BestOfAllTime32

It could be just general series fatigue, but the COD franchise is selling far worse every year. It would take a lot of digging to find the numbers, as Activision doesn't exactly make them publicly available. But there was a thread on Neogaf where somebody posted the leaked (so not official) numbers of all the COD's first month sales in the US, and AW was over a million lower than Ghosts. Could be a combination of things. Could be the exo suits, the wait and see approach because of Ghosts, or the franchise may have run its course. If the pattern continues, BO3/WAW2 will be a terrible seller. Hopefully, that isn't the case. Complete faith in 3arc to make the best zombies to date, but a lot of the BO2 maps shake that faith. @Mocking, COD you are the batman is absolutely hilarious lol.

Yeah the jumping in Moon, and the Paralyzer are examples of messing with the physics of the game. Since AW is one of the worst selling COD, and it basically ruined the multiplayer, I don't see them going full Sledgehammer. If they do, it will be my last COD purchase. They have already alienated me from Ghosts extinction mode, I bought in to the Exo zombies hype and bought the dlc. Never again will I spend 120 dollars on something that I only play a dozen times.

Let's get jet packs in so Treyarch can jump the shark? That's all i'm getting from any suggestion of a jet pack. Exo zombies can stay its own terrible mode, let's leave the masterpiece alone.

That's just as flawed, once could easily just play the first 15 rounds over and over and make sure to get the bowie knife or galvaknuckles as fast as possible. Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant Mocking. I meant in a single game hitting 1000 knife kills, and then a separate milestone for career stats. Same for grenade kills, headshots, and then regular kills. Just certain ways of killing zombies are harder than straight using a gun, and as such should be weighted. Still, ranking using xp will always be in favour of people who play more than others.

XP could kind of work, but there has to be negative xp too. Like a down gets you - xp, letting a teammate die gets you -xp. The real problem with an xp system is that it isn't an indicator of skill, just how often you play. If there was big xp boosts for things such as making it to round 30 without a down, nobody on your team going down before round 20, getting 1000 headshots in a game, etc, and less xp for general things like kill a zombies, buy a perk, than it might be more indicative of skill. Edit: Maybe instead of xp for zombie kills, you earn xp for milestones of killing zombies a certain way. It's easier to get 1000 headshots than it is to get 1000 knife kills for example. So 1000 headshots nets you 2000xp, 1000 knife kills gets you 4000xp. There can be single game milestones, 500 kills, 1000 kills, 2000 kills, 3000 kills, etc, and career milestones like 10k kills, 25k kills, 50k, etc. Hitting milestones in certain stats should also give you negative xp, such as 1000 career downs, and a certain amount of perks drank. Perks drank is actually a negative stat. The more you go down, the more perks you buy. Most people would likely average more than 2 perks per down. If you were a good player, you could afford the loss of xp in downs/deaths/perks, because your other stats would make up for that.

Well it would make the game harder for starters. Shooting high into a horde would blow over the kids, wasting bullets. Then there's the moral outrage from the people who don't play video games.

Agreed on the Spork, and retriever. You don't need them to play, but are a nicw bonus. MOTD still forces you to jump through unnecessary hoops to use PAP though, which is super annoying if you do it multiple times.

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't tie the EE to basic progression. In all your examples, if you want the WW's, you are doing the EE. You can get the Blunder out of the box, but not the Acid, and in MOTD, PAP is tied to the EE. There is a place for the EE, as a side quest to complete, not tied directly to progress. The buildables are terrible and should be taken out. If people still want the shield, make it a box thing.

turned and grief? i for one never play those game modes and most people i know dont. as for nacht or the maps remastered for next gen? i dont agree im more like hell to the f*ck no. purely on the basis ive played those maps so much worn them down to the nub if it was possible to wear them down. i want think / need new maps something that we have never experienced. also not all of us own next gen consoles yet. there is nothing that has driven me to even owning one yet. grief and especially turned in my opinion was the worst junk stupid modes ever made. something new seems better in my opinionAn exact port wouldn't be so great, but an updated version of maps with all the new perks, and new box weapons would be great. Speaking from my personal perspective, I hate playing my ps3 now, but am forced to because zombies isn't on next gen. If they port all the zombies maps over, I will never have to use my ps3 again. Adding grief, maybe another game mode if they decide to try another mode to the old maps would be great. Grief on Nacht, or Ascension would be amazing imo. Edit: and next gen only is the best possible option for everyone involved. Ubisoft said they expect 56 million + ps4/xb1 consoles out there by the end of the year. For the old gen, that means death, and COD going next gen only really accelerates the process.

