Black Ops zombies: "Five"
How am i supposed to freaking kill the pentagon thief before he takes my weapons?? Ive tried the pack a punched ray gun and shooting down on him, but he still gets it before i can kill him.. Should i try using the Speed boost drink? Also, does teamates shooting at the large cloud of numbers even do damage to him? cuz you cant see him and id like to know if i should just conserve my ammo.

Well, if you are on solo, go to the juggernog big room. Place some claymores on the steps when it is the Thief round. Go upstairs in the Double Tap floor and shoot him as much as you can with your best gun, you'll get max ammo and sale when you kill him. If you didn't kill him when he gets close to you, change for your other weapon and go after him. It works most of times.

Oh it's a great game.I like Black ops.

Its just a chambering difference. It uses the same firing mechanism, but a different barrel and magazine. Quite innovative actually. Real life is very enjoyable. :D

Given what our discussion is about... I find that statement very disturbing. :D

On another note, this is an opinion of a professional gamer.
And then this is an opinion of a professional caster. (5:25 to 15:09 is pretty much the most related part, though you should give the time to watch all of it if you ask me)

Points are:
1) People being ripped off through various methods
2) Games are sucking
3) The method of better quality

I want better quality, I despise CoD for how bad it is and how easy to win it is (referencing the first video) and I want to play a game that gives me that through not buying anything else - including Battlefield 3. I know I'd love the game but as said in the second video, Totalbiscuit is boycotting it and so am I.
Athene also mentions this in one of his videos as well. So yeah... Bring back the stuff we want in games, don't try and get all the money you can from us.

Oh wait, I'm on the CoD thread where people care more for games...

Woops. Sorry.

Nope, I'm not joking either, half the CoD players are know are impeccable sheep who will follow CoD wherever it goes - helping to ruin the gaming industry and hell yes, I know this sounds like I'm a doomsday preacher (as the 2nd video may show as well) but nonetheless, you only lose several hours of entertainment which honestly could be better used in order to save principles.

Which is more worth it?

- H

Given what our discussion is about... I find that statement very disturbing. :D

Run, kiddies, run! Momma can't save you now!

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

Seriously though, I only realized that when you mentioned it.

For me, CoD went bad after MW. The Balance really went out the window, and MW2 seems the same as MW. So its just like they're repeating everything all over again. It gets really boring, really fast.

I'm not the biggest videogamer, so I dunno.

I'm not the biggest videogamer, so I dunno.

Given your criticism and "unique" opinion (given how everyone seems to think CoD is God), I'd say the first video says you'ze a gamer!

- H

There's really, in my opinion, only two blemishes in the COD series history: COD 3 and MW2. COD 3 was focused to much on vehicles and... while frankly it just didn't work. MW2 is, in my opinion, where balance stopped, only to be saved by Black Ops. Now WaW had some balance issues, but in the end, was relatively well balanced(other than Martydon... I hate that perk).

And Highfire, I see where you're coming from, but... no. The COD series hasn't "corrupted" gaming, its actually done more good than bad. For example: A.) Without COD, multiplayer gaming wouldn't be at nearly the level its at today.
B.) COD puts an emphasis on both environmental and object detail, ie, guns, maps, vehicles, etc. Other(Normally smaller) games strive to match.
C.)The fact that multiple developers will be working on MW3 has given other developers the idea of working on joint projects. And lets face it, if two smaller developers work on a game, it will be a lot better than if one small developer was.
D.) It's let the public know how greedy Publishers can be, and made gamers more cautious as to what they buy. I don't really care if you get what I'm saying, all I ask is that if you want to hate on COD, go do it in a Battlefield thread.

Does anyone play zombies on black ops?Its fun!

New zombie Map Shangri La comes out in 5 days. Anyone else excited?

And Highfire, I see where you're coming from, but... no. The COD series hasn't "corrupted" gaming, its actually done more good than bad. For example: A.) Without COD, multiplayer gaming wouldn't be at nearly the level its at today.
B.) COD puts an emphasis on both environmental and object detail, ie, guns, maps, vehicles, etc. Other(Normally smaller) games strive to match.
C.)The fact that multiple developers will be working on MW3 has given other developers the idea of working on joint projects. And lets face it, if two smaller developers work on a game, it will be a lot better than if one small developer was.
D.) It's let the public know how greedy Publishers can be, and made gamers more cautious as to what they buy. I don't really care if you get what I'm saying, all I ask is that if you want to hate on COD, go do it in a Battlefield thread.

