Do we want a fair game?

[Stop Mocking Me0]

In the past of call of duty we've stuck to gun nerffing and changes in the map to make the games balanced for any player... 

 

But why? 

 

 

Why are we making warfare "fair". In real life it isn't. You move onto german territory and they can produce more weaponry then you. You get stuck out there with 4 expert sharpshooters with snipers, that's just war. 

 

I'm not saying purposefully make the game uneven, but perhaps certain teams should get an advantage depending on the map. 

 

 

We put limits on things because if we bring it in we fear the players won't like it as it would be too OP. Well what I ask now is: Is OP bad? 

 

Should we be able to run a tank into a battle that otherwise consisted of foot-soldiers. No kill streaks, just a tank. That's how it worked in WW2: If they brought it you had to deal with it. 

 

Perhaps building a game were it's possible to be RIDICULOUSLY OP would be ok? 

[Slade]

In the past of call of duty we've stuck to gun nerffing and changes in the map to make the games balanced for any player... 

 

But why? 

 

 

 

Why are we making warfare "fair". In real life it isn't. You move onto german territory and they can produce more weaponry then you. You get stuck out there with 4 expert sharpshooters with snipers, that's just war. 

 

Call of Duty ≠ warfare. It's an entertainment product.

 

You're essentially describing Rising Storm.

In that game, if you're on the American side, you have access to vastly superior weaponry, including shotguns, flamethrowers and automatic rifles. So on paper the Americans are OP versus the Japanese, who mostly use bolt action rifles.

On the other hand, the Japanese have access to portable mortars, can place grenades as boobytraps, suffer less from supression when fired upon, can grenade suicide without losing points to their team, and finally can use the Banzai Charge to great effect.

 

So while each team has their own advantages, there are an equal amount of disadvantages to prevent one team from auto-winning a match before it even started.

[The Clay Bird]

there is a reason for all the gun balancing in CoD.  It isn't real life, it is a video game, and video games need to be balanced to be fun.

[Guest]

Yes I want a fair game. If I am going to play MP I want a chance at winning in a gun fight. If I spawn in and get some OP guy keep spawn killing me I am not going to play and just leave.

[Tasha]

Why are we making warfare "fair". In real life it isn't.

 

[Guest]

Warfair... lol

[CRU_NINJA_575]

I'm confused on why this is on the zombie section......

[Stop Mocking Me0]

I'm confused on why this is on the zombie section......

This applies to zombies as well, we should be able to weild super OP weaponry and fight OP hordes of zombies. 

[Electric Jesus]

I'd hate to break it to you @Stop mocking me0 but in zombies, one side is always OP. The zombies win every time.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

Not true! Origins and MOTD! 

[Guest]

Guys, guys. Undoubtedly... Treyarch win always and forever.

[The Clay Bird]

Not true! Origins and MOTD! 

 

ugh don't remind me.  They better not do this junk in the next game. zombies games don't end and that is a scientific fact

 

[Guest]

Its funny how people asked for stuff like an end game and then when they did it they didnt like it. I think Treyarch need to go with their gut and not rely on the community for ideas when they dont need to.

[BennetsGreen]

good call nv, i totally agree as much as i hate to say it, if they with their gut now, they could make the storyline amazing and hopefully work itself out! 

[The Clay Bird]

Its funny how people asked for stuff like an end game and then when they did it they didnt like it. I think Treyarch need to go with their gut and not rely on the community for ideas when they dont need to.

 

 

who in god's name asked for an end game?   I will find them and keeeeeel theeemmmmm

[Stop Mocking Me0]

 

Its funny how people asked for stuff like an end game and then when they did it they didnt like it. I think Treyarch need to go with their gut and not rely on the community for ideas when they dont need to.

 

 

who in god's name asked for an end game?   I will find them and keeeeeel theeemmmmm

 

End games were highly praised in custom zombies, Trayarch did not realize that their zombies is NOT the same....

[Guest]

Yes, also paying for an ending annoys me so much. Especially with no reward.

[InfestLithium]

I always favored and end-game that took several, several steps before reaching it. Personally, I absolutely loved how Mob of the Dead "ended", because you still had no clue what happened and it gave creative options other than dying by a zombie. People only bashed end games because of what they entailed afterwards rather than the quality in what led up to that map finale.

[The Clay Bird]

I always favored and end-game that took several, several steps before reaching it. Personally, I absolutely loved how Mob of the Dead "ended", because you still had no clue what happened and it gave creative options other than dying by a zombie. People only bashed end games because of what they entailed afterwards rather than the quality in what led up to that map finale.