The problem with frame drops is that in order to mitigate them, 3arc would need to make sure all parts of the game are running way above the locked 60fps. That could mean nerfing resolution, textures, effects, etc. It's not exactly a simple task. For the 10% of the time you experience the drops, the 90% of the game has to suffer. And that's if it isn't an engine limitation, which it could be. For zombies, we could play at 720p no problem, with high textures (pc settings), and a solid framerate and have a better experience than 1080p, high textures, and framedrops. Try to convince the devs of that though.

The only way I could see a campaign work in zombies would be a series of smaller maps with intros (aka solo intro videos), and Origins style cutscenes at the end of each map. Then you would have to set it up for the player to complete an objective(s) to trigger the cutscene, or allow the players to continue playing by ignoring the objectives. It could be the O4 or N4, but it would be best set up as a rival group trying to stop Richtofen, and is completely aware of the situation they are going into. That way you can have an intro briefing video, this is the situation, this is the plan, execute, similar to the way they do the regular campaigns.

Wouldn't be surprised if it is absolutely nothing to do with 2015, but it should be interesting never the less. Maybe they'll throw in a teaser image just to screw with us. Either way can't wait to watch. I would love to know more about the zombies process.

According to the ps3 leaderboards, I believe 24 million people have played BO2. Way more than I thought there would be. Even if we say a quarter of that is the amount of people that bought the game, that's 6 million unique people on one platform. If we say half of that number is the number of people who would buy the game, is 3 million sales good enough for 3arc/acti (for one platform). I would also suggest that the people buying a zombies only game, would be much more receptive to dlc purchases, given that if you didn't buy dlc, you would have 4 maps in 3 games, out of a possible 16. Needless to say, if you like the mode, dlc is basically the only lifeline we have. Another advantage of a potential zombies only game would be not having to release a new base (retail) game. They could keep going with dlc instead.

COTD was/is my favourite map, so whatever style that is I guess. I like fast paced gameplay, with not a ton to set up. Just give me my weapon and let me kill zombies. COTD also had George, if you were looking for something to do (get a perk). But mostly, it was killing zombies with little setup. I also like MOTD. It's not tremendously tedious to get set up, although it is pretty easy, which COTD was not. I would say my personal preference would be a map with objectives like Origins (fill the boxes, get airstrike, etc), a boss like George (constantly there), and a lot of weapon options.

But isn't that true for every zombies map ever? at some point in every game you are going to be satisfied with the weapons you have and the box is no longer necessary. With the relatively low ammo count on pre BO2 WW's, not really. The Thundergun, super powerful, but ran out of ammo quickly, same with the scavenger, or the Waffle. BO2, we had an insta kill WW that had 99 bullets in the ice staff, it creates a 7 second blizzard that kills everything it touches. If you played it right, in an area with limited spawn points, it could kill 40+ zombies per 3 bullets. Then there is the Sliquifier, a WW that could literally kill an entire rounds worth of zombies in a single bullet. Much different than a weapon that kills a dozen zombies, and has 24 (?) Shots like the TG. Anyways the real point is variety. There's maybe 5 guns in the box that don't offend you when you hit it. If all of the weapons were useful, you wouldn't use the same two or three weapons every single game. Different weapons with different styles, and perks. Some might he a high ammo count, others might be really powerful. Some can revive teammates. I think you are underestimating the ability of the thundergun/wunderwaffe/wave gun/JGbabymaker2001 at say round 30 solo there would be 100-110 zombies in the round. If you max out the spawns at 24 zombies, it would only take 5 shots with any of those guns (if used correctly) to clear the round But the rest of your post i do totally agree with Maybe i'm not remembering the Waffle correctly. I never used it too much in WAW, and literally one time in BO1. I was a points guy (until they took that away from me!!). And kind of ditto with the TG. Everyone always wanted it, I always wanted points. It was a match. I guess though, if you did horde the zombies up, and shoot one bullet for the whole spawn, it would last quite awhile. Claymores do the same thing fyi. Not into the really high rounds, but for the first 35 or so, if you are given generous amounts of max ammos and stack your claymores that you don't use. Tried that in Tranzit one time, literally made it to 36 before I fired a single bullet. Same with Die Rise, I split between war machine and claymores for 39 rounds. Its a good fun way to play if you're ever bored of the same ole every game. Explosives only is very fun, nothing like blowing shit up. It's also fun to play knifes only, although MOTD, and Origins make that a little easier than it should be.

