Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

[I]Black Ops 2[/i] Is Like A Rich Jerk

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2's design is lacking in class.

Read Full Article

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Modern warfare shooters, meanwhile, are like a busload of football hooligans on tour around Europe, stopping for five minutes at a time at fifty different cultural hotspots or areas of outstanding natural beauty to drink a few cans of Special Brew and punch one of the locals. It never takes the time to understand the location with any kind of depth, or appreciate all the heavily-researched art assets the environment design team spent so much time on.

*cries a bit from happiness*

I've never seen something so perfectly analogous to the modern military genre...

Wait- he doesn't vote? In Australia? Isn't it mandatory?

On topic, the gist of this article is why, when the Driver series went from 4, to 3, and finally to only having one city in them... I was okay with that.

Though Multiplayer shooters should not get off so easily. Back in my day you had at least 15 multiplayer maps to play with at launch or else. These days devs think they can get away with 6 or so, and the consumers mindlessly prove them right.

Shit... was that politics I was just speaking?

The thing is, it sounds like many of the one-off designs could have been used more by combining them with laser designs. Jumping out of a VTOL in a wingsuit and then using a grappling hook to help maneuver sounds cool, assuming the interface could handle it. It would also allow more time to be spent on things more original than shooting people in the face on foot with a gun.

It's true that wasted potential does seem to be a big issue amongst AAA games these days. I still don't agree with Yahtzee's take on "white privilege" or "hite guilt" though.

Perhaps one of his best written articles to date.

but, Yahtzee making games where we reuse fun mechanics to the point where they are features would be to boring, and easy.

besides you could also make an argument that the idolized object that at some point dominates the persons life could also become boring, and repetitive, and only seen as a jumping stone to the next "thing"

EDIT: isn't this actually the counter argument to your criticism of Saints Row The Third. where these really cool things that you could do because you got them so relatively early that they just became boring to use, and you found it more fun to just run around on the street doing the "meanial" things

Not helping your credibility here, Ben.

You don't like talking about politics, yet you do it every time one of these dumbass military shooters lands on your show's table, and it just get's more and more preachy with each entry.

You mention that you grew up under the background hum of guilt....well, brudda, it was people like you before you that inflicted that guilt, and you seem to have little issue continuing the cycle of regarding people as shit just because their ancestors were imperial jerk offs.

The Dead Kennedys song "Holiday in Cambodia" was written about people like you, baby, seeing as you seem to think the 'slums got so much soul' that we privledged and universally powerful whities don't.

The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

the privilege of being in a position to make a triple-A game with cutting edge technology, some of the greatest talent in the world, and under one of the highest-profile titles in the industry. A privilege which is utterly squandered.

Here's the thing: It has the talent assigned to it, it sells like hotcakes, and it's possibly the most well known name in gaming because it is what it is. It didn't start out as an indie stealth/platformer. If they changed the formula significantly, then a lot of people who do buy it probably wouldn't and the people who wanted the change wouldn't buy it either because they'd still decry it as long as it has the name 'Call of Duty' attached.

Dishonored is considered the best stealth title of this year, for instance, and it barely broke a million as of last week. No recent COD has sold under 10 million within the first month or two. CoD is the game that people want. No more, no less. It's pretentious to claim otherwise.

Edit: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has sold about as much as Skyrim as of last week. Since I doubt Skyrim will be getting too many new sales and Christmas is coming up...it's going to beat Skyrim for sure. Just a small sidenote.

Isn't pornography the pornography of the senses?

Kopikatsu:
The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

the privilege of being in a position to make a triple-A game with cutting edge technology, some of the greatest talent in the world, and under one of the highest-profile titles in the industry. A privilege which is utterly squandered.

Here's the thing: It has the talent assigned to it, it sells like hotcakes, and it's possibly the most well known name in gaming because it is what it is. It didn't start out as an indie stealth/platformer. If they changed the formula significantly, then a lot of people who do buy it probably wouldn't and the people who wanted the change wouldn't buy it either because they'd still decry it as long as it has the name 'Call of Duty' attached.

Dishonored is considered the best stealth title of this year, for instance, and it barely broke a million as of last week. No recent COD has sold under 10 million within the first month or two. CoD is the game that people want. No more, no less. It's pretentious to claim otherwise.