 

 

I would much rather just have a "End-game" cut scene after death by zombie that contained any relevant plot points to round out the map.  The basic premise of cod zombies is "fight off endless waves of the undead horde" or whatever it said on the BO1 menu.  The game ending EE's just seem a cheap cop out to what the game is supposed to be.

[InfestLithium]

But its still optional. I get what you're saying friendo, but the end game isn't being forced onto you either. Having a cutscene after dying doesn't sound very...linear in terms of story? Like, we're so story-driven that we concluded us dying in game and being able to relive (replay) the experience is torture for the in-game characters because they are being revived constantly out of the controller's amusement. It's not a popular concept but that's how are we go into this.

Cheap isn't necessarily adding an ending that is completed upon an Easter Egg. Cheap is paying for those maps that ultimately waste our time and money for unthoughtful, poorly executed, illogical ideas due to the so-called "broad story". Maybe I'd like to end the game after working so hard on a story/game event and see something spectacular rather than kamikaze myself into a crowd of zombies. We have mastered the art of slaying.

Let's face it - we are invincible in Zombies to the point where only we can end the game, not the zombies.

[Electric Jesus]

But it's just the fact that an ending exists that makes reaching it an obligation. The same thing happened with the more side-quest-y easter eggs of the black ops games. You could never get into a public game of Shangri-La without people ritualistically summoning you to the eclipse switches. Of course you really don't have to. But you don't have to do anything in Zombies. The box, points, the power, wall guns, hell even the first door out of spawn, are all optional. Everything you do in the game is out of desire or necessity. You NEED to get the power on to survive. You WANT to hit the box, explore, upgrade, etc. but end the game? Maybe you want to. More often than not, people felt obligated to. A true side quest, an objective, in a game that otherwise has no resolution. Obviously it's implied that that's the "thing to do." Easter eggs aren't so hidden lately, more like multi-layered. It's lost the charm of the hunt. The actual endgame itself isn't an issue. It's just so in-your-face. I liked the origins and MotD endings for what they were. The build-up to them is what didn't exactly intrigue me, but in BOI non-game-ending ones did.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

The MOTD easter egg was by far the best BO2 one for me, because it didn't hint at jack nothing to point us on our way, other then 3 turning numbers. Of course this easter egg was very short-lived.... 

[The Clay Bird]

But its still optional. I get what you're saying friendo, but the end game isn't being forced onto you either. Having a cutscene after dying doesn't sound very...linear in terms of story? Like, we're so story-driven that we concluded us dying in game and being able to relive (replay) the experience is torture for the in-game characters because they are being revived constantly out of the controller's amusement. It's not a popular concept but that's how are we go into this.

Cheap isn't necessarily adding an ending that is completed upon an Easter Egg. Cheap is paying for those maps that ultimately waste our time and money for unthoughtful, poorly executed, illogical ideas due to the so-called "broad story". Maybe I'd like to end the game after working so hard on a story/game event and see something spectacular rather than kamikaze myself into a crowd of zombies. We have mastered the art of slaying.

Let's face it - we are invincible in Zombies to the point where only we can end the game, not the zombies.

 

I just feel like this:  What zombies story have you ever seen where it ends with the humans eradicating the zombies forever and living happily ever after.  Obviously we just agree to disagree on this issue, but maybe the difference is this: some people play zombies to kill zombies.  some people play zombies to avoid death by zombies long enough to complete the extra tasks i.e. easter eggs.  As if the zombies are just a nuisance to you completing steps a, b, c, etc.

 

Like for Moon for instance, if you do the EE and get all the perks, is there really a great benefit to maybe flipping a switch to end the game or just pushing start and quit, than just letting the horde overcome you?  For me it is just the difference between, if i can end the game without getting killed by zombies, i feel like i beat the map. and honestly would be less inclined to play it again, whereas at its core, zombies has always been about getting farther as opposed to beating the game.  just my $0.02 behind my thoughts

 

The MOTD easter egg was by far the best BO2 one for me, because it didn't hint at jack nothing to point us on our way, other then 3 turning numbers. Of course this easter egg was very short-lived.... 

 

another argument against game ending EE's... i was once in a great game with Randoms on MotD, all had mics and we were doing great, on round 32 or so, with good communication (or so we thought).   then the weasel went rogue. and i was on the roof just doing my thing killing zombs, and all of a sudden we're on the damn bridge and the game is over.  I mean how lame is that?   maybe i could get behind it if all 4 players had to "turn their key" to end the game, but again, its just the principle of the thing lol

 

 

 

:edit: sorry this may not be the best thread to discuss this in.  perhaps i will make a thread with a poll? so that people can vote?  see what the majority likes and perhaps that will bear some influence to treyarch for the next game...  I realize i may be a minority here, and if that is the case i would hope they would cater to the majority even if its against my wishes