But isn't that true for every zombies map ever? at some point in every game you are going to be satisfied with the weapons you have and the box is no longer necessary. With the relatively low ammo count on pre BO2 WW's, not really. The Thundergun, super powerful, but ran out of ammo quickly, same with the scavenger, or the Waffle. BO2, we had an insta kill WW that had 99 bullets in the ice staff, it creates a 7 second blizzard that kills everything it touches. If you played it right, in an area with limited spawn points, it could kill 40+ zombies per 3 bullets. Then there is the Sliquifier, a WW that could literally kill an entire rounds worth of zombies in a single bullet. Much different than a weapon that kills a dozen zombies, and has 24 (?) Shots like the TG. Anyways the real point is variety. There's maybe 5 guns in the box that don't offend you when you hit it. If all of the weapons were useful, you wouldn't use the same two or three weapons every single game. Different weapons with different styles, and perks. Some might he a high ammo count, others might be really powerful. Some can revive teammates.

I don't see much point in hitting the box at high rounds regardless of the quality of weapon for most maps. Origins you're using a staff, MOTD 2x blundergat and Redeemer, Die Rise you've got the sliquifier, Buried the Paralyzer, on Tranzit there's the bank to infinitely bank roll the box. BO2 made the box useless more or less. Once you have your WW, you never hit it again.

The problem is wasting zombies. If you take your time, and have a plan for what round you are going to hold a zombie on to build the staffs, so you don't start filling a chest that round. Everyone has to be on the same page for sure. Wait for the robots to minimize risk, if 2/3 is coming go ahead and start the Jugg box. If the 4/5 robot is coming, either fill 6, or go to 5 and wait for it to pass. Origins is best taken slow, and calculated.

I like that though. It makes you feel like you wasted your money, and shows that the box is a gamble. You would still feel it getting a ballistics knife on round five, or a warmachine on round 3. Until they're upgraded, they are not good weapons.

It would be nice if they would get rid of the completely useless weapons. SMR, China Lake, etc. Not the weapons that have an actual use when upgraded like the war machine, Balistics knife, RPG, etc. Not asking for every weapon to be a HAMR, just useful. There's still a chance you get an rpg, or war machine, or ballistics knife from the box. They have actual uses when they are upgraded, much like the M1911. You get rewarded for putting up with them. An SMR is always useless.

Except for Jugg, I could see it happening. But just to point in out, doubling explosives damage is incredibly OP. Claymores are already horde killers for the first 28-30 rounds. Double their power, and we have round 40 claymores. Final problem (for me) is the DT2 upgrade. A DSR for example, is a OSK weapon into the 50's, with a third shot, it might be a legitimate WW level weapon. I really like your idea for Cherry though. Never thought of it that way.

Last gen game sales are way down. People talk about the 160 million people who have ps360's, but that's illogical. At least 28 million of those owners have moved to next gen, and by the end on the year, it should be 50 million easy. Then you have another group who own the consoles and also own a pc, and a group like myself, and probably millions of early 360 owners who contributed 2, 3 or even 4 of those consoles personally. It's illogical to continue making games for the ps360 gen at this point. We are 3 years out (almost to the day) when COD 2015 lands since the gen launched.

A resolution bump, while it would be noticeable, isn't exactly a zombies game changer imo. Resolution would help with stuff that is at a distance. Texture quality, and the filter they use will be the big graphical improvements. Hopefully they improve when you zoom in, if you guys ever noticed, it looks like the rest of your screen has vasaline on it. As for the textures, is that a hardwood floor or a carpet? God only knows.

See I hate to sound like "that guy", and believe me I can get where you're coming from, but I hope last gen systems burn. Hopefully for people in your situation, PS4/XB1 go below 300 bucks this year.

It's only a bother for the first one. After that it is the same amount of time. Actually it might even be a good thing in the event there was ever a crippling bug. Let the beta testers have at it, and let 3arc know what's wrong. Thats a good point, I have never seen anyone have a positive view on it.Don't get me wrong, i'd love to have the maps at the same time. If I was an EE hunter it would be detrimental for sure, but if there were ever a serious bug that needed time to fix, that exclusivity wouldn't mean much. Edit: Just for clarity, I don't mean a glitch like a shield glitch, but I mean something like what has been happening with Assassins Creed Unity. If it takes 2 weeks to fix, or a month, or hell some games can take months to fix. Even Halo MCC is still a work in progress, and i'm still waiting for PS plus Driveclub... 3arc, imo is a much better studio than 343, or Evo, but still many glitches have found their way into Zombies.