Very well put. People can bitch about it all they want, but it sells and it hasn't really deviated from what it has ALWAYS been. Don't like it? I can't really get behind your arguments, because you should have KNOWN what you were buying.

FallenMessiah88:
It's true that wasted potential does seem to be a big issue amongst AAA games these days. I still don't agree with Yahtzee's take on "white privilege" or "hite guilt" though.

Yeah...I'm coming to realize more and more that white, middle-class to upper-class American men are made out to be the devil in the rest of the world. It's a weird thing that I've kinda just started noticing. Maybe it's becoming more prevalent, maybe not. Either way, I don't get why.

GunsmithKitten:
Not helping your credibility here, Ben.

You don't like talking about politics, yet you do it every time one of these dumbass military shooters lands on your show's table, and it just get's more and more preachy with each entry.

You mention that you grew up under the background hum of guilt....well, brudda, it was people like you before you that inflicted that guilt, and you seem to have little issue continuing the cycle of regarding people as shit just because their ancestors were imperial jerk offs.

The Dead Kennedys song "Holiday in Cambodia" was written about people like you, baby, seeing as you seem to think the 'slums got so much soul' that we privledged and universally powerful whities don't.

I...dont get it, are you saying Yahtzee is a racist and this article proves it? I dont see it...

OT: I know its early days in the comment section, but I imagine the most frequent argument against this article will be "its not trying to be an intelligent masterpiece of a game, it knows what it is" etc. This is exactly the problem with the games industry though! The people who should be taking risks trying to innovate new concepts should be the companies that can afford (a) to mess around in production with new ideas, and (b) to take a loss if said new ideas fall through after release.

As it is, the majority of the innovation we see comes from the indie scene, where new ideas rarely get spotted amidst the inevitable pile of shit it is hidden in (as indie games dont have the funding to polish a product that AAA developers do), and so the new ideas fall by the wayside, unseen, and nothing changes.

AnarchistAbe:

Kopikatsu:
The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

the privilege of being in a position to make a triple-A game with cutting edge technology, some of the greatest talent in the world, and under one of the highest-profile titles in the industry. A privilege which is utterly squandered.

Here's the thing: It has the talent assigned to it, it sells like hotcakes, and it's possibly the most well known name in gaming because it is what it is. It didn't start out as an indie stealth/platformer. If they changed the formula significantly, then a lot of people who do buy it probably wouldn't and the people who wanted the change wouldn't buy it either because they'd still decry it as long as it has the name 'Call of Duty' attached.

Dishonored is considered the best stealth title of this year, for instance, and it barely broke a million as of last week. No recent COD has sold under 10 million within the first month or two. CoD is the game that people want. No more, no less. It's pretentious to claim otherwise.

Very well put. People can bitch about it all they want, but it sells and it hasn't really deviated from what it has ALWAYS been. Don't like it? I can't really get behind your arguments, because you should have KNOWN what you were buying.

Yes, COD should stay as COD and not change dramatically, but as I see it that isnt the point Yahtzee was making. The point is (I think) that the amount of resources poured into making a new COD game is largely a waste. They have largely the same style of play from game to game, same art style, same engine etc, with just a few tweaks and a new story each time. Considering how much money each iteration makes, can you honestly say the company spends that amount making the next title? Of course not, and so maybe they could use some of the huge profit they make every year developing new ideas and franchises, as they are in an almost unique position to play around.

PS. Sorry if there are typos in the last quarter of the comment box, theres an ad here <-------------------------------->

GunsmithKitten:
Not helping your credibility here, Ben.

You don't like talking about politics, yet you do it every time one of these dumbass military shooters lands on your show's table, and it just get's more and more preachy with each entry.

You mention that you grew up under the background hum of guilt....well, brudda, it was people like you before you that inflicted that guilt, and you seem to have little issue continuing the cycle of regarding people as shit just because their ancestors were imperial jerk offs.

The Dead Kennedys song "Holiday in Cambodia" was written about people like you, baby, seeing as you seem to think the 'slums got so much soul' that we privledged and universally powerful whities don't.

Also very well put. Not trying to make this thread political, but this is a huge trend I'm seeing emerge. The socialist mentality that anyone who isn't poor is evil, as long as there are people who are more poor. If you're successful, that isn't ok because there are people who aren't successful. Personally, it makes no sense to me; but it seems to be very popular around the world.