Quick things though:
A) Like religion and morality, that could've been achieved in better ways. It's a common thing on the WEPR section that is a viable argument - Religion doesn't offer anything that without it you couldn't achieve, exact same thing here.

B) Not necessarily. There's MUCH more detail in destruction in Battlefield than CoD ever has, there's much more detail in pretty much everything in Crysis 1 than CoD, and gameplay in CoD is terrible. You seem to be looking at positive results from bad things - it's the same with anything, a poorly eventful life can make a highly moral indidividual.

C) I've seen better come from Paradox Interactive (creators of Magicka) than Infinity Ward - it will still probably be better than the joint creations of Sledgehammer, Raven and the remnants of Infinity.

D) Same reasoning as A. Also, hell no I'm not gonna leave >:( , because what I'm saying is that those aren't viable reasons as to why it's done more good than bad. It's an unnecessary bad and thus no good can make up for it. That - and the greediness inspired others to do the same, doing it to make others aware of it is like bullying someone to make them stand up for themselves. It's backwards and stupid.

Also, I don't even stand for Battlefield anymore, I am not a regular gamer and have already taken on the regular arguments between CoD, other games and whether it is good anyway. Debates about it's sales and it's style of gameplay are bull, throughout every argument I've been through that's what I've seen.

It's not hating, it's a fair and logical judgement. If you would like to construe it as "hating" then so be it - I just laid out the way I intend it to be, and I haven't done a great deal (if anything) to make it appear otherwise.

- H

A) Like religion and morality, that could've been achieved in better ways. It's a common thing on the WEPR section that is a viable argument - Religion doesn't offer anything that without it you couldn't achieve, exact same thing here.

I'd like to first of all state that, whether or not you believe in any sort of religion, you can't achieve life in heaven without it. Anyways, back on topic. I really don't think that there could have been a better way for multiplayer gaming to get popular. COD makes it easy for "noobs" to pick up a controller and relax, while still keeping a challenge for the true gamers.

Not necessarily. There's MUCH more detail in destruction in Battlefield than CoD ever has, there's much more detail in pretty much everything in Crysis 1 than CoD, and gameplay in CoD is terrible. You seem to be looking at positive results from bad things - it's the same with anything, a poorly eventful life can make a highly moral indidividual.

I'm saying, back in the day, COD had some of the best graphics, as well as models. I don't think(and this is my opinion) that graphics would be as evolved as they are today if it weren't for the first four COD games. The gameplay isn't terrible, at least not on console. I don't know about PC, I haven't played much COD on PC, but PC gaming is terrible anyways.

C) I've seen better come from Paradox Interactive (creators of Magicka) than Infinity Ward - it will still probably be better than the joint creations of Sledgehammer, Raven and the remnants of Infinity.

First of all, Raven had quite a popular game a few years back called Conduit. It may not have sold as many copies as the bigger franchises, but it was a good game. As for Sledgehammer, its president was the supervising producer for Deadspace, which was extremely popular and well made. I could care less about Infinity Ward, they're just on as a consultant. As for Magika... that game is is horribly boring. The gameplay doesn't click, the story sucks, and its horribly made.

D) Same reasoning as A. Also, hell no I'm not gonna leave >:( , because what I'm saying is that those aren't viable reasons as to why it's done more good than bad. It's an unnecessary bad and thus no good can make up for it. That - and the greediness inspired others to do the same, doing it to make others aware of it is like bullying someone to make them stand up for themselves. It's backwards and stupid.

The game itself has done no harm to gaming, Activision has, but not COD. If the game is so bad, than why are MW2 and Black Ops the two biggest media sales in recorded history? Your judgement is flawed and biased. No one, other than Activision has bullied the gaming community, they have to make money off it. I personally don't see Activision bulling gamers, but more the developers.

It's not hating, it's a fair and logical judgement. If you would like to construe it as "hating" then so be it - I just laid out the way I intend it to be, and I haven't done a great deal (if anything) to make it appear otherwise.

I mainly say you're hating because every one of your arguments is your own opinion, you have nothing to back you. At least I have reasons. All I can say is come back when you're ready to grow up a little and have a complete fact supported discussion.