you'll either end up with: Most people leaving it off because they either determine that signatures aren't something they want to see, or they never even think to switch them on. Or Most users with have to go through the effort of switching them on, so that the few who don't want to see signatures don't have to go through the one or two menus it takes to enable an intended, and almost core feature of these (and most other) forums. If it comes to where most people don't view signatures, then signatures lose their point. It's a way to express something about yourself without requiring any extra clicks on the behalf of the viewers. If it comes to where most people switch the signatures back ON then having it default at OFF loses its point. Opting out is almost ALWAYS a better system. For example, in some countries like the US the organ donor system is opt in, as such the number of organ donors is low. Where as in other countries the system is opt out and in those almost universally, the number of donors is much much higher. Perhaps not causation, but a definite and noticable correlation exists. Why did I bring this up? Because it basically goes to show that no matter how helpful (or intrusive depending on your viewpoint) the result of a yes or no question might be, most people are too lazy to opt at all rather than go with which option they'd truly prefer. as such you'd be putting the entire feature of signatures at a disadvantage which then should just bring up the call of whether we want signatures at all. Just my two cents, I almost always will stand by NEVER opt in, always make something opt out.

The situations are all too unique to make any one general rule about limiting the number of posts or topics to be started in some given time frame. If they aren't blatantly spamming for post count, I don't really see what the problem is.

I don't know how to come up with realistic expectations, as I have little to no knowledge of coding and the limitations of certain bits of hardware. That being said I do know some of the new hardware specs, and what newer games have been able to do with such. We are going from I believe 2 gb RAM to 8 RAM. In games like Minecraft this contributed to a nearly 36x world size increase. The graphics are lower, but it is a ram intensive game. I can assume that we can have a TranZit sized map as densely packed with features as Die Rise and have issues only perhaps in network speed limitations rather than in RAM and processing power. The processor is stronger, I want to say it is a quad coming from a single in the previous gen, but it might be an octo even. Previous gen migt have been dual. I cannot remember that spec as well. But we can have more happening at once, so more zombies, or more moving things, more physics effects. Video card is more powerful, of course, granted I thought I heard the One was using a GPU which I don't really know much about. In the end however, Treyarch is still limited by the past because this is new territory. You get used to writing and making games designed formore limited specs long enough, you probably won't be able to think of enough new stuff to make full use of all your available power. We'll probably see better graphics, more motion and physics, possibly more entities present in a map, and better lighting. We'll also see an increase in draw distance for detailed textures on larger maps.

Legend is actually quite undefined. It originally was for retired staff and users that undeniably contributed a major asset to this site. There used to be a user group for time joined. Actually there were two. They both got removed in the great purge of '11. I think it was '11. Anyways, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Earthly doesn't necessarily have to mean "on Earth" Mocking. Like Wintry doesn't have be during winter. It's just a descriptor. Besides, Shangri-La as a proper noun doesn't necessarily have to perfectly follow any definition. I could name my dog Pickled Herring. Doesn't mean he is a pickled herring. Doesn't mean he isn't a dog.

Well, although I don't know if they'd check this far, but I'm fairly certain that neither of Mars' two moons can cause a total ecplise like we see on Earth. In fact actually it's a very rare thing in nature. Our Moon's apparent size just happens to be perfectly slightly smaller than our Sun's apparent size (when at the right point in our orbit of the sun and the moon's orbit of us, and the wobbling of our axis. Slade: what makes you say it is below sealevel and about to be flooded? What you might be refering to as waves, I see as cliff faces. I think. I'm not really sure anymore.

The Shangri-La on Mars thing has always troubled me. There is no good way around this. Either you basically accept that the Vril-Ya either terraformed Mars, or created some sort of atmospheric bubble around Shangri-La (either of which are near omnipotent tasks. Or you have to explain a giant red cliff face visible from Shangri-La that shouldn't exist anywhere in the Himilayas. And the Devs' constant mentions of it being true (whether they are just keeping up a long running joke/troll isn't exactly known). You cannot say it is on Earth, because no where on Earth would mix jungles like that with those bold red arid cliffs. It's tough to say Mars because of just how seemingly impossible that is. Still, great read. Thanks for posting.