AnarchistAbe:

GunsmithKitten:
Not helping your credibility here, Ben.

You don't like talking about politics, yet you do it every time one of these dumbass military shooters lands on your show's table, and it just get's more and more preachy with each entry.

You mention that you grew up under the background hum of guilt....well, brudda, it was people like you before you that inflicted that guilt, and you seem to have little issue continuing the cycle of regarding people as shit just because their ancestors were imperial jerk offs.

The Dead Kennedys song "Holiday in Cambodia" was written about people like you, baby, seeing as you seem to think the 'slums got so much soul' that we privledged and universally powerful whities don't.

Also very well put. Not trying to make this thread political, but this is a huge trend I'm seeing emerge. The socialist mentality that anyone who isn't poor is evil, as long as there are people who are more poor. If you're successful, that isn't ok because there are people who aren't successful. Personally, it makes no sense to me; but it seems to be very popular around the world.

That's not what I'm trying to say either.

And that's not a socialist mentality, never was.

rollerfox88:
Yes, COD should stay as COD and not change dramatically, but as I see it that isnt the point Yahtzee was making. The point is (I think) that the amount of resources poured into making a new COD game is largely a waste. They have largely the same style of play from game to game, same art style, same engine etc, with just a few tweaks and a new story each time. Considering how much money each iteration makes, can you honestly say the company spends that amount making the next title? Of course not, and so maybe they could use some of the huge profit they make every year developing new ideas and franchises, as they are in an almost unique position to play around.

PS. Sorry if there are typos in the last quarter of the comment box, theres an ad here <-------------------------------->

There's the old adage, "if it ain't broke, dont fix it" that comes to mind here. I enjoy CoD. I LOVED Black Ops, and liked Black Ops 2. I've, actually, really liked EVERY CoD game that I've played [1, 2, 3, MW, WaW, Mw2, BO, MW3, & BO2]. They sell fantastically and they're very popular.

Also, in the end, it isn't our business how much they spend on each title. It matters not to me. At the end of the day, I'm going to pay $60 for a game I want to play, whether they spend $500k or $550M on it. That's up to Activision.

AnarchistAbe:
Also very well put. Not trying to make this thread political, but this is a huge trend I'm seeing emerge. The socialist mentality that anyone who isn't poor is evil, as long as there are people who are more poor. If you're successful, that isn't ok because there are people who aren't successful. Personally, it makes no sense to me; but it seems to be very popular around the world.

I think you're taking it to extremes here. Backing off the potential strawman ('all success is bad if there's anyone unsuccessful'), what he's really talking about is imperialism. Look at the British Empire at its height, and how it treated its colonies. Now look at the many third-world countries that the US has interests in. See a parallel? These games that cast all nonwhite characters as cardboard-cut-out-evil just exacerbate this problem.

Kopikatsu:
The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

the privilege of being in a position to make a triple-A game with cutting edge technology, some of the greatest talent in the world, and under one of the highest-profile titles in the industry. A privilege which is utterly squandered.

Here's the thing: It has the talent assigned to it, it sells like hotcakes, and it's possibly the most well known name in gaming because it is what it is. It didn't start out as an indie stealth/platformer. If they changed the formula significantly, then a lot of people who do buy it probably wouldn't and the people who wanted the change wouldn't buy it either because they'd still decry it as long as it has the name 'Call of Duty' attached.

Dishonored is considered the best stealth title of this year, for instance, and it barely broke a million as of last week. No recent COD has sold under 10 million within the first month or two. CoD is the game that people want. No more, no less. It's pretentious to claim otherwise.

Edit: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has sold about as much as Skyrim as of last week. Since I doubt Skyrim will be getting too many new sales and Christmas is coming up...it's going to beat Skyrim for sure. Just a small sidenote.

And the main flaw in your argument is that sales numbers are the be-all/end-all of legitimization.

Just because something is popular and financially successful doesn't make it classy, respectable, or objectively good. And many things that are classy, respectable, or good are not popular and financially successful.

Is CoD the game people want? Yeah. Is it rediculously financially successful? Of course. But neither of these things instill CoD with deeper value, and I'm confident that that was Yahtzee's point: Acitivision and the CoD teams could use their position ("we know that millions are going to buy this game on day one") to at least bring innovation to the genre (they could even push the boundaries of the medium if they chose) but they don't. And that is a waste of potential. Not potential revenue, but potential for something of deeper value.

