Slade

Here's a thread I made unearthing and explaining cut content for Zombies. Gamemodes like Meat and Race are explained, as well as stuff that never made it into the final game like hellhound ambush rounds on the bus, upgradable jetguns and sliquifiers and more. If you're interested, feel free to take a look. http://www.callofdutyzombies.com/forum/index.php/topic/158554-inside-zombies-the-cutting-room-floor-wip/ It's from the website of the guys who provided the art for Buried's Cutscene. They would send the renders to treyarch so they could animate and put the final cutscene together.

That's somewhat true but you can't compare the two. Marlton just happend to not show up in a teaser trailer, which only really was 20-30 seconds. Stuhlinger isn't here and that's done deliberately. Maybe he's in another part of the ship? Possible, but notice how In every other shot of the group fighting, they're all fighting together. Oh and there was indeed a fourth lander station in Ascension, but it (along with various areas and double tap) got removed. Jimmy said the original map was significantly larger than the one that got shipped.

The canal was supposed to be the Seine River next to the Eiffel Tower. Moon is named zombie_paris in gamefiles and Treyarch confirmed it was originally supposed to take place in paris during CoD XP. The gamemodes are simply called zrichtofen and zmaxis. (The others are zsurvival zclassic etc.) Art for Buried's cutscene that never made it. Notice the lack of blue eyes and Stuhlinger. Could this be possibly have been post-Buried?

In the Call of the Dead gameplay trailer, you can see the characters having various attachments like silencers and acog scopes on their guns. Call of the Dead has audio files for a "wunderwaffe" computer. Die Rise was originally supposed to take place in Russia. Also along with Meat there are other scrapped tranzit gamemodes like Containment and Race.

They're finished and ready to go. Also updated the reference thread.

Our new design haz +1

Sorry this took so long, had a few ideas that didn't end up working in the end. Here's Dempsey and Nikolai. Made one more adjustment to the tier list: the Guardians are now arranged per order of appearance. So it'll look like this: (5000+ posts and 50 brains) (6000+ posts and 100 brains) (7000+ posts and 200 brains) (8000+ posts and 400 brains) (10 000+ posts and 800) Lastly I feel that Takeo needs a bit more tweaking. edit: A version where the name appears just before the animation ends.

My staff disappeared after I switched to my Scar-H yesterday. One moment I had it, the other I had only my trusty Scar. What the hell?

Apocalypse was BO II's final Map Pack. It says so on their website and all marketing material. This is more Treyarch showing their social side.

Hahahaha, very good.

gameinformer confirmed that Advanced Warfare will be running on an (unspecified) all-new engine.

I like Shino, plz dont hit me Ascension because it's the Buried of BO1. Way too easy and way too boring.

Plotholes. Seriously fix this f*cking storyline, it's on par (might be even worse than) Gears of War's storyline. And that's bad. Really bad.

A special userbar or medal like Mocking suggested for people who've contributed in the past? If that is even possible, of course.

Of course people who have done a lot for this site - no matter when - should always get recognition for all they did. But what about the people who posted incredible stuff after the brains were removed. Should people who wrote incredible threads during BO2 (BO1?)'s lifespan also get compensation, or none at all because their threads never got brains in the first place because the system was non-existent at the time?

Against. The current system (during off-season) is controversial enough with the on-going what deserves/doesn't deserve brains discussion. If we're going through with this, not only do we run the risk of the whole system getting unbalanced, but who decides who and how much those individuals get back? We would just get endless discussion after discussion every step of the way. Can't we instead just give a static number of brains to the people who "lost" them? That would be the best option in my eyes, but again, nowhere near perfect or really preferable. (how many brains should they get, who are 'they'? How do you get eligible for those brains? et cetera.)

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/02/07/call-of-duty-switches-to-3-year-development-cycle-next-game-from-sledgehammer/

MMX, you'll have to wait until we update the ranks with the finished guardians' designs. Shouldn't be too long.

Good chocie, well deserved.

How much for each?

Models, dynamics, and all graphical glitches can be filed under the rendering capabilities of an engine. Collision and the floating objects you mentioned, invisible excavators and glitched out sounds are scripting errors, the engine's not to blame for that. Treyarch is. (hence why the collision on BO1 is a LOT better than waws) I've looked at almost all the gscs (script files) of every map, and there are dozens if not hundreds of errors in each. The COD engine we know today was first introduced in CoD4. Yes it's based on older engine's but honestly, which engine isn't? It's not like Unreal Engine 3 is written from scratch. Nor is the Frostbite 3 engine. The only difference is that those engines focus on great visuals, whereas the IW engines (focused on the time and still is) on getting 60 fps on the last-gen. In the end, I'm not defending Treyarch or this engine. (Blops 2 PC on ultra still looks like a 2003 game) But people are so quick to call the whole engine shit, and say they must switch or write a new one. While the problem lies within certain parts of the engine. Writing a new engine from scratch takes time. Time which these studios simply don't have considering the annual nature of CoD. And Activision won't allow them to switch to another one like Unreal simply because getting the license costs a lot of money. Same reason Mass Effect 4 is running on Frostbite 3. Because the engine is owned by EA (Mass Effect's publisher).

Please re-format the OP. It's almost on the TAMB level of evoking headaches.

Pretty sure CoD will probably never change or get a new engine that's written from scratch. None of the other current popular franchises have ever done this, so why should CoD? (Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, Gears of War. Every sequel basically runs on upgraded or modified versions of the engine that was used in the previous installment) The main reason people like to bring this up is because graphically every CoD title looks like a joke. However there's actually little wrong with the IW engine itself. The whole engine doesn't need fixing, the rendering part of the engine does. The dreadful textures are the result of the games needing to stay locked at 60 frames on consoles with very limited hardware power (360, ps3). Any other AAA game (Battlefield, Mass Effect, Gears of War, basically every other MP game out there) has their framerate locked at 30, meaning they can put much more detail in the graphics department. CoD can't because "60 fps at all times" That's why the graphics are so bad. We'll probably only see real signifcant changes to the graphical fidelity when they completely ditch the last gen versions.

They're for activating the biggest "story" let down ever.