If I was an investor, I think I'd go for the game series that's compared to privilege and pornography.

Though it's pointless to politicize a problem pertaining to poor pacing in a tacked on single player campaign. Call of Duty 4 was a legitimately great game - both SP and MP - everything after that is merely a multiplayer oriented rethread of it, with a tacked on single player with big set pieces connected by an increasingly disjointed story. If there weren't a wingsuit somewhere, it'd be Unreal Tournament 3 all over again, where the "campaign" was multiplayer maps interspersed with cutscenes.

Nobody goes to Call of Duty for the story campaign, so expending tons of resources on devising gameplay mechanics for it would be a waste of time: Some mascara is all that can be asked for. Not everything can - or should - be indie anyway, if you want great storytelling with minimalistic elements, go play Virtue's Last Reward and leave poor rich CoDBlops 2 alone.

Im starting to enjoy EP more than Zp nowdays . I wonder if Yahtzee would be as pleasently suprised as me when I reached the second island in Far Cry 3 .

This is what put me in mind of the analogy I used in the video of someone buying an entire roast chicken to take one tiny bite and throw the rest away.

Did you play Multiplayer?

Did you play Zombies?

If not, then why not? Isn't that like buying a whole game and only playing a 1/3 of it. Probably less than 1/3 of the effort went into the campaign.

If you did, then why didn't you mention any aspect of them in your review or your followup?!?

I wouldn't mind if you ripped on it, but rip on it for what it is ACTUALLY PROSPEROUS FOR!!

EDIT: Yahtzee reviewed DayZ (an online-only multiplayer-only zombie game) only in September so don't tell me he "just doesn't review that".

JarinArenos:

AnarchistAbe:
Also very well put. Not trying to make this thread political, but this is a huge trend I'm seeing emerge. The socialist mentality that anyone who isn't poor is evil, as long as there are people who are more poor. If you're successful, that isn't ok because there are people who aren't successful. Personally, it makes no sense to me; but it seems to be very popular around the world.

I think you're taking it to extremes here. Backing off the potential strawman ('all success is bad if there's anyone unsuccessful'), what he's really talking about is imperialism. Look at the British Empire at its height, and how it treated its colonies. Now look at the many third-world countries that the US has interests in. See a parallel? These games that cast all nonwhite characters as cardboard-cut-out-evil just exacerbate this problem.

Hey! Your commanding office is a black guy! LOL. All joking aside, I can see that point. The CoD series plays into xenophobia a bit heavy [I don't really buy the "brown hate" stereotype, because the CoD series has historically had it in for the Russians and Germans as well], but I don't think it's fair to call out CoD for this like they're the ONLY ones perpetuating it. Let's face it, American media/entertainment is pretty xenophobic all-around. Not excusing the behavior; merely pointing out that CoD may be playing a bit of a scapegoat here.

AnarchistAbe:

Hey! Your commanding office is a black guy! LOL. All joking aside, I can see that point. The CoD series plays into xenophobia a bit heavy [I don't really buy the "brown hate" stereotype, because the CoD series has historically had it in for the Russians and Germans as well], but I don't think it's fair to call out CoD for this like they're the ONLY ones perpetuating it. Let's face it, American media/entertainment is pretty xenophobic all-around. Not excusing the behavior; merely pointing out that CoD may be playing a bit of a scapegoat here.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he calls out the rest of the games in the genre as well. CoD is just a stronger offender because of the way they structure their single player campaign. Did Battlefield 3 even have a single player campaign? I can't remember anymore... <.<

Point being, CoD is the biggest and most common example, especially since all the sub-series make it the most prolific modern shooter out there.

GunsmithKitten:

You mention that you grew up under the background hum of guilt....well, brudda, it was people like you before you that inflicted that guilt, and you seem to have little issue continuing the cycle of regarding people as shit just because their ancestors were imperial jerk offs.

He's not regarding people as shit because they have imperial "jerk offs" for ancestors Honey-Bunch (see, we can all be condescending too), but because they act like the imperial jerk offs that are their ancestors.

AnarchistAbe:

Also very well put. Not trying to make this thread political, but this is a huge trend I'm seeing emerge. The socialist mentality that anyone who isn't poor is evil, as long as there are people who are more poor. If you're successful, that isn't ok because there are people who aren't successful. Personally, it makes no sense to me; but it seems to be very popular around the world.

That's because you're swallowing the shit-sandwich that's fed to you by everyone with a bit of money. "Oh, they're just jealous because I'm richer." Well, no, people don't like you because you're obnoxious with your money and do your best to avoid paying for things the rest of us do - and you'll cheat and lie until you're blue in the face to do so.

It's not about how much money you have, it's about how you conduct yourself with the money you have. The uber-rich aren't bemoaned, the uber-rich pricks are bemoaned. Just so happens there's quite a few of them to choose from.

And that's what the article's about: showing off and being obnoxious as if that's supposed to impress anybody.

OT: One of your best pieces to date, and a perfect summary of why it's such an increasingly vulgar series. No sense of fucking class or finesse.

remnant_phoenix:

And the main flaw in your argument is that sales numbers are the be-all/end-all of legitimization.

Just because something is popular and financially successful doesn't make it classy, respectable, or objectively good. And many things that are classy, respectable, or good are not popular and financially successful.

Is CoD the game people want? Yeah. Is it rediculously financially successful? Of course. But neither of these things instill CoD with deeper value, and I'm confident that that was Yahtzee's point: Acitivision and the CoD teams could use their position ("we know that millions are going to buy this game on day one") to at least bring innovation to the genre (they could even push the boundaries of the medium if they chose) but they don't. And that is a waste of potential. Not potential revenue, but potential for something of deeper value.

But sales are at least a reason to look at why it is successful and it is NOT FROM THE SINGLE PLAYER!

Why are critics of COD so afraid of considering COD's multiplayer? Are they just so ideologically opposed to the idea of a game being about multiplayer rather than a structured linear single-player campaign they will indulge in the delusion that COD is popular for it's laughably shit singleplayer rather than its multiplayer.

There are so many sites on the internet completely dedicated to breaking down and analysing every aspect of the multiplayer, the total weapons stats of the weapons in multiplayer are uploaded... but not the same for the single-player.

What makes sense, tens of millions of players are wrong for loving COD's singleplayer, or a couple dozen internet critics are making a wrong assumption of the root of COD's popularity.

It might be traced back to COD4 that had a rather good single-player campaign (it only touched on trends that would be later overused and hated for the smallest mention) and was very popular in sales. They make the false correlation that millions bought it for the campaign, but no, it was the multiplayer. And when MW2 came along with a pants singleplayer and a compelling if unbalanced multiplayer then the critics were just too damn proud to admit they were wrong linking their assessment of COD4's singleplayer as key to it's success, and basically called millions of fans as idiots for liking the single player... which is hardly much of a selling point to them.

Wait, don't James Bond games basically do the same thing? Giving you gadgets that only have one use over the course of the game?

Come to think of it, doesn't the James Bond film series do the same thing?

The wingsuit section isn't even a solid mechanic either. At one point I was late doing a turn and flew right through a rockface with no repercussions whatsoever.

I don't see why I, as a white British man, should feel any sort of guilt for the acts of those generations before me. I never partook in the atrocities (not to mention the numerous forgotten services done) by those men to the peoples of other lands. The entire concept of this modern-day original sin is absurd; and the continued efforts of many to force not just the guilt of colonialism, but the entire concept of such guilt stemming from living in a part of the world our forefathers worked hard to create, is absolutely abhorrent.

This entire privilege idea usually is an excuse for reverse racism (South Africa), sexism (divorce settlements), and cultural destruction (go to an art gallery).

Treblaine:

This is what put me in mind of the analogy I used in the video of someone buying an entire roast chicken to take one tiny bite and throw the rest away.

Did you play Multiplayer?

Did you play Zombies?

If not, then why not? Isn't that like buying a whole game and only playing a 1/3 of it. Probably less than 1/3 of the effort went into the campaign.

If you did, then why didn't you mention any aspect of them in your review or your followup?!?

I wouldn't mind if you ripped on it, but rip on it for what it is ACTUALLY PROSPEROUS FOR!!

This, right here - I can't take anything in any form serious from Yathzee if he plainly refuses to mention more than half the game. Yes, I know his usual "I hate to interact with other people"-stuff. But guess what? THERE ARE BOTS FOR MP AND SOLO MODE FOR ZOMBIES!
This is especially annoying after DayZ, which is a PURE Multiplayer Zombie game... you know, exactly those two things combined he refused to look at in this case.

Also, complaining about mechanics only being used in ONE ONCE and then acting as if it would be something new? Well... may I point your attention to a little game called "Super Mario Bros. 3"? There were a few levels, which did just that: Have a mechanic in ONE Level. All leading the Kuribo shoe in World 4. Then there was the Sun in World 2, which also had just one level it existed. The red, flying beetles? Once again, just one level. Ability to change the size of enemies? Again, only used once.
That is NOTHING NEW to the industry.

JarinArenos:

Oh, I'm pretty sure he calls out the rest of the games in the genre as well. CoD is just a stronger offender because of the way they structure their single player campaign. Did Battlefield 3 even have a single player campaign? I can't remember anymore... <.<

Point being, CoD is the biggest and most common example, especially since all the sub-series make it the most prolific modern shooter out there.

Well it's a war game, they have to fight someone. Just randomly selecting a country chances are they won't be fighting other Americans. Is it really fair to say an American game can only be about fighting Americans?

MW2 you spent the last act fighting and killing Americans where the main villain was a US general.

What more do you want? It's rather selective to look at "ooh, they just showing Russians as the bad guy" while ignoring how the main bad guy is an Actively Serving US Army General. MW series took the time to make clear that not all Russians were bad with Nicoli and again with Yuri and saving the Russian President as of paramount importance. Black Ops again had a Russian hero protagonist in Viktor Reznov and a heroic uprising by Russian political prisoners against their captors as well as re-living the life of a Russian soldier fighting the Nazis and show how he was betrayed by the SYSTEM not that "all Russians are bad".

COD single-player campaigns are poorly written and poorly placed but they aren't racist or xenophobic.

If they were, then why would they have all these elements that a xenophobe would be instantly turned off by.

The crime of COD is bad gameplay design and hackneyed storytelling.

AnarchistAbe:

rollerfox88:
Yes, COD should stay as COD and not change dramatically, but as I see it that isnt the point Yahtzee was making. The point is (I think) that the amount of resources poured into making a new COD game is largely a waste. They have largely the same style of play from game to game, same art style, same engine etc, with just a few tweaks and a new story each time. Considering how much money each iteration makes, can you honestly say the company spends that amount making the next title? Of course not, and so maybe they could use some of the huge profit they make every year developing new ideas and franchises, as they are in an almost unique position to play around.

PS. Sorry if there are typos in the last quarter of the comment box, theres an ad here <-------------------------------->

There's the old adage, "if it ain't broke, dont fix it" that comes to mind here. I enjoy CoD. I LOVED Black Ops, and liked Black Ops 2. I've, actually, really liked EVERY CoD game that I've played [1, 2, 3, MW, WaW, Mw2, BO, MW3, & BO2]. They sell fantastically and they're very popular.

Also, in the end, it isn't our business how much they spend on each title. It matters not to me. At the end of the day, I'm going to pay $60 for a game I want to play, whether they spend $500k or $550M on it. That's up to Activision.

While true in some cases, it doesnt hurt to try something new every once in a while, and COD did need something new. Thankfully, Blops 2 did try something new, in both MP and SP. Im loving it. I do hope that, since its already a fact MW4 is coming out, that they do the same in its campiagn (with multiple endings and branching paths) as Blops 2 did.

WanderingFool:
While true in some cases, it doesnt hurt to try something new every once in a while, and COD did need something new. Thankfully, Blops 2 did try something new, in both MP and SP. Im loving it. I do hope that, since its already a fact MW4 is coming out, that they do the same in its campiagn (with multiple endings and branching paths) as Blops 2 did.

Modern Warfare? Trying something new?
Are we talking about the same Modern Warfare games? Because the MW games I know REFUSE to change. I think, TotalBiscuit described it best. "Infinity Wards have stuck to the rail so frigging hard you would think the rail was magnetised. And glued. And then glued again."
So, expect the biggest change to be a new name for the Nuke.

All very true but most of the people who buy cod play it for the multiplayer most of them don't even look at the single player.

Did anyone else catch that high school drop out part? I'm a bit surprised by that if its true.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here